Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mención

download Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mención

of 24

Transcript of Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mención

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    1/24

    Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin AmericaAuthor(s): Marcos KaplanReviewed work(s):Source: International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, Vol.6, No. 1, The Future of the State (1985), pp. 81-103Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1600971 .

    Accessed: 24/09/2012 03:26

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

    content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

    of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

    .

    Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toInternational

    Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique.

    http://www.jstor.org

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1600971?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1600971?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd
  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    2/24

    RECENT TRENDSOF THE NATION-STATEIN CONTEMPORARYLATIN AMERICAMARCOS KAPLAN

    The nation-statencontemporaryatin Americahas increasinglyended o its growth,autonomization,nd supremacys anapparatus, n nstitution,nembodiment fpublicElites, nd as the mainagency f thestructure,peration, nd developmentf nationalsocieties.This processhas coexistedrecentlywith crisisof thestatethreateningtsautonomy nd capacity.The causes, characteristics,nd consequencesof the state'sascent,ts nterventionismndautonomization,nd ts imits nd crises reanalyzed.Theweight f historical eritage,he ontemporaryactors ndprocesses, oth nternationaland internal,ndtheir nteractionsre considered. hehypothesiss advancedthat hecrisis f henation-stateoesnot xclude, nd on the ontraryeinforces,hepossibilityfits continuitynd increased nterventionismnd autonomization nder a variety fpolitical ypes ndforms.

    The national tatentheprincipal atinAmerican ountries as tendedmore and moretowardexpansion, utonomy, nd supremacy, s anapparatus nd as an institution,s the ncarnation f thepublicelitesand as society'smainactor. However, heculmination fthis creoleLeviathan"now eems o coincidewith ts risis. t s thereforeertinentto inquire s to recent rends f the state.This attemptnvolves wosimplifications:he firsts to treatLatin America s a whole,withoutconsideringheheterogeneityfcountries ndregimes; he econd s ofsettingut thecentral uestionsntheirmostgeneral erms.'Theinsufficiencyfmostofthe ttemptsttheorizingnd conduct-ing empirical esearch n the Latin American tate, ue to the restric-tions mposedbythe ocialcontext2s well as bythepredominancefreductionist pproaches-juridical formalism, ogmatic Marxism,3and structuralunctionalism4-pointut the mportance f a differentperspective.5his newperspectiveeads us to discover hat hestate'stendencyowardnterventionism,utonomization,ndsupremacyon-International Political Science Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, 1985 81-103@ 1985 International Political Science Association

    81

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    3/24

    82 THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

    stitutesheprevailing istorical eality fthemaincountries f theregion.THE STATIST TRADITION

    The conquest ndcolonizationndertakenndcontrolledy bsolu-tist states mposeda dynamic f centralization,mnipotence,ndomnipresencef he tate arly n.A powerfulolitical-administrativeapparatus ssumedthetasksofterritorialccupation, rbanization,organizationfthe ocioeconomicystem,nd regulationfconflict.The local bureaucraticlitegreatlynfluencedheterritorynder tsauthority;tbecame source fpower,wealth,ndprivilege.hismadethe truggleor ontrol fthepolitical-administrativepparatus ssen-tial and contributedo the tendency ortheself-sustainednd self-accumulatingrowthf hebureaucracytself,f tspowersndspheresof ction, ndtothe mergencef constellationfgroupsnd nterestsaround t Kaplan,1969a,1969b, 98 a: ChapterII; Bagu,1949, 952;Haring, 963;OtsCapdequi,1941;Zavala, 1972).

    Thestate hatdeveloped romheperiodofnational ndependenceand organizationnwarddid so in the followingontext: ependentinsertionn the worldorderand an internationalivisionof laborstructurednderthehegemony f western urope and theUnitedStates; n economynddevelopmentasedon rawmaterialxports;hierarchicalndrigid ociety,nd anoligarchicalolitical rder. tateconstruction as accomplished y meansof the destructionf thetraditionalrder, fgeneralizedonflictnddisequilibrium,fforeignand civilwars, fanarchynd caudillismo. hestate roseandflour-ishednot as themere esult fthis ontext or s the nstrumentfthenewoligarchy.npart, tpredated henew order; npart, t wascon-structedccordingo ts wnrealitynd ogic; hats, tfoundn tselftsownprinciplesf determinationKaplan, 1969a,1969b;PintoSantaCruz, 1962;CarreraDamas, 1980;Burgin, 946;Proyecto Construc-cionde una Nacion,1980;Cotler,1982;Garcia,1981;Brewer-Carias,1975;Martins, 976;VegaC., 1981).Newelitesintellectual,olitical,military)onstitutedhemselvesntheprocess f tate onstructionnd,throught, nthe onstructionfneweconomies nd societies. he statedeveloped s an apparatus;tacquiredpersonnelhat dentified itht,a progressivetructurendinstitutionalization,nda relativelyutonomous ublic pace. tdiffer-entiatedtself nd mposedts utelagever societyhathadfor longtime een morphousnd ncapable fregulatingtself,arelyoexten-sivewith heoligarchynd ts ubordinatederiphery,lien omajori-

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    4/24

    Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA 83

    tieswithout epresentationrparticipationntherestrictedoliticalmarket. hestate ndthepublic litedifferentiatedhemselvesnvary-ingdegrees romhenewoligarchy; ogetherhey roduced ndorgan-ized it. Theyresolved heproblemofhegemony,haringtwiththedominant ocioeconomicclass with whichtheypartiallyntegratedthemselvesymeansoftheir ontrol fthe tate.The public elite, by its own initiativend in agreementwiththeoligarchy,mportedndadaptedthemodelof a sovereign,entralized,republican,epresentativetate, nder herule f aw,with division fpowers and with ndividualrights nd guarantees.This modelwassuperimposedn a heterogeneousetoftraditionalowers, tructures,and practices hatrejected r refractednd underminedt in its truefunctioning.xternal ependence,marked ocioeconomic ndregionalinequalities,nd theconcentrationfpoliticalpower nthehandsofminoritieseduced r mpeded he ffectivepplication f heprinciplesand forms f stateunity nd supremacy, opularparticipation,ndrepresentativeemocracy. he statethereforeppeared as essentiallyoligarchical,aking heform f unifyingutocracy,r of democracywith imited articipation,r of a combination f thetwo.Constitutednthisfashion, he state nstitutionalizedtselfndthenew ystemfdominationndexploitation.tacquired napparatus fgovernment,dministration,nd coercion, nd organized he armedforces,making hem erformnder hewatchwordsfprofessionalism,bureaucratization,oyalty,nd subordination o thecivilpower.Thestatepromoted hegrowthndmodernizationfeducation nd tech-nology; eveloped ndcontrolledhepress; ndestablished contradic-tory nd complexrelationshipwiththeCatholicChurch.The stateassumed crucialrole n the mpositionfsolutions o theproblem fhegemony o thebenefit f an allianceofpublic lites nd oligarchicalgroups; nthe mplantationfthe onditions equired or he dvance-ment fthe model ofgrowth, conomy, ndsociety;n thesuccessfulintegrationf theeconomyand of thecountryn the internationalsystemndthe nternationalivision f abor; ntheaccomplishmentandmaintenancef egitimacy;ndof onsensus oward he tate tself.The state and thepublicelite constitutedhemselves hile, t thesame ime, hapinghe mergentconomyndsociety, ndcontributingdecisivelyo theformation f the newoligarchy. ettheynever om-pletelymergedwith heoligarchy rthe ystem. romtheoutset, heliberalmodelencompassed ariouspossibilities.On the one hand,thedifferentiationetween he stateand civilsociety, etween hepolitical phere nd theeconomic phereof freeenterprisendfreemarket,ed tothe tate's endencyo assume wide

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    5/24

    84 THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

    range of interventions,unctions,nd powers, nd towardpoliticalmonopoly and autonomization.On the other hand, the dilemmabetween iberalismeconomic) nd democracypolitical)mayberein-terpretedntwoways:Towarda more ffectivepplication fthe tateof law and its optimalutilization or opposingthe system nd theadvancement fdemocratization;r toward reinforcementfconser-vatism o thedetrimentfdemocratization,s in democratic esarism,or unifying nd civilizingutocracy e.g.,porfirismon Mexico orgomecismo n Venezuela) (Cossio Villegas,1972; Gonzalez, 1976;Roeder, 1973;Rangel,1975;Gallo and CortesConde, 1972;VallenillaLanz, 1952).These virtualitiesnd tendencies ecamemorepronounced uringthetransition hase,from hebeginningfthe wentiethenturyntil1930 Kaplan, 1969a).The changes nthe nternationalystemndtheirdisruptiveffectsn socioeconomic tructuress well s therise fthemiddle and lower urban classes in terms f theirnumbers, pecificweight,ndparticipativeressureseinforcedemocratic,ationalist,populist,modernizing,nd reformistendencies.uchtendenciesoundtheirxpressionnthegovernmentsfUruguayan attlismo, rgentineradicalism, hilean lessandrismo;n theMexican revolution;n theuniversityeform;ndintheriseofBrazilian arguismondofPeru-vianaprismo. he state ransformedtself ywideninghe ocial basesfor ts recruitmentfpersonnel nd ofclass and group support;byreinforcingnterventionismnd tsrole s arbiter;ndbyrestrictingheassumptionsnd methodsffunctioningf he iberalmodel.However,these endencies ere artiallyimitednd modifiedy wofactors: nthe one hand,the imitsnherentnmiddle-class arties nd regimeswith ubordinatedupportfrom he urban and ruralpoor, and thesearchfor ompromises ith he raditionalligarchyndsystem;ntheotherhand,the impactof internationalrises and the internalchangesthat followed ne after nother nd intertwinedrom1930onward.

    THE PERMANENT STRUCTURAL CRISISBeginningn 1930,LatinAmerica ntered phase ofpermanentstructuralrisis, uringwhich he nterventionismndautonomizationof the stateand publiceliteswereon the ncrease.This increasewasbaseduponnotonly heir revious evelopmentndown ogic, ut lsouponthe effectsf the modificationsnthe modeof nsertionnthechangingnternationalystemnd internationalivision f abor,of

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    6/24

    Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA 85

    growth nd modernization,fsocial and cultural-ideologicalhangesand conflicts,nd ofpolitical rises.The emerging nternational ystem o whichtheLatin Americancountrieswere adjustingwas characterized y unequal interdepen-dency, he oncentrationfworldpowernthehandsof wo uperpow-ers s poles ofblocs, nd thenewdivision f abor. The Latin Americannationsdrew themselveslmost completelynto the circleofUnitedStateshegemony,ufferingconstellationfdomination-dependency-unequal and combineddevelopmenthatorganized nd maintainedthemwith lowcapacityforautonomywithrespect o themodelof

    development-societyndpolitical ystem,swell s for hehandlingfinternationalelations6Kaplan, 1974c, 976c,1984a: Chapter I; Bed-jaqui, 1979;Sid-Ahmed, 981).Thenew nternationalivision f aborhad decisive mplications ortheLatinAmerican tates,particularlywithregardto multinational irms; heredistributionf productiveactivitiesn a planetary erspective;he concentrationforgans ndinstrumentsfpower nd decisionmakingnthe enters ndpinnaclesof hedeveloped ountries. hesecountries'earch or he ntegrationfworld conomics ndpoliticsnterms funequal nterdependencendthedemandsofreadjustmentftheobjectives feach LatinAmericancountrynorder ofit ntotherequirementsndgoalsof a newworldmodel; and the forms frestrictiveevision f theprinciple f statesovereigntyKaplan,1984a:Chapter I; Frobel t l., 1981; kliar,1980;Frondizi,1947).Growth,modernization,nd a flood f ocialandcultural-ideologicalchanges ndconflictsccompanied his nternationalnsertion,ike heinsidefacetofreality, s partof a projector pathof newcapitalistperipheraldevelopmentGarcia, 1972; Graciarena, 1977; ComisionEconomica para AmericaLatina, 1963; Prebisch, 1981; UNESCO,1962).Thisproject an be characterizeds follows:

    (1) The association of large firms multinationals and nationals) predomi-nated incoexistence with ow productivity nd low-profit irms s wellaswith backward or archaic nuclei and areas.(2) Conditioned by the new international division of labor, the productionof raw materials and industrial goods specialized in import substitutionof goods formerlydestined for the internalmarket's high- and middle-class urban dwellers and in exports to developed centers.(3) The projectwas designed and carried out by political, techno-bureaucraticand business elites of the state and private sector, with the advice andfinancing fgreatpowers, multinationals, nd international rganizations.

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    7/24

    86 THEFUTURE F THESTATE(4) Financing throughexports and foreign oans and investments eplacedthe autonomous processes of capital accumulation and technological

    development.(5) The use of an abundant and a submissive abor forcewas combined withthe mportationofcapital-intensive echnology nd stateprotectionism.(6) Partial and dependent growth and superficialmodernization becamedisassociated from ntegraldevelopmentand replaced it.The benefits fthe former were monopolized by national and foreign minorities.Growth was limited and distorted; it presupposed and reinforcedtheregressive redistribution f income, the loweringof levels of employ-ment, remuneration,consumption, and welfare of the majorityof thepopulation.

    The population was leftwith tsproblems: thefrustration f tsneedsand hopes ofparticipation nd the reductionof tsoptions and possibili-ties forprogress.The reclassifying,oncentrating, nd marginalizingnature of thisproject and pathbecame evident nterms f countries thewideningof the gap between central and peripheralcountries of theregion,and among the peripheralcountriesthemselves);betweeneco-nomic sectors and subsectors, urban poles and regions, classes, andgroups. The project and its mplementation ended to requirethe exis-tence of a politicalorderassuringthe ack ofparticipation, pathy,andsubmission of themajorityof thepopulation.Growthand modernization diversified hemajor forces, tructures,and relations ofsociety,as well as societyas a whole, and made themmore complex. Neocapitalism imposed itself s the model of produc-tion,coexistingwithnoncapitalistorarchaiccapitalistforms fproduc-tion, stratification, ctors, and spaces. The former ntertwined tselfwith the latter, hussubordinating nd transforming hem.New social classes, groups, and sectorsemerged,particularlyn thecities,coexistingand crossbreedingwithother traditionalones. Com-plexsituations nddynamics,under ontradictoryeterminants,ecamecommon. The transition rom he former hase to the new one was notthe resultofa deliberate actionbya class orgroup,norbyan elitegrouporinstitutionxerting ressure n thestate,orcontrollingnd using t nthe framework f a transforming trategy.No collectiveactor deliber-ately promoted the changes or took advantage ofthem,nor was con-scious ofwhat was happening and its implications.The changes tookplace primarily s a result ofaccidental, mpersonalfactors economic,political, and militarycrises, a new international division of labor,confrontations etweensuperpowersand blocs), alien to thecountriesof the region and theirdecision centers,and as the involuntary nd

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    8/24

    Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA 87

    unforeseeny-productsf mergency easures avoringhe ystemndthetraditional ominant roups Kaplan, 1984a: Chapter V; Garcia,1972;Graciarena, 967;Germani, 962;Solarietal., 1976;UNESCO,1962;BenitezZenteno,1977).Although heoligarchy uffered weakening f itshegemony,tretainedmportantowersnd,bymeans f daptiveelf-transformation,converted tself nto a new oligarchical lite,withtheflexibilityoabsorb lementsf hange ndtopreservehe ssence f ts nterestsndthoseofthesystem.Attheother xtreme, owever, hoseclassesandgroupsthatshouldhave beenorwerepartiallynterestedngrowth,change,democratization,nd autonomy n thehandling f interna-tionalaffairs-namely,henationalentrepreneursstrictlypeaking),middleclasses, ntellectuals,rbanworkers,marginals,nd peasantgroups-were late in appearingon thescene,weak,and without noriginal roject rpolicy. omeofthese ectors ecame ctive, riticiz-ing ndchallenginghe raditional omination. etthey id sowithoutthe apacity oseriouslyffecthat omination rto mpose nalterna-tivehegemonynd project.Althoughhe tate, hepublic lites,ndthedominant ocioeconomic lass partiallyostthecapacity o rulethenation, he ntermediatenddominated lassesdidnotgain t.Inthe ociopoliticalphere,henormalizationf he xceptional,hepermanence f thetransitionet n from 930onward.Heterogeneoushistorical orces ndforms-elements fprogress, ackwardness,ndregression-combinedwithout nyrestructuringhatwouldincorpo-ratethem ll under heaegisofsomealternativeationality.In these ircumstances,deologiesproliferatend coexist, onfront-ingoneanotherndinterwining:raditional onservatism,iberalism,developmentalism,ationalpopulism, ocialism, ndneofascism. e-velopmentalismredominates s a diffusedeology,permeatingheothers. heforms fconsciousnessndthepatterns fsocialbehaviorarealso hybridndcontradictory.During he ameprocess, hepolitical arties ecomeroutinizedndsclerotic. heydo notadjust o rapidchanges ndnewconditions;heylose or diminishheir epresentativityndcapacity or ction.Classes,groups, nd institutionsendto lack cohesion, unified onscience,efficientespresentation,heaptitude o formulatend imposetheirinterestsndprojects,ndtheability o form oalitions.Theobstaclestorational ormsfpolitical ction ndawide onsensus bound, sdounreconcilable ivergenciesnd situations f ncoherence,tagnation,andparalysis. heclearformulationftheproblems nd options, hedecisions nd actionsregardinghecrises, nd thefundamentalues-

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    9/24

    88 THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

    tions fdevelopmentecomes ifficult. type fpolitical risis ends obecome eneralizeds a result f he onfluencef womajor urrentsfthegeneral rocess Kaplan, 1977, 984a:Chapter ; Bourricaud, 967;Collier,1979;Cotler, 982;DESCO, 1977;Fernandes, 981;Germani,1962; Jaguaribe, 972a, 1972b,1972c,1974; Lipsetand Solari, 1967;Martins, 976;Romero,1946;Solari, 1977).Neocapitalist rowth isplaces nd dissolves ormer orms fdomi-nationand exploitation,nd imposes ts own. Masses ofpeopleareliberatedromraditional ierarchies,estructurednd mobilized, ndincited o multiplyheir eeds nd demands or atisfactionnd partici-pation.On theotherhand, neocapitalism eploys ts marginalizingdynamic, herebyncreasingensions ndconflicts.he newoligarchicelite ndthe raditionalnstitutionalrders eservehe entersfpoliti-cal decisionmaking ndaction.Theaccumulation nd profitabilityfthe arge irms ecessitatehe ncreasedoncentrationfpower ndanauthoritarianrder.The oligarchic lite,however, indst ncreasingly oredifficultoreproducehe ystem.tsplits p nto ompetitiveactions,onfrontingpopular movements,ntagonisms, nd conflictshat aredifficultoabsorb nd control.tfeels he hreat fthe ystem's rowing ntropy.Thisthreat ecomesmanifestnsituations f social struggle, oliticalinstability,hereduction f egitimacynd consensus, he nsufficiencyof normal oercion, vacuumof power, nd crises fhegemony.tsmanifestationsnd instrumentsre theproliferationf deologies ndparticularlyf movements,arties, nd regimesncluding emocraticliberals, enter-leftists,evelopmentalists,onapartist-populists,e-formists,nd revolutionaryeftists. t the same time, hesepoliticalattemptsppear s reflecting,ontinuing,nd strivingo overcome hecrisis.Allofthem-with he xception fCuba-affect the raditionalpolitical system, ut withoutdestroyingt. In fact, they partiallypreservet. On thewhole, hesepoliticalphenomena imultaneouslyrender he maintenance f the old oligarchical egemony,tsrebirthundernewforms, ases and nstruments,nda wideningemocratiza-tiondifficult.he allianceof theoligarchiclite ndthegroups f theprincipal nstitutionalrders become aware of the contradictionbetween hedemands ftheneocapitalist,onservative,ndmoderniz-ingproject hey dentifyith ndthecharacteristicsnd effectsfthepolitical risis.This reinforceshetendencyo searchfor a definitesolution o this ontradictionymeans fauthoritarian6rneofascist7solutions.

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    10/24

    Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA 89

    INTERVENTIONISM AND THE AUTONOMIZATIONOF THE STATEIn this ociohistoricalontext, hestate nd thepublicelites nces-santlyncrease heir nterventions,unctions,nd spheres,heir owersand instruments,nd their endenciesowardpoliticalmonopoly ndautonomy. othbecomecentral ctors n society, ecisive actorsn tsstructuring,eproduction,nd changes.Becauseitpredated ransfor-mations nd crises, he state s better repared nd qualified hananyother ocialactor oundertakehenew hallengesndtasks. t becomes

    more nterventionistndautonomous,cting s a product f,but boveallas,theproducerf heforces ndstructures,ndof he ituationsnddynamics eingdeployed.As a separate ntity lacedabovesociety, ree fmarkets,ompeti-tion, and accumulation onstraints,hestate s able to guarantee hegeneral onditionsf mplementation,nd advancementfneocapital-ism ndtheregulationf ts onflictsndtendenciesoward ntropy;llthat cannot result rom spontaneousprocess, elf-regulatedythemarket nd private nterprise. he state's nterventionismnd auto-nomization rebasedonandoccurbymeans f ts omplementarityndservicewith espect othe argeprivate irm. ut to the amedegree rmore, hey realso based on the afeguardingftherationalityfthesystems a whole, he ccomplishmentf tsfunctions,ndthedynam-icsofself-accumulationn thepowerof thepublicelite.The state ssumesprimaryunctionsf collective rganizationndsocioeconomic olicies n thefollowingields:

    (1) regulation of the availability and use of resources, the distributionofgoods, services and incomes; theestablishmentofprioritieswithrespectto needs and the temsneeded to satisfy hem;and thesetting fgoals andoptions;(2) creation and administration of public services, economic and socialinfrastructures,nd basic and leading industries;(3) production and buyingand sellingof goods and services;(4) direct investment, nd support to private investment;(5) maintenance of theemployment, ncome, and consumption levels of thepopulation (bureaucratic work, services,and social transfers);(6) public financingofproduction and profitability f thelarge privatefirmbymeans of nstruments evaluing social capital and thesocialization ofrisks and losses; and,(7) compensatory policies and policies designed to preventand to overcomecrises including global pilotage, anticyclicalor meregrowthmeasures, or

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    11/24

    90 THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

    planned developmentattempts Kaplan, 1984a: ChapterVI; Afonso andde Souza, 1977; lanni, 1971; Martins, 1976; Pinto, 1971; Prebisch, 1981;Kaplan, 1969b, 1980b).

    FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL COERCIONIncarryinguttheir unctionsnd naccumulatingower, he tateandthepublic lites einforcendadjust n apparatus fdominationandsocialcoercion hat xpands heir ersonnelswell s their owers,resourcesndspheresnd makes hesemore omplex. heset foldandnewinstitutionsombinespublicand entrepreneurialureaucracies,parties nd laborunions, emnigovernmentalrformallyndependentadministrations,orms fplanning,nd participationf thearmedforces ndthe echno-bureaucracy.he state ecomesmore entralizedas anapparatus nd as an actor ndpower enter.t redefinestsnatureandfunction,cquiring diffusemanner hatgoesbeyond ts nstitu-tional ormalization.nterally,tbecomesmore egmentedndcomplex.Thestatereinforcestsmonopoly fviolence ndcontrol, ecisionsanddirections f ociety,ndregulation. subsystemfcontrolmain-tains lasses andgroupswithin he imits ompatiblewith he ystem,regulatingheir emands ymeansofa combinationfopencoercionand nduction f onsensus. hestate ends oward he pplicationf nintegrativeontrol n the ideological,political, dministrative,ndpolice pheres.t ntrudesnto heprivateives ndeverydayxistenceof tscitizens, ndsupervisesndpoliticizesnstitutions.Thecentralizationfstatepowermanifeststselfhroughherise fthe xecutive ranch othedetrimentftheother ranches;heuse of

    informationnd themassmedia; he ncreased echnicalityfpoliticalandadministrativeife; ncreasingechno-bureaucracy,ilitarization,andrepression. he state ends o atomize ndsubordinateociety; oconvert tinto an amorphous ody, ackingmeansofexpressionndparticipation,ith ew r noinstrumentsor elf-regulatingrcontrol-lingLeviathan.As an arbitrativentity,hestateregulates elationsnd conflictsbetween lasses,groups, nd nstitutions.t mposes ompromisesndprovides eadquarters,ettingndmechanismsor hepolitical nifica-tionof thedominant actions nd forsolutions o hegemony.Withrespectothemiddlend ower lasses, nthe nehand, he tate reatesandguaranteesheironditionsfdominationndexploitation.n theother and, acedwith ationalist,opulist, evelopmental-liberal,ndsocialistic ressures, hestate ntervenesnfavor fgroupsfrom he

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    12/24

    Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA 91

    mostpopulousclassestoachieve onsensus,imited articipation,ndthe reation fnationaloyaltyn favor f ntegrationnd nternationalpolicy DESCO, 1977; Germani tal., 1973;Graciarena, 967;Garcia,1972; anni, 1971, 1975; Kaplan, 1977; Lowenthal, 975; Pinto, 1971;Solari, 1977; Weffort, 978; Fernandes, 1979; Gonzalez Casanova,1966).As forcultural-ideologicalunctions,he state ncreases ts role asproducer fhuman esources,ocial know-how, orms nd values, ndmodelsofpersonalitynd behavior.Thespecificwaysofconstructingand developing he tate, tsrelations ith ivil ociety, nd ts ogic ndbehavior lso playa crucialrole n theconformationnd typology fintellectual roups Kaplan, 1970,1974a, 1974b,1974c,1981d,1983a;Lipset nd Solari, 1967;Graciarena, 977).In its nternational olicyfunctions,he stateprimarilyreates heconditions f external ependence ndperipheral eocapitalism. hisdoes not meanthat hestate s the mere nstrumentf foreign roupsand interests. he state s themediator etween nternal nd externalgroups, etween henational ociety nd thedevelopedmetropoli,ndbetween utonomy nd dependence. ts policiesdivert nternal orcesand tendencieshatwould hreatenhe ystem oward he xterior. heyprovide ational ases that an bemobilized o reinforcehemaneuver-ingpowerofthegovernmentlites is-a-vishe tates ndcorporationsofhegemonic owers nddevelopedcountries.Nationalist laims, t-tempts t regional ooperation nd integration,nd thedemands ndactivities esigned orestructurehe nternationalrder ll simultane-ously seek the renegotiation f dependence,the achievement fadvantageswithin hepresentworld ystem,ndthe trengtheningfstate utonomyKaplan, 1968,1969b, 972,1974c, 976b, 98 b,198 c,1984b;Bedjaqui, 1979;Solari, 1976,1977;Sid-Ahmed, 981;Puigetal.,1973).Thus,autonomizationevelops s theresult fthe onfluence fthefollowing actors, orces,ndprocesses.The stateprovides he conditions nd guarantees fexistence ndreproductionf a system hat s incapableof achieving hesegoalsspontaneouslyrthroughhe xclusive ctionof a dominant action fclass, private irms,r themarket.A global entity esultingrom he nterrelationsmongtheforces,structures,ndprocesseshat onstitutedt,yetwithtsowncharacteris-tics ndcapacities; he tate ntervenesnanddevelops tsowngeneticconditions;onstitutes eta-organizationsndmeta-systemshat nte-

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    13/24

    92 THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

    grate and reinforce heir own evolution; hypertrophies, ccumulates,and centralizes newpowers and resources;and increases its own inter-estsas apparatus-institution-group. n epicentermore than an epiphe-nomenon of society,the state distances itselfmore and more fromthelatter. At the same time, the state penetratesand impregnates ociety,establishinga networkof symbiotic nd parasiticrelationshipswith t.The administrative nd political personnel,especially the entire iviland military echno-bureaucracy, row and reinforce hemselves.Theyspecialize and develop their own interests nd powers. They are moreconditioned and determinedby actingwithin nd for the statethanbyanyothercircumstance, ncludingclass relationsand kinship of originor of support).This has been occurring not only in the case of high officials andpolitical cadres, but also in thecase of theadministrative ureaucracy,as a specific ocial segment nd a typeoforganization.This bureaucracycarriesout mediatory nd regulatory unctionswithrespectto classes,groups, and institutions. t establishes power relationswiththese andmakes themdependentupon thestateand upon itself or heir xistenceand thegranting ftheir nterests. art ofthisbureaucracy s recruitedin thenondominant ectors middleand lower classes) thatfindpossibil-ities of life, upward mobility, and participation in the civil service.Bureaucraticgroups take theclasses and groups ofthemajorities ntoaccount, organizethem, nd control and manipulatethem s a base andas clients. Subsystems of power and constellations of intereststhatreinforcetheir autonomizing tendencies are generated within andaround thebureaucracy Brewer-Carias, 1975; Cardoso, 1972; Collier,1979; Kaplan, 1980b, 1984a; Martins, 1976; Lipset and Solari, 1967;Smith, 1981; Stepan, 1973).As an extreme xpressionofthistendency, he armedforcesbecomepoliticized and assume the tutelageof the nation. Theytend to convertthemselves nto a techno-bureaucratic liteand intoarmedpoliticians,convergingwith sectorsof theciviltechno-bureaucracy n agreementsand projectsas well as ingovernment xperimentsCollier, 1979;Cotler,1982; DESCO, 1977, 1978a, 1978b; Fayt, 1971; Jaguaribe, 1974;Kaplan, 1979, 1980a, 1984b; Lowenthal, 1975; Mercier Vega, 1971;Stepan, 1971; Waldmann and Garzon Valdes, 1982).As a dynamic system n conflictive nd changing societies,mediatorand arbiter, hestate s affected y classes, groups,and institutions ndmust thereforeresort to strategiesand tactics that will maintain itssupremacy.The state and thepublic elitemustpartlyreflectts image

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    14/24

    Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA 93

    and partly unctions an autonomizedntity, supreme orce is-a-vissociety nd its principal omponents.Thedivisions f thedominant ocioeconomic lass nto ompetitivefactionsnd ts ncapacityo develop unifiedlass consciencend willforcettoseekout orsubmit othepublic lites s the tate's epresenta-tives ndproxies nofficialmatters.he state's ersonnel nd apparatusfinishtructuringhedominant lass as such; hey esolve heproblemsofhegemonynddefendtagainstboth nternal ndexternal nemiesandthreats.

    Thepowerblock s heterogeneousatherhanmonolithic,ivided ycontradictionsetween actions nd nstitutionalrders,nderodedbypressuresrom ther lasses,groups, ndsocial movements. ifferentsectors nd branches f he tate anbecome eatsofpower frepresen-tatives fnondominantroups ompeting or ontrol.Thestrengtheningfthe tate ndof ts utonomizationmplies ndrequires n apparent/ealneutrality,fficientotheextent hatpublicpersonnelhinknd actaccordingo their wn deological ndpoliticalcategories-categories hat act as mediators-and are convincedoftheir wnneutrality.The democratizationf recruitment,ymeansofmechanisms findividual ndgrouppromotion,pensthedoorsofstate rganismsopoliticiansndadministratorsrawn rom hemiddle nd ower evels.The competition nd conflictwithin hedominant lass favorsthepressures f thesubordinatednddominated lassesand theachieve-mentof measures hatbenefit hem.The statearbitrates etween hedominant roups, nd between hese nd themiddle nd lower lasses,particularlynthose ituationshat hreaten he ystem's tability.The state's ecisions retaken nd ts ctions arried utaccordingoan orderofpriorityf actors, nterests,nd objectives hat tendstofavor: 1) thepublic lites; 2) theneedsof the ystem's lobalrational-ity; 3) thestrongestactions f the dominant lass; (4) the dominantclass as a whole;and 5) factions ndgroups fthedominated lasses.

    LIMITS AND CRISES OF STATEINTERVENTIONISM AND AUTONOMIZATIONAlways present nd fluctuating,apable of extremeatitude, heautonomization f the stateneverthelessuffersrom estrictionsndmust emainwithinertainimitsKaplan, 1984a).

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    15/24

    94 THE FUTUREOF THE STATEThe system'sboundaries and constraints, ts patternsofstructuringand functioning, ondition and determine hestate, restrictingtsroleand itspolicies as well as thescope and resultsof tsactions. On the onehand, states and multinational firms f thecapitalist-developedcoun-tries, nternationalfinancial nstitutions, nd, to a lesserextent, n themajorityofthe countries of theregion, he Soviet Union and its bloc actas power centers outside of Latin America. They make fundamentaldecisions withregardto decisive aspects and levels commercialmove-ments, erms ftrade,capital flows,monetary eserves, mport apacity,debts, control of vital resources), therebyreducingthe accumulation

    and productivity f Latin American economies, and theirstates' andsocieties' possibilitiesfor autonomous development, ntra-and extra-regional cooperation, and thepromotionof a favorablechange in theinternational rder Kaplan 1984a: Chapter VII; Sid-Ahmed, 1981).On the otherhand, when the Latin American State promoteseco-nomicgrowth nd accumulation, and theprofitabilityf the arge firm,it does so in terms of its own vision, positions, and interests.Thus, itoften creates limits and negativerestrictions or large enterprises ndgroupsfrom hedominantclasses. These firms cceptstate ntervention-ism in a conditional and transitory ashion; theytransfer o the stateproblems and conflicts, nd burdens and costs of normal situations,short-termituations, nd criseswhiledenyingor retractingheresour-ces needed for normal functioning nd itscapacityto reach solutions.The firmsuse the failuresof public powers as a constant demand forreducingthe latter's utonomy and interference.The state and public elites see theirpossibilitiesfor ction as limited.Bothfind tdifficulto act outside ofor against certainclass and powerrelations that set the boundaries and restrictions f the system. Theycannot dominate thesocial and political game in whichtheyparticipateand are forcedto accept manyof tsconditions.They must compensateforand regulatethe major dynamisms,disequilibriums, nd conflictsposteriori.The limits o state autonomystem fromotherfactors nd tendenciesincluding:

    (1) structuralestrictionso ndividualromotionndto the ffectiveemo-cratizationf therecruitmentfpoliticaleaders ndcadres;(2) cohesivendregulatory echanismsf he overningndadministrativegroups: dentical rofessionalracticesnd conditions;means f ocia-bility, ducation,nformation,nd communications agents f a con-servativendoctrinationndthe mpositionfpolitical aboos;

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    16/24

    Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA 95

    (3) networkof tiesbetweenmembersof the dominant socioeconomic groupsand the political and administrative eaders;(4) controlover branches and organs of thestate apparatus witha key role inthe decision-making systemby representatives f thehegemonicfactionsand institutions armed forces, church) with the capacity to dominateother parts ofthe state;(5) calls to order to public personnel by thedominant groups in the face ofwhat is considered as excessive autonomization and interferencewith-drawal of capital, monetary and financial disequilibriums, shortages,political destabilization, foreignsupport, coups d'Etat) and,

    (6) public elites' refusalto widen thedemocratic participation and politicalmobilization of the majorities.In thismanner,thestate subsists and operates underthe restriction fits nterventionismnd autonomization. Its policies reinforce hedomi-nant groups, harmingand marginalizingthe majorities. Said policiesmultiply ensions and conflicts hatfall back on the state,thusreducingeven more itscapacity for action. The intensiveuse ofpower bya state

    that smore and morecentralized and the reinforcementf coercion andcontrol, as opposed to persuasion and consensus, accentuate the con-tradictionbetweentheconcentrationof powers,privileges, nd benefitsin the hands of public and privateminorities, nd theprerequisitesandcomponents of democratic legitimacyand a consensus of themajority(Kaplan, 1984a: Chap. VII, 1980b: Chap. I, 1969b: Chap. II).The state becomes weakened as an agency of mere conservation,changes inherent n the system, nd, above all, development. The poli-cies and actions forthisdiversity fobjectives are postponed or inade-quately undertakenby states that are unrepresentative,not supportedby a dense fabricof innovativeforces,pressuredor controlledby con-servativeminoritieswhose legitimacy nd consensus are on the decline,and absorbed bythe difficulties f immediate survival. State interven-tionsareundertaken n an improvisedmannerand under thepressureofcontingencies and emergencies. They turn out to be inorganic andcontradictory, eceiving heir wn irrationalitynd anarchyas feedback.The stateuses itsinstruments nd organs insufficiently.t abdicateson its possibilities and powers and adopts a self-limiting osition withrespectto itsrole as a minimalregulator nd troubleshooter. tthereforedoes notprovidethe mpulses and resources,the values and norms,andthe options and actions that any project or strategy of growth andmodernization or of integraldevelopment) would require. Its policiesfluctuatebetween a national-populist-statist rientationand an elitist-

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    17/24

    96 THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

    private-neocolonialistne, and their ybrids. he difficultoexistencebetweenhepublic ndprivateectors ortifieshe atter,herebyeduc-ingthe utonomynd weight f the tate.In its nterventionsith espectointerestsf unlikely onciliationand problems nd conflicts hat re difficulto settle, he state ackseffectiveatternsnd capabilitiesor erceiving,valuating,nd olvingtheprincipal uestions f ocietyndpolitics. he characteristicsf hesocialtransmittersndthereceptortate ontributeo thisdeficit.Information n the needs, demands,problems, nd conflicts fclasses, roups,nstitutions,ndsystemssgivenn a deformed annerby nopaque andcontradictoryociety ymeans fdistorting edia-tory ircumstances,nigmaticrambiguousmessages hat re difficulttodecipher. iven henaturendmodalities fthe hanges nd crises,and the ack of lastingolution o the uestions fhegemony, o classor group completely nd exclusively ominates hestate or uses itunrestrictivelynterms f tsown nterestsnd projects.A variety fforces xerts ressure n and within he tate, isassociatingnd para-lyzingt.They nterwine ith tate actionsnd organs nd reinforcehematters'ompetitionnd rivalries,ack of coordination,narchy, ndinefficiency.The state's pparatusnd personnelufferrom dialectic f entral-ization nddispersion.heexcessive ccumulationfpower ndauthor-ity n the central ovenment,ts executive ucleus nd the high-leveltechno-bureaucracy,eakens he egislativend udicialpowers s wellas public pinion,whatmanages o be civil ociety r survives s such,andthenationalmajorities.n the ther and, olitical nd administra-tivegroups bound withinhe tate pparatus, xerting feudal-typecontrol ver tsbranches, rgans, nd public nterprises.he inking fthese roupswithectorsf ivil ociety ccurs ymeans f networkfrelations, ervices, ndmutual upport nd through pecific orms fcorporatizationnd clientelism.xcessive uthoritarianentralizationand feudalisticispersionontributeo the reationrreinforcementfentities, echanisms,ndresponsibilitiesf he tate pparatus,ndtothe rratic earch or mergencyolutionsnd isolated eforms.

    As anapparatus-institution-group,he tate ecomesmore ndmoreheterogeneousnd contradictory.o a greatdegree,tdefinestself,decides ndactsblindlyndby rial nderror.With egardo tspoliciesand activities,nsufficientolutions, mbiguous esults, ailures,ndcrises ccur ne after nother. hese, nturn, einforcehe ausesof herestrictive nd negative effectsfor state interventionism ndautonomization.

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    18/24

    Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA 97

    The "creole Leviathan"reaches ts culmination lmost simultane-ously with ts entrance nto crisis.Diverse forces nd processesbothwithin nd outside he state oerceand erode t, hreatentsexistence,autonomy, nd supremacy, s well as the efficiencynd scope of itsactions.At the ame time, qual or similar auses and dynamicsreatepositivefeedbackor countertendenciesf maintenance r reinforce-ment f the tate.The ntensity,epth, nd unpredictable uration f he nternationalcrisis,nconjunction ith heunsatisfactoryesults nd negativeffectsofthemodelofgrowthndmodernization, ithts ncreasinglyvidentstagnationndfrustration, ultiplyhenumber fproblems nd con-flicts o whichno solutions ractors apable ofproposing nd imple-mentingolutions eemto be available.The state ndcorporationsfthehegemonic owerand of otherdeveloped ountries,nternationalinstitutions,nd factions f the dominant ocioeconomic lassesareunableto take control fandtocarry ut thefunctionsfgovernmentand administrationftheLatin American ations, ven nsituationsfcatastrophic risis nd imminent ationaldissolution. hus,theneedforand thepossibility f mediation nd arbitrationf thepoliticalpower-institutionalizeds thestate-increasesas theonlyguaranteeoftheconditions frecuperationr renovation fthecohesion, nity,equilibrium,nd continuityfthenational ystems,r oftheir rogres-sive ransformation.sa result,he ituations f nd tendenciesowardthe utonomization ndself-accumulationfpowers ndresources,fpossibilitiesfaction ndprivileges-by ndon behalf fthe tate ndpublicelites-are maintainedndreinforced, ith hesupport nd inbenefitftheperipheries,lientele,ndsociopolitical lliances s well.Statism s a general endencyouldthenmanifesttselfna varietyftypes ndways,whosedefiniteormwoulddepend n a combinationfdimensions uch as thenature, ircumstances,nd outcomesofthemajorconflictsnd crises;thealliances ofelites, lasses, groupsandinstitutions;he nternalmpact f external actors; heredefinitionfthemodelofdevelopmentnd the ystem;he edeploymentfrelationsbetween tate ndcivil ociety, etween hepublic,private,nd socialsectors, etween tate nd law (Diaz, 1977);theprevalence f authori-tarianismr ofdemocratization,nd, neitherase,thedegree nd formof each.A possibletypologyfstates, onsideringhespecificationserivedfrom hepolitical regimes nd social-historicalarticularitiesf theLatin American ountries,ouldthereforeecomprised ythefollow-ing:neofascism; ational-populistonapartismKaplan,1977); uthor-

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    19/24

    98 THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

    itarian ollectivism;nd thesocial democratic tate of law (Kaplan,1974a,1983b, 984a:ChapterX).NOTES

    1. For the ustificationf thedouble simplificationnd the ndeavor o countervailsomeof tsrestrictions,eeKaplan, 1969a: ntroduction,hapters ,7; 1969b:Chapter ,1977;1979; 1981a; 1984a.2. A biasedoutlookhas recentlyedtothe rbitraryssertionf late ppearancenthe 1960softhestate as a central ubject f the politicaldebate and the sociologicalpreoccupation s a result f thereception f Western ociology n the Latin Americancountriessee Lechner, ., ed., 1981, stadoypolitica nAmerica atina, . 301,M6xico:SigloXXI Editores). he treatmentf the ubject egan n a rather arlier hase, t theend of the 19th entury. t emerged n relation o political onflicts nd outcomes,historicalesearchndpolitical ebateon theformationfthenation nd the tate, ndconstitutionalaw analysis nd propositions.n Argentinanthe1940s, wo eminalworksproduced rom wo pposite oints fviewwere utstandingontributionso the nalysisofthe tate: ampay,1942, ndFrondizi, 944.1 have endeavored o explorethe sociopolitical onditioningf Latin Americanpolitical cience, speciallyhe nefocused n the tate,nKaplan 1970, 974b, 978, nd1983a. An analysis n historical erspectiveor theArgentinease can be found nRomero,1946.Forthecontemporaryituation, eetherestrictedutuseful nalysis fGraciarena, 977; olari, 1976;Fernandes, 979, 981;Lamounier, 983; ndMeyer ndCamacho,1979.3. Marxism as prevailed or long ime n LatinAmerican ountries nder tsmoredogmaticand reductionistorms.The analysisof the state was thus made withastructuralist-economisticnd/orclass-instrumentalismutlook.Nevertheless,ith llconsequent restrictionsnd simplifications, long line of Marxist thinkers ndresearchersrovided mportantnd substantialmaterials. n the astthree ecades,reaction evelopedntheMarxist ield,eading o awideningndenrichingf heoreticalandempirical esearch. n mportantontributionn the orm f criticalurveyndanefforto advance hisperspectivean befoundnEvers,1979.4. The advance of American nd western uropeansociologyhas in manywaysinfluencedesearch npolitics ndthe tate, rimarilyhroughhe pproaches rovidedby tructural-functionalism,odernization,olitical evelopmenturrents,nd the litistandWeberian nes. See Germani, 962,1971;Jaguaribe, 972a,1972b1972c, 974; ndthedebate on the outhernoneregimes,uoted nNote 6. Jaguaribe's ontributionsoutstandingorts ombinationfMarxistndAmerican/esternuropean pproaches,andofdeeppreoccupationndknowledgefLatinAmerican ealitiesndproblems.venin thebest asesof pecificreatmentfthe ubject, his rientation as dealtmorewiththe ociological ontext fspecific olitical egimeshanwith he tate s a theoreticalproblemndas a concrete henomenon.5. I haveendeavoredodevelop differenterspectiveor he nalysis fthenation-state nLatinAmerican ountries,nKaplan, 1968,1974a,1978, 1980b,1984, nd theworks uoted nNote1.6. Thebureaucraticuthoritarianerspectivesdiscussed nCollier, 979;RemmerandMerkk, 982;Canak, 1984;Cardoso,1972.7. On thepossibilityf a LatinAmerican ascism,ee Kaplan, 1976a, 1979,1980a,1984b;Fernandes, 981;Vilar,1978.

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    20/24

    Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA 99REFERENCES

    AFONSO, C. A. and H. DE SOUZA (1977) 0 Estado e o desenvolvimentoapitalistnoBrasil.A crisefiscal.Rio deJaneiro: ditioraPaz e Terra.Amnesty nternational1981) Les "disparus":Rapport sur une nouvelle echnique erepression. aris: Editions u Seuil.Association nternationale e Defense des Artistes ictimes e la Repression ans leMonde AIDA] (1981) Argentine:neculturenterdite.ieces conviction 976-1981.Paris: FrancoisMaspero.BADIE, B., and P. BIRNBAUM (1979) Sociologie de l'Etat. Paris: BernardGrasset.BAGU, S. (1952) Estructura ocial de la colonia. Ensayo de historia omparada deAmericaLatina. Buenos Aires:El Ateneo.---(1949) Economia de la sociedad colonial. Ensayo de historia omparada deAmericaLatina. Buenos Aires:El Ateneo.BEDJAQUI, M. (1979) Pour un nouvel rdre conomique nternational.aris:UNESCO.BENITEZ ZENTENO, R. [Compilador] 1977) Clases socialesy crisis olitica nAmer-ica Latina.Mexico:SigloXXI Editores.BIRNBAUM, P. (1982) La logiquede l'Etat. Paris: Fayard.BOURRICAUD, F. (1967) Pouvoir et societydans le Perou contemporain. aris:LibrairieArmandColin.BREWER-CARIAS, A. (1975) Cambio politico y reforma el Estado en Venezuela,Madrid: Editorial ecnos.BURGIN, M. (1946) The EconomicAspectsofArgentine ederalism.Boston, MA:HarvardUniv.Press.CANAK, W. L. (1984) "The peripheraltatedebate:statecapitalist nd bureaucratic-authoritarianegimesnLatin America." atinAmericanResearchRev. 19,1.CARDOSO, F. H. (1972)Estadoy ociedadenAmerica atina.BuenosAires:EdicionesNueva Visi6n.CARRERA DAMAS, G. (1980)Una naci6n lamada Venezuela.Caracas: DirecciondeCulturaUniversidad entral e Venezuela.COLLIER, D. [ed.] (1979)The newauthoritarianismnLatin America.Princeton, J:Princeton niv. Press.Comision Economica para America Latina [CEPAL] (1963) El desarrollo ocial deAmericaLatinaen la posguerra. uenosAires:Solar/Hachette.COSSIO VILLEGAS, D. (1972) Historia modernade M6xico-ElPorfiriato. a vidapoliticalnterior,arteSegunda.Mexico-BuenosAires:EditorialHermes.COTLER, J. 1982) Clases,Estadoynaci6nen el Peru. Mdxico:UniversidadNacionalAut6nomade Mexico.DESCO: Centro e EstudiosyPromocion el Desarrollo 1978a) Los caminosdelpoder.Tresafnos e crisis n a escenapolftica. ima:DESCO.---(1978b) Genocidio con6mico n el Cono Sur.Derechoshumanosy gran apital.

    Lima: DESCO.---(1977) El ocaso del poderoligarquico.Lucha politicaen la escena oficial1968-1975. Lima: DESCO.DIAZ, E. (1977) Legitimidadnel Socialismo Democrdtico.Madrid: EditorialCivitas.EVERS, T. (1979) El Estadoen la periferiaapitalist. Mexico: SigloXXI Editores.FAYT, C. S. (1971) El politico rmado.Dinamicadel procesopolitico rgentino 960-1971. Buenos Aires:EdicionesPannedille.FERNANDES, F. (1981)Poderycontrapoder a America atina. Rio deJaneiro: aharEditores.

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    21/24

    100 THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

    ---(1979) Apontamentos obre a "Teoria do Autoritarismo."ao Paulo: EditoraHucitec.FROBEL, F., J.HEINRICHS, andO. KREYE(1981) Lanuevadivisi6ninternacionaldetrabajo-Paro structuraln os paises ndustrializados ndustrializaci6ne ospausesen desarrollo.Mexico:SigloXXI Editores.FRONDIZI, S. (1947) La integraci6nmundial, Itima tapa del capitalismo. uenosAires:A.D.I.---El Estado moderno1944) BuenosAires, ditorial osada.GALLO, E. andR. CORTES CONDE (1972)Historia rgentina.a republicanonserva-dora. Buenos Aires:Paid6s.GARCIA, A. (1981) cA d6ndeva Colombia?Bogota: TiempoAmericano ditores.---(1972) AtrasoydependencianAmdrica atina.Hacia unateoria atinoamericana

    Desarrollo.America atina. Mexico: Fondo de CulturaEconomica.GERMANI, G. (1971) Sociologia de la Modernizaci6n. uenosAires:Paidos.---(1962) Politicaysociedad n unaepocadetransici6n. e la sociedad radicionalla sociedadde masas. BuenosAires:Paid6s.---T. S. DI TELLA, and0. IANNI (1973) Populismoy contradiccioneseclaseenLatinoamerica.Mexico:EdicionesEra.GONZALEZ (1976)"El liberalismoriunfante,"n HistoriaGeneral e Mexico,TomoIII. Mexico:El Colegiode Mexico.GONZALEZ CASANOVA, P. [compilador] 1977, 1981) America atina: Historia eMedioSiglo,2 volumenes.Mexico:SigloXXI Editores.---(1966) La democracia n Mexico. Mexico: Ediciones ra.GRACIARENA, J. 1977)"Las ciencias ociales, a criticantelectual elEstadotecno-cratico."Aporte araunadiscusi6n elcaso atinoamericano,. Solari ed.),PoderyDessarrollo.America atina. Mexico: Eondade Cultura con6mica.---(1967) Poderyclasessocialeseneldesarrollo e America atina.BuenosAires:Paid6s.HALPERIN-DONGHI, T. (1982) "Dependency heoryndLatinAmerican istoriogra-phy."LatinAmerican esearchRev. 17,1.HARING, C. H. (1963) The Spanish Empire n America.New York: HarcourtBraceJovanovich.IANNI, 0. (1975) La formaci6n el Estado populist en AmericaLatina. Mexico:EdicionesEra.---(1971) Estadoe planejamentocon6micono Brasil 1930-1970).Rio de Janeiro:Edit6raCivilizacaoBrasileira .A.IANNI,0. (1971)0 colapso do populismo o Brasil.Rio de Janeiro: dit6raCivilizacaoBrasileira .A.JAGUARIBE,H. (1974)Brasil: risis alternativas. uenosAires:Amorrortuditores.JAGUARIBE,H. (1972a) Sociedad,cambioysistema olitico.BuenosAires:Paid6s.--(1972b) Desarrollo olitico: entido condiciones. uenosAires:Paid6s.---(1972c) Crisisy alternativase AmericaLatina: reforma revoluci6n. uenosAires:Paid6s.KAPLAN, M. (1984a)Estadoysociedad n America atina.Mexico:EditorialOasis.---(1984b) La Guerra e lasMalvinas-Aspectosoliticos juridicos." oletinMexi-canodeDerechoComparado,NuevaSerie,Afno VII, No. 49,enero-abril. exico:Institutoe Investigacionesuridicas, niversidad acional Aut6noma e Mexico.---(1983a) "La teoriadel Estado en la America atinacontemporanea: l caso delmarxismo. El Trimestrecon6mico,Vol.L (2),No. 198, bril-junio. 6xico:Fondode CulturaEcon6mica.

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    22/24

    Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA 101---(1983b) "Planificaci6n cambio ocial."J.F. Ruiz Massieuand D. Valades eds.),NuevoDerechoConstitucionalMexicano.Mexico: EditorialPorrua.---(1981a) Aspectosdel Estado enAmericaLatina.Mexico: UniversidadNacionalAut6nomade Mexico.---(198 lb) "El nuevoordenpolitico nternacional." ueva Sociedad,No. 55, ulio-agosto. Caracas: Instituto atinoamericano e EstudiosSociales/ riedrich bertStiftung.---(1981c) "Aspectospoliticos elDialogo Norte-Sur." omercioy Desarrollo,AfloIV, Volumen I, No. 18, Mexico: Secretarfae Comercio.---(1981d) Estado,culturay ciencia n AmericaLatina.Tokio:The UnitedNationsUniversity.---(1980a) "Militarismo,rmamentismo,ependencia: l caso de AmericaLatina."

    AmericaLatina,No. 11. Moscii: Academia de Cienciasde la URSS, Instituto eAmericaLatina.---(1980b) Sociedad,political planificacion.Mexico: UniversidadNacionalAuto-nomade Mkxico.---(1980c) "Hacia un nuevo constitucionalismoemocratic en AmericaLatina:Problemasyperspectives."evistadeEstudiosConstitucionales,o. 16,ulio-agosto.Madrid:Centrode EstudiosPoliticos.---(1979) Social change and thepolitical ystemn Argentina. benhausen WestGermany): tiftungWissenschaftndPolitik.---(1978) EstadoySociedad. Mexico: Universidad acionalAutonomade M6xico.---(1977) "Cincuenta nlos e historia rgentina1925-1975):El laberinto e la frus-traci6n," n Gonzalez Casanova (ed.) AmericaLatina: Historiade Medio Siglo. I.Amdrica el Sur.Mexico:SigloXXI Editores.---(1976a) "Haciaun fascismoatino mericano?" ueva Politica,Volumen , No. 1,Mexico.---(1976b) "Der Faschismusn Lateinamerika." erich e zurEntwicklungnSpan-ien,Portugal ndLateinamerika,.Jahrgang, eft Juli/ ugust 976), .Jahrgang,Heft (September!Oktober976).Munchen.---(1976c) "Lo viejo y o nuevo nelordenpoliticomundial,"J. astafnedacompila-dor),DerechoEcon6mico nternacional.Mexico: Fondo de CulturaEcon6mica.---(1974a) Modelos mundialesy participaci6nocial. Mdxico: Fondo de CulturaEcon6mica.---(1974b) La investigaci6natinoamericanan ciencias ociales.Mexico:El Colegiode Mdxico.---(1974c) "La concentraci6n el poderpoliticoa escala mundial."El TrimestreEcon6mico,No. 161, nero-marzo 974.Mexico: Fondo de CulturaEconomica.---[compilador] (1972)Corporaciones ublicasmultinacionalesaraeldesarrollo aintegraci6ne AmericaLatina.Mexico: Fondo de CulturaEconomica.---(1970) La cienciapoliticalatinoamericanan la encrucijada. antiagode Chile:

    EditorialUniversitaria.---(1969a) Formaci6ndel Estado nacionalen AmericaLatina. Santiagode Chile:EditorialUniversitaria,uenosAires:Amorrortu ditores.---(1969b) El Estado enel desarrolloyla integraci6ne AmericaLatina.Caracas:Monte AvilaEditores.---(1968) Problemasdeldesarrollo ede la integraci6neAmerica atina. Caracas:MonteAvila Editores.LAMOUNIER, B. [organizador]1983)ACienciaPolifticaosanos80. Brasilia:EditoraUniversidad e Brasilia.

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    23/24

    102 THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

    ---and J. E. FARIA [organizadores] (1981) 0 futuroda abertura: Un debate, SaoPaulo: Cortez Editora.LIPSET, S. M. and A. E. SOLARI [Compiladores] (1967) Elitesydesarrollo en AmericaLatina. Buenos Aires: Paidos.LOWENTHAL, A. F. [ed.] (1975) thePeruvian experimentContinuityand change undermilitaryrule. Princeton,NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.MARTINS, L. (1976) Pouvoir etdeveloppement economique. Formation etevolutiondesstructurespolitiques au Bresil. Paris: Editions Anthropos.MERCIER VEGA, L. [ed.] (1971) Fuerzas armadas, poder y cambio. Caracas: EditorialTiempo Nuevo.MEYER, L. and M. CAMACHO (1979) "La ciencia politica en Mexico: su desarrollo yestado actual." Ciencias Sociales en Mexico: Desarrollo y perspectives. Mexico: ElColetio de Mexico.Organization of American States Interamerican Commission on Human Rights (1980)Report on the situation of human rights n Argentina. Washington DC: C.I.D.H.OTS CAPDEQUI, J. M. (1941) El Estado espafiol en las Indias. Mexico: Fondo deCultura Econ6mica.PINTO, Anibal (1971) Tres ensayos sobre Chile yAmerica Latina. Buenos Aires: Edici-ones Solar.PINTO SANTA CRUZ, Anibal (1962, Chile, uncaso de desarrollo frustrado. antiago deChile: Editorial Universitaria).PREBISCH, R. (1981) Capitalismo Periferico.Crisis ytransformacion. Mexico: Fondode Cultura Econ6mica.Proyecto yconstrucci6nde una naci6n (1980) Argentina 1846-1880: Seleccion, pr6logo ycronologia Tulio Halperin Donghi 1980. Caracas: Biblioteca Ayacucho.PUIG, J. C., C. J. MONETA, C. PEREZ LLANA, and A.J.L. CARELLA (1973) De ladependencia a la liberaci6n. Politica exterior de America Latina. Buenos Aires:Ediciones La Bastilla.RANGEL, D. A. (1975) Los andinos en el poder. Caracas: Editorial Vadel Hnos.REMMER, K. L. and G. W. MERKK (1982)"Bureaucratic-authoritarianism revisited."Latin American Research Rev. 17, 2.ROEDER, R. (1973) Hacia el Mexico moderno: Porfirio Diaz. Mexico: Fondo deCultura Economica.ROMERO, J. L. (1946) Las ideas political en la Argentina. Mexico: Fondo de CulturaEconomica.SAMPAY, A. E. (1942) La crisis del Estado de Derecho liberal burgues. Buenos Aires;Editorial Losada.SID-AHMED, A. (1981) Nord-Sud: Les enjeux. Paris: Publisud.SKLIAR, H. [ed.] (1980) Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and ElitePlanning forWorld Management. Boston: South End Press.SMITH, P. H. (1981) Los laberintos del poder. El reclutamiento de las elites politicas en

    Mexico, 1900-1971. Mexico: El Colegio de Mexico.SOLARI, Aldo E. (compilador) (1977), Poder y desarrollo. America Latina. Estudiossociol6gicos en homenaje a Jose Medina Echavarria. Mexico: Fondo de CulturaEcon6mica.---R. FRANCO, and J. JUTKOWITZ (1976) Teoria, accion social y desarrollo enAmerica Latina, Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores.STEPAN, A. [ed.] (1973) Autoritarian Brazil. Origins, policies and future.New Havenand London: Yale Univ. Press.

  • 7/29/2019 Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America - Mencin

    24/24

    Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA 103---(1971) The Military n Politics:ChangingPatterns n Brazil. Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniv.Press.TAPIA VALDES, J. 1980) El terrorismoe Estado. La doctrina e la seguridad n elCono Sur.Mexico:Nueva Sociedad EditorialNueva Imagen.UNESCO (1962) Aspectos ociales del desarrollo con6mico n AmericaLatina.Lieja:UNESCO.VALLENILLA LANZ, L. (1952) Cesarismo emocratic. Caracas: E. Garrido.VEGA C., J.L. (1981) La formaci6nel Estadonacional nCosta Rica.San Josede CostaRica: Instituto entroamericanoe Administraci6nubblica.VILAR, S. (1978) Fascismoy militarismo.arcelona,BuenosAires,Mexico: Grijalbo.WALDMANN, P. and E. GARZON VALDES [compiladores]1982)Elpodermilitar n

    la Argentina1976-1981).Frankfurt/rm.:erlagKlaus DieterVervuert.WEFFORT, F. (1978) 0 populismona politicabrasileira.Rio de Janeiro: az e Terra.ZAVALA, S. (1972) La colonizaci6n spanolaen America.Mexico: Sep-Setentas.ZERMENO, S. (1979)Imperialismo desarrollo apitalista ardio.Mdxico:UniversidadNacionalAut6nomade Mexico.

    MarcosKaplan sa Professortthe nstitutef LegalStudies nd theFaculty fPoliticaland Social Sciences t theAutonomousNationalUniversityfMexico (UNAM), afterbeing professornd researchern a numberf cademic nstitutionsnArgentina,hile,theUnited tates, ndFrance.Forthe ast25yearshehas beenresearchingndpublishingnumerous ooksand articles nthenature, ole, ndinterventionsfthenation-statenLatinAmericanocieties,tspolitics ndpolicies,n differentields.n 1984he publishedStateand Society n LatinAmerica.