Colonialism and Postcolonial Development: Spanish America in Comparative Perspective

As the author explains in his clear, semiautobiographical preface, this monograph is not based upon archival research; rather, its aim is to synthesize a wide range of published material within a conceptual framework designed to provide a comparative/historical analysis of colonial and postcolonial trends across no less than 15 countries in mainland Spanish America. The purpose of the exercise is to attempt to discover the extent to which the colonial past was important in determining the differing levels of prosperity and well-being that can be seen in Spanish America in the postcolonial and contemporary eras. The exclusion of Brazil from the exercise may be legitimate, not least in terms of manageability, although this does complicate somewhat the hypothesis (p. 5) that the most dynamic economies in the region by the late nineteenth century were to be found in the countries (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and Venezuela) that had rid themselves of their indigenous populations. This theme is developed with the suggestion that the “descendants of . . . Inca and Aztec empires” Mexico and Peru had “fallen behind.” Perhaps that was how things seemed in the nineteenth century, but in the twentieth century Mexico has a level of prosperity second only to that of Brazil, while Peru, notwithstanding its mancha india of pre–politically correct days, is outstripping not only its “Indian” neighbors but also Chile.The opening chapter, “Explaining Levels of Colonialism and Postcolonial Development,” provides an articulate, broad-brush overview of the process whereby a mixed bag of eight European powers — Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain — created overseas empires that eventually turned into no less than 125 nation states. Focusing upon Spanish America, it argues that after 1700 the mercantilism of the Hapsburgs was replaced by the “liberalism” of the Bourbons, suggesting that the variable thoroughness of this process might account for regional differentiation. The idea is pursued in chapters 2–4, which develop the argument that the gradual shift of economic importance in the Bourbon era from the old “centers” (Upper Peru/Bolivia, Mexico, New Granada/Colombia, and Peru) to the “peripheries” and “semi-peripheries” (for example the future republics of Argentina, Uruguay, and Venezuela) left the former with the burden of a “mercantilist carryover” (p. 132). By the last quarter of the eighteenth century, the argument continues, Upper Peru/Bolivia had become a “fallen core” (p. 161), while the future Argentina and Mexico had developed into “full-blown liberal centres” (p. 185), with the Central American territories that formed the kingdom of Guatemala, together with Chile and Paraguay, as “sustained peripheries.” The exposition of the hypothesis is fluent and persuasive, up to a point, but it depends fundamentally upon the assumption that the Bourbon reforms, particularly post-1763, really did usher in liberalism. Arguably, what they did was to push mercantilism to a new level of efficiency but without opening up Spanish America to genuine economic liberalism.Chapter 5, “Warfare and Postcolonial Development,” adopts the novel argument that the independence period was not a decisive turning point in the history of Spanish America, because the peripheries of the late colonial period continued to be the poor relations. This theme persists in chapter 6, “Postcolonial Levels of Development,” which stresses the persistence of colonial patterns of development in the century or so after independence, notwithstanding some shifts caused by the exploitation of oil in Venezuela and massive social upheaval in Mexico. Chapter 7, “British and Portuguese Colonialism,” does not fit particularly well with those that precede it, not least because it brings Brazil partially into the equation, arguing that the south of the colony/country, being “liberal,” developed more rapidly than the mercantilist northeast. It also states the obvious with the observation that in the British Empire the “settler colonies” (Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) were more successful economically than those where native peoples were displaced to a lesser extent.The concluding chapter 8 makes a decent job of pulling threads together, arguing that the poorest countries in modern Spanish America, such as Bolivia, Ecuador, and Guatemala, have experienced the double whammy of submission to intensive mercantilist colonialism without feeling the benefits of liberal changes during the Bourbon period. This brings us back to the basic question: how “liberal” were the Bourbon reforms, particularly in the economic and commercial spheres? Not very, in the opinion of this reviewer: the “free trade” of the post-1778 period, for example, updated and intensified mercantilism but bore absolutely no resemblance to the genuine free trade of the national period. This is currently a topic of considerable historiographical significance as scholars participate in celebrations of the bicentenaries of the transitions to independence in Spanish America. This volume makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing debates about whether the Bourbon reforms encouraged creole elites to seek separation from Spain.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.