D. C. M.

Platt: The Anatomy of "Autonomy"

Author(s): Stanley J. Stein and Barbara H. Stein
Source: Latin American Research Review, Vol. 15, No. 1 (1980), pp. 131-146
Published by: The Latin American Studies Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2503096 .
Accessed: 31/07/2014 19:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Latin American Studies Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Latin American Research Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

D.
THE

C. M. PLATT:

ANATOMY

OF ''AUTONOMY''*

H. Stein
Stanley
J.SteinandBarbara
PrincetonUniversity

The concept of dependency, Platt asserts, is "scarcely sustainable" because its historicalfoundation is unconvincing. "Students of chronopolitics(history),"he implies, findunacceptable the notion that"development and expansion" of WesternEurope's economy dominated and
conditioned thatof Latin America since the conquest. The factthatDos
Santos' definitionof dependency denies the presence of autonomous
developmentin Latin Americais "critical."Economic autonomy,according to Platt,is the leitmotifof Latin America's evolution, certainlyto the
close of the nineteenthcentury,when there"finallyawoke metropolitan
interestin the neglected periphery."
The colonial era of threehundred years is summarilytreated.The
economies of colonial Spanish Americawere "inward-looking":production was primarilyforlocal subsistence; mining and export of precious
metals was "only an element" in them. So emphasis upon exportoriented economies is "anachronistic,"a view Platt sees supported by
Frank Saffordon New Granada. Further,in the half-centuryafterindependence, Latin America "remained outside world markets to any
significantdegree" as Spanish America "retired over the edge of the
periphery."Exceptions to this Latin American experience were Brazil,
Cuba, and ("after the opening of the guano trade") Peru. To at least
1860, Latin America remained an insignificanttradingpartnerof Great
Britaincompared to the United States; the level of imports of British
manufacturesin Mexico and the Central and South Americanrepublics
"can hardly have scratched the surface of demand." Again Saffordis
*The authors thank the editors forthe opportunityto dissect Platt's "objections" and to
clarifyfurtherLatin America's secular relationshipto the Atlanticeconomy. The school of
dependency houses students of many persuasions; we happen to have come to our view
Atlanticempire and of nineteenthby "historicalanalysis" of Spain's eighteenth-century
centuryLatin America-to which we limitour focus in this rejoinder.

131

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LatinAmericanResearchReview
cited as "rightin doubting the implicationsof economic dependency in
New Granada afterthe breakaway fromSpain."
These assertions about trade are then extended by analysis to
internationalfinance. Conceding the role of merchantbanking by foreign firms,Platt minimizes theirinfluenceas necessary before the appearance of commercialbanks, neither"sinisternor . . . necessarilythe
monopoly of foreigners."That Latin Americangovernmentsin the 1820s
had to borrow in the London marketat relativelyhigh rates (between
double and triplethat of the Britishgovernmentitself)is explained as
"in line with the credit of other borrowers in a competitivemarket."
Concluding that "Spanish America during the firsthalf-centuryof politicalindependence stood outside the currentsofworld tradeand finanwhat
ce," Plattagain charges dependency analysts with misinterpreting
happened later in the nineteenthcenturyand extendingthis misapprehension to earlierperiods of Latin American history.
The second part of Platt's argumentfollows logicallyfromthese
premises and reflectspreoccupation with Argentina as symbol of the
"neglected periphery."Autonomyratherthan pre-existingnational and
internationalpatternsof economic relationsdeterminedArgentina'srole
in the last third of the nineteenth century.Improved transportwas
needed to provision the growing city of Buenos Aires while foreign
promotersand investorssensed that"financialsuccess must depend on
the extentto which . . . railways might serve the needs of the Argentinesthemselvesand of theircapital city"ratherthan on potentialprofits
fromexportswhich had "slightimpacton eitherpromotersor investors."
Argentina's "natural" evolution toward an export-orientedeconomy
was, furthermore,
only a matterof operating on the principlesof comparative advantage. The arguments of dependency, informalimperialism, or colonial heritageare judged "unhistorical,"a view supported by
H. S. Ferns' observation that "It was so patentlyeconomically advantageous to do what Argentina did that it seems a waste of time and a
profitlessexercise to look forany otherexplanation of what happened."
Platt closes his critique of "dependency theory" by arguing-if
one may rephrase affirmatively
his rhetoricalquestion-that at the close
of the nineteenthcenturyLatin America's economies "shape[d] themselves along lines determineddomestically,in the traditionof the selfsufficiencyenforced by isolation fromworld markets during the first
halfof the nineteenthcentury."There could be no alternativeeconomic
routebut "to move in naturalprogressionfromthe gradual replacement
of importsto the complete satisfactionof the domestic marketand . ..
finallyto the disposal of the surplus (if any) by export." The principal
factorin Argentina and Mexico "as grain and beef producers was the
132

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DEPENDENCY

IN 19TH CENTURY

LATIN

AMERICA:

COMMENT

of
supplyofthehome market,"whichsupportedthe"whole structure
railways,ofpublicutilitiesand ofcitymodernization."
of
This rejoindercannottakecognizanceof all themisconceptions
hismajorpoints,however,certainbasic
Platt'scritique.Beforerebutting
are in order.
clarifications
ofLatinAmerica.Bravariabledefinition
Firstis Platt'speculiarly
zil and Cuba are excludedas alien to his autonomymodel fromthe
beginning,and Peru afterthe 1840s. By thisingeniousand inventive
inclusive
exclusionPlattdeprivesdependencyanalystsoftheirproperly
and generallyaccepted frameof referencewhile simultaneouslyhe
tradingpartnersof GreatBritainfrom1820eliminatesthreeimportant
relevanceto "some
1850.The dependencyconceptis thengiven""some"'
century."And "quite apart
of the smallerRepublicsin the nineteenth
fromthe 'banana Republics,' therewere times .

. when dependency is

descriptive-thequinineboom in Colombia[whynot the

sufficiently
tobaccoboomand thecoffeeeconomynottomentiongoldminingwhich
Boliviantin,Amazonia
longservedto sustainColombia'simporttrade?]J,
rubber"-but why separateBrazil'sbriefrubberboom fromits long
fromthe1880s,LatinAmericais divided
coffeedependency?And finally,
in termsofexinto"strong"and "weak economies"definedprimarily
portables-measuredin termsof Britain's"retained"imports.Where
thenis theautonomousLatinAmerica?
an
Second,Plattascribesto theso-called"dependencytheorists"
betweencolonial
meant"smoothtransition"
assumptionthatcontinuity
it was, butwhichhistorianscall a
and postcolonialrealities.Transition
afterwar forindependenceand its equallytraumatic
long destructive
and change,
matha smoothtransition?
The relationbetweencontinuity
is foundin the
whetherrapid and violentor slow and evolutionary,
to emerge
or relationships
structures
ofcertainpre-existing
propensity
as constantsundernew conditions.The dependenceofLatinAmerica's
Euto maintainsocietiesofessentially
neocolonialeliteson exportables
was sucha structure.
ropeanimprint
of conspiracytheoryto dependency
Thirdis Platt'sattribution
analysts.Here we can only observethatthe dependencyconcept,by
and relationprovidingexplanationin termsof enduringinstitutions
shipsfromwhichbehavioralpatternsderive,rejectscausalityin termsof
"machinations,""sinisteractivities,""developmentplanned in River
attitudes"deploring"failure
PlateHouse," etc.,alongwitha posteriori
to follow"alternative"patterns.These motes in Platt'seye seem to
ofa criticwho seekstoawardtohisautonomy
reflect
theover-sensitivity
and "common
theorythe exclusivevirtueof "natural" self-evidence
133

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LatinAmericanResearchReview
sense." Britishpragmatism, however, despite its conceptual poverty,
has not been inconsistentwith the pursuit of long-range policy implemented by short-termplan and, when necessary,ad hoc plot. Britain's
Iberian and Ibero-Americanpolicy between 1790 and 1824, forexample,
illustratesthe skill with which English statesmen (as well as theircontinentalrivals) used both plan and plot, war and peace, to defend and
extend mercantileand manufacturinginterests.The principles of free
trade draped the midwife of national sovereigntyin Latin Americaand theywere printedon Britishcottons.
Beyond these examples of conceptual confusion, however, lies
the fundamentalweakness of Platt's basic argument:his concept of autonomy.Here thereis no evidence thathe has analyzed the internaland
externalstructureof Latin America's regional economies either in the
colonial period or later. And omittingsuch an analysis, he confuses
"domestic demand and production" with "autonomous economic development."
In all economies, past as well as present, domestic requirements
of food, housing, clothing,implements,and transportationfigurelarge
in rough calculationof gross national product. Yet this cannot eliminate
the criticalrole in colonial areas of those economic sectors and social
strata directlybut also indirectlylinked to the international"context."
For colonial Latin America,in some cases the exportlinkwas both direct
and visible, e.g., sugar plantationsin coastal areas; in others, the large
estate appeared to supply a purely internal market when, in fact, it
eitherplayed an essential role in maintainingand servicingthe export
sector or was indirectlylinked to it in provisioning the urban centers
closely related to the colony's exportfunction.
Iberian colonialism in America had many facets,but its core was
the organization and maintenance of economies profitableto the overseas metropolisesand-what is oftenoverlooked-through them to the
key economies of northwesternEurope: Holland, England, and France.
Major elements of thisinterlinkedcolonial, submetropolitanand metropolitan systemmaterializedwith the creationof the silverminingcomplexes ofPeru and Mexico-not to mentionthe sugar plantationcomplex
of Brazil's Northeast-in the sixteenthcentury.Fluctuations of silver
production and export in colonial Spanish America from about 1570
culminatingin the extraordinaryexpansion of the half-centurypreceding the wars of independence should not obscure the persistentunderlying structures. Spanish America's precious metals flowed from its
mines out of its ports across the Atlanticdirectlyto Spain forre-export
to western Europe, or indirectlyto West Europeans in the Caribbean or
134

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DEPENDENCY

IN 19TH CENTURY

LATIN

AMERICA:

COMMENT

operatingthroughBrazilin the Rio de la Plata. WesternEurope,not

Spain (or Portugal)constitutedthe core of the international
system;
Spain's dependenceupon what Adam Smithcalled the "improving"
countries
ofEuropewas onlythinlydisguisedbya policybestdescribed
as "pseudo-mercantilism."
In theeighteenth
centurytheSpanish(and now thePortuguese)
miningcomplexesremaineddynamiccentersofthecolonialeconomies;
butclearlythe "pull" or demandofWestEuropeaneconomiesfornew
as well as old commodities-sugar,dyestuffs,
hides-supplemented
and reinforced
the centuries-old
patternof mineralexportsto pay for
importedmanufactures,
luxuriesand foodstuffs.
Eighteenth-century
modifications
drewArgentina,Venezuela,and Cuba intothe internationaleconomy.In Argentina'scase therebegan reorientation
of the
RiverPlate fromsupplyingcattle,horses,and mules to the Peruvian
miningcomplexto hide exportsto WesternEurope and jerkedbeef
toBraziland Cuba whileEuropeanmanufactures
shipments
and African
slavescontinuedtobe funnelled
in and silverout.Atthepeakofcolonial
outputof metals,bothSpanishand Britishtradestatistics-despiteall
caveats-point to thebasic tradepatternswhichpoliticalindependence
wouldrevealmoreclearly.1
Such a "model" of the colonialsystem,simplifying
and exaggeratingstructural
elements,is notintendedto neglecttheexistenceof
relatively
autonomousregionaleconomies-fromthosevirtually
outside
a marketeconomyto thoseonlytangentially
involvedin the principal
and at least
exchangeeconomy.To statethattheywereat mostancillary
irrelevant
to the key structures
of the Iberiancolonialworldis not to
denytheirexistencewithinitscontext.
In emphasizing"subsistence"and in callingthe miningsector
"onlyan element"in an otherwiseautonomouseconomy,Plattfailsto
comprehendthepivotalroleof silverin economiesstructured
fromthe
beginning
upon theexchangeofpreciousmetalsforimportedcommoditieswhichallowed colonial-as well as peninsular-elitesto pursuea
and statusto which theyremainedcommitted.Despite the
life-style
limitedproportionof the populationinvolvedin miningand refining
preciousmetals,theimpactof silverupon Spanishcolonialeconomies
and upon theirimmediatemetropolis
fromthatof
was vastlydifferent
suchexportcommodities
as sugar.Forsilver,byitsintrinsic
characteristodeterioration,
tics-highvalue,lowvolume,immunity
transportability
and convertibility
intoornamentor specie,and itsconsequentuniversal
farmoreprofoundly
the Spanishworldthan
exchangeability-affected
the developingworld of Europe or the economiesof Asia. And the
traumathataccompaniedtheseparationofSpain and itsmajorcolonies
135

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LatinAmericanResearchReview
was in many ways an index of the extraordinarysilver addiction that
both had long experienced.
years of national
Obvious problemsin the analysis of the firstfifty
sovereigntyin Latin America stem fromthe fundamentalinstabilityand
transitionalcharacter of the period. Following the destructionof the
wars against Iberianrule came the destructionthataccompanied internal
and internationalconflictas ex-viceroyaltiesfissioned,new regionalforboundaries were arranged
mations were triedand failed, and territorial
or rearranged. Meanwhile, within the new territorialunits reconstruction was delayed by the struggle of formerviceroyal subregions for
autonomy against hegemonic tendencies of the formercolonial capitals,
the new nations' primatecitiespursuing colonial patternsof monopolizing distribution,concentratingrevenue and expenditure,public works
and general (if few) services. New polities sufferedfrombureaucratic
and corruptionoftenfueledby foreignmerdiscontinuities,inefficiency,
chants in search of privilege and preference.Only Great Britainwas
capable of lending to newly formed governments (which it did very
briefly),while the economies of western Europe were themselves recoveringfromdecades ofwarfareand coping withthe power ofEurope's
firstindustrialnation.
National accounts of foreigntrade, at least until the last decades
of the nineteenthcentury,are usually unreliable or simply nonexistent
in Latin America. Fortunately,thereexistthe United Kingdom's Annual
Reports of Revenue, Population and Commerce (Porter'sTables) covering the years 1801-52; these provide data on volume, real (current)
value, origin and destination. However, while they formthe most reliable index of Latin America's economic activityand the most visible
linkto the internationaleconomy,the volume of tradewith Great Britain
can be misleading since Britain's role as supplier of manufacturesis
obscured by that of intermediariessuch as Jamaicain re-exportsto former Spanish colonies, Brazil in handling re-exportsto Argentina,Chile
in re-exportsto Mexico's west coast ports,2or the U.S. in forwarding
goods to both Cuba and Mexico. Further,the sudden appearance in
Britain's annual trade statisticsof Latin American destinations where
formerlysuch goods seemed destined only for Spain, Portugal or
"Southern Europe" could suggest to the unwary investigatornew, suddenly opening markets ratherthan furtherproof that the Iberian metropolises had been mere costly intermediariesin a pseudo-colonial

pact.3

The fact that Britishtrade statisticsomitted silver imports may

explain but does not justifyPlatt's failureto perceive the criticalfunction

136

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DEPENDENCY

IN 19TH CENTURY

LATIN

AMERICA:

COMMENT

of mining before independence and its continuing importance in the

decades immediatelyfollowing.4Yet it is clear thatMexico, forexample,
forat least twenty-fiveyears after1825, paid forimportsfromits principal supplier, Great Britain,with a gradually rising export of silveradmittedlybelow the peak years before1810.5 In turn,the composition
of imports continued the pre-1810 patternof cotton, woolen, and silk
textilesand clothing.Comparable statementscould be made with reference to the foreigntrade of otherex-colonial areas whose importswere
based on the miningof precious metals.
Further,Britishstatisticalmaterialssuggest conclusions differing
fromthose of Plattregardingthe significanceof Latin America's imports
of Britishmanufacturescompared with those of Britain's other major
tradingpartnerin the hemisphere,the United States. Ifwe look at Latin
America as a whole, i.e., aggregatingthe declared value of exports to
"Central and South America including Brazil" and those listed under
"Foreign West Indies" (mainly Cuba and St. Thomas) in the period
1820-50, Latin America ranks close to the U.S. as importerof British
goods.6 "The upward trend is fairlysteady," conclude Gayer, Rostow,
and Schwartz in summarizingtrade (1817-48) with Central and South
America, "except for the abnormal peak in 1825."7 To this conclusion
must be added the consideration that since by far the largest single
categoryof Latin America's importswere textileswhose unit price fell
by approximatelyone-third with the progress of the industry,Latin
America absorbed a rising volume of Britishcotton goods, much of it
directed to low-income consumers.8 This performanceis all the more
remarkablein view of politicalinstabilityand slow population growthin
the area compared with thatof the U.S. One may hardlyconsider Latin
America "over the edge of the periphery."
Importantas was Latin America as consumer of Britishexportsof
manufactures,Platt's position on the role of Latin America in Britain's
foreigntrade obscures the real issue. In the firstplace, while the U.S.
absorbed an increasingvalue and volume of Britishgoods, it proceeded
to develop autonomously,notably in the field of industrialdiversification,in textilesand metallurgy,unlikeLatin America. Second, to Britain,
Latin America was one of many trading areas; but to Latin America,
Britainwas the most importantof all tradingpartners.Put anotherway,
the impactof Britishgoods upon each of the economies ofLatin America
was criticalin theirgrowth,as is clear in the case of Mexico and Argentina which Plattmakes the centerpieceof his argumentforautonomy.
It is Argentina which offersan example of how adaptation to
domestic inter-regionalconflictand the transformationof capitalism
abroad failed to produce autonomy. In the two decades, 1810-30, the
137

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LatinAmerican
Research
Review
northwesternprovinces lost Bolivian marketsand access to silverwhile
the Litoralcattleranchingeconomy was disrupted by civil and international conflict.Thereafter,ranchingrelocated west and south of Buenos
Aires to become the source of the port's foreigntradeand contacts.After
1830 Buenos Aires expanded trade with the major purchaser of its hide
exportsand the principal supplier of its imports,Britain.9It was British
entrepreneurswho improved the qualityand increased the size of sheep
flocksand raw wool exportsto Britainfordomesticconsumptionand reexport.'0 Between 1830 and 1850, Argentina's grupoganaderoconsolidated the port's hegemonyover the provincesand expanded itsmultiple
contacts with Britain. When Rosas-the cattlemen's representativefled to exile, he went aboard a Britishvessel to retirementnear Southampton. It is no exaggeration to say that Britishtrade and shippingimportantin the two decades before 1810-played a decisive role in
Argentina'sreorganizationand growththereafter.
Turningto Platt's other major example of autonomy and discontinuity,Mexico, one discerns again, in the decades between 1821 and
1856, economic patternsrooted in the colonial period. Between 1825 and
1849, silver coinage rose froma five-yearannual average of 9.2 to 15.6
million pesos, while registeredsilver (and gold) exports oscillated between 7.4 and 10.7 million; only war with the U.S. and its effectupon
productioninterruptedthe slowlyrisingtrendofsilverexports."1Viewed
as a percentage of total exports, silver constituted79 percent for the
period 1821-28; the next year forwhich we have data, 1856, showed a
percentage of 92.12 If the role of silver in Mexico's exports repeated a
colonial pattern, so did its imports in which Britishyard goods and
clothingaveraged 69 percent over the years 1821-28 and, in 1856, 60
percent. Given the quality of this merchandise,thereis littledoubt that
it was sold to low-income Mexicans and there is evidence to view such
imports as the major factorin the containmentof the Mexican artisan
and fledglingindustrial cotton manufacture.'3 One need hardly note
thatGreat Britainthroughoutthese decades was Mexico's principaltrading partner.14
The case of Colombia offersno greatersubstantiationofPlatt's autonomous growthconcept. In citingFrankSafford'swork on nineteenthcenturyColombia he does the authora distinctdisservicein quoting him
out of contextand apparentlywithout consultinghis originalcontributions, which elaborate the experience of Central Colombia in considerable detail.15 But even in his rejoinderto Bergquist,citedby Platt,Safford
emphasizes that "the question is not whether economic dependency
existedbut its meaning." Safford'scriticismof the "dependency matrix"
is directed to its historical oversimplifications.Stressing his primary
138

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DEPENDENCY

IN 19TH CENTURY

LATIN

AMERICA:

COMMENT

concernwith the manner in which "values mediate between structures

and social actions" he concluded that in the middle years of the nineteenth century,"Colombia's economic growth depended on changed
circumstances,over which Colombia had littlecontrol,"i.e., the appearance of a viable and enduringexport,coffee.16
Platt's insistence on the long isolation of Latin America fromthe
Atlanticeconomy permitshim to initiatehis analysis of the last quarter
of the nineteenthcenturyby asking, "What . .. finallybrought Latin
America into contactwith the world economy?" His ingenious reply is
that"productionforexport . .. [developed] out of productionprimarily
intended forLatin America's domestic market" which was responsible
for"the whole structureof railways,of public utilities,and of citymodernization" as well as "for the firststages in the introductionof foreign
capital. . . ." To buttresshis position, Plattrelies heavily on Argentina's
development after1850 and particularlyon the role of the railroad. Ignoringthe voluminous literatureon Argentineeconomic historyof the
nineteenthcentury-e.g., the works of Burgin, Giberti,and more recentlyHalperin Donghi, Gallo and Cortes Conde, Scobie'7-he leans
instead upon Ferns and an articleby Paul Goodwin. Here it is sufficient
to show how his handling of Goodwin's articleexemplifiesa proclivity
to misconstruesources in order to substantiatethe notion of economic
autonomy and the primacyof the domestic market.
Paul Goodwin's article,cited in note 39, is interpretedas proofof
the minimalrole of exportconsiderationsamong the motivesbehind the
creationof the CentralArgentineRailway begun in 1863 to link Rosario
with Cordoba. Yet Goodwin sees thatrailway as contributingto a "process of development and transition" which began at the end of the
colonial period and "was stimulatedby the introductionof new exports
with high growthrates." It was the cartroad ratherthan the railroad,he
into
argues, which "contributedto Argentina'seventual transformation
an export-orientedcountry.. . . By 1850 it became increasinglyclear to
Buenos Aires merchantsthat the maintenance of theirprofitsfromthe
export of produce demanded a more efficientand economical formof
land transportation.... Between 1854, when Rosario was opened to
foreigntrade, and 1863, the year the Central ArgentineRailway drove
its firstspikes, the town blossomed bidding 'fairto compete successfully
fora portionof the foreigncommercewithBuenos Aires'. . . ." It is clear
fromGoodwin's remarksabout Rosario as well as fromScobie's analysis
of Buenos Aires' growththatrailroadswere undertakento enhance their
exportpotential.18 But even were we to imagine thatArgentinerailways
were firstlaid to supply Buenos Aires consumers with hides, wool,
139

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LatinAmericanResearchReview

meat,and wheat,willPlattalso maintainthattheEnglishbuilttheSao

Paulo-Santosrailroadto provisionPaulistasor theVeracruz-Mexico
City
lineto supplythatcapitalwith-pulque?
Thus, excludingmajorareas of LatinAmerica,relegating
others
to a nebulous"sometimes"dependency,disregarding
or misinterpreting the economichistoryof yet others(Venezuela,Chile, Colombia),
and above all overlooking
miningin colonialand postcolonialSpanish
Americawhileignoring
thesocialand politicalcomplexities
oftheIberian
empiresin theirinternaland externalrelationships,
Plattideates an
autonomythatcan onlyappearfanciful
to thescholarseekingto understandthehistoryofthispartoftheworld.
Yet,strangely,
itis notprimarily
thefactsthatarein disputein the
presentcontroversy.
A readingofPlatt'spreviouspublications
on British
foreign
policyand traderevealssurprising
agreement
on thecharacter
of
British
commercial
hegemonyinnineteenth-century
LatinAmerica:after

enjoying a "profitabletrade with colonial Latin America . . . through

Spain and Portugal, or . .. by contraband . . . the end of the Spanish

Empirebroughtnew businesstoBritish
tradersand manufacturers,"
but
followinga briefeuphoricpeak, inhospitableconditionsbroughtslow,
vacillatinggrowthuntil"a second honeymoon"in the '60s and '70s,
"when demandnow existedfortheprimary
produceoftheRepublics"
and "capital,attractedby the new marketopportunities
flowedinto
Latin Americanrailways,portworks,utilitiesand processingplants,
openingthe way fora vastlyenlargedmarketof Britishmanufactured
goods."19Aside fromdivergenceon the timingand degreeof British
penetration,
this summarycoincidessubstantially
withthe "textbook
versionof the BritishconnectionwithLatin America"whichPlattoddly-calls a "position... entirely
different
innearlyeveryrespect."20
Whence,then,the dramaticdiscrepancyon the "critical"issue, autonomy?Whythe shiftin Platt'sanalysisfroma LatinAmericawhich
was "one ofthemostimportant
outletsforBritish
tradeand investment
throughout
the nineteenthcentury"(1968)21to a LatinAmerica"over
theedge oftheperiphery"(1979)untilthelastquarterofthenineteenth
century?
The answeremergesfroma reviewofPlatt'sroleas historianof
nineteenth-century
Britishtradepolicyand particularly
fromhis early
rejectionofHobson'scritiqueofBritish
imperialism.
On thegroundthat
"Hobson and his successorswerein factlookingat financialdiplomacy
fromthe point of view of the journalistor of the gleanerof casual
information,"22
Plattundertookthelittleexploredfieldof"therelationship betweenfinance,trade,and politicsin the conductof Britishfor140

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DEPENDENCY

IN 19TH CENTURY

LATIN

AMERICA:

COMMENT

eign policy" in order to extirpatefromthe historiographyof Britain's

"century of . . . leadership in world trade and finance" the notion of
economic imperialismmade currentby Hobson. The task was made all
the more imperativeby the rapid contagion of the Gallagher-Robinson
thesis of the imperialismof freetrade in describingBritain'srelationto
noncolonialperipheralareas. An Oxfordthesis (1962), threebooks (1968,
1971, 1972) and several articles resulted from this effort,much of it
devoted to Latin America.
Platt's basic thesis is clear: national securityand freetrade alone
guided Britishpolicy during the middle half of the centuryand were
only gradually and partiallysuperseded by "fair trade" and protection
as British"paramountcy" declined toward the end of the century.23
"Economic imperialismis a politicalratherthan an historicallabel [since]
politicalpolemicistsknow what theywant to say long beforetheyhave
the evidence to support it," he wrote in 1968 to answer "the charge of
economic imperialismin the WesternHemisphere."24There could be no
"informaldependence" in Latin America because it was "a-political,"
apparentlymeaning that unlike such areas as China it did not oppose
foreigneconomicpenetration-not strangeconsideringthatforeigntrade
had been the raison d'etre of Spanish America since the conquest.25
at this timePlatt stillconsidered Latin America of farmore
Significantly,
than tangentialinterestto Great Britain-after all, he had made "British
Capital, Commerce and Diplomacy in Latin America" the subject of his
Oxfordthesis.
Curiously,although Africaand Asia had been the subject of most
ofthedebate on nineteenth-century
informalimperialism,Latin America
provided a "natural" arena forthe exponents of informalimperialismas
propounded by Gallagher and Robinson. Britain'sstance of respect for
national sovereignty,nonintervention,free trade and laissez-fairehad
evolved in no small measure fromEngland's commercialand political
relations with the Iberian nations and their colonial possessions in
America between 1700 and 1820. Britishaspirations fordirectand unfetteredtrade with Iberian America, pursued with consummate diplomacy duringthe Napoleonic wars and the strugglesforLatin America's
independence precipitatedby them, were realized in the ambience of
post-Napoleonic power relationshipsthroughthe doctrinesof national
sovereignty,nonintervention,and freetrade. Politicaland economic disorganizationwhich followed independence furthervalidated these policies. Pressures could be applied to the new, weak governmentsthat
Platt defines as "a-political." Claims of over-aggressiveBritishtraders
and disappointed speculators could be eschewed by the mediation of
foreignservice career officialsconcerned with "haute politique" and
141

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LatinAmerican
Research
Review
consular agents handling such mundane tasks as debt-collection.26
Any
judicious threat or application of forcecould be justifiedunder international law. Finally, free trade and noninterventionwere peculiarly
compatible with Britishrelations with the United States as important
economic partnerbut early rivalin Latin America. Thus, forPlatt,Latin
America provided a clear refutationof the political implicationsof informalimperialism.But he had yet to deal with its economic implications.
By 1972, however, in a revisionof his dissertationunder the title,

and BritishTrade,1806-1914,the idea of LatinAmerica's

LatinAmerica
economic autonomy is brieflycounterposed to the concept of neocolonialism under Britishhegemony presented by the Steins.27The following year a new critique of Gallagher and Robinson expanded on the
insignificanceof Latin America in Britishtrade and on continuityof
isolation and autonomy. He therebydenied a "third assumption" of
imperialismof freetrade, "the subordinationof primaryproducers, as
suppliers of foodstuffsand raw materialsto Britainin her chosen role as
'Workshop of the World."'28The apparent logic is clear: no trade, autonomy;autonomy plus trade, no dependence-hence, no informalimperialism,political or economic. Thus Platt moved fromemphasis on a
presumed abstentionfrom"active governmentintervention"to emphasis on Latin America's presumed autonomy,a shiftnecessitatedby the
evident vacuityof his earlierdefinitionof economic imperialismand of
Latin America as "a-political."
Yet, afterremodellinghis thesis to answer Gallagher and Robinson,29 Plattnow must confrontthe dependency analystswho have given
informalimperialisma new dimension. In presentinga view fromthe
periphery,theyhave focused not on "chrono-politics"but on "chrono"economics and even on "chrono"-sociology.Their subject is the internal
and external aspects of structuralinequality, subordination, and exploitationimplicitin the exchange between developed and underdeveloped capitalistnations. Their emphasis is not on bilateralrelationships
but upon constraintsimposed by an internationalmarketover a long
period of time. It is far more difficultfor Platt to combat colonialismof
free trade than imperialismof free trade. Where dependency analysts
postulate persistent asymmetricalparticipationin the world market,
Platt postulates the impersonal and equitable functionof the international economy. He is thus led to his present absurd assertion of Latin
America's economic autonomy in the mid-Victorianyears and to project
it both backward and forward.In this sense he emerges as the current
paladin of imperialismrefurbished.The difficultiesof his position may
explain the hubris of his present critique,the resortto neologisms such

142

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DEPENDENCY

IN 19TH CENTURY

LATIN

AMERICA:

COMMENT

of dependencyanalystsas fothe characterization

as "structuration,"
and theinvocationofconspiracy.
mentersof"confusionism,"
Polemicamonghistoriansis warrantedifit leads to clarification
no doubtwill
research.In thisinstance,quantification
throughfurther
be one elementon theagenda. Also needed willbe rigorousyetimaginativeanalysisto pursuecriticalelementsofthehegemonyand suborthe secularpersistenceof
formaland informal:
dinationofimperialism
racismin Europeand America,faithin the"natural"law oftheinternationaldivisionof labor under capitalismcoupled with acceptanceof
passivity,
themyriadwaysin whichLatin
LatinAmerica'stechnological
learned,cultivated,
America'seliteshaveconsciouslyand unconsciously
of
and expanded collaborationwith externalforcesto the detriment
localroutes,and
LatinAmerica'smasses-in brief,thesuperhighways,
ofdependence.
footpaths
NOTES
1.

2.
3.
4.

5.

For the importanceof Spanish re-exportsof European goods to the American colode Espanfa
en 1792
exterior
nies, especially textiles,see Resumende la balanzadel comercio
de Espana con los dominiosde SM en Americaen el
(Madrid, 1803) and Balanzade comercio
aniode 1792 (Madrid, 1805). Growthof Britishexportsof woolen and cottontextilesto
Spanish possessions in and around the Caribbean, 1785-1800, can be discerned in
the spurtin exportsto the BritishWestIndies registeredin E. B. Schumpeter,English
OverseasTradeStatistics,1697-1808 (Oxford, 1960), p. 67. Moreover, Britishtextiles
also flowed to the Spanish colonies as U.S. re-exportsto thatarea. For example, the
percentage of domestic exports in total U.S. exports to Spanish America dropped
sharply(1803-1808) from64 to 15 percentand it is reasonable to presume re-exports
consisted largely of Britishtextiles.See the suggestive articleby J. H. Coatsworth,
"American Trade with European Colonies in the Caribbean and South America,
3rd ser., 24 (Apr. 1967):243-66. The relative
1790-1812," Williamand Mary Quarterly,
position of Spanish importsto re-exportsof European manufacturesis suggested by
Woodbine Parish, BuenosAyresand theProvincesof theRio de la Plata ... (London,
1839), appendix 11.
Parish reported,forexample, thatover the period 1829-37 "a considerableportionof
the articlessent to Chile are intended forthe supply of the West coast of Mexico."
BuenosAyres,p. 415.
See referencesto Spanish balances of trade, note 1.
"Of the [silverand gold coin and bullion] importationsno Account can be rendered
fromthis Department, the articlesin question being by Law being exempted from
Papers,1854 (xxxix),
Entryinwards at the Custom-house." Great Britain.Parliamentary
p. 439. Similarly,in the eighteenthcentury"anyone who pleased mightimportcoin
and bullion withoutmaking any returnof the transaction,and hence no recordwas
kept of the gold and silverbroughtin." T. S. Ashton, in Schumpeter,EnglishOverseas
TradeStatistics,p. 7. One must recall that the English East India Company's annual
deficiton merchandise balance with China, until Britishmerchantspushed opium
into that country,was covered by "[Spanish] American silver currencyoriginally
brought to China by the East India Company." See FredericE. Wakeman's contriHistoryofChina 10 (1978),
bution in D. Twitchettand J.K. Fairbanks,eds., Cambridge
p. 164.
See note 11.

143

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Review
Research
LatinAmerican
6.

In the followingtable, "Foreign West Indies" are considered a Latin American destination since Cuba and Puerto Rico were the principal importers. Latin America
received86.5 percentofthe value ofU.S. importsofBritishdomesticexports,1820-49
-by no means insignificant.

British
Domestic
Exports
byDestination,
1820-1848(L000,000)

1820-29
1830-39
1840-49

&
Central
SouthAm.
Brazil

Foreign
W.Indies

Total

U.S.

(Platt)
Brazil&
Am.
Spanish

42.8
49.0
49.6

9.4
11.5
10.7

52.2
60.5
60.3

57.9
79.2
63.3

43.4 (1831-39)
51.5

173.0

200.4

Total

andFluctuation
Sources:A. D. Gayer,W W Rostow,and A. J.Schwartz,TheGrowth
oftheBritish
2 vols.(Oxford,
Economy,
1790-1850,
1953),1:182,215,251,282,314;D. C. M. Platt,"Further
Objections
of FreeTrade,"'Economic
to an 'Imperialism
History
2nd'ser.,36 (Feb., 1973):91,appendix.
Review,
Platt's"SpanishAmerica"includesBuenosAires,Chile,Colombia,Ecuador,Mexico,Montevideo,
Peru,and Venezuela.

7.

Gayer et al., BritishEconomy2:783.

8. United
Kingdom
Cotton
(Piece)GoodsExports
toPrincipal
Destinations,
Selected
Years(000,000yds.)
1820

1830

1840

1850

1860

Yds.

Yds.

Yds.

Yds.

Yds.

America*
(except
U.S.)
U.S.
Europe

56.0
23.8
127.7

22.3
9.4
50.9

140.8
49.3
137.4

31.6
11.6
30.9

278.6
32.1
200.4

35.2
4.0
25.3

360.4
104.2
222.1

26.5
7.6
16.3

527.1
226.8
200.5

19.7
8.4
7.4

Total

250.9 100

444.6

100

790.6 100

1358.2 100

2676.2 100

Source:ThomasEllison,TheCotton
TradeofGreatBritain
[1886](NewYork,1968),pp. 63-64.
*Mostso destined,one mayassume,wenttoLatinAmerica.
9.

Britain'strade with Argentinais suggested by the following:

orValue
TradeoftheRiodela PlatawithGreatBritain,
AnnualVolume
1831-40:5 YearAverage
Years
1831-35
1849-53

Exports
Wool(lbs.)

Hides(no.)
107.664
270.308

462.340
2.674.341

Imports
Cottons
(Yds.) Woolens
(L;s)
14.006.422
31.549.624

111.813
281.985

1842(xxxix),
Source:GreatBritain,
Parliamentary
Papers,
p. 375;1854-55(Lii).

144

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DEPENDENCY

IN 19TH CENTURY

LATIN

AMERICA:

COMMENT

10. Commenting on the extraordinaryupsurge in Argentine wool exports, 1830-37,

Parish credited the "intelligent foreigners[who] introduce and cultivate a better
breed.... Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Harrattare the individuals to whom Buenos Ayres
is principallyindebted forthisnew source of wealth" (BuenosAyres,pp. 358-59). According to Frank Safford,Britishresidentsin New Granada had a similarlyinnovating effectin promotingtobacco and coffeeforexport. "Commerce and Enterprisein
Central Colombia, 1821-1870" (Ph.D. dissertation,Columbia University,1965), pp.
187-200, 300.
11. There is a steady rise in Mexican silver coinage and a fluctuatinglevel of precious
metals exportsover the period 1825-49. The exportlevel, 1845-49, was depressed by
the U.S. war with Mexico.

Years
1825-29
1830-34
1835-39
1840-44
1845-49

SilverCoined
Annual
5-Year
(mill.ps)
Averages

Exports
Silver/Gold
5-Year
Annual
(mill.ps)
Averages

9.2
11.3
11.5
12.4
15.6

8.7
10.7
7.4
9.7
7.7

zwischen
goldund silver..
und werthverhaltniss
Sources: A. Soetbeer,Edelmetall-produktion
hastahoy
exterior
de Mexicodesdela conquista
(Gotha,1874),p. 55; M. Lerdode Tejada,Comercio
no. 52.
1967),documento
(1853)(Mexico:BancoNacionalde ComercioExterior,
de Mexico,1821-1875 (Mexico, 1977), p. 60.
exterior
12. Ines HerreraCanales, El comercio
13. That Latin America's lower classes had long been a primemarketforBritishcottonsis
clear fromcontemporarymercantilerecords as well as recentresearch. Cf. Herrera
Canales, Comercio,pp. 26, 34, 113 and Safford,"Commerce and Enterprise,"pp. 191,
240.
EconomicHistoryofLatinAmerica,1500-1914. I. Mexico
14. Laura Randall, A Comparative
(Ann Arbor,1977), p. 237.
15. In addition to Safford's"Commerce and Enterprise,"see his The Idea ofthePractical:
Elite(Austin, 1976) and his "Trade (1810-1940),"
Colombia'sStruggletoForma Technical
ofLatinAmerica(New York,1974), pp. 589-92.
in Helen Delpar, ed., Encyclopedia
16. "On Paradigms and the Pursuit of the Practical: A Response," LARR 13, no. 2
(1978):253-55.
de la Argentina,
1850-1930, 2 vols. (Buenos
17. For example, R. M. Ortiz,Historiaecon6mica
Aires, 1955); M. Burgin,EconomicAspectsofArgentineFederalism(Cambridge, 1947);
de la ganaderiaargentina(Buenos Aires, 1954); T Halperin
H. Giberti,Historiaecon6mica
Donghi, "La expansion ganadera en la campana de Buenos Aires," Desarrolloecode independencia
a la
n6mico3 (1963):57ff,and his HistoriaArgentina.De la revoluci6n
rosista(Buenos Aires, 1972); J.Fodor y ArturoO'Connell, "La Argentina
confederaci6n
y la economia atlantica en la primera mitad del siglo xix," Desarrolloecon6mico13
(1973):3ff;E. Gallo and R. Cortes Conde, Historiaargentina.La republicaconservadora
(Buenos Aires, 1972); J.R. Scobie, BuenosAires.Plaza toSuburb,1870-1910 (New York,
al estudiodel patargentinos.Contribuci6n
1974). On railroads, A. Bunge, Ferrocarriles
en la economiaargentina,
rimonionacional(Buenos Aires, 1918); R. M. Ortiz, El ferrocarril
en la Argentina
2nd ed. (Buenos Aires, 1956); H. J.Cuccorese, Historiade losferrocarriles
(Buenos Aires, 1969).
18. Paul B. Goodwin, Jr.,"The Central ArgentineRailway and the Economic Development of Argentina,1854-1881," HispanicAmericanHistoricalReview57, no. 4 (1977):
618-19. As Scobie has put it, "The building of railroads responded largely to the

145

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LatinAmericanResearchReview

19.
20.

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.
28.
29.

hides,wool and grains.... In 1862,forexample,a groupof

potentialforcarrying
British
residentsin BuenosAiresformedtheSouthernRailroadto servethesheepand cattle-growing
zones." Britishinvestorswere obviouslythinkingof exports.
BuenosAires,p. 92.
andBritish
Trade,1806-1914(London,1972).
D. C. M. Platt,LatinAmerica
were
goods..... Localindustries
an irresistible
floodofBritish
"After
independence,
consolidateda ... monopoly
'destroyed,'and Britishtradersand manufacturers
importtrade. .. the yearsof Britain's'hegemony'of the 'imover a significant
Trade,p. 312.
andBritish
perialism
ofFreeTrade'."Platt,LatinAmerican
Foreign
Policy,
1815-1914(Oxford,
D. C. M. Platt,Finance,
TradeandPolitics
inBritish
1968),p. 308.
Ibid.,pp. 76-77.
Ibid.,pp. 83-84.
Ibid.,pp. 76,308.
Ibid.,p. 312.
perceivedthatwhile"therulewas no
Ibid.,p. 41. On thesamepage Platt,ironically,
...
or 'authoritative'
. . . 'good offices'ofBritishdiplomatists
'official'
intervention
intervendiplomatic
musthavebeendifficult
indeedtodistinguish
fromunqualified
tion."
andBritish
Trade,pp. 3-4.
Platt,LatinAmerica
2nd
History
Review,
ofFreeTrade,"'Economic
"Further
Objectionsto an 'Imperialism
ser.,36 (1968):87 and passim.
oftheconcept
Itis an ironyofBritain's
imperialfatethatRonaldRobinson,co-author
inLatin
oftheimperialism
offreetradetodescribeBritain's
mid-Victorian
hegemony
to disprovethatconcept
Americaand elsewhere-and primetargetofPlatt'sefforts
mechanism. . . workedconstructively
-could writein 1972thatthe"collaborative
'tookoff" and by
so thatthesecolonies[SouthAfricaand LatinAmerica]eventually
mid-twentieth
"thecollaborative
century
systemhad doneitswork;forthewhiteexcolonies-the UnitedStatesand LatinAmerica[!], togetherwiththe British'dominions'-hadbecomeexpansivein theirownrightinpursuitoftheirown'manifest
destiny."'R. Robinson,"Non-EuropeanFoundationsof EuropeanImperialism:
in W. R. Louis,ed., Imperialism:
Sketchfora TheoryofCollaboration,"
TheRobinson
andGallagher
(New York,1976),p. 136.
Controversy

146

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions