LOCE (2002) Reordena el sistema educativo.

It is in this context that Cardoso upholds the characterization of forms of dependence hitherto presented by what he calls structural dependence, while at the same time recognizing that where industrialization has taken place some development and new forms of dependence have emerged. In agreement with Amin (1974a), he states that peripheral industrialization is based on products which in the centre are mass consumed, but which are typically luxurious

consumption in dependent societies (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979:

xxii). Also in agreement with Quijano (1974), he states that such industrialization enhances income concentration as it increases sharp differences in productivity without generalizing this trend to the whole of the economy, i.e., accentuating income disparities. However, although these symptoms are traceable to the economic drive of the 'centre' (Frank, 1972); Amin, 1974a), there are dependent societies in which some have been overcome, and where the structure of production has been altered.

The characterization of dependence outlined here, in combination with existing definitions of underdevelopment and dependence, according to Cardoso, assists him in working out his own definition of dependence.

Firstly there is the concept of underdevelopment, which he understands to mean:

"A type of economic system with a predominant primary sector, a high concentration of income, little diversification in its production system, and above all, an external market far outweighing the internal". (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979: 17).

He finds this description correct but inadequate for the definition of dependence in so far as:

"The idea refers to the degree of d iversification w ith o u t em phasizing the patterns of control of decisions of production and consumption". (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979: 18)

Secondly there is the concept of periphery, which he considers to be m ore useful than th at of u n d erd ev elo p m en t in so far as it im m ed iately in co rp o rates the idea of u n eq u al p o sitio n s and functions w ith in the sam e stru ctu re of overall p ro d u ctio n , for exam ple by recognizing th at for m ost of the history of certain peripheral economies:

"Decisions affecting pro d u ctio n or consum ption are taken in term s of the g ro w th an d in te rests of the d e v elo p ed economies". (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979: 18)

From all these considerations, C ardoso develops his definition of dependence. At first he talks about w hat he considers to be an economic definition of dependence, which is:

"When the accum ulation and expansion of capital cannot find its essential dynam ic com ponent inside the system". (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979: xx)

W hat is im plied by this is the lack of capacity to create new technologies, the inability to continuously expand the production of capital goods, and the lack of capacity for building a solid financial system to support this expansion (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979: xx-xxi).

But C ardoso w arns th at a structuralist definition like this one sh o u ld n o t o v erlook th e socio-political factors in v o lv e d in situations of dependence - for exam ple the social classes, both external and internal, w hich generally sustain dependence. It m ay be adequate for formal purposes to define dependence by reference to a structure of production lacking diversification and autonom y,

he argues, b u t it should be kept in m ind that such a structure is held in place, or can be modified, by social forces.

1.2.2.3. The p o ssib ility of reform w ith in a structure of dependence

C ardoso argues that modifications in dependence have occurred in Latin America. According to him a great deal of industrialization has taken place, m aking production highly diversified, developing a capital goods sector, u sin g skilled labour, reducing incom e disparities in the urb an in d u strial sector, an d ensuring a m uch low er outflow in o rd er to safeguard inv estm en t (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979: 160-161). H e argues as an exam ple th at Brazil's industrialization resulted in a capital goods sector w hose greater dynam ism relative to the consum er goods sector ensures that the technological level attained can not falter even in crisis (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979: 5).

The recognition of these developm ents appears to be the result of the a w are n ess in his fram ew o rk of th e d y n a m i s m of the accum ulation process and the role of active social forces, especially the internal ones (C ardoso and Faletto, 1979: xvi, xx, 20). It is dynam ic accum ulation and active social forces that have produced the new situation: on the one hand the em ergence of a kind of 'p ro g ressiv e' capitalism of the tran sn atio n al corporations, the increasing availability of their technology, and their production of capital goods for the local Latin American markets; on the other, the industrializing local social forces, including those based in the state (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979: 177-216).

1.2.2.4. Cardoso's view s on the relation betw een dependence and development

The m odifications of dependence that accum ulation and social forces have p roduced make it possible for Cardoso to conclude that developm ent is not precluded by dependence. His use of phrases like 'associated-dependent capitalist economy' (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979: 194) and 'dependent developm ent' (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979: 213) dem onstrate his view that develop m en t is taking place in d ep en d en t countries (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979: xxiii). Notice, how ever, th at his definition of developm ent is, by excluding the h u m an itarian aspects, different from th at of other dependence theorists. In one place he says that developm ent m eans capitalist develop m en t (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979: xxiii), w hile in another it m eans the progress of productive forces, m ainly th ro u g h the im port of technology, capital accum ulation, penetration of local econom ies by foreign enterprises, increasing n um bers of w age­ earning groups, an d the intensification of the social division of labour (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979: xxiv).

But C ardoso is careful not to say that dependence has been broken, because although some dependent countries have achieved a high d eg ree of d iv ersity , n eith er has a ttain e d p ro d u c tio n autonom y and ap p ro p riate income levels to sustain the autonom y (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979: 5-6,18,160-161).

1.2.2.5. An evaluation of Cardoso's writings

A lthough C ardoso is credited w ith placing a greater em phasis on analyses of concrete situations (Palma, 1981: 43), he has also been criticized by others (Bienfeld, 1980: 7; R odriguez, 1980: 11) for a disparaging of theory. In our view it w ould be w rong to argue that

only concrete studies are valid, implying that general frameworks, such as dependence, are not important merely because they are general. But it appears to us that Cardoso’s advice is merely that a study becomes comprehensive and more fruitful if it is pursued beyond generalization (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979: xviii, xx, xxiii). The reason for this is that although a generalization is itself usually drawn from concrete situations, it can only be a model, not a replica. For this reason Cardoso's point is correct: no general framework can substitute for a concrete analysis.

In a comparative sense it should be said that although Cardoso's historical treatm ent of dependent industrialization in Latin America is similar to that of Frank, the emphasis he places on periodisation and the specificity of concrete situations of dependence provides an additional refinement to the framework. Similarly, to stress the possibility of development, and the importance of socio­ political forces in the dependence structure and not just its rigidity, is an important theoretical intervention which elaborates on the more general schema presented by Frank.

I.2.2.6. The way out of dependence and Cardoso's implied