Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:23:50.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

For Different Audiences, Different Arguments: Economic Rhetoric at the Beginning of the Latin American School

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Ana Maria Bianchi
Ana Maria Bianchi
Affiliation:
Universidade de São Paulo.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper consists of a rhetorical interpretation of two essays published fifty years ago, at the beginning of the so-called “Latin American economic school.” Both were written by the Argentinean economist Raúl Prebisch (1901–1986), who was then working at the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA). As the most prominent Latin American economist, Prebisch fostered the construction of a theoretical framework that heavily influenced Latin American development policies after World War II.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 291 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baer, Werner. 1962. “The Economics of Prebisch and ECLA.” Economic Development and Cultural Change X (2): 169–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, A. M. and Salviano, C. Jr. 1999. Raúl Prebisch and the Beginnings of the Latin American School of Economics: A Rhetorical Approach.” Journal of Economic Methodology 6 (3): 423–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, H. and Sapsford, D.. 1998. “Some Estimates of Prebisch and Singer Effects on the Terms of Trade Between Primary Producers and Manufacturers.” World Development 25 (11): 1873–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruton, Henry. 1998. “A Reconsideration of Import Substitution.” Journal of Economic Literature 36: 903–36.Google Scholar
Burger, Hillary. 1999. An Intellectual History of the ECLA Culture, 1948 to 1964. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cuddington, J. T. 1992. Long-run Trends in 26 Primary Commodity Prices: A Disaggregated Look at the Prebisch-Singer Hypothesis.” Journal of Development Economics 39 (2): 207–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dadone, M. and Marco, L. E. Di. 1972. “The Impact of Prebisch's Ideas on Modern Economic Analysis.” In di Marco, L. E., ed., International Economics and Development: Essays in Honor of Raúl Prebisch. New York: Academic Press, pp. 15–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diakosavvas, Dimitris and Scandizzo, Pasquale L.. 1991. “Trends in the Terms of Trade of Primary Commodities 1900–1982: The Controversy and its Origins.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 39 (2): 231–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutt, Amitava K. 1988. “Inelastic Demand for Southern Goods, International Demonstrative Effects, and Uneven Development.” Journal of Development Economics 29 (1): 111–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ECLA. 1951. Comissión Económica para la América Latina. Problemas teóricos y práticos del crescimiento económico E/CN. 12/221.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, P. T. 1956. “The Terms of Trade Between Primary Producers and Industrial Countries.” Interamerican Economic Affairs X (1).Google Scholar
Findlay, Ronald. 1980. “The Terms of Trade and Equilibrium Growth in the World Economy.” American Economic Review 70 (3): 291–99.Google Scholar
Furtado, Celso. 1985. A fantasia organizada. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.Google Scholar
Furtado, Celso. 1978. Raúl Prebisch, el gran heresiarca.” Revista de la CEPAL, 2nd sem.: 375–82.Google Scholar
Grilli, E. R. and Yang, M. C.. 1988. “Primary Commodity Prices, Manufactured Goods Prices, and the Terms of Trade of Developing Countries: What the Long Run Shows.” The World Bank Economic Review 2 (1): 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haberler, Gottfried. 1959. International Trade and Economic Development.” National Bank of Egypt, Fiftieth Anniversary Commemoration Lectures, Cairo.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert. 1971. A Bias for Hope: Essays on Development and Latin America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hodara, Joseph. 1987. Prebisch y la CEPAL—sustancia, trajectória y contexto institucional. El Colégio de México, México.Google Scholar
Kindleberger, C. 1958. “The Terms of Trade and Economic Development.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 40 (1, part 2): 72–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, Anne. 1997. “Trade Policy and Economic Development: How We Learn.” American Economic Review 87 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Love, Joseph L. 1996. Crafting the Third World: Theorizing Underdevelopment in Rumania and Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, Joseph L. 1980. Raul Prebisch and the Origins of the Doctrine of Unequal Exchange.” Latin American Research Review XV (3): 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milberg, William. 1996. “The Rhetoric of Policy Relevance in International Economics.” Journal of Economic Methodology 3 (2): 237–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montecinos, Verónica and Markoff, John. 1999. “From the Power of Economic Ideas to the Power of Economists.” In Centeno, M. A., ed., The Other Mirror: Essays on Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaim and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, D. H. 1978. “La actitud de los Estados Unidos hacia la CEPAL: algunos cambios durante los últimos 30 años.” Revista de la CEPAL (6) 2nd sem.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, D. H. 1987. “Raúl Prebisch visto desde Washington: una percepción cambiante.” Comércio Exterior 37 (5): 366–70. Also in English in 1988 Canadian Journal of Development Studies 9 (1): 121–29.Google Scholar
Prebisch, Raúl. 1949. “Desarollo económico de América Latina y sus principales problemas.” Santiago: CEPAL, E/CN. 12/0089, 87 pp. (Published in 1950 in Portuguese in Revista Brasileira de Economia, with summaries in English and French; published in English as “The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal Problems.” UN E CN.12/89/Rev. 1, 1950).Google Scholar
Prebisch, Raúl. 1950. “Introduction.” In Naciones Unidas, Comissión Económica para la América Latina, Estúdio Económico de América Latina 1949. Santiago: Secretaria Geral. (Later published in English as Economic Survey of Latin America 1949, UN, 1951).Google Scholar
Rodrik, Dani. 1998. “Globalization, Social Conflict and Economic Growth.” World Economy 21 (2): 143–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrik, Dani. 1999. The New Global Economy and Developing Countries: Making Openness Work. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikkink, Kathryn A. 1988. Ideas and Institutions: Developmentalism in Brazil and Argentina. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, H. W. 1950. “The Distribution of Gains between Investing and Borrowing Countries.” American Economic Review XL (2): 473–85.Google Scholar
Singer, H., Hatti, Neelambar, and Tandon, Rameshwar, eds. 1998. Export-led Versus Balanced Growth in the 1990s. Delhi, India: B.R. Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Street, James H. 1987. “Raúl Prebisch, 1901–1986: An Appreciation.” Journal of Economic Issues XXI: (2) 649–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viner, J. 1952. International Trade and Economic Development. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Ziesemer, T. 1998. A History of Economic Theorizing on the Prebisch-Singer Thesis.” In J. Glombowski et al., History of Continental Economic Thought. Marburg, Germany: Metropolis Verlag.Google Scholar