0

Domination and Collective Creation or Creativity and Dependence:

parallels between the thought of François Perroux and Celso Furtado

Alexandre Mendes CUNHA et Gustavo BRITTO

CEDEPLAR, Federal University of Minas Gerais

VERSION PROVISOIRE NE PAS CITER

Colloque organisé par l’ISMÉA, le CIAPHS et l’IMEC en partenariat avec :

1

1. Introduction

Despite significant contributions to a wide variety of subjects related to development

economics, François Perroux is not usually included in the rather exclusive club of authors of

what is now know as classical theories of development economics. His name, as well as any

part of his extensive body of work is virtually absent from the most important references of

the field throughout the second half of the twentieth century.

For instance, together with Gunnar Myrdal and Alfred Hirschman, Perroux is notably absent

from The Economics of Underdevelopment, the collection of papers and original

contributions organized by Agarwala and Singh, in the 1960s. Maybe even more noteworthy

is the complete lack of attention devoted to the author in Gerald Meier’s Pioneers in

Development [1984] as well as from Biography of a Subject: An Evolution of Development

Economics [2005], in which topics such as growth vs. development, culture, social capital,

institutions, trade, and impacts of globalization figure prominently.

This trend is in sharp contrast with what can be observed in the related fields of regional and

urban economics. In theses areas, the difficult task is to find a source a reference to Perroux is

absent. One explanation for this pattern is reasonably straightforward, given that for regional

economists Perroux's pole of development is at the very base of the learning ladder.

The consequence of this recurrent oversight is far reaching. As Higgins noted: “There exists

today a younger British, American Canadian and Australian economists who, if they know of

François Perroux at all know him only as the father of the 'growth pole' concept, and are quite

unaware of the depth and breadth of his contribution to economic thought” [Higgins, B.

(1988), p. 32)].

2

One could certainly extend such anglocentric interpretation to include the totality of the field

of economics as the rest of Europe and the Americas, as many other areas, have not been

impervious to the ever-narrowing field of vision of the profession.

More importantly, however, is the fact that even within regional economics, there exists a

long lasting misinterpretation of Perroux most well known concepts. For instance, the

concepts of pole of development and of growth pole, are part of a more general theory to

which the author devoted most of his efforts. In what came to be Perroux's last writings, this

point is made very clear: “(…)[T]he concept of pole of development cannot be considered in

isolation from the general theoretical interpretation to which it belongs. On the contrary, it is

an integral part of the analysis of development, as distinct from growth” [Perroux, F. (1988),

p.50].

This is just but one of the examples of the remarkable lack of attention given to Perroux’s

work during the early years of development economics. This negligence has important

consequences in the field. At the one hand, it hides the broader influence of his ideas on the

contribution of other well-known authors. On the other, given the originality of his pursuit of

a new concept of development, it detracts from contemporaneous discussions related to new

avenues of research aimed broadening the horizons of development economics in particular

and of economic theory in general.

The objective of this paper is to start making it right by François Perroux by offering and

exploratory reading of one of the most notable exceptions to the rule noted above, that of

Celso Furtado. Furtado’s views of the inner workings economic systems in general, and of

underdevelopment and of the possibility to bring about development in particular, have been

markedly influenced by Perroux.

This influence has been recognized by Furtado in general terms. However, given that parallel

intellectual paths of the authors as well as the similarity of the themes they have embraced,

3

one can speculate that the influence has been far reaching. The work, in this case is made

harder by Furtado's unusual writing stile and its parsimonious referencing for modern

standards. There are, we believe, many fruitful lines of investigation to be pursued regarding

these two authors. Here, we put forward two avenues in which the contributions of these two

authors show remarkable convergence.1

The first avenue relates to the concepts and ideas proposed by the authors in their path

throughout over half a century. In this case, the authors’ works share important characteristics

which can be illustrated by their concept and dynamics of development. From the way the

authors define development it is possible to illustrate similarities in the way their body of

work challenges the economic theory, establishes the condition of underdevelopment as an

integral part of the dynamics of the economic system, reinforces the importance of change of

economic and social structures to the processes of growth and development.

The second avenue can be defined by the broader arc described by the story of the authors in

their pursuit of an original understanding the economic system and the determinants of the

dynamics of development and growth.

In this case, the connections to be established are related to the authors' unwillingness to

analyze the socio-economic reality within the confinement of the current economics theory. In

their works the reader is permanently confronted with attempts to incorporate concepts from

other areas into the analysis. As a result, what can be seen is a process of permanently

perfecting and improving the concept of development which lead, ultimately, to the

discussion of creativity and culture. In this case, more than a parallel development of ideas, it

is possible to observe the direct influence of Perroux's thoughts on Furtado’s.

1 Albeit important, considerations regarding the author’s biographies are beyond of the scope of this paper. For

more on the intersection of their intellectual trajectories the main reference is Alain Alcouffe (2009). Other

relevant studies on the author’s biographies can be found in Gérard Destanne de Bernis (1978 and 2000) and

Carlos Mallorquin (2005).

4

2. Development, Underdevelopment and growth

The first area of convergence between the authors is the concept of development itself. This

perception may seem, prima facie, obvious, but as we will argue, it reveals a broader picture,

in which the proximity of other concepts and ideas become clearer.

In L’économie du XXème

siècle Perroux defines development as “la combinaison de

changements mentaux et sociaux d'une population qui la rendent apte à faire croître,

cumulativement et durablement, son produit réel global” [Perroux, F. (1964a), p. 158)]. The

definition, in itself, is rather similar to that other authors, Furtado included, insofar it is related

to the ultimate increase of a country’s domestic output. It is for no other reason, for instance,

that early development theorists devoted so much time and energy to more economic themes

such as that of productivity and productivity growth.

Similarly to other existing definitions, Perroux’s approach also includes themes which were -

and to some extent still are - on the fringe of the field of economics. For many reasons, some

of them rather pragmatic, most development theorists tended do focus on the economic

variables. On the one hand, in general terms and even more so for countries of very low levels

of income, the immediate concern was that of increasing the rate of output growth beyond that

of population. On another, the need to construct indicators and the restrictions imposed by

data availability gave the early pioneers very room for maneuvering.

Despite these factors, the Perroux chose the more tortuous path of focusing on the other type

of factors. This choice may be explained by an early understanding that, although observed

simultaneously in most cases, growth does not warrant development for a country or region.

In the absence of other transformations, output growth does not change the status of a nation.

5

In this sense, development can be interpreted as a permanent process, possible for any country

at any time, regardless of its level of output.2

The difference between the two processes becomes clear when Perroux describes the process

of development in strictly economics terms [Perroux, F. (1983), p. 33-34]. According to the

author, the process involves three levels. The first, concerns the creation of networks of agents

(firms, industries, regions), which become increasing linked within a country. The second

concerns the intensification of interactions between sectors and the reorganization resulting

from the sequence of actions and feedbacks. The third is related to improvements in

effectiveness and quality of human resources, which in turn provide increasingly more

sophisticated products.

In contrast, underdevelopment is linked with the inability to link parts within the economy,

either in function of lack of economic flows or deficient transport system, resulting in

enclaves economies; the lack of interaction between sector and agents coupled with

asymmetry in economic relations abroad, which tend to be determined unilaterally; and the

misuse of human resources.

As a consequence, the increase in absolute size of the existing parts and agents within an

economy disconnected from a change in one or more of the characteristics described above

are exemplary of the distinction between growth and development. This differentiation is

crucial for the purposes of this paper, for it exposes not only the parallel development the

authors' ideas around a single axis (development/underdevelopment), but also the cross-

pollination of ideas from Perroux to Furtado during the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The distinction between growth and development is also a conspicuous mark of Furtado’s

work. However, Furtado departs from the dialectic between development and

2 Hence, the concept is similar to that of Schumpeter, although its dynamics is considerably more complex for

Perroux. For a more detailed discussion, see Higgins (1989).

6

underdevelopment and, through time, as cycles of growth and industrialization fail to

overcome underdevelopment in Latin America, the author pushes the limits of economic

theory, broadening the horizons of his theory.

There are three main areas worth exploring. First, the dynamics of development is informed

by a much broader view of the functioning of economic systems as a whole. The need for a

systemic analysis permanently pushes the authors out of the limits of the standard economic

theory. Hence, the debate regarding development and underdevelopment is part of a more

audacious endeavor of unveiling the inner workings of economic systems.

Secondly, the broader view implies a distinct concept of underdevelopment as consequence of

the functioning of economics systems, as opposed to a temporary stage on the way towards

development or even a bizarre set of conditions, which define a special case. Higher levels of

development can co-exist indefinitely with lower levels of development. Even more so, lower

levels of development can be instrumental for regions and countries to attain higher levels of

development. In this sense, Perroux and Furtado distance themselves from early development

theories such as those put forward Rosenstein-Rodan, Hirschman, and Lewis, which tended to

analyze underdeveloped areas, or barriers to development, isolated conceptually from

developed areas.

Thirdly, and closely related to the previous two points, the concept of structure plays is for

both authors essential to understand, and to interfere with, the dynamics of development - as

opposed to growth. The economic structure simultaneously reflects the level as well as largely

determines a country’s possibilities of development. Hence, the process of development is the

process of structural change itself.

The dynamics of development, the dynamics of underdevelopment, and the relevance of

social-economic structures are interwoven in both authors’ theories. Albeit in different levels

7

of importance and in different moments in their intellectual trajectory, one can find these three

areas of connection in the theory and concepts the authors have put forward.

For Perroux, the impossibility to use the standard economic theory to describe the dynamic of

economic systems is what drives the development of general theory of the economy. In this

theory, the concept of dominance is central to his perception that social-economic relations

are essentially asymmetric and irreversible. In sharp and open opposition to general

equilibrium theory, agents are not passive price takers. Given that markets do not work under

perfect competition, homogeneous technology and information, agents have varying degrees

of power over each other.

It is in this context that the concept of dominant firm, sector or economy arises. Economic

relations between agents, sectors, regions and countries are thus essentially asymmetric in

nature, and the asymmetry is reproduced between countries whose agents have varying

degrees of dominance, which ultimately depends on their ability to innovate [Perroux, F.

(1964a)].

Given the that economic activities materialize in space, the process of growth and

development fostered by dominant agents give rise to the concepts of growth pole and pole of

development. The first is capable of inducing a quantitative increase of output in other areas,

while the latter is also capable of inducing a degree of qualitative improvement in other areas.

In other words, “[g]rowth operates in and through privileged points. Development 'springs up'

and 'ends in' privileged points” [Perroux, F. (1988), p. 50].

Active firms and can, and permanently do, set in motion a series of events which can lead to

lasting changes in the economic system. The knowledge of such events enables the act of

coercion, i.e., the possibility of an agent to willfully try to change the economic system by

enforcing its dominance. This perception is of paramount importance, given that it leads to the

idea of macro decisions. Dominant units, such as the state, can anticipate the effects of the use

8

of coercion and use it discretionarily to align action of groups of agents which would be

otherwise incompatible.

Macro-decisions are, in a sense, are akin to planning for the pioneers of development

economics insofar it involves interfering with the economic system. This includes either direct

state intervention as a producer, or action aimed at coordinating private companies to reduce

the risk and overall cost of investment. However, the concept of a macro-decision has a higher

level of complexity provided it can also be carried out by groups of dominant agents such as

industries, sectors, nations or a fraction of nations [Perroux (1964a)].

Furtado, also departs from a criticism of the standard economic theory. However, at first, the

focus of his criticism is focused on the theory’s failure to adequately account for the

characteristics and processes the dynamics of underdeveloped countries. In particular, Furtado

points out that by focusing the analysis on distribution rather than on the production side of

economics process, standard theory can dispense with a historical perspective.

At first, Furtado works with a concept of development similar to that found in other works

from the pioneers of economic development. Development is largely equated with

productivity gains associated with capital accumulation and the incorporation of new

technologies of production. Hence, the process of development takes place through the

combination of existing factors of production, given a technology, or through new

technologies.

However, Furtado’s historical-structural analytical method renders a much richer view

underdevelopment and of the process of development itself. Given that new production

techniques are in reality introduced on pre-existing economic structures, the main task of

development theory becomes the analysis of the impacts of the introduction of new methods

of production, its repercussions in terms of productivity gains, distributive patterns and use of

the social output. Hence, beyond the apparent similarity of definitions, Furtado’s emphasis on

9

the process of capital accumulation has a clearer purpose. By studying in detail how

industrialization processes took place, the author demonstrates that what was generally treated

by the growing literature as a relatively homogenous process – a process which was

commonly equated with development itself – was in and of itself the origin of the condition of

underdevelopment.

Furtado then turns to historical analysis to explain how distinct economic structures arose

from the expansion of capitalism after the Industrial Revolution. In his view, this process

takes place in three phases. The first consists in the spillover of the new methods of

production through Eastern Europe. The second phase sees such methods sprawling over

colonies of temperate climate fueled by international trade. In the thirds phase technologies

created by the industrial revolution gain space in relatively densely populated areas where a

pre-capitalist – although instrumental to capitalist structures – had already developed.

This distinction is crucial to Furtado’s concepts of development and underdevelopment, as the

phases define the type and depth of the impact of the new production techniques on the local

economy. More importantly, the phases also define the relationship between the productivity

gains associated with the process of development and the process of technological change

itself. The disconnection between the economic structure of country and the process of

technology creation generates hybrid structures in which modern and backward methods of

production co-exist.

Furtado thus argues that economic must be theory must have a separate set of concepts to

assess underdevelopment. As the process of dissemination of the productive methods of the

Industrial Revolution reach its third phase described above, it creates a distinct landscape. The

new modern activities, often associated with the pre-existent higher productivity export

sectors, co-exist with a wide variety of low productivity activities.

10

In the third phase, as the waves of the industrial revolution reach former colonial areas, the

initial stimulus to industrialization is given by foreign trade, which can set off development

process without the necessity of previous accumulation of capital.

From this starting point, new combination of factors of production are possible given the

import of new technologies and machinery. The resulting rise in income is concentrated in the

trading sector, which, at the one hand, creates a rising amount of economic surplus which can

be applied to further the process of accumulation, but, on the other hand, increases the level of

income concentration.

The growth dynamics is thus unconventional in underdeveloped countries. In developed

countries, which followed processes described in phases one and two above, productivity

gains associated with capital accumulation results in a cumulative cycle of income, profits and

wage (as demand increases) growth, which channel further resources to new investments.

In underdeveloped countries, given that the growing income tends to be concentrated in the

hands of a few groups, wages remains stagnant and the process of capital accumulation

subsides. Hence, the pace of development is connected to the functional division of income.

Once more, the historical analysis of how industrialization starts and unfolds in each country

is essential. According to Furtado, the investment theory inevitably depends upon the division

of income between investment and consumption; it cannot be determined in abstract terms.

As Furtado would so clearly argue, “[t]he result has almost always been the formation of

hybrid structures, part of which tended to behave as a capitalist system, and another to keep

itself within the previous structure” [Furtado (1961), p.180]. The process of creation of such

hybrid, dual economies, is associated with a specific international division of labor. Rather

than development proper, what takes place is a process of capital accumulation linked with

the modernization of consumption patterns. The latter is requirement, given that the local

production must find a market. In Furtado’s view, therein lies the main problem of

11

development. The late industrialization is by definition carried out with imported production

techniques which are essence inadequate to local factors of production. Such techniques were

gradually generated as the process of capital accumulation originally took place, substituting

progressively traditional structures by modern industrial activities.

Given the process described above, Furtado defines a developed country as one in which the

full employment of labor can be attained with full factor utilization. In this case, economic

growth, and productivity gains alike, is not dissociable from the process of introduction of

new production techniques. On the other hand, an underdeveloped economy is one in which

factors are permanently under-employed. Even with full utilization of capital there is

unemployment of labor. In this case, productivity gains stem from the transplantation of

known technology and from the shift of labor from traditional to modern sectors. Inefficiency

(low productivity) can either be a result of a mismatch between capital and labor, or, more

commonly, from the relative lack of capital, given that technical coefficients tend to be rigid.

Hence, the process of economic growth is associated with structural unemployment, which is

characteristic of underdeveloped countries.

3. Creativity, Collective Creation and Culture

The section above established some links between Perroux’s concept of development, in the

framework of his theory of domination, and Furtado’s own perspective, connected to his

views of underdevelopment, social heterogeneity, and planning. The works in which the

authors developed these ideas were published throughout the 1950s and 1960s. However, it is

in early 1970s that we can note a new dimension in the reflections of both authors. The

growing importance of the issue of creativity, in a broad sense, as a basic argument of

development conceptions is patent for both authors.

With regard to Furtado, the opening to this new set of ideas starts to take shape from in the

beginning of the decade, but it did not fully materialize until the publication of Creativity and

12

Dependence in the Industrial Civilization, in 1978.3 Despite the strong degree of coherence of

Furtado’s themes throughout his works we believe that there is actually a significant, and

arguably bold, shift from this time on in the core of his argument regarding underdevelopment

with the inclusion of the dimensions of culture and creativity. In his last writings Furtado

suggested a type of post facto linearity to his body of work, but as we have explored

elsewhere, in the beginning of the 1970s it is possible to see Furtado as someone who, having

reached the limit of his theoretical framework, felt compelled to make a bolder move in order

to widen the analytical scope of economics.

However, in an account of his trajectory published in 1973 he stated his desire of moving to a

different direction, but clearly could not say exactly how yet. He considered himself a

researcher, looking for answers to these questions and assuming the mission of continuously

pushing forward his hypotheses in times that already revealed the narrowing of the discursive

field of economics. However, in fact, until this time, his answers did not yet fully embrace the

theme of culture and creativity as they a few years later [see Cunha, A. M. and Britto, G.

(2011)].

Perroux, on the other hand, does not experience a major repositioning of its reflection on

development throughout this period. In fact, the tenets of his argument about the phenomenon

of development were already present in its enunciation of the problem in the early 1960s.

However, it can be argued that, similarly to what happened with Furtado, there is also in

Perroux’s work a definite and deliberated opening to the themes of creativity and culture.

The similarity of the themes in the context of a more general drive to fully understand the

dynamics of economics systems raises the question connection between the authors, even

though their trajectories are predominantly autonomous. What we will argue is that Furtado,

3 The title of the book in Portuguese is Criatividade e Dependência na civilização industrial. This is the same

title of the Frech translation (Créativité et dependence) published in 1981. The English translation, however, was

published in 1983 with another title: Accumulation and Development - the logic of industrial civilization.

13

as a former student and a lifelong reader of Perroux, would seek inspiration in the French

author for the shift of focus of this theoretical framework.

Even without explicit references to any of Perroux’s texts in his books, Furtado recognizes,

even if tardily, on his autobiographical writings and in a text prepared for the 6th

Conference

François Perroux, held at the Collège de France in 1994, the influence of Perroux in his work.

Extraordinarily, Furtado places this influence in that same level of that of Raul Prebish. As

pointed out by Alcouffe, there is also an indication of an influence in the opposite direction. It

is possible to argue about Perroux’s the perception of the importance of ideas Furtado,

regarding the inclusion of a footnote on the Brazilian author in one of the editions of his

L’économie du XXème

siècle [Alcouffe, A. (2009), p. 37].

Effectively there aren’t any quotations of Perroux’s texts of the theoretical writings of

Furtado. Even in a text written in honor of Perroux in 1994, it is more interesting to pay

attention in what Furtado leaves out of this explanation of its recognition than in what he

includes in his account. Furtado places Perroux’s influence on his work especially in terms of

the proximity to his global vision of the economy, a vision that he presents as inclusive and

non-reductive of the economic thought [Furtado, C. (1994)]. Nevertheless, Furtado does not

mention, for example, the Perroux’s connection to his understanding of the role of the state.

However, this is the topic to which Furtado gave more emphasis in an interview latter in his

life:

The thought of François Perroux was certainly the one that most influenced me, because of

the importance of his theory of “the growth pole”, which allows us to understand that

economic growth as a result of a political will. Perroux led me to think the role of the state. It

is only from the creation of the National State that we can speak of development [Furtado, C.

in Vieira, R. M. (2007), p. 420).

14

However, what is particularly interesting is Furtado’s lack of reference regarding what arises

as the most preeminent point of connection between the authors ideas, namely, the importance

given to the concept of creativity.

In this case, it is important to notice that the concept of development that Perroux puts

forward in L’économie du XXème

siècle includes another line of reasoning, that of the

construction (or production) of the men by men. From early in this concept had already gone

beyond the focus on the issue of growth of the real economy towards a consideration of the

indispensable mental and social changes to the development process [Perroux, F. (1964a),

p.157-8]. Perroux also introduced the dynamic of the creation, replacing the term innovation,

with the intent distance his arguments from the highly individualistic understanding of the

dynamics of innovation contained in Schumpeter.

For Perroux’s the understanding of the collective creation was a central. In L’économie du

XXème

siècle his approach to this issue was more closely related to a economic reasoning and

directly linked to the terms of his own theory of domination. In this sense, he calls the

“collective aspect of the economic creation” as what goes on beyond the personality of an

innovative personality and can be associated with the collective creation of economic reality

in the context of modern industrial society.

This is part of a highly complex plan in which political and administrative alliances are

mixed, as well as the scientific research organized by the State. All these these aspects are

essential to promote and propagate innovations [Perroux, . (1964a)], p. 650]. Nevertheless,

Perroux also suggests a framework to analyze creativity in a broader perspective, stressing the

idea of the collective creation as a part of man’s imagination. In a dialogue with the writings

of Gaston Bachelard, Perroux argues that collective creation is the centerpiece of the

invention of a new life (“c’est-à-dire des types d’inédits équilibre et de développements

15

humains”) and a new spirit (“c’est-à-dire des Neuves signification de la vie économique et un

renouvellement de la Notion habituelle de vie ‘economique’”) [Perroux, F. (1964a), p. 651].

This peculiar vision of development, and of an approach to the economic thought, creates

mechanisms to overcome individualism as an analytical framework, and can better understood

taking into account Perroux’s affiliation to the humanism. The humanist framework is in

essence what gives meaning to his global vision of the economy. Hence, there are interesting

possible connections of his work within the one of Louis-Joseph Lebret. In an obituary

dedicated to celebrating the “presence” of Lebret, Perroux summarizes the motto of his own

humanist vision of the economy in a description of the legacy of Lebret: “L’animateur de

Économie et Humanisme qui a su réunir et former des équipes nombreuses et ardentes, a été

l’un des premiers à comprendre que l’économie de tout l’homme et de tous les hommes, c’est

l’économie elle-même » [Perroux, F. (1966), p. 459-60).

However, it was not in L’économie du XXème

siècle where the themes of creativity and

collective creation would assume a definite position in the argument Perroux. Some years

later, in 1964, together with the second expanded edition of L’économie du XXème

siècle,

Industrie et création collective : I Saint-simonisme du XXème

siècle et création collective is

published. In this book, Perroux presented the ideas of Saint-Simon, considered as a modern

author, in order to examining the question of collective creation. Perroux proposes a reflection

of the “virtualités” of these issues in the last third of the twentieth century, which he interprets

as specially defined by the phenomenon of industrialization in the atomic and spatial age.

Saint-Simon also serves to Perroux as a counterpoint to the appreciation of Marx. Perroux

notes that already in the Manuscripts of 1844, Marx explained the idea of “creation of man by

human labor” (which he after would developed throughout his work), however in perspective

that as put the creation of man linked to their own work, also tends to excluded any room for a

divine dimension [Perroux, F. (1965), p. 157].

16

The idea of creation to Perroux goes beyond the Marxian perspective and relies on the

complexity and multiplicity of possibilities contained in the irreducible uniqueness of every

human being. Thus, it creates a scenario in which men and mankind are constituted in a state

of “virtual creation”, producing without ceasing a permanent creative movement. In this

perspective, neither the one who creates nor the one who receives the fruit of the creation,

runs out of energy for carrying out the work itself [Perroux, F. (1965), p. 164-5].

In this work Perroux works constantly with the idea of a virtual dimension, the dimension of a

possible future. In other words, he deals with “virtualités”, i.e., what exists in a potential form

in the reality, as well as the contrast between the reality and the furtherance of these

possibilities in the future. It is important to mention, least to suggest another direction in the

connected influences, that this perspective of the work with the “virtualités” is very close, in

many aspects, to the analytical framework and method of Henri Lefebvre.

Perroux moved away at that point from the issue of the “production” of man by man to

dedicated to the understanding the “creation” of man by man. For him, it is ultimately a

matter of “recognition” of man by man in terms of their shared humanity, which if something

that evokes the only truly human progress, a progress in freedom and consciousness [Perroux,

F. (1965), p. 183].

In that same year, 1964, Perroux would also published an article in which he, inclusive in the

title, foreshadows the theme of the next volume of Industrie et Création Collective. He

explores the idea of a new man, both as reality and virtuality. In the article he departs from the

perception that we not only live in a time marked by collective creations, but in one animated

by the spirit of collective creation. He develops a specific reflection on the image of this new

man, anticipating in the levels of analysis that he would developed more extensively in the

next book: the achievements of the man of the earthly achievements, the man of the progress,

and the planetary man.

17

The final point is again, in other words, a reaffirmation of the identity between creation and

freedom, seeking the inspiration for this analytical movement, precisely in the images of the

most exciting performers of such creative combinations: the artists and poets. In Perroux’s

own words: « Au fond, les images de l’homme heureux, les images du Bonheur, et les images

de l’homme créateur, les images de la Création, sont des images d’un homme qui se veut

différent, d’un homme qui change et qui désire de changer parce qu’il perçoit, premièrement

sa souffrance et son inertie. Qu’il veuille changer, être nouveau sans cesse — marchant vers

quel horizon ? progressant vers quel terme ou plutôt refusant tout terme de sa progression —

c’est le plus haut témoignage de sa liberté vécue. Et qu’il ait aujourd’hui le désir et les

moyens de se changer en changeant tous les autres, par le dialogue et par la transformation de

choses, c’est une preuve des progrès de la libération de l’espèce.

(…) Chaque aube, alors, sera celle d’un premier jour de création, et nous pourrons — chacun

et tous — nous rendre ce témoignage que nous avons entrepris de surmonter le bonheur

même, au nom de la Liberté » [Perroux, F. (1964b), p. 648].

It is in fact in 1970, with publication in the same year of the second volume of In

: II - Images de l’homme nouveau et techniques collectives and of

, that finally would be presented the main arguments of

Perroux about the creativity and the collective creation.

In the second volume of Perroux continues the exploration of

the phenomenon of creativity and collective creation, evaluating what for him were the main

questions suggested by the second half of the 20th

century, with particular attention to the

collective research techniques in relation to production, to the information, and to the

techniques of the State in the domain of the industrial society.

Throughout this text it is possible to see that Perroux embodies a particular vision of

development, in terms of a collective development, marked by a humanistic and engaged

18

point of view: “Dès qu’on n’accepte plus la destruction d’êtres humains, voisinant avec des

progrès ambigus et concentrés, on est engagé dans la voie de ce développement

collectif ” [Perroux, F. (1970b), p. 115]

The general line of argumentation remains marked by the use of the “virtualités”, seeking a

treatment for the present reality mingled with the possibilities of construction of tomorrow’s

world. For the author, the substance of collective creation is always the man himself and all

the men, which effectively brings in its essence a creation full of potentialities, of

“virtualités”: “Les hommes sont en état de création virtuelle : ils sont porteurs d’images

projetantes et désirantes sans cesse renouvelées, et de techniques rationnelles qui en font des

ouvrages et des œuvres” [Perroux, F. (1970b), p. 281].

Perroux in would give another essential step. In this book he

starts from a dialogue with Marx and from an investigation of the processes of alienation in

the industrial civilization. The objective is to propose a link between collective creation and

alienation, resulting in a course to where the permanent rupture with the alienation would

follow from the humanization of society.

The general terms in which the reasoning is constructed are: creation as the opposite of

alienation and awareness of oneself and the ability to make free decisions as a basis for an

effective humanization [Perroux, F. (1970a), p. 121].

It is particularly interesting the parallel between Perroux intimate awakening from the

alienation and the social one, highlighting the importance of dialogue in this process: “La

désaliénation intime et la désaliénation sociale s’entre-conditionnent donc étroitement,

comme la création personnelle et la création collective. Le dialogue est le moyen privilégié de

cette création, parce qu’il désubjective sans chosifier, parce qu’il est une collaboration pour

l’éveil et l’autonomie réciproques, et parce qu’il est inépuisable comme la spontanéité de

l’esprit et comme les valeur que l’esprit vise” [Perroux, F. (1970a), p. 124].

19

The result of the social awaking from the alienation would be the emancipation of man from

all the social automatisms. For Perroux, what presented at that time, as possibilities in the

horizon, was one of three “typical behaviors”: 1) the collective destruction of man; 2) the

collective “manufacturing” of man; and 3) the collective creation of man. We can effectively

learn the fundamentals of this book and some of the core of Perroux’s global vision with his

considerations on this third point: “Cette extrapolation utopique prolonge des tendances

observées ; elle a pour destination ici de mettre en pleine lumière la troisième option en

examen : la création collective de l’homme par l’homme. Celle-ci se réalise par l’invention

d’un milieu qui favorise l’épanouissement de chaque être humain et de tout l’homme en

chaque homme. Sa mis en œuvre exclut que l’homme puisse être un fabricat et qu’il puisse

jamais réaliser sa nature et reconnaître celle d’autrui en échangeant des objets, des fabricats.

C’est bien l’invention et la découverte de conditions favorable à la prise de conscience de soi

et à la formation de décisions autonomes par les hommes et par les groupes humains qui sont

revendiquées, en fin d’analyse, par tous les systèmes sociaux qui se forment à l’âge

industriel » [Perroux, F. (1970a), p. 132].

In order to understand the dialogue between the authors with respect to creativity, it must be

first said that Furtado, a clear humanistic perspective cannot be found in his texts. Furtado

undoubtedly has a humanist culture, which took shape in particular from intellectual contacts

in France since his student days. However, this does not seem to be the way through which

the thought of the two authors were interconnected..

What one can suggest is a general humanistic inclination in Furtado’s thought, but not

constituting an essential element of his analysis. In particular, in comparison with the

specificity of Perroux humanism, the Brazilian has no association to regilious thought.

The path followed by Furtado on the theme of culture, creativity and creation, are effectively

presented, as mentioned above, in the book Creativity and Dependence in Industrial

20

Civilization, published in 1978. In Bernis views, what happened was a “détour productif par la

culture”: « Mais pour comprendre son “Que faire , trop original

et trop riche pour que je ne m’y arrete pas maintenant. Se posant implicitement les questions :

“pourquoi l’innovation ici et pas ailleurs ?”, “pourquoi ce type d’innovation et pas un autre

qui aurait don

»

[Bernis, G. D. (1998), p. 64].

Furtado defined Creativity and Dependence in Industrial Civilization in the preface to the

original edition as an “academic anti-book”. As he outlined: “the problems are too broad to fit

into the test-tubes of the social sciences – though this does not prevent then from appearing in

more solemn tomes under guises suited to individual taste” [Furtado, C. (1983), p. iv].

The backbone of the text are the chapters two and three (The emergence and spread of

industrial civilization: 1 and 2), as Alfredo Bosi rightly pointed out [Bosi, A. (2008), p. 13]. In

these chapters, Furtado analyses, from a historical and structural perspective, the long run

process that results in industrial capitalism and European bourgeois hegemony. Undoubtedly,

therein lies the nucleus of Furtado’s idea of industrial civilization. The text also reveals how

the diffusion of this type of society is the propagation of the same process which led to the

industrialization of the Occident, given that in some cases the process resulted from the

reactive behavior of countries which saw their sovereignty or dominant geographical position

threatened.

It is in the second chapter, for instance, that Furtado advances in the perception of the

interrelation between progress and dehumanization of the individual in the industrial

21

civilization. This is undoubtedly an important issue to points out an approximation with

Perroux’s analytical framework: “Development is thus a process of reshaping social relations

founded on accumulation. From this viewpoint, there will be little difficulty in understanding

that if accumulation becomes an end in itself (when it becomes the basis of the social

domination system) the process of creating new social relations becomes merely a means of

achieving this end. The inexorability of progress, leading to the dehumanization of the

individual in industrial society, is an outcome of this historical process” [Furtado, C. (1983),

p. 46].

In chapter four, Furtado elaborates with a high degree of sophistication how, in

underdeveloped countries, the idea of progress gave place to that of development. He also

confronts the problem of how the industrialization in the context of dependency would not

only constitute a historical stage of a process that would lead the underdeveloped economies

to a process of development, but would not warrant any evidence that the same process would

lead to stable social structures. In particular, it is flagrant that the main example of such

process, even though there is no direct explicit reference, was the Brazilian case. Instead of

stability, Furtado describes a scenario of increasing social heterogeneity, with reflexes on

urban marginalization and political instability, which would open space to “preventive”

authoritarianism.

In this context, Furtado unveils the ideological traps that were particularly pertinent to his

country at the time, indicating the fallacy of the idea that the authoritarianism worked as an

instrument designed to foster rapid accumulation. As he argued: “Since development is an

expression of the capacity to create original solutions to the specific problems of a society,

authoritarianism frustrates true development by blocking the social processes that foster

creativity” [Furtado, C. (1983), p. 81].

22

However, it is from the fifth chapter onwards, that Furtado pondering on on the future and the

possibilities to transform the current reality. This is done in an analytical style that I akin to

“virtualités” and that, as well as Perroux, decidedly qualifies as an attitude of a realistic

utopia. Creativity becomes the key word from this part onwards, and the argument threads its

way into the next chapter (Dependence in a unified world), in which interrelation between

cultural dependence and technological dependence is made clear.

After the exercise of retrospective analysis carried out in the seventh chapter, Furtado

concludes the book with the chapter “In search of a global view”, in which amidst a

philosophical investigation driven by the question of human freedom, he sees a myriad of

possibilities of resistance to the oppression imposed by the planetary expansion of the

industrial civilization. These possibilities take the form of social forms of organization as well

as of political activism that are themselves the most authentic manifestations of creativity.

The chapter is the most unrestrained one in an already unconventional book.

It is in this last chapter in which we can more easily and directly pointing out similarities

between the text of Furtado and Perroux’s ideas. The influence of the French author seems

clear in this chapter both in the form of conducting the argument “in search of a global vision”

(years later echoed in the title of Furtado’s text in honor of Perroux), and in particular in the

content of the argumentation, which indicates a connection between creativity and genuine

development made possible by freedom. This is the direction sought at the conclusion of the

chapter and the book: “What are at stake are the fostering of creativity in its most noble area,

which is the artistic creativity; man’s relationship with nature; and the social support required

for the reproduction of the species. In all three cases, the emerging conflicts have taken the

form of rejecting the structures of social confinement, of an affirmation of personal identity

and a demand for freedom. It is as though man despaired of ‘perfecting’ the machinery he has

created, of criticizing reason in terms derived from reason itself, of defending himself against

23

technology by inventing more technology. In shifting course, he is returning to the source, re-

establishing contact with his own secret dimensions, becoming fully aware. And he is taking

this stand on fundamentals, the very essence of the human, which if the desire for freedom

[Furtado, C. (1983), pp.193-4].

Even without recognizing explicitly Perroux influence on their own views on the issue of

creativity and culture, Furtado presents in his “Retour à la vision globale de Perroux et

Prebisch” some considerations, without indicating as their own or as Perroux’s, that helped

shaping this dialogue. He identifies, for example, the link between the idea of new cultural

values and development: « Dans sa double dimension de force génératrice de nouveaux

excédents et d’impulsion créatrice de nouvelles valeurs culturelles, ce processus libérateur

d’énergies humaines représente la dernière source de ce que nous considérons comme le

développement » [Furtado, C. (1994), p. 172].

Likewise, there is a link between cultural creativity and the multiple and unfathomable

potentialities of man: « La merveilleuse gamme de cultures qui ont surgi sur la terre témoigne

du fabuleux potentiel de créativité de l’homme. Si nous savons quelque chose du processus de

créativité culturelle, c’est exactement ceci : le possibilité de l’homme sont insondable ; a des

niveaux d’accumulation qui nous paraissent aujourd’hui extrêmement vas ont jailli des

civilisation qui, sous de nombreux aspects, n’ont pas été dépassées » [Furtado, C. (1994), p.

172].

Finally, there is the avowed intention, clearly and directly stated, to take part in the same kind

realistic utopia, which in Perroux is connected with an European humanist tradition: « En

effet, c’est par la volonté politique que l’homme est capable de dépasser cette logique

perverse et de parvenir à façonner son histoire. Ce qui est nouveau de nos jours, c’est

l’évidence de l’universalité de l’histoire, de l’interdépendance de tous les peuples. Puisqu’il

peut détruire la planète, l’homme contemporain n’a pas de salut hors d’une croissante

24

solidarité œcuménique. Les fondements de cette solidarité, nous disait François Perroux,

doivent être intelligibles à tous, susceptibles d’être communiqués rationnellement, dans la

ligne d’une pensée qui nous lie à la grande tradition humaniste européenne » [Furtado, C.

(1994), p. 180].

3. Final Considerations

There are in fact many points of connection between Furtado and Perroux in regarding to their

perceptions of development issues. Both authors are important for unconventional visions of

economic thought, having carried out, at different times of their lives, innovative reactions to

the narrowing of the economic discourse. There is a picture of reciprocal influences over

which is possible to perceive both the influence of Perroux on Furtado, but also identify

Perroux as a reader of his former student.

One of the fundamental connections between Furtado and Perroux is the influence of the latter

on the first in terms of presenting an overview of systemic economic dynamics with direct

implications for the development issue. But, more than that, there is also, as we expected have

shown here, an important and unreported connection between the two authors in the field of

creativity, culture and collective creation.

Even though the recognition of the general influence of Perroux in his work, Furtado is rather

vague in his own account. What seems to summarize meaning of these interconnections

between the themes of these pursued by the two authors is that Furtado, in a autonomous and

original way, carried with him the lessons of Perroux classes at the University of Paris.

Moreover, he constantly renewed these lessons it in the following decades by reading of

Perroux’s subsequent works, which can be found in his personal library. This influence is

responsible for a perceptibly mark of the French author, visible in different places, even if not

soundly announced, in Furtado’s creative development economics.

25

The analysis above is suggestive, however, that this agenda for thinking about development

issues, collected here based on the contributions of Celso Furtado and Fraçois Perroux, is,still

valid and increasingly urgent, particularly with regard to creativity and culture

References

Agarwala, A. N., Sing, S. P. (ed.) [1958], The Economics of Underdevelopment. Oxford

University Press, London.

Alcouffe, A. [2009], “Furtado, o Brasil e os economistas franceses: influências cruzadas” In:

Coelho, F. S. and Granziera, R. G. (eds.), Celso Furtado e a Formação Econômica do Brasil

(Edição Comemorativa dos 50 anos da publicação 1959-2009), Atlas, São Paulo.

Bernis, G. D. de [1998], “Furtado et l’économie mondiale”, Cahiers du Brésil Contemporain,

n° 33-34, p. 59-67.

Bernis, G. D. de [2000], “François Perroux (1903-1987)” In: Arestis, P. and Sawyer, M.

(eds.), A Biographical Dictionary of Dissenting Economists, 2nd edition, Edward Elgar,

Northampton, MA.

Bosi, A. [2008]. “Prefácio - Celso Furtado: Rumo a uma visão holística” In Furtado, C.

Criatividade Dependência na Civilização Industrial (Edição Definitiva), Companhia das

Letras, São Paulo.

Cunha, A. M., Britto, G. [2011], “When Development meets Culture: the contribution of

Celso Furtado in the 1970s”, Texto para discussão (Working Paper), nº 429, Cedeplar/UFMG,

Belo Horizonte.

Furtado, C. [1961], Desenvolvimento e subdesenvolvimento, Fundo de Cultura, Rio de

Janeiro.

Furtado, C. [1981] (original edition 1978), Créativité et dépendance, Presses Universitaires de

France, Paris.

Furtado, C. [1983] (original edition 1978), Accumulation and Development: the logic of

26

industrial civilization, St. Martin’s Press, New York.

Furtado, C. [1994], “Retour à la vision globale de Perroux et Prebisch”, Economie Appliquée,

Tome XLVI, nº 3, p.171-180.

Furtado, C. [2000], “Celso FURTADO (born 1920)” In: Arestis, P. and Sawyer, M. (eds.), A

Biographical Dictionary of Dissenting Economists, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.

Higgins, B. [1988]. “François Perroux” In: Higgins, B. and Savoie, D., Regional Economic

Development: Essays in honour of François Perroux, Unwin Hyman, Boston.

Mallorquin, C. [2005], Celso Furtado: um retrato intelectual. Contraponto, Rio de Janeiro.

Meier, G. M. [2005], Biography of a Subject: An Evolution of Development Economics,

Oxford University Press, New York.

Meier, G. M., Seers, D. [1984], Pioneers in Development, Oxford University Press, New

York.

Perroux, F. [1964a], L’économie du XXème

siècle, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.

Perroux, F. [1964b], “L’image de ‘l’homme nouveau’ et les techniques collectives du second

XXe siècle”, Tiers-Monde, Volume 5, nº 20, p. 637-648.

Perroux, F. [1965] (original edition 1961), Indústria e Criação Coletiva: I Sain-Simonismo do

Século XX e Criação Coletiva, Livraria Moraes Editora, Lisboa.

Perroux, F. [1966], “Présence du R. P. Lebret”, Tiers-Monde, Volume 7, nº 27, p. 457-460.

Perroux, F. [1970a], , Gallimard, Paris.

Perroux, F. [1970b], : II - Images de l’homme nouveau et

techniques collectives, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.

Perroux, F. [1983], A New Concept of Development. Unesco, Paris.

Perroux. F. [1967], A Economia do Século XX, Livraria Morais Editora, Lisboa.

Vieira, R. M. [2007], Celso Furtado: Reforma, Política e Ideologia (1950-1964), EDUC, São

Paulo.