Advertisement

Industry, Technology, and Politics

  • Marshall C. Eakin

Abstract

The emergence of new industrial centers in the developing world is one of the most important transformations of the late twentieth century. In the decades since World War II, the economic dominance of the United States, Europe, and Japan has been increasingly challenged by the rise of industry in Asia and Latin America. Forty years ago the economies of South Korea, China, India, and Brazil, for example, primarily produced foodstuffs and raw materials, and their populations were overwhelming rural. The term “Third World,” in fact, arose in the 1950s, in part, to highlight the underdevelopment in Asia, Africa, and Latin America characterized by a lack of industrial growth in largely agrarian societies.1 With the emergence of significant industrial growth in a number of countries, the already suspect concept of a “Third World” has now become even more problematic. The industrialization of Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, India, and Mexico (to cite a few examples) has been impressive and clearly sets them apart from much of the rest of the so-called Third World.2 By the 1980s, this industrialization had begun to alter fundamentally the global dominance of the so-called First and Second Worlds that emerged out of World War II. Third World industrialization, however, has not simply recapitulated the industrialization of what used to be called the First and Second Worlds.

Keywords

Nineteenth Century Eighteenth Century Late Nineteenth Century State Politics Political Elite 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Irving Louis Horowitz, Three Worlds of Development: The Theory and Practice of International Stratification (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), esp. 1–38.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Tom Kemp, Industrialization in Nineteenth-Century Europe (London: Longman, 1969), p. 1. Industrial growth, or the aggregate expansion of industry, is a prerequisite of industrialization, but as used here, the latter term refers to a broader, transformative process that also involves social and political changes.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    T. S. Ashton, The Industrial Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1948); Phyllis Deane, The First Industrial Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) are two of the “classic” accounts. Pat Hudson, The Industrial Revolution (London: Edward Arnold, 1992) provides a useful and thorough overview of the “industrial revolution.” In particular, 9–36 provide an excellent survey of the historiography.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Carlo Cipolla, ed., The Fontana Economic History of Europe, v. 3, The Industrial Revolution, and v. 4, The Emergence of Industrial Societies (Glasgow: Fontana/Collins, 1973 and 1976); David Landes, The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969); Clive Trebilcock, The Industrialization of the Continental Powers 1780–1914 (London: Longman, 1981); Sidney Pollard, Peaceful Conquest: The Industrialization of Europe 1760–1970 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981).Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    In particular, the notion of an “Industrial Revolution” continues to stir heated debate. See, for example, Joel Mokyr, ed., The Economics of the Industrial Revolution (Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld, 1985), and Joel Mokyr, ed., The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective (Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 1993), especially David S. Landes, “The Fable of the Dead Horse; or, The Industrial Revolution Revisited,” 132–170.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    “Stripped to its bare bones, the industrial revolution consisted of the application of new sources of power to the production process, achieved with transmission equipment necessary to apply this power to manufacturing. And it consisted of increased scale in human organization that facilitated specialization and coordination at levels preindustrial groupings had rarely contemplated.” Peter N. Stearns, The Industrial Revolution in World History, 2nd ed. (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1998), 5.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    E. A. Wrigley and others have argued that the latter is “the distinguishing feature of the industrial revolution.” E. A. Wrigley, Continuity, Chance and Change: The Character of the Industrial Revolution in England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 9. An excellent, brief synthesis of the technological complex of changes is in Landes, “The Fable of the Dead Horse,” especially 137. The classic “technological” account is Landes, The Unbound Prometheus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 9.
    Michael Adas, citing Pierre Chaunu and Fernand Braudel, estimates that “the peoples of western Europe possessed an advantage of three or four to one over the Chinese in per capita capacity to tap animal and inanimate sources of power” by the fifteenth century. Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology, and Ideologies of Western Dominance (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1989), 21.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    See, for example, A. E. Musson and Eric Robinson, Science and Technology in the Industrial Revolution (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969); and, Landes, The Unbound Prometheus.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    As used here, technology is defined as the efforts of humans to shape or control their environment—both natural and that created by humans. It includes the knowledge, the artifacts created, and the processes involved in their creation. See, for example, Melvin Kranzberg and Carroll W. Pursell, Jr., eds., Technology in Western Civilization: v. 1. The Emergence of Modern Industrial Society: Earliest Times to 1900 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 4–5.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    Some studies showing examples of early technological diffusion and subsequent innovation in U.S. industry are Barbara M. Tucker, Samuel Slater and the Origins of the American Textile Industry, 1790–1860 (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1984); and, David J. Jeremy, Transatlantic Industrial Revolution: The Diffusion of Textile Technologies Between Britain and America, 1790–1830s (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1981).Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    For one controversial and masterly handling of this topic see Barrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston: Beacon, 1966).Google Scholar
  13. 17.
    For an example overview of the subject, see Peter H. Smith, “The State and Development in Historical Perspective,” in Americas: New Interpretive Essays, ed. Alfred Stepan (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 30–56.Google Scholar
  14. 18.
    W. J. Mommsen, Britain and Germany, 1800–1914: Two Development Paths Toward Industrial Society (London: German Historical Institute, 1986); M. E. Falkus, The Industrialization of Russia, 1700–1914 (London: Macmillan, 1972); Theodore von Laue, Sergei Witte and the Industrialization of Russia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963).Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    See, for example, Luiz Carlos Bresser Pereira, Development and Crisis in Brazil, 1930–1983 (Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 1984).Google Scholar
  16. 20.
    See, for example, Riordan Roett, “Brazilian Politics at Century’s End,” in Brazil under Cardoso, Susan Kaufman Purcell and Riordan Roett, eds. (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 1997), 19–41.Google Scholar
  17. 21.
    For the persistence of family capitalism in Japan and the West see, Ako Okochi and Shigeaki Yasuoka, eds., Family Business in the Era of Industrial Growth (Tokyo, n.d.), especially 1–32 and 171–206. See also, Leslie Hannah, The Rise of the Corporate Economy, 2nd ed. (London: Methuen, 1983).Google Scholar
  18. 22.
    Paul Bairoch, “International Industrialization Levels from 1750 to 1980,” Journal of European Economic History 11:2 (fall 1982): 296 and 304.Google Scholar
  19. 23.
    For one ranking system, see George Thomas Kurian, The New Book of World Rankings, 3rd ed. (New York: Facts on File, 1991), 68.Google Scholar
  20. 24.
    Albert Fishlow, “Brazilian Development in Long-Term Perspective,” American Economic Review 70:2 (1980): 107.Google Scholar
  21. 25.
    See, for example, Rondo Cameron, A Concise Economic History of the World from Paleolithic Times to the Present, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), esp. chapters 7–9; Nathan Rosenberg and L. E. Birdzell, Jr., How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation of the Industrial World (New York: Basic Books, 1986).Google Scholar
  22. 26.
    Alexander Gerschenkron, Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspectives: A Book of Essays (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1962).Google Scholar
  23. 27.
    See, for example, David S. andes, The Unbound Prometheus; E. L. Jones, The European Miracle: Environments, Economies, and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Tom Kemp, Industrialization in the Non-Western World, 2nd ed. (New York: Longman, 1989).Google Scholar
  24. 28.
    See, for example, Victor Bulmer-Thomas, The Economic History of Latin America Since Independence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Celso Furtado, Economic Development of Latin America: A Survey from Colonial Times to the Cuban Revolution, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  25. 29.
    See, for example, Celso Furtado, Formação econômica do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro: Editôra Fundo de Cultura, 1959); Werner Baer, The Brazilian Economy: Growth and Development, 3rd ed. (New York: Praeger, 1989); Wilson Suzigan, Indústria brasileira: origem e desenvolvimento (São Paulo: Editôra Brasiliense, 1986).Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    A recent interpretation of the burden of the colonial legacy on economic development is Jorge Caldeira, A nação mercantilista (São Paulo: Editora 34, 1999).Google Scholar
  27. 31.
    The standard history of Brazil in English is E. Bradford Burns, A History of Brazil, 3rd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). For a more recent treatment, see Thomas E. Skidmore, Brazil: Five Centuries of Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). See also Leslie Bethell, ed., Colonial Brazil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).Google Scholar
  28. 32.
    C. R. Boxer, The Golden Age of Brazil, 1695–1750: Growing Pains of a Colonial Society (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1969), esp. 30–60, 162–203, and 293–325; A. J. R. Russell-Wood, “The Gold Cycle, c. 1690–1750,” Colonial Brazil, ed. Leslie Bethell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 190–243.Google Scholar
  29. 33.
    Francisco Iglésias, A industrialização brasileira (São Paulo: Editora Brasiliense, 1985), 24–25.Google Scholar
  30. 34.
    Alan K. Manchester, British Preeminence in Brazil (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1933); Richard Graham, Britain and the Onset of Modernization in Brazil, 1850–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968); Irving Stone, “British Direct and Portfolio Investment in Latin America Before 1914,” The Journal of Economic History 37:3 (September 1977); 690–722; Stephen Haber and Herbert S. Klein, “The Economic Consequences of Brazilian Independence,” in Haber, How Latin America Fell Behind, 243–59.Google Scholar
  31. 36.
    Two important studies are Warren Dean, The Industrialization of São Paulo, 1880–1945 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1969); and, Wilson Cano, Desequilíbrios regionais e concentração industrial no Brasil: 1930–1970 (São Paulo: Global, 1985).Google Scholar
  32. 37.
    Thomas H. Holloway, Immigrants on the Land: Coffee and Society in São Paulo, 1886–1934 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980).Google Scholar
  33. 38.
    Robert Conrad, The Destruction of Brazilian Slavery, 1850–1888 (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1972); and Robert Brent Toplin, The Abolition of Slavery in Brazil (New York: Atheneum, 1971).Google Scholar
  34. 39.
    Two classic studies are Clarence H. Haring, Empire in Brazil: A New World Experiment with Monarchy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958); and Emilia Viotti da Costa, The Brazilian Empire: Myths and Histories, rev. ed. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  35. 42.
    Charles Lewis Taylor and David A. Jodice, eds., World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 106.Google Scholar
  36. 43.
    On the regional growth of Monterrey see Alex M. Saragoza, The Monterrey Elite and the Mexican State, 1880–1940 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1988); Menno Vellinga, Economic Development and the Dynamics of Class: Industrialization, Power and Control in Monterrey, Mexico (Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1979); Mario Cerutti, Burguesía y capitalismo en Monterrey (1850–1910) (México: Claves Latinoamericanas, 1983). For Colombia, see Carlos Dávila L. de Guevara, El empresariado colombiano: una perspectiva histórica (Bogotá: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, 1986).Google Scholar
  37. 45.
    Amilcar Vianna Martins Filho, “The White Collar Republic: Patronage and Interest Representation in Minas Gerais, Brazil, 1889–1930,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1987, especially chapter 2. The debate over the nature of the mineiro economy in the nineteenth century has been intense. During the 1980s a debate took shape over the nature of the mineiro economy in the nineteenth century. This debate was initiated by Amilcar Martins Filho and Roberto B. Martins, “Slavery in a Nonexport Economy: Nineteenth-Century Minas Gerais Revisited,” Hispanic American Historical Review 63:3 (August 1983): 537–68. For critiques of the article and the reply of the Martins brothers see the same issue, 569–90. Robert Slenes, “Os múltiplos de porcos e diamantes: a economia escravista de Minas Gerais no século XIX,” Cadernos IFCH/UNICAMP 17 (1985), is another important critique of the Martins. For a recent appraisal that responds to the various historiographical issues see Laird W. Bergad, Slavery and the Demographic and Economic History of Minas Gerais, Brazil, 1720–1888 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), chapter 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 46.
    Wirth, Minas Gerais in the Brazilian Federation, 1889–1937 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1977), 2–3.Google Scholar
  39. 47.
    Warren Dean, With Broadax and Firebrand: The Destruction of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 187.Google Scholar
  40. 48.
    Francisco Iglésias, Política econômica do govêrno provincial mineiro (1835–1889) (Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Nacional do Livro, 1958); Douglas Cole Libby, Transformação e trabalho em uma economia escravista: Minas Gerais no século XIX (São Paulo: Editora Brasiliense, 1988); João Heraldo de Lima, Café e indústria em Minas Gerais, 1870–1920 (Petrópolis: Vozes, 1981); Ana Lúcia Duarte Lanna, A transformação do trabalho: a passagem para o trabalho livre na Zona da Mata mineira, 1870–1920 (Campinas: Editora da UNICAMP, 1988); John D. Wirth, Minas Gerais in the Brazilian Federation; Peter Louis Blasenheim, “A Regional History of the Zona da Mata in Minas Gerais, Brazil, 1870–1906,” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1982; Maria Efigênia Lage de Resende, “Manifestações oligárquicas na política mineira,” Revista Brasileira de Estudos Políticos (1979): 7–69.Google Scholar
  41. 49.
    Peter Evans, Dependent Development: The Alliance of Multinational, State, and Local Capital in Brazil (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  42. 50.
    Marshall C. Eakin, “Creating a Growth Pole: The Industrialization of Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 1897–1987,” The Americas 47:4 (April 1991): 383–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 51.
    The power of political and kinship networks has long been a subject of debate in studies of Minas Gerais. For a recent dissertation that addresses the subject see, Amilcar Vianna Martins, “The White Collar Republic: Patronage and Interest Representation in Minas Gerais, Brazil, 1889–1930,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1987. See also, Cid Rebelo Horta, “Famílias Governamentais de Minas Gerais,” in Segundo Seminário de Estudos Mineiros (Belo Horizonte: Universidade de Minas Gerais, 1956), 45–91. A new study of patronage, clientelism, and regionalism in the post-1964 era is Frances Hagopian, Traditional Politics and Regime Change in Brazil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  44. 53.
    Steven Topik, The Political Economy of the Brazilian State, 1889–1930 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987), especially chapter 4, “The Railway Network,” 93–128.Google Scholar
  45. 55.
    See, for example, William Roderick Summerhill, “Railroads and the Brazilian Economy Before 1914,” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1995.Google Scholar
  46. 56.
    Daniel de Carvalho, “A Formação Histórica de Minas Gerais,” in Primeiro Seminário de Estudos Mineiros (Belo Horizonte: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 1956), 54.Google Scholar
  47. 57.
    See, for example, Gail D. Triner, Banking and Economic Development: Brazil, 1889–1930 (New York: Palgrave, 2000).Google Scholar
  48. 58.
    For a sample of the literature on state planning and the role of technocrats see: Nathaniel H. Leff, Economic Policy-Making and Development in Brazil, 1947–1964 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1968); Robert T. Daland, Brazilian Planning: Development Politics and Administration (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1967); Octavio Ianni, Estado e plane-jamento econômico no Brasil (1930–1970) (Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 1971); Luciano Martins, Estado capitalista e burocracia no Brasil pós-64 (Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1985); Ben Ross Schneider, Politics Within the State: Elite Bureaucrats and Industrial Policy in Authoritarian Brazil (Pittsburgh, Penn.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991). Hagopian’s definition of technocrat is “those officeholders who had: an economics degree; an engineering degree; or a record of service” in public sector enterprises such as the state electrical utility (CEMIG), state steel corporation (Usiminas), the state highway division (DER), and the state development bank (BDMG). Hagopian, Traditional Politics and Regime Change in Brazil, 115.Google Scholar
  49. 59.
    Peter Louis Blasenheim, “A Regional History of the Zona da Mata in Minas Gerais, Brazil, 1870–1906,” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1982.Google Scholar
  50. 60.
    Maria Efigênia Lage de Resende, “Uma interpretação sobre a fundação de Belo Horizonte,” Revista Brasileira de Estudos Políticos 39 (1974): 129–161.Google Scholar
  51. 61.
    See, for example, the classic work of Raimundo Faoro, Os donos do poder: formação do patronato político brasileiro, 5a. ed., 2 v. (Porto Alegre: Globo, 1979). See also, Simon Schwartzman, Bases do autoritarismo brasileiro, 3a ed. (Rio de Janeiro: Campus, 1988). I should note here that although I agree that corporatism and patrimonalism have long characterized Brazilian society, I reject the ahistorical approach of the “cultural” theorists who place more emphasis on continuity than on change. For the concept of the cartorial state see, Hélio Jaguaribe, Political Development: A General Theory and a Latin American Case Study (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 476.Google Scholar
  52. 63.
    Roderick Barman, Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798–1852 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988).Google Scholar
  53. 64.
    José Murilo de Carvalho, Teatro de sombras: a política imperial (São Paulo: Vénic, 1988).Google Scholar
  54. 65.
    Richard Graham, Patronage and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Brazil (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
  55. 66.
    Fernando Uricoechea, O minotauro imperial (Rio de Janeiro: Difel, 1978).Google Scholar
  56. 67.
    Victor Nunes Leal, Coronelismo, enxada e voto: o município e o regime repre-sentativo no Brasil (Rio de Janeiro: Revista Forense, 1948).Google Scholar
  57. 70.
    See, for example, the classic biography, Afonso Arinos de Melo Franco, Um estadista da República, 3 v. (Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1955).Google Scholar
  58. 72.
    Nunes Leal, Coronelismo; Wirth, Minas Gerais in the Brazilian Federation; Joseph Love, São Paulo in the Brazilian Federation, 1889–1937 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1980); Robert M. Levine, Pernambuco in the Brazilian Federation, 1889–1937 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1978).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Marshall C. Eakin 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marshall C. Eakin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations