Conclusion

Abstract

THE diversity of experience of four countries which were subjected to many of the same outside influences underlines the analytical limitations of studies such as this which concentrate so heavily on external factors. Of course, trade, foreign investment and immigration need to be investigated, but more attention must be given to how they affected and were affected by the course of political and social change within each country. The case studies also suggest that the dependentista challenge to the liberal diffusionist view of economic and social change has not been adequately supported by substantive historical research. For example, there is little evidence that in post-independence Latin America there were genuine opportunities for relatively autonomous, self-generating economic development. Furthermore, a study of the first world war period indicates that at least for Brazil and Argentina export growth and links with the international economy encouraged rather than hindered industrial development. It also appears that contrary to Frank’s theses of stagnation and the ‘creation of underdevelopment’ there was a very substantial degree of materially progressive change in many parts of Latin America in the century before 1930.