Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America Author(s): Marcos Kaplan Reviewed work(s): Source: International Political

Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, Vol. 6, No. 1, The Future of the State (1985), pp. 81-103 Published 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 support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique.

http://www.jstor.org

RECENT TRENDS OF THE NATION-STATE IN CONTEMPORARY LATIN AMERICA

MARCOS KAPLAN
The nation-state in contemporary Latin Americahas increasingly tendedto itsgrowth, as an apparatus, an institution, an embodiment autonomization, andsupremacy ofpublic of national Elites, and as the main agencyof thestructure, operation, and development societies.This processhas coexistedrecently witha crisisof the state threatening its and consequencesof the state's autonomyand capacity.The causes, characteristics, and autonomization, and itslimits and crises areanalyzed.The itsinterventionism ascent, factors and processes, bothinternational ofhistorical thecontemporary weight heritage, The hypothesis is advancedthatthe interactions are considered. and their and internal, thepossibility of ofthenation-state does notexclude,and on thecontrary crisis reinforces, under a varietyof and autonomization and increasedinterventionism its continuity politicaltypesand forms.

The nationalstateintheprincipal LatinAmerican countries has tended more and moretowardexpansion,autonomy, and supremacy, as an as theincarnation of thepublicelites apparatusand as an institution, and as society's main actor. However,the culmination of this"creole Leviathan"nowseemsto coincidewith itscrisis. It is therefore pertinent to inquireas to recenttrendsof the state.This attempt involvestwo The first is to treatLatin Americaas a whole,without simplifications: ofcountries theheterogeneity and regimes; considering thesecondis of out thecentral mostgeneral terms.' setting questionsin their The insufficiency ofmostoftheattempts at theorizing and conducton theLatin American ingempirical research state,due to therestrictionsimposedbythesocial context2 as wellas bythepredominance of reductionist approaches-juridical formalism, dogmatic Marxism,3 and structural out theimportance functionalism4-point of a different This new perspective leads us to discoverthatthestate's perspective.5 toward and supremacy contendency interventionism, autonomization,
International Political Science Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, 1985 81-103 @ 1985 International Political Science Association

81

82

THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

of the of the main countries reality historical the prevailing stitutes region. THE STATIST TRADITION byabsoluandcontrolled undertaken andcolonization The conquest and omnipotence, tist states imposed a dynamicof centralization, political-administrative ofthestateearlyon. A powerful omnipresence urbanization, occupation, apparatusassumedthe tasks of territorial ofconflict. and regulation system, ofthesocioeconomic organization underits theterritory influenced elitegreatly The local bureaucratic Thismade and privilege. wealth, itbecamea sourceofpower, authority; essenapparatus ofthepolitical-administrative forcontrol thestruggle and selfforthe self-sustained to the tendency tial and contributed andspheres ofitspowers itself, ofthebureaucracy growth accumulating interests and groups of constellation a of the emergence to and ofaction, 1952; 1949, Bagu, III; Chapter 198 la: aroundit(Kaplan, 1969a,1969b, 1972). Zavala, 1941; Haring,1963;Ots Capdequi, theperiodof nationalindependence The statethatdevelopedfrom Dependent context: onwarddid so in thefollowing and organization of labor division in the world orderand an international insertion Europe and the United of western underthe hegemony structured a exports; based on rawmaterial and development States;an economy order. State political and an oligarchical and rigid society, hierarchical of the by means of the destruction was accomplished construction offoreign and disequilibrium, conflict ofgeneralized order, traditional The statearose and flourand caudillismo. and civilwars,of anarchy ofthe noras theinstrument ofthiscontext ishednotas themereresult theneworder;in part,it was conIn part,it predated newoligarchy. its initself is,itfound andlogic;that toitsownreality according structed (Kaplan, 1969a, 1969b;Pinto Santa of determination own principles y Construc1946;Proyecto Cruz, 1962;CarreraDamas, 1980;Burgin, cion de una Nacion, 1980;Cotler,1982;Garcia, 1981;Brewer-Carias, 1976;Vega C., 1981). 1975;Martins, in themselves constituted military) political, New elites (intellectual, of it,intheconstruction and,through theprocessofstateconstruction The statedevelopedas an apparatus;it new economiesand societies. and structure withit,a progressive thatidentified acquiredpersonnel publicspace.Itdifferautonomous and a relatively institutionalization, a long that had for overa society itstutelage itself and imposed entiated coextenbarely itself, andincapableofregulating time beenamorphous aliento majoriand itssubordinated periphery, theoligarchy sivewith

Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA

83

or participation in the restricted ties withoutrepresentation political in varyThe stateand thepublicelitedifferentiated market. themselves from thenewoligarchy; ingdegrees together they producedand organized it. They resolvedthe problemof hegemony, sharingit withthe dominantsocioeconomicclass with which theypartiallyintegrated themselves controlof thestate. by meansof their The public elite, by its own initiative and in agreement withthe and adaptedthemodelofa sovereign, oligarchy, imported centralized, theruleoflaw,with republican, representative under state, a division of powers and withindividualrightsand guarantees.This model was on a heterogeneous setoftraditional superimposed powers, structures, and practices thatrejectedor refracted and undermined it in its true External functioning. marked socioeconomic and regional dependence, and the concentration of politicalpowerin the hands of inequalities, minorities orimpeded reduced theeffective oftheprinciples application and formsof stateunityand supremacy, popular participation, and representative The statetherefore democracy. appeared as essentially theform ofa unifying oligarchical, or ofa democracy taking autocracy, withlimited or of a combination ofthetwo. participation, in thisfashion, Constituted thestateinstitutionalized itself and the newsystem ofdomination andexploitation. It acquiredan apparatusof government, and coercion,and organizedthe armed administration, forces, making them perform under thewatchwords ofprofessionalism, and subordination bureaucratization, loyalty, to the civilpower.The statepromoted thegrowth and modernization of educationand techand controlled nology; thepress;andestablished developed a contradicwiththe Catholic Church.The state toryand complex relationship assumeda crucialrolein theimposition of solutions to theproblem of hegemony to thebenefit of an allianceof publicelitesand oligarchical oftheconditions groups;in theimplantation required fortheadvancementof the model of growth, in thesuccessful economy,and society; in the international of the economyand of the country integration and theinternational system divisionof labor; in theaccomplishment and maintenance oflegitimacy; and ofconsensus thestateitself. toward The state and the public elite constituted themselves while,at the sametime, theemergent shaping and society, economy andcontributing to theformation of thenew oligarchy. decisively Yet theynevercompletely withthe oligarchy or thesystem. merged From theoutset, the liberalmodelencompassed variouspossibilities. On the one hand, the differentiation betweenthe state and civil between the politicalsphereand the economicsphereof free society, and free enterprise market, led to thestate'stendency to assumea wide

84

THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

functions, and powers,and towardpolitical range of interventions, On the other hand, the dilemma monopoly and autonomization. (political)maybe rein(economic)and democracy between liberalism application ofthestate in twoways:Towarda moreeffective terpreted and the for opposingthe system of law and its optimalutilization a reinforcement ofconseror toward advancement ofdemocratization; as indemocratic cesarism, ofdemocratization, vatism to thedetriment in Mexico or or unifying autocracy(e.g., porfirismo and civilizing gomecismo in Venezuela) (Cossio Villegas, 1972; Gonzalez, 1976; Roeder,1973;Rangel,1975;Gallo and CortesConde, 1972;Vallenilla Lanz, 1952). during and tendencies becamemorepronounced These virtualities until century thebeginning ofthetwentieth thetransition phase,from system and their intheinternational 1930(Kaplan, 1969a).Thechanges as wellas theriseofthe effects on socioeconomic structures disruptive specific middleand lower urban classes in termsof theirnumbers, and participative reinforced nationalist, democratic, pressures weight, found Suchtendencies and reformist tendencies. populist, modernizing, inthegovernments ofUruguayan their battlismo, Argentine expression in the in the Mexican revolution; radicalism, Chileanalessandrismo; of in of and therise Brazilianvarguismo and Peruuniversity reform; thesocial bases vianaprismo. The statetransformed itself bywidening forits recruitment of personnel and of class and groupsupport;by the and itsroleas arbiter; and byrestricting interventionism reinforcing oftheliberal offunctioning model.However, andmethods assumptions limited On werepartially and modified thesetendencies bytwofactors: inherent in middle-class the one hand,thelimits partiesand regimes withsubordinated supportfromthe urban and ruralpoor, and the on withthetraditional and system; searchforcompromises oligarchy crisesand the internal the otherhand, the impactof international from1930 changesthatfollowedone afteranotherand intertwined onward. THE PERMANENT STRUCTURAL CRISIS in 1930,Latin Americaentereda phase of permanent Beginning theinterventionism and autonomization which structural during crisis, of the stateand publiceliteswereon theincrease.This increasewas and ownlogic,butalso their baseduponnotonly previous development in the in themode of insertion of the modifications upon the effects of division labor,of and international international system changing

Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA

85

of social and cultural-ideological changes growth and modernization, and of politicalcrises. and conflicts, The emerging international system to whichthe Latin American by unequal interdepencountrieswere adjustingwas characterized ofworldpowerinthehandsoftwosuperpowtheconcentration dency, oflabor.The LatinAmerican ersas poles ofblocs,and thenewdivision into the circleof United almostcompletely nationsdrew themselves of a constellation domination-dependencyStateshegemony, suffering that organizedand maintained unequal and combineddevelopment to the model of withrespect themwitha low capacityforautonomy thehandling of and political as wellas for system, development-society (Kaplan, 1974c,1976c,1984a:ChapterII; Bedinternational relations6 oflabor division 1981).The newinternational jaqui, 1979;Sid-Ahmed, forthe Latin Americanstates,particularly had decisiveimplications of productive the redistribution with regardto multinational firms; of organsand in a planetary the concentration activities perspective; in thecenters and pinnacles ofpowerand decisionmaking instruments theintegration of Thesecountries' search for ofthedeveloped countries. ofunequal interdependence and worldeconomicsand politicsin terms ofeach Latin American oftheobjectives thedemandsofreadjustment and goals of a newworld in orderto fitintotherequirements country of state revisionof the principle model; and the formsof restrictive II; Frobeletal., 1981;Skliar,1980; sovereignty (Kaplan, 1984a:Chapter Frondizi,1947). and a floodofsocialand cultural-ideological modernization, Growth, likethe thisinternational insertion, accompanied changesand conflicts as part of a projector path of new capitalist inside facetof reality, (Garcia, 1972; Graciarena, 1977; Comision peripheraldevelopment Economica para America Latina, 1963; Prebisch, 1981; UNESCO, as follows: 1962).This projectcan be characterized
(1) The association of large firms(multinationals and nationals) predominated in coexistence with low productivityand low-profitfirmsas well as with backward or archaic nuclei and areas. (2) Conditioned by the new international division of labor, the production of raw materials and industrial goods specialized in import substitution of goods formerlydestined for the internal market's high- and middleclass urban dwellers and in exports to developed centers. (3) The project was designed and carried out by political, techno-bureaucratic and business elites of the state and private sector, with the advice and and internationalorganizations. financingofgreatpowers,multinationals,

86

THEFUTURE OF THESTATE
(4) Financing throughexports and foreignloans and investments replaced the autonomous processes of capital accumulation and technological development. (5) The use of an abundant and a submissive labor forcewas combined with the importation of capital-intensivetechnologyand state protectionism. (6) Partial and dependent growth and superficial modernization became disassociated fromintegraldevelopment and replaced it. The benefitsof the former were monopolized by national and foreign minorities. Growth was limited and distorted; it presupposed and reinforcedthe regressive redistributionof income, the lowering of levels of employment, remuneration,consumption, and welfare of the majority of the population.

The population was leftwithits problems: thefrustration of itsneeds and hopes of participationand the reductionof its options and possibilities for progress. The reclassifying, concentrating,and marginalizing natureof thisprojectand path became evidentin termsof countries(the widening of the gap between central and peripheral countries of the region, and among the peripheralcountries themselves); between economic sectors and subsectors, urban poles and regions, classes, and groups. The project and its implementationtended to require the existence of a political order assuringthe lack of participation,apathy, and submission of the majorityof the population. Growth and modernization diversified the major forces,structures, and relations of society, as well as society as a whole, and made them more complex. Neocapitalism imposed itselfas the model of production,coexistingwithnoncapitalistor archaic capitalistformsof production, stratification, actors, and spaces. The formerintertwineditself with the latter,thus subordinatingand transforming them. New social classes, groups, and sectors emerged, particularlyin the cities, coexisting and crossbreedingwith other traditional ones. Complex situationsand dynamics,undercontradictory became determinants, common. The transitionfromthe formerphase to the new one was not the resultof a deliberateaction by a class or group, nor by an elite group or institution exerting pressureon thestate,or controlling and usingitin the frameworkof a transforming strategy.No collective actor deliberately promoted the changes or took advantage of them,nor was conscious of what was happening and its implications. The changes took place primarilyas a resultof accidental, impersonal factors(economic, political, and militarycrises, a new international division of labor, confrontationsbetween superpowers and blocs), alien to the countries of the region and their decision centers, and as the involuntaryand

Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA

87

and thesystem favoring measures ofemergency by-products unforeseen groups(Kaplan, 1984a: ChapterIV; Garcia, dominant thetraditional 1972; Graciarena,1967; Germani,1962; Solari et al., 1976;UNESCO, 1962; BenitezZenteno,1977). it a weakeningof its hegemony, suffered Althoughthe oligarchy self-transformation, and,bymeansofadaptive powers important retained to converteditselfinto a new oligarchicalelite,withthe flexibility and theessenceofitsinterests ofchangeand to preserve absorbelements thoseclasses and however, At the otherextreme, those of thesystem. in growth, interested or partially were been have should groupsthat internaof the in handling autonomy and change,democratization, speaking), (strictly entrepreneurs national the tional affairs-namely, and peasant urban workers, marginals, middleclasses, intellectuals, withoutan and weak, the on scene, groups-were late in appearing criticizbecame active, projector policy.Some ofthesesectors original without did so Yet they domination. thetraditional ingand challenging orto imposean alternathatdomination affect to seriously thecapacity and the thepublicelites, thestate, and project.Although tivehegemony lost the capacityto rule the dominantsocioeconomicclass partially classesdid notgain it. and dominated nation,theintermediate the oftheexceptional, thenormalization sphere, In thesociopolitical setin from1930onward.Heterogeneous of thetransition permanence and of progress, backwardness, and forms-elements forces historical thatwould incorpoany restructuring without regression-combined rationality. ratethemall undertheaegis of some alternative and coexist,confrontideologiesproliferate In thesecircumstances, liberalism, conservatism, Traditional and interwining: ingone another Denationalpopulism,socialism,and neofascism. developmentalism, the ideology,permeating as a diffuse predominates velopmentalism ofsocial behavior and thepatterns ofconsciousness The forms others. and contradictory. are also hybrid and becomeroutinized thepoliticalparties Duringthesameprocess, they Theydo notadjustto rapidchangesand newconditions; sclerotic. and capacityforaction.Classes, representativity their lose or diminish conscience, tend to lack cohesion,a unified groups,and institutions and impose their the aptitudeto formulate respresentation, efficient coalitions.The obstacles to form and theability and projects, interests abound,as do ofpoliticalactionand a wideconsensus forms to rational stagnation, of incoherence, and situations divergencies unreconcilable and options,the of theproblems The clearformulation and paralysis. questhecrises,and thefundamental decisionsand actionsregarding

88

THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

tionsofdevelopment becomes difficult. A type ofpolitical crisis tends to become generalized as a result oftheconfluence oftwomajorcurrents of thegeneral process (Kaplan, 1977,1984a:Chapter V; Bourricaud, 1967; Collier,1979;Cotler,1982;DESCO, 1977;Fernandes, 1981;Germani, 1962;Jaguaribe, 1972a, 1972b,1972c,1974; Lipsetand Solari, 1967; Martins, 1976;Romero,1946;Solari, 1977). Neocapitalist growth displacesand dissolves former forms ofdominationand exploitation, and imposesits own. Masses of people are from liberated traditional hierarchies, restructured and mobilized, and incited to multiply their needsanddemands for satisfaction andparticipation. On the otherhand, neocapitalism deploysits marginalizing The newoligarchic tensions and conflicts. dynamic, thereby increasing thecenters ofpolitieliteand thetraditional institutional orders reserve of cal decisionmaking and action.The accumulation and profitability theincreased concentration ofpowerand an thelargefirms necessitate authoritarian order. it increasingly to The oligarchic elite,however, finds moredifficult thesystem. It splits reproduce up intocompetitive factions, confronting thatare difficult to popular movements, antagonisms, and conflicts It feels thethreat ofthesystem's absorband control. growing entropy. in situations This threat becomesmanifest of social struggle, political instability, thereduction oflegitimacy and consensus, theinsufficiency Its of normalcoercion, a vacuumof power,and crisesof hegemony. and of ideologies are theproliferation manifestations and instruments particularly of movements, parties, and regimes including democratic reliberals,center-leftists, developmentalists, Bonapartist-populists, formists, and revolutionary leftists. At the same time,thesepolitical to overcome the attempts appearas reflecting, continuing, and striving All ofthem-withtheexception crisis. ofCuba-affectthetraditional political system, but withoutdestroying it. In fact,theypartially it. On the whole,thesepoliticalphenomena preserve simultaneously render the maintenance of the old oligarchical its rebirth hegemony, bases and instruments, undernewforms, and a widening democratizationdifficult. The allianceoftheoligarchic eliteand thegroupsof the principalinstitutional orders become aware of the contradiction oftheneocapitalist, between thedemands conservative, and modernizwithand thecharacteristics ingproject they identify and effects of the the tendency to searchfora definite politicalcrisis.This reinforces solution or neofascist7 to thiscontradiction bymeansofauthoritarian6 solutions.

Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA

89

INTERVENTIONISM AND THE AUTONOMIZATION OF THE STATE thestateand thepublicelitesincescontext, In thissociohistorical their powers and spheres, functions, increase their interventions, santly towardpoliticalmonopolyand tendencies and their and instruments, in its factors decisive actorsin society, Bothbecomecentral autonomy. and changes.Because it predatedtransforreproduction, structuring, preparedand qualifiedthanany thestateis better mationsand crises, and tasks.It becomes thenewchallenges other social actorto undertake of,butabove as a product acting and autonomous, moreinterventionist and and ofthesituations oftheforces and structures, all as, theproducer beingdeployed. dynamics competifreeof markets, placed above society, As a separateentity the stateis able to guaranteethe constraints, tion,and accumulation ofneocapitaland advancement ofimplementation, conditions general all toward entropy; and tendencies ofitsconflicts ismand theregulation by the that cannot resultfroma spontaneousprocess,self-regulated The state'sinterventionism and automarketand privateenterprise. and nomization arebasedon and occurbymeansofitscomplementarity or But to the same firm. the degree with to large private service respect the the of of rationality the are based on safeguarding also more,they ofitsfunctions, and thedynamas a whole,theaccomplishment system of the elite. in the public power ics of self-accumulation of collective and functions organization The stateassumesprimary fields: socioeconomic policiesin thefollowing
(1) regulation of the availability and use of resources, the distribution of goods, services and incomes; the establishment of prioritieswith respect to needs and the items needed to satisfythem; and the settingof goals and options; (2) creation and administration of public services, economic and social and basic and leading industries; infrastructures, (3) production and buying and selling of goods and services; (4) direct investment,and support to private investment; (5) maintenance of the employment,income, and consumption levels of the population (bureaucratic work, services, and social transfers); of the large private firm (6) public financingof production and profitability by means of instrumentsdevaluing social capital and the socialization of risks and losses; and, (7) compensatory policies and policies designed to preventand to overcome crises including global pilotage, anticyclical or mere growthmeasures, or

90

THE FUTURE OF THE STATE planned development attempts(Kaplan, 1984a: Chapter VI; Afonso and de Souza, 1977; lanni, 1971; Martins, 1976; Pinto, 1971; Prebisch, 1981; Kaplan, 1969b, 1980b).

FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL COERCION

In carrying outtheir thestate functions and in accumulating power, and thepublicelitesreinforce an of and adjust apparatus domination and socialcoercion that as wellas their expandstheir personnel powers, resources andspheres andmakes more Thesetofold and these complex. new institutions combinespublic and entrepreneurial bureaucracies, partiesand labor unions,semnigovernmental or formally independent of the armed and participation administrations, formsof planning, forces and thetechno-bureaucracy. The statebecomes morecentralized as an apparatus and as an actorand powercenter. itsnature It redefines and function, a diffuse manner thatgoes beyonditsinstituacquiring tional formalization. itbecomes more andcomplex. Interally, segmented The statereinforces itsmonopoly ofviolence and control, decisions and directions ofsociety, and regulation. A subsystem ofcontrol maintainsclassesand groupswithin thelimits compatible withthesystem, regulating their demandsbymeansofa combination ofopencoercion andinduction ofconsensus. The state tends toward theapplication ofan integrative controlin the ideological,political,administrative, and It intrudes policespheres. intotheprivate livesand everyday existence ofitscitizens, and supervises and politicizes institutions. The centralization ofstatepowermanifests itself through theriseof theexecutive branch to thedetriment oftheother branches; theuse of information and themassmedia;theincreased technicality ofpolitical and administrative life;increasing techno-bureaucracy, militarization, and repression. The statetendsto atomizeand subordinate society; to convert it intoan amorphous body,lackingmeansof expression and with participation, fewor no instruments forself-regulating orcontrollingLeviathan. As an arbitrative entity, the stateregulates relations and conflicts between classes,groups, and institutions. It imposescompromises and provides headquarters, setting andmechanisms for thepolitical unification of the dominant factions and forsolutionsto hegemony. With tothemiddle respect andlower classes, ontheonehand, thestate creates andguarantees their conditions ofdomination andexploitation. On the other hand,facedwith nationalist, populist, developmental-liberal, and socialisticpressures, thestateintervenes in favorof groupsfrom the

Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA

91

limited and mostpopulousclassesto achieveconsensus, participation, ofnationalloyalty infavor ofintegration thecreation and international et al., 1973;Graciarena,1967;Garcia, policy(DESCO, 1977;Germani 1972; lanni, 1971, 1975; Kaplan, 1977; Lowenthal,1975; Pinto, 1971; Solari, 1977; Weffort, 1978; Fernandes, 1979; Gonzalez Casanova, 1966). As forcultural-ideological functions, the stateincreasesits role as ofhumanresources, producer social know-how, norms and values,and modelsof personality and behavior.The specific waysof constructing and developing thestate, itsrelations with civilsociety, and itslogicand behavioralso play a crucialrole in theconformation and typology of intellectual groups(Kaplan, 1970,1974a, 1974b,1974c,1981d,1983a; Lipsetand Solari, 1967;Graciarena, 1977). In its international policyfunctions, the stateprimarily createsthe of external conditions dependence and peripheral neocapitalism. This does not mean thatthestateis themereinstrument of foreign groups The stateis themediator and interests. between internal and external groups, between thenationalsociety and thedevelopedmetropoli, and betweenautonomy and dependence.Its policiesdivert internal forces that and tendencies wouldthreaten thesystem toward theexterior. They provide nationalbases thatcan be mobilized to reinforce themaneuverthestatesand corporations elitesvis-a-vis ingpowerofthegovernment of hegemonic Nationalist powersand developedcountries. claims,atat regionalcooperationand integration, and thedemandsand tempts to restructure theinternational orderall simultaneactivities designed ously seek the renegotiationof dependence, the achievementof of thepresent and thestrengthening worldsystem, advantageswithin stateautonomy (Kaplan, 1968,1969b,1972,1974c,1976b,198 1b, 198 1c, 1984b;Bedjaqui, 1979;Solari, 1976,1977;Sid-Ahmed, 1981;Puigetal., 1973). oftheconfluence ofthe Thus,autonomization developsas theresult and processes. following factors, forces, of existenceand The stateprovidesthe conditionsand guarantees that is incapable of achievingthese goals of a system reproduction or through theexclusive actionofa dominant faction of spontaneously or themarket. class,private firms, A global entity fromthe interrelations resulting amongthe forces, thatconstituted and processes itsowncharacterisstructures, it,yetwith in and developsitsowngenetic ticsand capacities;thestateintervenes and meta-systems thatinteconstitutes conditions; meta-organizations

92

THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

accumulates, grate and reinforcetheir own evolution; hypertrophies, and centralizes new powers and resources; and increases its own interests as apparatus-institution-group. An epicentermore than an epiphenomenon of society,the state distances itselfmore and more fromthe latter. At the same time, the state penetratesand impregnatessociety, establishing a networkof symbioticand parasitic relationshipswithit. and political personnel,especially the entirecivil The administrative themselves.They grow and reinforce and military techno-bureaucracy, specialize and develop theirown interestsand powers. They are more conditioned and determinedby acting withinand forthe state than by any othercircumstance,includingclass relationsand kinship(of origin or of support). This has been occurring not only in the case of high officials and political cadres, but also in the case of the administrativebureaucracy, as a specificsocial segmentand a typeof organization. This bureaucracy carries out mediatoryand regulatoryfunctionswith respectto classes, groups, and institutions.It establishes power relations with these and makes themdependentupon thestate and upon itselffortheirexistence and the grantingof theirinterests.Part of this bureaucracy is recruited in the nondominantsectors(middle and lowerclasses) thatfindpossibilities of life, upward mobility, and participation in the civil service. Bureaucratic groups take the classes and groups of the majorities into account, organize them,and control and manipulate themas a base and as clients. Subsystems of power and constellations of intereststhat reinforce their autonomizing tendencies are generated within and around the bureaucracy (Brewer-Carias, 1975; Cardoso, 1972; Collier, 1979; Kaplan, 1980b, 1984a; Martins, 1976; Lipset and Solari, 1967; Smith, 1981; Stepan, 1973). As an extremeexpression of thistendency,the armed forcesbecome politicized and assume the tutelage of the nation. They tend to convert themselvesinto a techno-bureaucraticelite and into armed politicians, convergingwith sectors of the civil techno-bureaucracyin agreements (Collier, 1979; Cotler, and projects as well as in government experiments 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 systemin conflictiveand changing societies, mediator and and arbiter,the state is affectedby classes, groups, and institutions must thereforeresort to strategies and tactics that will maintain its its image supremacy. The state and the public elite must partlyreflect

Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA

93

force vis-a-vis entity, a supreme as an autonomized function and partly components. and itsprincipal society class intocompetitive socioeconomic ofthedominant The divisions and will classconscience to developa unified and itsincapacity factions representaitto seekoutor submit to thepublicelitesas thestate's force and apparatus personnel The state's matters. in official tives and proxies theproblems resolve class as such;they thedominant finish structuring enemies and external and defendit againstbothinternal of hegemony and threats. by divided thanmonolithic, rather The powerblockis heterogeneous and orders, erodedby between factions and institutional contradictions Different from otherclasses,groups,and social movements. pressures ofthestatecan becomeseatsofpowerofrepresensectors and branches forcontrol. of nondominant groupscompeting tatives ofthestateand ofitsautonomization and implies The strengthening to theextent thatpublic real neutrality, efficient an apparent/ requires ownideologicaland political and act according to their think personnel categories-categoriesthat act as mediators-and are convincedof own neutrality. their of of recruitment, by means of mechanisms The democratization to opensthedoors ofstateorganisms and grouppromotion, individual themiddleand lowerlevels. drawnfrom and administrators politicians and conflict withinthe dominantclass favorsthe The competition and dominatedclasses and theachieveof thesubordinated pressures the between them.The statearbitrates mentof measuresthatbenefit theseand themiddleand lowerclasses, dominant groups,and between thatthreaten thesystem's in thosesituations stability. particularly to carried outaccording aretakenand itsactions decisions The state's and objectivesthattendsto of actors,interests, an orderof priority globalrationalfavor:(1) thepublicelites;(2) theneedsofthesystem's of the dominant factions class; (4) the dominant ity;(3) the strongest classes. and groupsofthedominated class as a whole; and (5) factions LIMITS AND CRISES OF STATE INTERVENTIONISM AND AUTONOMIZATION capable of extremelatitude,the Always presentand fluctuating, of thestatenevertheless from restrictions and autonomization suffers limits mustremainwithin certain (Kaplan, 1984a).

94

THE FUTUREOF THE STATE

The system'sboundaries and constraints,its patternsof structuring its role condition and determinethe state, restricting and functioning, and its policies as well as the scope and resultsof its actions. On the one hand, states and multinational firmsof the capitalist-developedcounand, to a lesser extent,in the tries,internationalfinancial institutions, majorityof the countriesof the region,the Soviet Union and itsbloc act as power centers outside of Latin America. They make fundamental decisions withregard to decisive aspects and levels (commercial moveimportcapacity, ments,termsoftrade,capital flows,monetaryreserves, debts, control of vital resources), therebyreducing the accumulation and productivityof Latin American economies, and their states' and societies' possibilities for autonomous development, intra-and extraregional cooperation, and the promotion of a favorable change in the internationalorder (Kaplan 1984a: Chapter VII; Sid-Ahmed, 1981). On the other hand, when the Latin American State promotes ecoof the large firm, nomic growthand accumulation, and the profitability it does so in termsof its own vision, positions, and interests.Thus, it often creates limits and negative restrictions for large enterprisesand accept stateinterventiongroups fromthedominantclasses. These firms to the state fashion; they transfer ism in a conditional and transitory problems and conflicts,and burdens and costs of normal situations, the resourshort-term situations,and crises whiledenyingor retracting ces needed for normal functioningand its capacity to reach solutions. The firmsuse the failures of public powers as a constant demand for reducingthe latter'sautonomy and interference. The state and public elitessee theirpossibilitiesforaction as limited. Both findit difficult to act outside of or against certainclass and power relations that set the boundaries and restrictions of the system.They cannot dominate the social and political game in whichtheyparticipate and are forcedto accept many of its conditions. They mustcompensate forand regulatethe major dynamisms,disequilibriums,and conflictsa posteriori. The limitsto state autonomy stemfromotherfactorsand tendencies including: to individual restrictions andtotheeffective demopromotion (1) structural oftherecruitment of political leadersand cadres; cratization ofthegoverning and regulatory mechanisms andadministrative (2) cohesive and conditions; meansofsociapractices groups:Identical professional as agentsof a coninformation, and communication bility, education, servative of political taboos; indoctrination and theimposition

Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA

95

(3) networkof ties between members of the dominant socioeconomic groups and the political and administrativeleaders; (4) control over branches and organs of the state apparatus witha key role in the decision-making systemby representativesof the hegemonic factions and institutions(armed forces, church) with the capacity to dominate other parts of the state; (5) calls to order to public personnel by the dominant groups in the face of (withwhat is considered as excessive autonomization and interference drawal of capital, monetary and financial disequilibriums, shortages, political destabilization, foreign support, coups d'Etat) and, (6) public elites' refusal to widen the democratic participation and political mobilization of the majorities.

of In this manner,the state subsists and operates under the restriction domithe reinforce Its policies autonomization. and its interventionism nant groups, harming and marginalizing the majorities. Said policies multiplytensions and conflictsthat fall back on the state,thus reducing even more its capacity for action. The intensiveuse of power by a state of coercion and that is more and more centralized and the reinforcement control, as opposed to persuasion and consensus, accentuate the contradiction betweenthe concentration of powers, privileges,and benefits in the hands of public and private minorities,and the prerequisitesand components of democratic legitimacy and a consensus of the majority (Kaplan, 1984a: Chap. VII, 1980b: Chap. I, 1969b: Chap. II). The state becomes weakened as an agency of mere conservation, changes inherentin the system,and, above all, development. The policies and actions for this diversityof objectives are postponed or inadequately undertaken by states that are unrepresentative,not supported by a dense fabric of innovative forces, pressured or controlled by conservative minoritieswhose legitimacyand consensus are on the decline, of immediate survival. State intervenand absorbed by the difficulties tions are undertakenin an improvised manner and under the pressure of contingencies and emergencies. They turn out to be inorganic and and anarchy as feedback. receivingtheirown irrationality contradictory, It abdicates The state uses its instrumentsand organs insufficiently. position with on its possibilities and powers and adopts a self-limiting respectto its role as a minimal regulatorand troubleshooter.It therefore does not provide the impulses and resources, the values and norms, and the options and actions that any project or strategy(of growth and modernization or of integral development) would require. Its policies fluctuate between a national-populist-statistorientation and an elitist-

96

THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

coexistence one,and their hybrids. The difficult private-neocolonialist thepublicand private fortifies thelatter, thereby reducsectors between and weight ofthestate. ingtheautonomy withrespect to interests ofunlikely conciliation In itsinterventions thatare difficult the statelacks to settle, and problems and conflicts for andsolving evaluating, effective andcapabilities perceiving, patterns ofsociety ofthe andpolitics. Thecharacteristics theprincipal questions statecontribute to thisdeficit. socialtransmitters and thereceptor of Information on the needs, demands,problems,and conflicts manner and systems is given ina deformed institutions, classes, groups, mediasociety bymeansofdistorting byan opaque and contradictory or ambiguous thatare difficult messages tory circumstances, enigmatic ofthechanges and crises, to decipher. Giventhenature and modalities no class andthelackofa lasting solution to thequestions ofhegemony, or group completely dominatesthe state or uses it and exclusively in terms of its own interests and projects. A variety of unrestrictively and parathestate, disassociating forces exerts pressure on and within andreinforce the with state factions and organs lyzing it.Theyinterwine anarchy, and lack of coordination, matters' competition and rivalries, inefficiency. ofcentralandpersonnel suffer from a dialectic Thestate's apparatus andauthoraccumulation ofpower ization anddispersion. Theexcessive its executive nucleusand the high-level ityin thecentral govenment, as well thelegislative andjudicialpowers techno-bureaucracy, weakens as publicopinion, or survives as such, to be civilsociety whatmanages and administraOn theother hand, political andthenational majorities. tivegroupsabound within a feudal-type thestateapparatus, exerting control overitsbranches, Thelinking of organs, and publicenterprises. ofa network of with ofcivilsociety occurs bymeans these groups sectors specific forms of and through relations, services, and mutualsupport centralization authoritarian and clientelism. Excessive corporatization orreinforcement of contribute tothecreation andfeudalistic dispersion ofthestateapparatus, and to and responsibilities entities, mechanisms, and isolatedreforms. theerratic searchforemergency solutions moreand more becomes thestate As an apparatus-institution-group, it defines To a greatdegree, and contradictory. itself, heterogeneous toitspolicies With anderror. andbytrial decidesandactsblindly regard and insufficient failures, and activities, solutions, ambiguousresults, thecausesofthe reinforce another. occuroneafter crises These,inturn, and restrictiveand negative effectsfor state interventionism autonomization.

Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA

97

The "creole Leviathan"reachesits culmination almost simultaneously withits entrance into crisis.Diverse forcesand processesboth within and outsidethestatecoerceand erode it,threaten itsexistence, autonomy,and supremacy, as well as the efficiency and scope of its create actions.At thesame time, equal or similar causes and dynamics of maintenance or reinforcepositivefeedbackor countertendencies mentof thestate. oftheinternational The intensity, depth, and unpredictable duration inconjunction theunsatisfactory effects crisis, with results and negative ofthemodelofgrowth and modernization, itsincreasingly evident with thenumber and frustration, of problems and constagnation multiply to whichno solutionsor actorscapable of proposing and impleflicts of solutionsseemto be available.The stateand corporations menting the hegemonic international powerand of otherdevelopedcountries, institutions, and factionsof the dominantsocioeconomicclasses are of and to carry out thefunctions ofgovernment unableto takecontrol eveninsituations of and administration oftheLatinAmerican nations, nationaldissolution. catastrophic crisisand imminent Thus, the need for and the possibility of the political of mediationand arbitration as thestate-increasesas theonlyguarantee power-institutionalized oftheconditions of recuperation or renovation ofthecohesion,unity, ofthenationalsystems, or oftheir progresequilibrium, and continuity thesituations ofand tendencies toward sivetransformation. As a result, theautonomization and self-accumulation ofpowersand resources, of ofactionand privileges-byand on behalf ofthestateand possibilities withthesupportand in and reinforced, public elites-are maintained oftheperipheries, benefit alliancesas well. and sociopolitical clientele, ina variety as a general manifest itself of Statism couldthen tendency form of and ways,whosedefinite woulddependon a combination types and outcomesof the dimensionssuch as the nature,circumstances, and crises;the alliances of elites,classes, groupsand major conflicts theinternal theredefinition of institutions; impactof external factors; theredeployment and thesystem; ofrelations themodelofdevelopment thepublic,private, stateand civilsociety, between and social between the of between state and law sectors, (Diaz, 1977); prevalence authorior ofdemocratization, and form tarianism and,ineither case,thedegree of each. thespecifications A possibletypology of states, derived considering of the fromthe politicalregimesand social-historical particularities be comprised Latin American could therefore countries, bythefollowing:neofascism; national-populist Bonapartism (Kaplan, 1977);author-

98

THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

itariancollectivism; and the social democratic stateof law (Kaplan, 1974a,1983b,1984a:Chapter IX). NOTES
1. For thejustification ofthedoublesimplification and theendeavor to countervail someofitsrestrictions, see Kaplan, 1969a:Introduction, Chapters 6,7; 1969b:Chapter 2, 1977; 1979;1981a; 1984a. 2. A biasedoutlookhas recently led to thearbitrary ofa lateappearance in assertion the 1960s of the stateas a centralsubjectof the politicaldebate and the sociological preoccupation as a result of thereception of Western sociology in the Latin American countries (see Lechner, N., ed., 1981, Estadoypolitica enAmerica Latina,p. 301,M6xico: The treatment ofthesubject Siglo XXI Editores). earlier beganin a rather phase,at the end of the 19thcentury. It emergedin relationto politicalconflicts and outcomes, historical and political research debateon theformation ofthenationand thestate, and constitutional lawanalysis andpropositions. In Argentina inthe1940s, twoseminal works produced from twoopposite points ofviewwereoutstanding totheanalysis contributions ofthestate:Sampay,1942,and Frondizi,1944. 1 have endeavoredto explore the sociopoliticalconditioning of Latin American political theonefocused on thestate, in Kaplan 1970,1974b,1978, science, especially and 1983a. An analysisin historical for the Argentine perspective case can be foundin Romero,1946.For thecontemporary situation, see therestricted butuseful of analysis and Graciarena, 1977;Solari, 1976;Fernandes, 1979,1981;Lamounier, 1983;and Meyer Camacho, 1979. 3. Marxism fora longtimein LatinAmerican has prevailed countries under itsmore dogmaticand reductionist forms.The analysisof the state was thus made witha outlook.Nevertheless, structuralist-economistic withall and/orclass-instrumentalism consequent restrictions and simplifications, a long line of Marxist thinkers and researchers and substantial materials. In thelast threedecades,a providedimportant reaction intheMarxist to a widening oftheoretical developed field, leading andenriching and empirical research. An important in theform ofa critical contribution and an survey effort to advancethisperspective can be foundin Evers,1979. 4. The advance of Americanand western European sociologyhas in manyways influenced research on politics and thestate, theapproaches primarily through provided andtheelitist bystructural-functionalism, modernization, political development currents, and Weberian ones.See Germani, 1962,1971;Jaguaribe, 1972a,1972b1972c,1974;and thedebateon thesouthern cone regimes, quotedin Note 6. Jaguaribe's contribution is itscombination for ofMarxist western outstanding and American/ European approaches, and ofdeeppreoccupation andknowledge ofLatinAmerican realities andproblems. Even treatment ofthesubject, in thebestcases ofspecific thisorientation has dealtmorewith thanwiththestateas a theoretical of specific thesociologicalcontext politicalregimes problem and as a concrete phenomenon. 5. I haveendeavored to developa different fortheanalysis perspective ofthenationstatein Latin American in Kaplan, 1968,1974a, 1978,1980b,1984,and the countries, worksquotedin Note 1. 6. The bureaucratic authoritarian is discussed in Collier,1979;Remmer perspective and Merkk,1982;Canak, 1984;Cardoso, 1972. 7. On thepossibility of a Latin American see Kaplan, 1976a, 1979,1980a, fascism, 1984b;Fernandes, 1981;Vilar,1978.

Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA

99

REFERENCES
AFONSO, C. A. and H. DE SOUZA (1977) 0 Estado e o desenvolvimento capitalist no Brasil.A crisefiscal.Rio de Janeiro:EditioraPaz e Terra. Amnesty International (1981) Les "disparus":Rapport sur une nouvelletechniquede repression. Paris: Editionsdu Seuil. AssociationInternationale de Defense des Artistes Victimes de la Repressiondans le uneculture Piecesaconviction Monde [AIDA] (1981) Argentine: interdite. 1976-1981. Paris: FrancoisMaspero. BADIE, B., and P. BIRNBAUM (1979) Sociologiede l'Etat. Paris: Bernard Grasset. BAGU, S. (1952) Estructura social de la colonia. Ensayo de historiacomparada de AmericaLatina. Buenos Aires:El Ateneo. Economia de la sociedad colonial. Ensayo de historiacomparada de ---(1949) AmericaLatina. Buenos Aires:El Ateneo. BEDJAQUI, M. (1979)Pourunnouvelordre economique international. Paris:UNESCO. BENITEZ ZENTENO, R. [Compilador](1977) Clases socialesy crisispoliticaen America Latina. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores. BIRNBAUM, P. (1982) La logiquede l'Etat. Paris: Fayard. BOURRICAUD, F. (1967) Pouvoir et societydans le Perou contemporain.Paris: Librairie ArmandColin. BREWER-CARIAS, A. (1975) Cambio politicoy reforma del Estado en Venezuela, Madrid: Editorial Tecnos. BURGIN, M. (1946) The Economic Aspects of Argentine Federalism.Boston, MA: HarvardUniv. Press. statedebate: statecapitalistand bureaucraticCANAK, W. L. (1984) "The peripheral in Latin America."Latin American authoritarian ResearchRev. 19, 1. regimes CARDOSO, F. H. (1972) Estado ysociedaden AmericaLatina.BuenosAires:Ediciones Nueva Visi6n. CARRERA DAMAS, G. (1980) Una naci6nllamada Venezuela.Caracas: Direccionde CulturaUniversidad Centralde Venezuela. in Latin America.Princeton, NJ: COLLIER, D. [ed.] (1979) The new authoritarianism Princeton Univ. Press. Comision Economica para America Latina [CEPAL] (1963) El desarrollosocial de Buenos Aires:Solar/Hachette. AmericaLatina en la posguerra. COSSIO VILLEGAS, D. (1972) Historiamodernade M6xico-El Porfiriato. La vida ParteSegunda. Mexico-BuenosAires:EditorialHermes. political interior, Nacional COTLER, J. (1982) Clases, Estado y naci6nen el Peru. Mdxico: Universidad Aut6nomade Mexico. DESCO: Centro de Estudiosy Promocion del Desarrollo(1978a) Los caminosdel poder. Tres afnos Lima: DESCO. de crisisen la escena polftica. Genocidioecon6micoen el Cono Sur. Derechoshumanosy grancapital. ---(1978b) Lima: DESCO. El ocaso del poder oligarquico.Lucha politicaen la escena oficial1968---(1977) 1975.Lima: DESCO. en el SocialismoDemocrdtico. DIAZ, E. (1977) Legitimidad Madrid: EditorialCivitas. EVERS, T. (1979) El Estado en la periferia capitalist. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores. FAYT, C. S. (1971) El politicoarmado. Dinamica del procesopoliticoargentino 19601971.Buenos Aires:EdicionesPannedille. na America Latina.Rio de Janeiro: FERNANDES, F. (1981) Poderycontrapoder Zahar Editores.

100

THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

---(1979) Apontamentos sobre a "Teoria do Autoritarismo." Sao Paulo: Editora Hucitec. FROBEL, F., J.HEINRICHS, and O. KREYE(1981) Lanuevadivisi6ninternacionalde trabajo-Paro estructural en los paisesindustrializados e industrializaci6n de los pauses en desarrollo. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores. FRONDIZI, S. (1947) La integraci6n mundial,uItimaetapa del capitalismo. Buenos Aires:A.D.I. ---El Estado moderno (1944) BuenosAires,Editorial Losada. La republican conservaGALLO, E. and R. CORTES CONDE (1972) Historia argentina. dora. BuenosAires:Paid6s. GARCIA, A. (1981) c A d6ndeva Colombia?Bogota:TiempoAmericano Editores. Atraso enAmdrica Latina.Hacia una teoria latinoamericana ---(1972) ydependencia Desarrollo.AmericaLatina. Mexico: Fondo de CulturaEconomica. BuenosAires:Paidos. GERMANI, G. (1971) Sociologiade la Modernizaci6n. De la sociedadtradicional a Politicaysociedaden una epoca de transici6n. ---(1962) la sociedadde masas. BuenosAires:Paid6s. S. DI TELLA, and 0. IANNI (1973) Populismoy contradicciones ---T. de clase en Mexico: EdicionesEra. Latinoamerica. in HistoriaGeneralde Mexico,Tomo GONZALEZ (1976) "El liberalismo triunfante," III. Mexico: El Colegiode Mexico. GONZALEZ CASANOVA, P. [compilador] (1977, 1981)AmericaLatina: Historiade Medio Siglo,2 volumenes. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores. La democracia en Mexico. Mexico: EdicionesEra. ---(1966) intelectual GRACIARENA, J.(1977) "Las cienciassociales,la critica y el Estado tecnodelcaso latinoamericano, A. Solari(ed.), Podery cratico." Aporte parauna discusi6n Latina. Mexico: Eonda de CulturaEcon6mica. Dessarrollo.America de AmericaLatina. BuenosAires: Poder y clases socialesen el desarrollo ---(1967) Paid6s. and LatinAmerican HALPERIN-DONGHI, T. (1982) "Dependency theory historiograResearchRev. 17, 1. phy."LatinAmerican HARING, C. H. (1963) The Spanish Empirein America.New York: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich. del Estado populist en AmericaLatina. Mexico: IANNI, 0. (1975) La formaci6n EdicionesEra. Estado e planejamento econ6micono Brasil(1930-1970).Rio de Janeiro: ---(1971) Edit6raCivilizacaoBrasileira S.A. IANNI, 0. (1971) 0 colapso do populismo no Brasil.Rio de Janeiro: Edit6raCivilizacao Brasileira S.A. BuenosAires:Amorrortu Editores. JAGUARIBE, H. (1974) Brasil:crisis y alternativas. JAGUARIBE, H. (1972a) Sociedad,cambioy sistema politico.BuenosAires:Paid6s. Desarrollopolitico:sentido BuenosAires:Paid6s. y condiciones. --(1972b) o revoluci6n. Crisisy alternativas de AmericaLatina: reforma Buenos ---(1972c) Aires:Paid6s. Oasis. KAPLAN, M. (1984a) Estado y sociedaden AmericaLatina. Mexico: Editorial La Guerrade las Malvinas-Aspectos BoletinMexi---(1984b) politicos yjuridicos." cano de DerechoComparado,Nueva Serie,Afno Mexico: XVII, No. 49, enero-abril. Instituto Nacional Aut6noma de Investigaciones Universidad de Mexico. Juridicas, "La teoriadel Estado en la AmericaLatina contemporanea: El caso del ---(1983a) " El Trimestre marxismo. Vol. L (2), No. 198,abril-junio. M6xico:Fondo Econ6mico, de CulturaEcon6mica.

Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA

101

ycambiosocial."J. F. Ruiz Massieu and D. Valades(eds.), "Planificaci6n ---(1983b) Mexicano. Mexico: EditorialPorrua. Nuevo Derecho Constitucional Nacional Aspectosdel Estado en AmericaLatina. Mexico: Universidad ---(1981a) Aut6nomade Mexico. Nueva Sociedad, No. 55,juliolb) "El nuevo ordenpoliticointernacional." ---(198 Ebert Friedrich de Estudios Sociales/ agosto. Caracas: InstitutoLatinoamericano Stiftung. Comercioy Desarrollo,Aflo del Dialogo Norte-Sur." "Aspectospoliticos ---(1981c) de Comercio. IV, VolumenII, No. 18,Mexico: Secretarfa Estado,culturay cienciaen AmericaLatina. Tokio: The UnitedNations ---(1981d) University. El caso de AmericaLatina." dependencia: "Militarismo, ---(1980a) armamentismo, de AmericaLatina, No. 11. Moscii: Academia de Ciencias de la URSS, Instituto AmericaLatina. Nacional AutoMexico: Universidad y planificacion. ---(1980b) Sociedad, political noma de Mkxico. democratic en AmericaLatina: "Hacia un nuevo constitucionalismo ---(1980c) julio-agosto. No. 16, RevistadeEstudiosConstitucionales, Problemasyperspectives." Madrid: Centrode EstudiosPoliticos. Ebenhausen(West in Argentina. Social change and the politicalsystem ---(1979) und Politik. Wissenschaft Stiftung Germany): Nacional Autonomade M6xico. Estado y Sociedad. Mexico: Universidad ---(1978) de la frus(1925-1975):El laberinto argentina "Cincuentaanlosde historia ---(1977) traci6n,"en Gonzalez Casanova (ed.) AmericaLatina: Historiade Medio Siglo. I. Amdrica del Sur. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores. Nueva Politica,VolumenI, No. 1, latinoamericano?" ---(1976a) "Haciaun fascismo Mexico. in SpanBerichte zur Entwicklung "Der Faschismusin Lateinamerika." ---(1976b) Heft 6 (Juli/ August1976),2. Jahrgang, 1.Jahrgang, ien,Portugaland Lateinamerika, 1976). Munchen. Heft7 (September!Oktober (compilaCastafneda "Lo viejoylo nuevoen el ordenpoliticomundial,"J. ---(1976c) Mexico: Fondo de CulturaEcon6mica. dor), Derecho Econ6micoInternacional. social. Mdxico: Fondo de Cultura Modelos mundialesy participaci6n ---(1974a) Econ6mica. en cienciassociales.Mexico: El Colegio latinoamericana La investigaci6n ---(1974b) de Mdxico. del poder politico a escala mundial."El Trimestre "La concentraci6n ---(1974c) 1974.Mexico: Fondo de CulturaEconomica. Econ6mico,No. 161,enero-marzo yla para el desarrollo publicasmultinacionales ---[compilador] (1972) Corporaciones de AmericaLatina. Mexico: Fondo de CulturaEconomica. integraci6n en la encrucijada.Santiago de Chile: latinoamericana La ciencia political ---(1970) EditorialUniversitaria. Formaci6ndel Estado nacional en AmericaLatina. Santiago de Chile: ---(1969a) Editores. Buenos Aires:Amorrortu EditorialUniversitaria, de AmericaLatina. Caracas: El Estado en el desarrolloy la integraci6n ---(1969b) Monte Avila Editores. de AmericaLatina. Caracas: Problemasdel desarrollo yede la integraci6n ---(1968) Monte Avila Editores. nos anos 80. Brasilia:Editora (1983) A CienciaPoliftica LAMOUNIER, B. [organizador] de Brasilia. Universidad

102

THE FUTURE OF THE STATE

---and J. E. FARIA [organizadores] (1981) 0 futuro da abertura: Un debate, Sao Paulo: Cortez Editora. LIPSET, S. M. and A. E. SOLARI [Compiladores] (1967) Elites ydesarrollo en America Latina. Buenos Aires: Paidos. LOWENTHAL, A. F. [ed.] (1975) the Peruvian experimentContinuityand change under militaryrule. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. MARTINS, L. (1976) Pouvoir et developpement economique. Formation et evolution des structurespolitiques au Bresil. Paris: Editions Anthropos. MERCIER VEGA, L. [ed.] (1971) Fuerzas armadas, poder y cambio. Caracas: Editorial Tiempo Nuevo. MEYER, L. and M. CAMACHO (1979) "La ciencia politica en Mexico: su desarrollo y estado actual." Ciencias Sociales en Mexico: Desarrollo y perspectives. Mexico: El Coletio de Mexico. Organization of American States jInteramerican Commission on Human Rights (1980) Report on the situation of human rightsin Argentina. Washington DC: C.I.D.H. J. M. (1941) El Estado espafiol en las Indias. Mexico: Fondo de OTS CAPDEQUI, Cultura Econ6mica. PINTO, Anibal (1971) Tres ensayos sobre Chile y America Latina. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Solar. PINTO SANTA CRUZ, Anibal (1962, Chile, un caso de desarrollo frustrado.Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria). PREBISCH, R. (1981) Capitalismo Periferico. Crisis y transformacion. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica. Proyecto y construcci6n de una naci6n (1980) Argentina 1846-1880: Seleccion, pr6logo y cronologia Tulio Halperin Donghi 1980. Caracas: Biblioteca Ayacucho. PUIG, J. C., C. J. MONETA, C. PEREZ LLANA, and A.J.L. CARELLA (1973) De la dependencia 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 de Cultura Economica. ROMERO, J. L. (1946) Las ideas political en la Argentina. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Economica. SAMPAY, A. E. (1942) La crisis del Estado de Derecho liberal burgues. Buenos Aires; Editorial Losada. A. (1981) Nord-Sud: Les enjeux. Paris: Publisud. SID-AHMED, SKLIAR, H. [ed.] (1980) Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management. Boston: South End Press. SMITH, P. H. (1981) Los laberintos del poder. El reclutamientode las elites politicas en Mexico, 1900-1971. Mexico: El Colegio de Mexico. SOLARI, Aldo E. (compilador) (1977), Poder y desarrollo. America Latina. Estudios sociol6gicos en homenaje a Jose Medina Echavarria. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica. ---R. FRANCO, and J. JUTKOWITZ (1976) Teoria, accion social y desarrollo en America Latina, Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores. STEPAN, A. [ed.] (1973) Autoritarian Brazil. Origins, policies and future. New Haven and London: Yale Univ. Press.

Kaplan / NATION-STATE IN LATIN AMERICA

103

The Militaryin Politics: Changing Patternsin Brazil. Princeton,NJ: ---(1971) Princeton Univ. Press. en el de la seguridad de Estado. La doctrina TAPIA VALDES, J. (1980) El terrorismo Cono Sur. Mexico: Nueva Sociedad EditorialNueva Imagen. UNESCO (1962) Aspectossociales del desarrolloecon6micoen AmericaLatina. Lieja: UNESCO. VALLENILLA LANZ, L. (1952) Cesarismodemocratic. Caracas: E. Garrido. del Estado nacionalen Costa Rica. San Josede Costa VEGA C., J.L. (1981) La formaci6n Pubblica. de Administraci6n Centroamericano Rica: Instituto Barcelona,Buenos Aires,Mexico: Grijalbo. VILAR, S. (1978) Fascismoy militarismo. en (1982) El podermilitar WALDMANN, P. and E. GARZON VALDES [compiladores] VerlagKlaus DieterVervuert. la Argentina (1976-1981).Frankfurt/rm.: Paz e Terra. Rio de Janeiro: WEFFORT, F. (1978) 0 populismona politicabrasileira. ZAVALA, S. (1972) La colonizaci6nespanola en America.Mexico: Sep-Setentas. tardio.Mdxico:Universidad capitalista ydesarrollo ZERMENO, S. (1979) Imperialismo Nacional Aut6nomade Mexico. ofLegal Studiesand theFacultyofPolitical at theInstitute Marcos Kaplan is a Professor of Mexico (UNAM), after and Social Sciencesat the AutonomousNational University Chile, inArgentina, ofacademicinstitutions ina number and researcher beinga professor and publishing theUnitedStates,and France.For thelast25 yearshehas beenresearching in ofthenation-state role,and interventions on thenature, books and articles numerous In 1984he published fields. in different itspolitics and policies, societies, LatinAmerican State and Societyin LatinAmerica.