Counter visits from more than 160  countries and 1400 universities (details)

The political economy of development
This academic site promotes excellence in teaching and researching economics and development, and the advancing of describing, understanding, explaining and theorizing.
About us- Castellano- Français - Dedication
Home- Themes- Reports- Statistics/Search- Lecture notes/News- People's Century- Puro Chile- Mapuche

World indicators on the environmentWorld Energy Statistics - Time SeriesEconomic inequality

NOTES ON IMPORT-SUBSTITUTION STRATEGIES FOR DEVELOPMENT
by Róbinson Rojas Sandford (1993)

By and large, national strategies for development in less developed
societies have been shaped by the international context, and the
international context have been shaped by a few powerful economies
during the XX century: Britain, Japan, United States, and Germany, and
to a lesser extent Italy, France, and the Netherlands.

Writing in 1985, M. Bienfeld stated that "there is a greater need than
ever for national policies to be formulated in the context of an
informed judgement about the nature of international development,
because these are currently deeply contradictory and increasingly
uncertain." (M. Bienefeld and M. Godfrey (eds.), "The Struggle for
Development. National Strategies in an international context", John
Wiley & Sons Limited, 1985).

"Import-substitution industrialization (ISI) was adopted as a growth
and development strategy by most of the larger Latin American countries
between the late 1940s (Chile and Brazil in the late 1930s. R.R.) and
the early 1960s. It was thought that in a world of stagnant demand for
the type of primary products which the region had traditionally exported,
ISI would provide a new dynamism and a greater amount of independence
from the economic fluctuations which originated in the traditional
industrial centres of the world".

"ISI had some positive effects on the larger economies of Latin America.
It was responsible for periods of high growth rates during which the
economies underwent some profound structural changes. After a while,
however, it also caused some severe imbalances, threatening the
continued growth and socio-economic stability of a number of countries".
(W. Baer & L. Samuelson, "Editor's Introduction", WORLD DEVELOPMENT,
Vol. 5, Nos. 1/2, 1977)(see BOX 1)

International environment in the 1930s and 1940s, after the Great
Depression and the Second World War:
    1) stagnant demand for raw materials and cash crops
    2) stagnant supply of manufactured goods

General effects of ISI:

1) periods of high growth rates
2) profound structural changes:
                    a) composition of employment:
                                 the creation of a manufacturing
                                 working class and capitalist class
                                 the creation of a financial sector
                                 the creation of a large amount of
                                 civil servants and a powerful
                                 bureaucratic class
                    b) new patterns of urbanization:
                                 housing quarters for blue collar
                                 workers
                                 dramatic increasing of urban poverty
                                 and slums
                    c) foreign domination of a domestic manufacturing
                       sector supplying protected internal markets
                    d) development of coincidence of interests between
                       the high rank state bureaucracy, industrial-
                       financial-agribusiness domestic oligarchy and
                       foreign capital
3) Severe imbalances, threatening the continued growth and socio-
   economic stability:
                    a) deficits on current account caused by imports
                       of capital goods and intermediate goods, and
                       payments to factors (factor services)
                    b) internal distribution of income became even more
                       polarized due to internal monopolic ownership of
                       means of production
                    c) the gap between urban and rural incomes became
                       wider due to economic policies protecting the
                       "infant" manufacturing sector.

In a word, ISI did not diminish domestic economy's external dependence,
but merely changed its nature. Before was about a mismatch between
prices of goods being exported and prices of good being imported. Now
was about technological and financial domination by foreign capital
of the manufacturing and financial sector, adding to the classical
domination of the mining and agribusiness sectors.

The structural changes which this type of industrialization brought
about were CHANGES IN THE COMPOSITION OF DEMAND FOR IMPORTS:
                                  a) capital goods
                                  b) industrial raw materials-
                                     intermediate goods

For the native capitalist class it gradually became clear that unless
there were adequate export earnings, an import constraint might cause
industrial, and thus general economic stagnation.

EXTERNAL FACTORS

The post-war period was characterised by:
--asymmetrical expansion of the main industrial economies (mainly
  Japan, United States, and Germany-France-UK-Italy competing to
  dominate international trade maximizing profits in Asia, Africa and
  Latin America)
--the upsurge in the internationalization of capital (industrial and
  financial capital) under the control of transnational corporations.
--a remarkable change in the patterns of trade, both in its
  composition and main flows (manufactured goods began to dominate the
  trade and flows became more and more a matter of industrial countries
  internal markets)
--a syncronized boom in the industrial economies in 1972-1973 helped
  to feed the worst inflation the integrated capitalist world has ever
  experienced (which was pushed even higher by the increase in oil
  prices in 1974)

TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS' ACTIVITIES EFFECTS:

1) foreign dominance of the modern sector (adding to socio-economic
   polarization)
2) drain on the balance of payments as more and more profits were
   remitted abroad parallel to higher imports (capital goods and
   intermediate goods)(see BOX 2)
3) few efforts were made by the host countries governments and 
   transnational corporations to adapt the technology to local factor
   endowments, creating unemployment and the development of a natural-
   resources-capital-intensive type of industrialization
4) the economic power of transnational corporations inhibited the
   development of non-dependent local capitalist class
5) transnational corporations tended to 'distort' the consumption
   patterns of the host countries population through aggressive
   marketing policies and massive advertising.

INTERNAL FEATURES

ISI's main feature is that the State must assume a leading role as
allocator of economic resources, and, most importantly, had to lead
investment in the heavy industry until that sector became profitable
and "mature" to be transferred to private capital ownership.

Therefore, the State was trapped within the contradictions between
OBJECTIVES and class composition of the administrative apparatus.
The objectives of
                       a) economic efficiency,
                       b) administrative consistency, and
                       c) social equity
were at odds with the triple alliance between the high rank civil
servants, domestic monopolic capital and transnational corporations.

The urban-manufacturing emphasis of ISI developed into a dramatic
neglect of agriculture, and therefore a low rate of growth of
agricultural products became the norm.

Additional reasons were:
1) backward agricultural techniques
2) a large illiterate peasantry (being utilized by large landowners to
   sustain their political power)
3) primitive agricultural services
4) lack of an infrastructure to serve agriculture
5) concentration of landownership in the hands of a social group whose
   members were at the same time large industrialists and bankers.

The effects of this urban bias were shortages of food which added to
polarization of income made of social unrest a characteristic of
Latin American political life in the 1950s to 1970s.

Furthermore, the new industries were utilizing capital intensive
technologies which created:
      a) low rate of growth of industrial employment, far below the
         rate of rural-urban migration, and urban population growth
      b) the above polarized even more distribution of income, and
         urban poverty was reaching the depths of rural poverty
      c) capital intensive industrialization reinforced regional
         inequalities, because only big urban settlements had the
         basic infrastructure to support capital-intensive production

Also, the high protective walls behind which industries operated allowed
for the perpetuation of considerable economic efficiencies which
translated in even higher social inefficiencies.

In a number of Latin American countries the pressures of rapid
industrialization and urbanization brought along high rates of
inflation adding to the 'imported inflation' from industrialized
countries. Rapid growth of government infrastructure expenditures
necessary to complement the industrial-urban growth, alongside
regressive taxation, led to large inflationary budget deficits.

Growing presence of blue collar workers, general regressive distribution
of income, notorious presence of foreign capital in the modern sector
and continuous presence of the political and economic domination of
United States capital led to political instability in the 1960s. The
the ruling classes' answer was allow to transform the Armed Forces in
a political organization. Peasants uprisings in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru,
Bolivia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Chile, plus the triumph
of the Cuban revolution led to military coups searching for an
alternative development strategy.

Two sets of contradictions were apparent, centering around the role of
the State and the political context:
      1) the contradiction between the imposing roles assigned to
         the State as
                     defender of national sovereignty,
                     definer of the national purpose,
                     arbiter between interest-groups, and
                     dispenser of services,
          and the frequently
                     deficient policy-making, planning, administrative
                     and financial capacities of the State.
      2) the contradiction between
                     political forms emphasizing equal rights and
                                            democratic procedures, and
                     the very uneven distribution of opportunities for
                     political participation.

POLITICAL CRISIS

ECLA's "Economic Survey of Latin America 1973", United Nations, 1973,
captured the political unrest in the continent as an outcome of the
failure of ISI, writing:

"Systematic rejection of the prevailing style of economic growth with
 structural heterogeinity has been most pronounced in intellectual and
 academic circles and in part of the educated youth. Groups of
 intellectuals and academic researchers, particularly sociologists, have
 been prone to assess the prevailing style as neither acceptable nor
 viable. An extensive literature has accumulated, mainly within the past
 decade, analysing the inter-relations of EXTERNAL DEPENDENCY AND
 INTERNAL POWER STRUCTURES IN GENERATING THE PREVAILING STYLE, and
 examining the potentialities of different social classes, interest-
 groups, and institutions as destroyers of this style and architects
 of a different future. The theoretical and value-based premises for
 rejection of the prevailing style have, of course been extremely
 varied, and the proposals for action have included predominantly
 technocratic and nationalistic approaches as well as revolutionary
 ones".

 And elaborating on "the revolutionary ones", ECLA's scholars wrote:
"...the strongly critical tone predominating in some academic research
and teaching circles in regard to the prevailing style and its
supporters, combined with student militancy, has placed many social
research institutions in a precarious or even worse position".

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
BOX 1

Import-substitution strategies have been defined by the capitalist
literature as a three-state strategy.

FIRST STAGE: societies in the process of modernization should 
             substitute domestic production of previously imported
             simple consumer goods
SECOND STAGE: substitute through domestic production for a wide range
              of more sophisticated manufactured goods.
              The two stages so far protecting "infant industry" behind
              high tariffs and imposing quotas and non-tariff barriers
              to other products
THIRD STAGE: reach the long-run objective of ISI, which is dual:
              a) achieving greater domestic industrial diversification,
              b) export previously protected manufactured goods as
                 economies of scale and low labour costs make domestic
                 costs more competitive in the world market.

As opposed to ISI, the literature presents EXPORT-PROMOTION
INDUSTRIALIZATION (EPI), which is basically an ideological position
based on total faith in the free-market.

-EPI assumes efficiency and growth benefits from the free market
-EPI gives priority to substituting large world markets for narrow
 domestic markets
-EPI assumes that the above avoid the distorting price and cost effects
 of protectionism

In practice, the distinction between ISI and EPI is much less pronounced
than many advocates would imply. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s,  ISI
strategies were pursued by countries such as Chile, Peru, Brazil, Mexico,
Argentina, Ecuador, India, Pakistan, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria,
Ethiopia, Ghana, Zambia, South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.

CONCEPTUAL WORKING TOOLS

Four broad categories:

1.- Primary inward-looking policies ( mainly agricultural self-
                                      sufficiency)
2.- Secondary inward-looking policies ( manufactured commodity self-
                                       sufficiency through import-
                                       substitution)
3.- Primary outward-looking policies ( encouragement of agricultural
                                       and raw material exports)
4.- Secondary outward-looking policies ( promotion of manufactured
                                         exports )

Today, in 1997, 0ver 70% of export earnings by less developed societies
are in category 3, primary outward-looking policies
________________end of BOX 1____________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
BOX 2
             CAPITAL MOVEMENTS IN LATIN AMERICA, 1950-1961
                          (US$ million)

Net new U.S. investment                      2,965
Profit and interest remittance on above     -6,875
---------------------------------------------------
Net movement of U.S. private capital        -3,910

Total U.S. aid                               3,384
Official U.S. debt repayments               -1,151
Interest on debt to U.S. govt.              -  404
---------------------------------------------------
Net movement of public capital               1,829
---------------------------------------------------
NET MOVEMENT OF ALL CAPITAL                 -2,081
____________________________________________________
source: R. Rojas, "Latin America: Blockages to Development",
                   London, 1984, p. 243
-------------------------------------------------------------
From ECLAC, "Economic Bulletin for Latin America", Vol. XVII,
             No. 1, First Half of 1972
             Financial Resources for Development

"...the cumulative total of direct foreign investment in Latin America
(except Cuba) rose from 7,400 to 17,900 million dollars...between 1950
and 1969...there was a parallel increase in investment in manufacturing...
"...foreign investment also poses a number of new problems for economic
development, especially in conexion with the
             (1) balance of payments,
             (2) the nature of the technological development it
                 promotes, and
             (3) the autonomy of the national economies
"...the net balance on movements of capital, profits and other private
remunerations between the developed countries and Latin America as a
whole has been markedly negative...
"...the magnitude of the deficit is made evident by a comparison of
direct investment from the United States with the corresponding
remittances of profits: during the period 1960-1968, the total
remittances of profits exceeded total capital inflows by 6,700 million
dollars, WHICH IS MORE THAN THE SURPLUS OF 5,600 MILLION DOLLARS
RECORDED FOR TOTAL LATIN AMERICAN TRADE DURING THE SAME PERIOD...
"...the net balance of direct foreign investment has in practice
consistently been a negative quantity...
"...during the period 1950-1969, for every dollar that entered, two left
in the form of depreciation and profits...
"...the net result of this 20-year period was that the overall net
contribution of foreign capital to external financing was an outflow
of approximately 500 million dollars..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

NET AVAILABLE FINANCING IN LATIN AMERICA
                     (billion US dollars)

                   Net inflow   Net payments for         Net available
                   of capital   profits and interests    financing
1979                  29.0            -14.2                 14.8
1980                  29.9            -19.0                 10.9
1981                  38.0            -29.1                  8.9
1982                  16.6            -36.8                -20.2
1983                   4.5            -34.0                -29.5
________________________________________________________________________
source: ECLAC, "Preliminary Overview of the Latin American Economy
                During 1983", E/CEPAL/G1279, 29 Dec. 1983
________________________________________________________________________

LATIN AMERICA: SHARE OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT IN THE TOTAL GROSS DOMESTIC
                PRODUCT (percentages)
                          1950          1960        1967
Total                     18.7          21.7        23.1

Argentina                 29.4          32.2        34.1
Chile                     21.2          23.7        25.8
Mexico                    19.9          23.3        25.6
Brazil                    15.1          21.4        21.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
source: "Industrial Development in Latin America", Economic Bulletin
         for Latin America, Vol. XIV, No. 2, 1969
________________________________________________________________________

LATIN AMERICA: GROWTH RATES OF THE GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT AND
               THE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT, 1940-1968  (annual rates)
                    Growth rate           Growth rate
                     of GDP               of industry
1940-1950              5.0                    6.8
1950-1960              4.7                    6.3
1960-1968              4.5                    5.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
source: "Industrial Development in Latin America", Economic Bulletin
         for Latin America, Vol. XIV, No. 2, 1969
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

GROWTH OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION. Average annual growth
                  
                        1960-70  1970-76   1980-89
Low income countries       6.7     4.5       8.6
(without China and India)  6.7     4.5       3.1
Middle income countries    7.6     7.2       3.0

Industrial countries       5.7     3.2       2.2
-----------------------------------------------------------
source: World Development Report 1978 and 1991, World Bank
____________________________________________________________

EXTERNAL DEBT:
                  Total debt as          Interest Payments 
                    % of GDP              as % of Exports
               1970-75 76-82 83-89     1970-75  76-82  83-89
Low income       20.5   28.5  60.7        2.9     5.3   11.8
Middle income    18.6   34.6  54.9        5.1    11.0   15.4
------------------------------------------------------------
source: World Development Report 1991
____________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Box 3
                          Inward-oriented industrialization
(notes by Robinson Rojas)

Up to 1929-33 Latin American economy had been characterized by free
trade...exporting raw materials and cash crops, that is.
The world trade crisis (1929>) prompted Latin American governments to
radically rethink their philosophies of political economy, i.e. Latin
American exports declined from an average of about US$ 5,000 million in
1928-29 to US$ 1,500 million in 1933...There were serious problems with
current account in the balance of payments and foreign exchange
shortages...

Latin American societies found themselves able to finance decreasing
amounts of imported manufactured goods from the industrial countries;
...various measures were taken to conserve and ration decreased foreign
exchange resources:
       1.- tariffs were raised,
       2.- import quotas were enforced,
       3.- restrictions on the use of foreign exchange.

Latin America changed from a group of free-trade economies to one of
highly protected economies.

Latin American capitalists, making the most of the scarcity of goods
and the level of protection, began to produce or increase the domestic
production of goods previously imported.

Their new political economy was based on the following:

A.- all major industrial countries (especially U.S.A and Japan) had
    industrialized behind high protective tariffs;
B.- a country needed to develop a mature industrial structure before
    it could become involved in the free trading of manufactured goods;
C.- protective policies should promote a wide rather than a specialized
    range of industries;
D.- protective policies create more opportunities of employment at a
    time of rapid growth in both national populations and labour
    markets;

By the 1950s the above became formalized in the policy known as
    
          IMPORT-SUBSTITUTION INDUSTRIALIZATION

as theorized by the influential "Comision Economica para America Latina
de las Naciones Unidas" (CEPAL) (United Nations Economic Comission for
Latin America, ECLA, today known as Economic Comission for Latin
America and the Caribbean, ECLAC).

CEPAL envisaged four stages of industrial development:

First Stage:
            concentrated on the production of basic non-durable
            consumer goods such as textiles, foodstuffs and
            pharmaceuticals;
Second Stage:
            specialization on more complex products, known as
            consumer durables, such as gas/electrical cookers,
            radios and television sets, and motor vehicles
            (both the technologies and parts of these products had to
             be imported at the outset, until domestic generation of
             both was created)
Third Stage:
            promotion of intermediate industries: plants
            manufacturing steel, petrochemicals, aluminium, etc.
            promotion of production of a wide range of parts and
            components plants, supplying the consumer goods industries
Fourth Stage:
             development of domestic technology through a growing
             capital goods industry (manufacturing machinery and
             plants)

The process of ISI in Latin America has been engineered through a
distinctive institutional structure: the "triple alliance", or an
alliance between
                     state owned firms,
                     national private enterprises, and
                     transnational corporations;

the balance between these categories varies from country to country.

By and large, national private enterprises were seen to be losing ground
in the 1960s to both public enterprises and transnational corporations.

THE ROLE OF THE STATE ENTERPRISE:
           to invest in those intermediate and capital goods sectors
           that continued industrial expansion seemed to require,
           specially because of inadequate domestic capital market...
           to invest in the extractive industries and in the further
           processing and refining of the minerals concerned.

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL PRIVATE ENTERPRISE:
           great diversity in terms of size, technological level and
           forms of organization, but promoting large conglomerates
           with a wide variety of manufacturing interests, and often
           important tertiary functions in banking, insurance, finance,
           tourism, commerce, and the media.
           At the other end of the size range, large number of small
           enterprises, they were labour-intensive (methods) and low
           capital (inputs).
           Actually, a "fractured" system of production was reinforced
           upon the system of production inherited from colonial times,
           with MODERN, INTERMEDIATE AND PRIMITIVE sectors ( see
           R. Rojas, "Latin America: Blockages to Development", 1984,
           Table 1, page 195)

THE ROLE OF TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS:
           to produce high technology, capital-intensive products for
           the domestic market under the same array of protective
           legislation utilised for national enterprises. Foreign
           direct investment was more important at the beginning on
           mining and agribusiness, and then, the flows deviated to
           manufacturing.

By the 1960s a clear brand of "dependent" industrialisation was in
place in Latin America, as an outcome of this triple alliance, and
intellectuals from Chile, Argentina, Brasil and Peru, based at the
Universidad de Chile in Santiago, Chile, were producing an array of
criticism and elaborating alternative strategies for development:

"A real process of dependent development does exist in some Latin
 American countries. By development, in this context, we mean
 "capitalist development". This form of development, in the periphery
 as well as in the center, produces as it evolves, in a cyclical way,
 wealth and poverty, accumulation and shortage of capital, employment
 for some and unemployment for others. So, we do not mean by the notion
 of "development" the achievement of a more egalitarian or more just
 society. These are not consequences expected from capitalist
 development, especially in peripheral economies..."
 "...in the end, what has to be discussed as an alternative is not the
 consolidation of the state and the fulfillment of "autonomous
 capitalism", but how to superced them. The important question, then,
 is how to construct paths toward socialism"...( F. H. Cardoso and E.
Faletto, in working paper discussed in the late 1960s in CESO -Centro
de Estudios Economico Sociales-, Universidad de Chile, and later
included in the introduction to "Dependency and Development in Latin
America", University of California Press, 1979, a translation of
"Dependencia y desarrollo en America Latina", Siglo XXI, Mexico, 1969)
----------------------------------------------------------
LATIN AMERICA.- GDP PER CAPITA AS % OF U.S. GDP PER CAPITA
                           (percentage)
                      1952      1992
Argentina             33.9      26.0
Bolivia                6.0       2.9
Brazil                13.7      11.9
Chile                 17.1      11.8
Colombia              15.1       5.7              
Costa Rica             9.1       8.4
Cuba                  19.1       7.1
Dominican Republic    10.5       4.5
Ecuador                5.5       4.6
El Salvador           11.3       5.0
Guatemala             10.4       4.2
Haiti                  4.1       1.7
Honduras               8.0       2.5
Mexico                12.5      14.9
Nicaragua              8.8       1.5
Panama                18.6      10.4
Paraguay               4.6       5.9
Peru                   6.3       4.1
Uruguay               19.1      14.4
Venezuela             26.7      12.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Department of Commerce, and World Development Report
1993
________________________________________________________________________
__________________________end of Box 3__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
TABLE 1             AVERAGE RATE OF GROWTH (% PER YEAR)
                          GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
                            LATIN AMERICA

                        1965-1973  1973-1980  1980-1991
Argentina                   4.4       2.1        -0.3
Barbados                    6.7       3.5         2.2
Belize                      5.8       5.4         5.3
Bolivia                     4.2       3.8         0.3
Brazil                      9.8       6.4         2.4
Chile                       3.5       3.7         3.6
Colombia                    6.3       5.0         3.7
Costa Rica                  7.1       5.3         3.1
Dominican Republic          9.7       4.8         1.7
Ecuador                     7.6       6.6         2.0
El Salvador                 4.4       3.2         1.1
Guatemala                   6.0       5.5         1.1
Guyana                      3.1       1.0        -2.8
Haiti                       1.7       4.3        -0.7
Honduras                    4.6       6.6         2.5
Jamaica                     5.3      -2.9         1.8
Mexico                      6.8       6.2         1.2
Nicaragua                   3.5      -1.9        -2.3
Panama                      7.4       4.6         0.2
Paraguay                    5.1       9.6         2.7
Peru                        3.9       2.8        -0.4
Trinidad and Tobago         3.2       7.0        -4.6
Uruguay                     1.2       4.3         0.5
Venezuela                   3.7       3.3         1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGGREGATE RATE OF GROWTH FOR NINE LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES:*
              
1965-1973         6.6
1973-1980         4.8
1980-1991         1.5   
________________________________________________________________________
*Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru
and Venezuela
________________________________________________________________________
source: Trends in Development Economies 1992, The World Bank, 1992
________________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2       NINE LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES*
              AGGREGATE ANNUAL RATE OF GROWTH -GDP

1900-1913        2.1
1913-1929        2.8
1929-1954        3.5
1950-1960        5.4
1960-1970        5.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         ANNUAL RATE OF GROWTH OF MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

             Industrial countries     Developing countries*
1938-1950              4.5                    3.8
1950-1960              5.0                    6.9
1960-1970              5.6                    6.3
         
         ANNUAL RATE OF GROWTH OF MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
                        (per capita)
             Industrial countries     Developing countries*
1938-1950              3.8                    2.1
1950-1960              3.8                    4.5
1960-1970              4.4                    3.6

         INDEX OF OUPUT IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
                  Developing countries*
                  Light industry     Heavy industry
1938                  100                100
1953                  162                217
1958                  222                372
1963                  270                556
1970                  389                994 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

          INDEX OF OUTPUT IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
         Industrial countries    Developing countries*
1938             100                    100
1953             196                    191
1958             251                    267
1963             325                    366
1970             468                    563
1980             661                  1,108
1991             914                  1,454
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

           ANNUAL GROWTH OF OUTPUT IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
          Industrial countries    Developing countries
1938-1953       4.6                      4.4
1953-1958       5.1                      6.9
1958-1963       5.3                      6.5
1963-1970       5.6                      6.3
1970-1980       3.5                      7.0
1980-1991       3.0                      2.5                    
________________________________________________________________________
* Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico,
  Peru and Venezuela.
________________________________________________________________________
source: Statistical Yearbook 1970 and Statistical Yearbook 1971,
        United Nations, 1971
        Trends in Developing Economies 1992, The World Bank, 1992
________________________________________________________________________

Table 3.- EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION OF LATIN AMERICA'S FOREIGN TRADE
                             (US$ millions)
    Year           Imports     Exports        Total
1910               1,098.1     1,308.6        2.406.7
1920               2,884.6     3,490.7        6,375.3
1922               1,616.4     2,108.1        3,724.5
1928               2,393.6     3,029.7        5,423.3
1932                 610.4     1,030.4        1,640.8
1939               1,346.5     1,858.5        3,205.0
1946               3,532.1     5,993.9        9,526.0
1951               7,287.4     7,311.3       14,598.7
________________________________________________________________________
source: compiled from the Pan American Union's FOREIGN TRADE SERIES and
        from FOREIGN COMMERCE YEARBOOK, published by the U.S.
        Department of Commerce, and from G. Wythe, "An Outline of Latin
        American Economic Development", New York, 1949



Back