The Peripheral State Debate: State Capitalist and Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Regimes in Latin America

Abstract

In 1975 the Trilateral Commission published Crozier, Huntington, and Wantanuki's Crisis of Democracy, which questioned the compatibility of stable capitalist development and traditional democratic freedoms in the advanced capitalist nations, a theme echoed in Lindblom (1977), Lindberg et al. (1975), Nisbet (1975), and Huntington (1981). Living in capitalist societies whose recent experience is strikingly nondemocratic, Latin American scholars have felt most urgently the need to assess critically this contradiction and its implications for general political tendencies within the process of capitalist development. In the 1970s, directly in response to events in the major industrialized Latin American nations (especially Brazil, Argentina, and Chile), theoretical and empirical research has reformulated the terrain of debate regarding the relationship of political, economic, and social relations in peripheral capitalist nations. This new vocabulary and new set of hypotheses about state structure and state intervention suggest explanations for the nondemocratic political structure and the increasingly expansive and intensive role of the state in the process of capital accumulation in Latin America.

Understanding State Policies in Agriculture

“…A fourth feature of the peripheral state is argued to be its dependency (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979). The theories of peripheral state have been criticised elsewhere (Canak, 1984;Ziemann and Lanzendorfer, 1977;Carnoy, 1984). My further objection to a general concept of "peripheral state" is that it pays little attention to the historical specificity of class struggles and state formation within each of these "peripheral" societies.…”