OLGLOVEbook Rev

Olga M.
Lazin on Love’s Comparison 1
Book Review
“On Joseph Love’s “Crafting the Third World: Theorizing
Underdevelopment in Romania and Brazil”
(Stanford: Standford University press, 1996, ISBN 0-0847-8; pages
257, analytical Index),

By Olga Magdalena Lazin
UCLA Post-Doctoral Fellow
drlazin@verizon.net
Romanian Precursors of Globalization Theory and Its Impact in Latin
America - The Neopopulist Discourse
Love’s study compares Romania in the years 1880 to 1945 with Brazil,
1930 to 1980, “from the consequences of depression of 1873 to those
of the recession of 1973.” The overlapping periodization shows that
there was a “genetic” connection in a major area, that dealing with
the international trading process and the special problems of
“backward” countries. Differences as well as likenesses are manifestly
important as the history of ideas is notoriously international, and this
is especially true of Brazilian economic thought after the creation of
ECLA. The bridge was the writings of Mihail Manoilescu, whose works
Olga M. Lazin on Love’s Comparison 2
had a particularly strong impact in Iberia and Latin America in the
1930s and 1940s.
Love shows that in 1909, dependency theorists, such as Constantin
Stere were among the first to stress the international character of
modern capitalism, its “vagabond” nature, and putting large firms
outside the control of the state.
In Romanian debates over economic development, Virgil

Madgearu anticipated analysts in Latin America by more than three
decades when he noted that foreign firms could leap across tariff walls
to establish their operations within backward countries.
Dobrogeanu-Gherea also shared perceptions with Latin American
structuralists and dependency theorists - most notably his vision of a
Center-periphery relationship between the industrialized west and its
agrarian suppliers of foodstuffs and raw materials.
About the perception of unequal exchange (the Romanian
version of dependency theory), Manoilescu’s “invented” the theory of
protectionism in 1934, which he called the “unequal exchange”, that
would be seized upon by Latin American thinkers in the 1950s who
called themselves structuralists. Other ideas as internal colonialism,
and even the modes- of -production literature, which ostensibly
stressed relations of production rather than relations of exchange also
originated form Romanian social theorists. Manoilescu’s theses (the
Century of Corporatism, 1934) supplied a well-articulated ideology of
corporatism, in which economy and polity would be organized into
formal corporations supervised by the state.

In modern economic theory, Manoilescu is remembered for
being the father of corporatism and protectionism. His state
Corporatist model developed a nexus between corporatism and Latin
American structuralism that ultimately shaped public policy.
Manoilescu and F. Perroux yielded a model of internal colonialism that
influenced and shaped Brazilian (Roberto Simonsen, and possibly
Getúlio VArgas, president from 1930 to 1945,) Argentinian (Raúl

Prebisch), Chilean (Aníbal Pinto and Carlos Fredes) and Mexican
thinking the next three decades.
Manoilescu argued that the issue was not a “free’ economy
versus a planned one because the Romanian economy was already
directed by cartels of industrialists “who exploit the consumer
masses’’. He preferred an economy directed by the state acting for
the general interests.
Mexico’s decision to pursue neoliberal domestic policies and
hitch its star to the US market in NAFTA is the correct decision, the
Chiapas revolt shows that structuralism/equity also affects the size of
demand.
Love himself believes that a basic appeal of structuralism - the
state’s role as economic actor to correct imbalances and distortions-
will not soon disappear.
His Chapter titles are: Part I: Romania
Part II: Transit
Part III: Brazil

Love’s book is a major work, pathbreaking research that shows that
ideas move around the world. ECLA emerged in Santiago became a
pole of development against the us development model which claim
that countries should do what they can do (agriculture), not have a
balanced economy The UN Economic Commission on Latin America
(CEPAL in Mexico).
Dependency theory claims you can manufactured your own goods
(they had no comparative advantage to do so (see the machete in

Cuba) whereas thirty years ago it was the Bible, in order counteract
the American development model which calls for a balanced economy,
private investment etc.

OLGLOVEbook Rev

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OLGLOVEbook Rev

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OLGLOVEbook Rev

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Olga M.

Lazin on Love’s Comparison 1

“On Joseph Love’s “Crafting the Third World: Theorizing

Underdevelopment in Romania and Brazil”

(Stanford: Standford University press, 1996, ISBN 0-0847-8; pages

257, analytical Index),

UCLA Post-Doctoral Fellow

Romanian Precursors of Globalization Theory and Its Impact in Latin

America - The Neopopulist Discourse

1930 to 1980, “from the consequences of depression of 1873 to those

of the recession of 1973.” The overlapping periodization shows that

there was a “genetic” connection in a major area, that dealing with

the international trading process and the special problems of

“backward” countries. Differences as well as likenesses are manifestly

important as the history of ideas is notoriously international, and this

is especially true of Brazilian economic thought after the creation of

had a particularly strong impact in Iberia and Latin America in the

1930s and 1940s.

Love shows that in 1909, dependency theorists, such as Constantin

Stere were among the first to stress the international character of

modern capitalism, its “vagabond” nature, and putting large firms

outside the control of the state.

In Romanian debates over economic development, Virgil

to establish their operations within backward countries.

Dobrogeanu-Gherea also shared perceptions with Latin American

structuralists and dependency theorists - most notably his vision of a

Center-periphery relationship between the industrialized west and its

agrarian suppliers of foodstuffs and raw materials.

About the perception of unequal exchange (the Romanian

version of dependency theory), Manoilescu’s “invented” the theory of

protectionism in 1934, which he called the “unequal exchange”, that

would be seized upon by Latin American thinkers in the 1950s who

called themselves structuralists. Other ideas as internal colonialism,

and even the modes- of -production literature, which ostensibly

stressed relations of production rather than relations of exchange also

originated form Romanian social theorists. Manoilescu’s theses (the

Century of Corporatism, 1934) supplied a well-articulated ideology of

corporatism, in which economy and polity would be organized into

formal corporations supervised by the state.

In modern economic theory, Manoilescu is remembered for

being the father of corporatism and protectionism. His state

Corporatist model developed a nexus between corporatism and Latin

American structuralism that ultimately shaped public policy.

Manoilescu and F. Perroux yielded a model of internal colonialism that

influenced and shaped Brazilian (Roberto Simonsen, and possibly

Getúlio VArgas, president from 1930 to 1945,) Argentinian (Raúl

thinking the next three decades.

Manoilescu argued that the issue was not a “free’ economy

versus a planned one because the Romanian economy was already

directed by cartels of industrialists “who exploit the consumer

masses’’. He preferred an economy directed by the state acting for

the general interests.

Mexico’s decision to pursue neoliberal domestic policies and

Chiapas revolt shows that structuralism/equity also affects the size of

Love himself believes that a basic appeal of structuralism - the

state’s role as economic actor to correct imbalances and distortions-

will not soon disappear.

His Chapter titles are: Part I: Romania

Part II: Transit