48桑克尔.docx

48桑克尔.docx

《48桑克尔.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《48桑克尔.docx（13页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

48桑克尔

48.Sunkel

奥斯瓦尔多·桑克尔（OsvaldoSunkel），拉丁美洲著名经济学家，依附论的重要代表，北方与南方国家间“支配-从属关系”理论的提出者。

桑克尔在继承和发展阿根廷经济学家、拉美经济委员会和联合国贸易与发展会议首任秘书长劳尔·普雷维什的中心—外围理论的基础上，提出了支配—从属关系理论，为不发达理论（早期的依附论）向新依附论（或结构主义依附论）的发展作出重要贡献。

早期的依附论公开宣称追求马克思主义的信仰和社会主义，以马克思主义政治经济学的基本原理和方法来研究不发达问题，对资本主义的批判是直截了当的，革命色彩浓厚。

结构依附论既吸收马克思主义政治经济学的一般原理，也运用欧美自由主义经济学的分析方法，对资本主义本质和矛盾的批判是含蓄的，因而显示出较浓的改良主义色彩。

桑克尔就是这种思想方法的代表。

他强调中心—外围之间的结构性差异，注重外围国家内部非资本主义的落后结构与先进结构的并存关系，认为依附是中心国家资本主义发展的一个被动结果。

拉美国家不发达的大敌是跨国公司。

跨国公司向外围国家渗透的后果是，外围国家在工业发展、国际商品的生产与出口、投资、技术等方面受中心国家的控制。

桑克尔认为，出路不仅在于改革不合理的国际经济秩序，而且要改革不发达国家的国内政治经济结构。

本篇选自《大公司与依附》（BigBusinessandDependencia:

ALatinAmericanView），载于1972年《外交》杂志。

BigBusinessandDependencia:

ALatinAmericanView

ThewindsofeconomicnationalismareblowingstronginLatinAmerica.Therecentburstofnationalismisinfactareactiontolong-termandincreasinglyintolerabledependenceonforeigners.Thedevelopmentstrategyofindustrializationasasubstituteforimportswassupposedtofreetheeconomyfromitsheavyrelianceonprimaryexports,foreigncapitalandtechnology.Ithasnotonlyfailedtoachievetheseaims,buthasinfactaggravatedthesituationandnatureof“dependencia”1.

Initsinitialperiod,from1930toaround1955,thestrategystimulatedthegrowthofasignificantmanufacturingindustryandofthecorrespondingnationalentrepreneurialclass.Butsubsequentlyindustrywastakenovertoalargeextentbyforeignsubsidiaries,withtheresultthatmuchofthebenefitexpectedfromindustrializationhasgoneabroadinpaymentforcapitalequipment2andinatransferofprofits,royaltiesandotherfinancialpayments.Thishaseffectivelydenationalizedanderodedthelocalentrepreneurialclass.Althoughthemassivepenetrationofforeignfirmshasacceleratedgrowthrates,especiallyindustrial,ithasalsoaccentuatedtheunevennatureofdevelopment:

ontheonehand,apartialprocessofmodernizationandexpansionofcapital-intensiveactivities;ontheother,aprocessofdisruption,contractionanddisorganizationoftraditionallabor-intensiveactivities.3

Disguisedandopenunemployment—thatprocessofinternalpolarizationandsegregationwhichhasbeentermed“marginalization”—hasthereforebeenrising;togethertheyaccountforlevelsestimatedatover25percent,andtheyarestillincreasing.Owingtothisandtothefactthatthedevelopmentstrategiespursuedaimedattheformationandstrengtheningofareliablemiddleclass,incomeseemsatleastasheavilyconcentratedinthehandsofthewealthyasitwas20yearsago,allowingthemconsumptionlevelsandpatternssimilartothoseofhighandlowincomesintownsandinthecountrysideappearsinmostcasestohavewidened.

ThingsobviouslywentwrongwiththedevelopmentpoliciesandstrategypursuedaftertheSecondWorldWar.Inanutshell,theessenceofitslogicwasthatrapideconomicgrowthcouldbeachievedbyprotectingandstimulatingindustry,whicheventually,andwiththeaidofappropriatelygovernmentaction,wouldinducethemodernizationofothersectorsoftheeconomy.This,inturn,wouldimprovethesocialconditionsofthepeople,moreorlessfollowingthepatternoftheindustrialrevolutioninWesternEuropeandNorthAmerica.

Apparentlysomethingimportanthadbeenoverlookedwhichhinderedboththeimplementationandevenanadequateunderstandingoftheprocess.Intheconventionalapproachtounderdevelopment,theunitofanalysishasalwaysbeenthenationaleconomyinisolation,treatedasifitexistedinaninternationalvacuum.Myrdal4,Singer5,Nurkse6,aswellasPrebisch7andnumerouseconomistsfromunderdevelopedcountriesandUNagenciessuchastheEconomicCommissionforLatinAmerica8andtheUnitedNationsConferenceonTradeandDevelopment（UNCTAD）9haveemphasizedthesignificanceoftheforeigntradestructureofthesecountries—ascausinginstability,stagnation,deterioratingtermsoftradeandbalance-of-paymentsdifficulties.Theyhavealsopointedtoforeignfinancingandtechnicalaidashavingasignificantinfluenceontherateofgrowthandtheequilibriumoftheunderdevelopedeconomy.

Newstudiesof“dependencia”inindustryandrelatedsectorshaveledtoagreaterrecognitionofitsnatureandeffects.Tobeginwith,localdevelopmentandmodernizationareseennotinisolationbutaspartofthedevelopmentofaninternationalcapitalistsystem,whosedynamichasadetermininginfluenceonthelocalprocesses.Therefore,foreignfactorsareseennotasexternalbutasintrinsictothesystem,withmanifoldandsometimeshiddenorsubtlepolitical,financial,economic,technicalandculturaleffectsinsidetheunderdevelopedcountry.Thesecontributesignificantlytoshapingthenatureandoperationoftheeconomy,societyandpolity,akindof“fifthcolumn”10asitwere.Thus,theconceptof“dependencia”linksthepostwarevolutionofcapitalisminternationallytothediscriminatorynatureofthelocalprocessofdevelopment,asweknow.Accesstothemeansandbenefitsofdevelopmentisselective;ratherthanspreadingthemtheprocesstendstoensureaself-reinforcingaccumulationofprivilegeforspecialgroupsaswellasthecontinuedexistenceofamarginalclass.

Inotherwords,thisapproachconsidersthecapitalistsystemasawhole,asaglobalinternationalsystem,withinwhichnationaleconomies—nation-states—constitutesub-systems.Thesearenotcompletelyseparatedfromeachotherbutpartiallyoverlapping,owingtothefactthatnationaleconomiesinterpenetrateeachothertosomeextentintermsofproductivefacilities,technologies,consumptionpatterns,ideologies,politicalparties,culturalactivities,privateandgovernmentinstitutions.Accordingtothisapproach,itisnolongerpossibletoassumethatunderdevelopmentisamomentintheevolutionofasocietywhichhasbeeneconomically,politicallyandculturallyautonomousandisolated.

Thepresentinternationalpanoramaofcountriesatdifferentlevelsofdevelopmentisnotanaggregateofindividualhistoricalperformances;thedevelopmentprocessisnotsimplyaracewhichstartedsomewherebeforetheindustrialrevolutionandinwhichsomecountriesreachedadvancedstageswhileothersstagnatedormovedslower.The“dependencia”analysismaintainsthatoneoftheessentialelementsofthedevelopmentofcapitalismhasbeen,fromtheoutset,thecreationofaninternationalsystemwhichbroughttheworldeconomyundertheinfluenceofafewEuropeancountries,plustheUnitedStatesfromthelatenineteenthcenturyonwards.Developmentandunderdevelopment,inthisview,aresimultaneousprocesses:

thetwofacesofthehistoricalevolutionofthecapitalistsystem.

Duringthecolonialperiod,inordertoextractthepreciousmetalsandobtainthetropicalproductsneededbythemetropolis,Europeansinterferedwithexistingsocialrelationshipsandreorganizedlocaleconomiesonthebasisofslaveryandotherformsofforcedlabor.Thiscreatedthebasisforagrarianstructuresandinstitutionswhichhavesurvivedinsomeformuntiltoday.Duringthenineteenthandfirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury,theindustrialrevolutioninEuropeandlaterintheUnitedStatescreatedaworldeconomicsystemwhereEuropeandtheUnitedStatesinvestedheavilyintheproductionoffoodandrawmaterialsintherestoftheworld,whilespecializingathomeintheproductionofmanufactures.InLatinAmerica,totheagrariancolonialheritagewasaddedspecializationintheexportofstaplesandrawmaterialsandwithanothersetofsocio-economicandpoliticalstructuresandinstitutions,includingthenewdominantélites.

Thebreakdownofthenineteenth-centurymodelofinternationaleconomicrelationsduringthetwoWorldWarsandtheGreatDepressionopenedforLatinAmericaneconomiestheperiodofimport-substitutingindustrialization.Thismeant,inthelargercountriesoftheregion,theformationbythemiddleofthe1950sofasignificantmanufacturingsector,completewithitsentrepreneurialclass,professionalandtechnicalgroupsandindustrialproletariat,aswellasthenecessaryandancillarygovernmentandprivatefinancial,marketingandeducationalagencies.

Butduringthisperiod,whileEuropewasbeingravagedbywarandeconomiccrisis,theUSeconomydevelopedintothemostpowerfulcenterinthecapitalistworldandexpandedintotheeconomiesofbothdevelopedandunderdevelopedcountries,bringingaboutverysubstantialchanges,particularlyinthelatter.AtthesametimetheUSeconomyexperiencedimportantchangesinitsinternalstructure.GovernmentinterventionexpandedconsiderablywithintheUnitedStates,acceleratinggrowth,reducingcyclicalfluctuationsandcontributingtoafantasticdevelopmentofscienceandtechnology;allthishelpedproducelargebusinessconglomerates.Vasteconomic,technologicalandthereforepoliticalpowerhasenabledthemultinationalcorporation,throughthecontrolofthemarketingandcommunicationprocesses,toinduceconsumersandgovernmentstobuytheproductswhichitistechnologicallyabletoproduceinever-growingquantities.Withincertainlimitsitisthusabletoplanthedevelopmentofconsumption.

TheseinstitutionaldevelopmentsintheUnitedStatesarereflectedabroadasthenewmultinationalcorporationsspreadthroughouttheinternationaleconomy.Theiractivitiesfollowafairlydefinitepattern:

first,theyexporttheirfinishedproducts;thentheyestablishsalesorganizationsabroad;theythenproceedtoallowforeignproducerstousetheirlicensesandpatentstomanufacturetheproductlocally;finally,theybuyoffthelocalproducerandestablishapartiallyorwhollyownedsubsidiary.Intheprocessanewstructureofinternationaleconomicrelationsisemerging,wheretradebetweennationalfirmZofcountry