CEPAL Review - Volume 1980, Issue 12, 1980

Latin America occupies a special place when consideration turns to what should be done to develop authentic and environmentally rational development styles. Most of the countries of the region have long experience of economic and social development and possess first-hand knowledge of the social and environmental problems connected with the rapid attainment of high levels of industrialization and economic growth, while at the same time they have suffered from grave social and environmental problems deriving from poverty, the manifest inequalities in the distribution of goods and income, and regional disparities in standards of living and resource development. Examples of this are the very-high levels of air pollution, the loss of soil, the disappearance of the forest cover, and the colossal environmental problems of the urban centres. Many Latin American countries have suffered particularly severely from the economic and environmental problems created or aggravated by their weak bargaining power in the international trade field and investment markets. At the same time, however, some have tasted the promise of self-reliant and socially satisfactory development held out by technical and economic co-operation among the developing countries themselves. As they generally have high levels of literacy and a strong social conscience, they are also in a good position to initiate and maintain broad-based and lasting development styles.

I wish at the start of these comments to state, without false modesty, that I am one of the people least qualified to comment, because I suffer from a sort of generational blindness towards environmental problems which, although it has been clearing up gradually, in no way qualifies me to discuss them. At all events, I shall put forward some points of view and appeals (or caution regarding concepts and policy lines which appear in documents and presentations on these matters. At the outset, I wish to refer to and reiterate the position taken by Osvaldo Sunkel and Enrique Iglesias, that for an economist of my generation, as for many in succeeding ones, it is almost unbelievable that this vital relationship of man to the environment or of society to its physical surroundings remained unnoticed for so long, not even appearing tangentially in our discussions. We must acknowledge and recall, modestly and even repentantly, that those who were ringing warning bells and sounding the alarm on this issue were not only listened to indifferently but often considered well-intentioned eccentrics dealing with more or less irrelevant problems compared with those which really mattered to us. 1 believe that all the meetings currently being held on the subject should begin by paying homage to those who blazed the trail and raised concern over these issues, hut received so little attention in the past. The economists, some absorbed by the relationship between classes and individuals and others by mercantile fetishism, overlooked the ‘little detail’, as a famous Mexican comedian would put it, that these processes took place in a finite

I wish at the start of these comments to state, without false modesty, that I am one of the people least qualified to comment, because I Suffer from a sort of generational blindness towards environmental problems which, although it has been clearing up gradually, in no way qualifies me to discuss them. At all events, 1 shall put forward some points of view and appeals for caution regarding concepts and policy lines which appear in documents and presentations on these matters. At the outset, I wish to refer to and reiterate the position taken by Osvaldo Sunkel and Enrique Iglesias, that for an economist of my generation, as for many in succeeding ones, it is almost unbelievable that this vital relationship of man to the? environment or of society to its physical surroundings remained unnoticed for so long, not even appearing tangentially in our discussions. We must acknowledge and recall, modestly and even repentantly, that those who were ringing warning bells and sounding the alarm on this issue were not only listened to indifferently but often considered well-intentioned eccentrics dealing with more or less irrelevant problems compared with those which really mattered to us. I believe that all the meetings currently being bold on the subject should begin by paying homage to those who blazed the trail and raised concern over these issues, but received so little attention in the past. The economists, some absorbed by the relationship between classes and individuals and others by mercantile fetishism, overlooked the ‘little detail’, as a famous Mexican comedian would put it, that these processes took place in a finite context which was constantly being depleted or deteriorating. Not to mention the more noble aspects of the quality of life. As often happens, unfortunately, and notwithstanding the optimistic image of homo sapiens, traditional approaches only began to be reconsidered substantially after the impact and testimony of flagrant and menacing crisis exposed man’s myopia and weakness. I do not feel it necessary to belabour this point, however; what is important is that critical reconsideration has rapidly progressed and a new and integrated view of development is being developed and carrying over into action.

In some of his recent articles —in particular those appearing in numbers 6 and 10 of this Review— the author’s object has been to describe the principal components and relationships characterizing the structure of peripheral capitalism, to bring to light the fundamental conflicts which it generates as it evolves, and to sketch out guidelines for its transformation.

Most reports on current environmental problems usually describe the problems, indicate their causes and outline the technical guidelines to be followed tor a reasonable solution to them; but only very rarely do they pose the political questions of who should take the relevant action, how they should do so, who should bear the cost, how effective the action of those agents may be expected to be, and what the response would be of the various social groups. In the author’s opinion, if environmental recommendations do not go together with political actions and studies they are likely to add to the already towering mountain of ‘committee-room utopias’ drawn up in international forums, which fail to achieve any practical consequence beyond their manifest goodwill.

In this short article, the author seeks to outline his central ideas on the energy crisis. Fundamentally, he stresses that the crisis has three dimensions: the finiteness of natural resources and the deterioration of the environment, criticism of the “consumer society” and the rising cost of petroleum. Under these circumstances, it is urgent to formulate and implement development strategies based on moderate energy requirements.

The general relationship existing between development and the environment may be approached at various analytical levels and from different angles. In this article it is explored in the specific case of modern-day Brazil and in the framework of its style of development, which the author describes as one of ‘associated dependence’. Having thus defined his object of study, he focuses his attention upon the consequences of the development style on the energy issue, the spatial distribution of the population and the development of the Amazon basin.

The general propositions on the relation between development and environment which are formulated in other articles appearing in the present issue of the Review acquire particular relevance in the light of trends in the Latin American agricultural sector over the last few decades. The peculiar dynamics of the style prevailing in the sector, which is conditioned by and at the same time influences the global development pattern, has produced effects on the environment among which the most outstanding are over-utilization of the soil and its consequent deterioration, and loss of resources, particularly on account of the rapid rate of deforestation.

On the basis of ideas put forward in previous studies, the author continues his exploration of the changes which have occured in international relations during the past few decades, with the aim of substantiating his thesis that the developing countries should direct their course towards a strategy of selective participation in the international system.

I. It is necessary to state from the outset a Fundamental coincidence of opinion with Prebisch’s article on “Socio-economic structure and crisis of peripheral capitalism”, if the selection of the critical points chosen by the commentator and tin? content of his remarks are to be intelligible. This area of coincidence can be broken down into two propositions: firstly, that the crisis of the system in the Latin American countries is a structural crisis, a theoretical understanding of which calls for analysis of the specific forms of capital accumulation, and of the social and political conflicts linked with these; and, secondly, that the analysis of the dynamic operation of the structure in question must begin with the internal factors. I understand, and accordingly agree, that this is a matter of the priority of internal over external factors at the start of the analysis, although the latter must not be left out of count. This second point is of great interest for the commentator, because it allows him also to invoke the authority of the article under consideration in discussions of a more punctual character; thus, for example, some time ago certain Argentinian economists, seeking to account for the military coup of 1976, gave a foremost place in their explanation to references to the new trends in the international division of labour (external factors) which would seem to be determining the resolution of internal conflicts. I note in passing that this ranking of the explanatory factors is, in that respect, akin to theoretical analyses such as those of Gramcsi (see Note sul Macchiarelli - Sulla Politica e sullo Stato Moderno), in which, in a few pages, he expounds a methodological proposal for the study of political conjunctures in which for the purposes of analysis internal factors acquire priority.