Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:09:42.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Latin America, Her Newly Industrialising Countries and the New International Economic Order

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

F. Parkinson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The New International Economic Order is an ill-defined concept which is nonetheless of considerable political importance. Non-existing in present-day international reality, it represents a vision, especially on the part of developing countries, of a future in which the latter will be an integral part of the world economy, instead of existing at its margins. As an idea, the New International Economic Order was given formal expression in 1974, though its historical roots go back to at least 1960.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , May 1984 , pp. 127 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

1 Hill, E. and Tomassini, L. (eds.), América Latina y el Nuevo Orden Económica Internacional (Santiago, Corporación de Promoción Universitaria, 1979), p. 6.Google Scholar

2 Roberto Russell and Teresa Carballal, in ibid., pp. 148 –150.

3 For relevant excerpts from a report presented by Prebisch at the meeting of ECLA at Mar del Plata, Argentina, in 05 1963, see Sigmund, P. E. (ed.), The Ideologies of the Developing Nations, 2nd. ed. (New York and London, Praeger, 1967), pp. 367–82. For Prebisch's recent shift of emphasis, see pp. 29–33Google Scholarof South (London), 01 1981.Google Scholar

4 For a brief comprehensive analysis, see Parkinson, F., The Philosophy of International Relations (Beverly Hills and London, Sage, 1977), pp. 123–6.Google Scholar

5 p. 168 in Hill and Tomassini, op. cit.

6 Baer, W., in Grunwald, J. (ed), Latin America and World Economy: A Changing International Order (Beverly Hills and London, Sage, 1978), p. 159.Google Scholar

7 P. 82 in Hill and Tomassini, op. cit.

8 P. 80 in ibid..

9 For a presentation of Cardoso's theory, see Cardoso, F. H. and Faletto, E., Dependencia y desarrollo en America Latina (Mexico City, Siglo Veintiuno, 1971).Google Scholar

10 P. 8 in Hill and Tomassini, op. cit.

11 Grunwald, op. cit., p. 12.

12 On this point see Rodríguez, O., La teorla de subdesarrollo de la CEPAL (Mexico City, Siglo Veintiuno, 1980).Google Scholar

13 Pp. 171–2 in Hill and Tomassini, op. cit.

14 Harvey, R., ‘Central America: A Potential Vietnam?’, The World Today, no. 38, ( 07– 08 1982). pp. 282–287.Google Scholar

15 Ffrench-Davis, R. and Tironi, E. (eds.), Latin America and the New International Economic Order (London, Macmillan in association with St Antony's College, Oxford, 1982), p. 240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 For the historical background, see F. Parkinson, op. cit., pp. 118–19.

17 P. 176 in Hill and Tomassini, op. cit.

18 Ffrench and Tironi, op. cit., p. 8.

19 ibid..

20 Financial Times, 28 07 1982;Google ScholarThe Economist, 20 11 1982.

21 For a general treatment of the phenomenon of the NICs, see Turner, L. and others, Living with the Newly Industrializing Countries (London, Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1980).Google Scholar

22 It was on Brazil's initiative that the so-called ‘framework group’ was set up by the Trade Negotiating Committee of the Tokyo Round of GATT negotiations in Nov. 1976, with a view to dealing with areas of particular relevance to developing countries.

23 For a general treatment of ECLA, see ECLA, Development Problems in Latin America (Austin, University of Texas Press, 1970).Google Scholar

24 Grunwald, op. cit., p. 15.

25 Orrego, F. and Lavados, I., in Hill, and Tomassini, , op. cit., pp. 107 and 293 respectively.Google Scholar

28 Russell and Carballal in ibid., pp. 157–8.

27 ibid..

28 As part of the Second Development Strategy of the United Nations (1971–81).

29 Parkinson, F., ‘The United Nations Integrated Programme for Commodities’, Current Legal Problems, no. 34 (1981), pp. 259–77.Google Scholar

30 Spraos, J., Inequalising Trade? A Study of Traditional North–South Specialisation in Context of Terms of Trade Concepts (London, Oxford University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

31 Junguito, R. and Pizano, D., in Ffrench-, Davis and Tironi, , op. cit., p. 52.Google Scholar

32 S. Teitel, in ibid., p. 117.

33 Junguito and Pizano, in ibid., pp. 62–7.

34 Conseil Intergouvernemental des Pays Exportateurs de Cuivre.

35 Martner, G., Producers Exporter Associations of Developing Countries: An Instrument for the Establishment of a New International Economic Order (Geneva, IFDA, 1979).Google Scholar See also Francis, L. B., ‘Producers' Associations in Relation to the New International Economic Order’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, no. 30 (1981), pp. 74–4.Google Scholar

36 Lietaer, B., Europe and Latin America and the Transnationals (Westmead, Farnborough, Saxon House, 1979), p. 66.Google Scholar

37 Text in Integración Latinoamericana, 06 1980.Google Scholar

38 On SELA, see Manfred, Mols, in Mols, M. (ed), Integration and Kooperation in Lateinamerika (Paderborn, Schöningh, 1981), pp. 249–310.Google Scholar

39 On transnational corporations in general, see United Nations Center on Transnational Corporations, Transnational Corporations (New York, 1980).Google Scholar

40 Lietaer, op. cit., p. 20.

41 Ffrench-Davis and Tironi, op. cit., p. 9.

42 Lietaer, op. cit., p. 35.

43 Evans, P. in Fagen, R. R. (ed.), Capitalism and the State in U.S–Latin American Relations (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1979), p. 303.Google Scholar

44 Montavon, R. and others, The Role of Transnational Companies in Latin America: A Case Study of Mexico (Westmead, Farnborough, Saxon House, 1979), p. 13.Google Scholar

45 Grunwald, op. cit., p. 13.

46 The late Professor H. G. Johnson has argued that it was presumably cheaper to transplant an already known technology to a different environment to which it is not appropriate than to develop a technology appropriate to it. See Johnson, H. G., Technology and Economic Dependence (London, Macmillan, 1975), p. 76.Google Scholar The crucial choice then seems to lie between expensive adaptation to avoid significant social and economic distortions or uncritical but relatively cheap transplantation of technology. See Lietaer, op. cit., p. 36.

47 The United Nations is willing to offer a helping hand. See United Nations, Measures Strengthening the Negotiating Capacity of Governments in their Relations with Transnational Corporations: Regional integration cum/versus Corporate Integration (New York, 1982).Google Scholar

48 Evans in Fagen, op. cit., pp. 304–5.

49 Montavon, op. cit., p. 110.

50 Evans in Fagen, op. cit., pp. 306–7.

51 Felipe Herrera in Grunwald, op. cit., p. 130.

52 Grunwald, op. cit., p. 234.

53 Ffrench-Davis and Tironi, op. cit., p. 177.

54 Hall, P. K., ‘Avance des transnacionalismo japonés y América latina’, Foro Internacional, 01–03 1983, pp. 287–304.Google Scholar

55 Lietaer, op. cit., p. 18.