Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:25:11.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Evolution of Agricultural Interest Groups in Argentina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Luigi Manzetti
Luigi Manzetti
Affiliation:
Luigi Manzetti is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Southern Methodist University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Argentina's history has been profoundly influenced by the development of its agriculture. It was through the exportation of beef and grain that the country experienced spectacular economic growth between 1880 and 1930. Historically, agricultural and agro-industrial production have made up between 70 and 80% of export earnings.1 As a consequence, the sector's dominant interest group during that period, the Argentine Rural Society (Sociedad Rural Argentina – SRA) acquired enormous economic power, which led to political clout as many of its members went on to become presidents of the republic and to staff the most important ministries. Because of the political influence so attained the SRA was soon referred to as one of the key factores de poder, or power holders, along with the military, the Church and, later on, labour. This hegemony came to an end in the mid-1940s when industrialisation replaced agriculture as the main contributor to the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and when Peronism removed the landowning elite from control of the levers of power. The agricultural sector continued to take a backseat among the priorities of most of the administrations following Perón's downfall in 1955, because the future of Argentina was perceived to rest upon the promotion of import substitution industrialisation. Agricultural interest groups were never again able to gain the same kind of access to economic policy-making as they had once enjoyed. To make matters worse, the whole rural sector was forced to finance the state-led industrialisation process through a variety of direct and indirect government taxes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , October 1992 , pp. 585 - 616
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 World Bank, Argentina: Reforms for Price Stability and Growth (Washington B.C., 1990), p. 185.Google Scholar

2 ibid.

3 Newton, Jorge, Historia de la Sociedad Rural Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1966)Google Scholar; Ferrer, Aldo, The Argentine Economy (Berkeley, 1967)Google Scholar; Ortiz, Ricardo, Historia económica de la Argentina, 1860–1930 (Buenos Aires, 1965)Google Scholar; Smith, Peter, Politics and Beef in Argentina: Patterns of Conflict and Change (New York, 1969)Google Scholar; Oscar, Oszlak, La formación del estado argentino (Buenos Aires, 1982)Google Scholar; de Imaz, José Luis, Los Que Mandan, (Those Who Rule) (Albany, 1970)Google Scholar; and S´bato, Jorge, Notas sobre la formación de la clase dominante en la Argentina moderna, (1880–1914) (Buenos Aires, 1979).Google Scholar

4 de Olariaga, N., El Ruralismo Argentino (Buenos Aires, 1943).Google Scholar

5 de Palomino, Mirta, Tradición y poder: la Sociedad Rural Argentina (1955–1983) (Buenos Aires, 1988).Google Scholar

6 Cavarozzi, Marcelo, Autoritarianismo y Democracia (1955–1983) (Buenos Aires, 1983)Google Scholar; O'Donnell, Guillermo, Bureaucratic Authoritarianism: Argentina, 1966–1973 in Comparative Perspective (Berkeley, 1988)Google Scholar; Cúneo, Dardo, Comportamiento y crisis de la clase empresaria argentina (Buenos Aires, 1967)Google Scholar; Niosi, Jorge, Los empresarios y el Eslado Argentino (Buenos Aires, 1969)Google Scholar; and Sindicaro, Ricardo, ‘Poder y Crisis de la gran burguesía agraria argentina’, in Rouquié, Alan (ed.), Argentina Hoy (Buenos Aires, 1983).Google Scholar

7 de Imaz, , Those Who Rule, and La clase alta de Buenos Aires (Buenos Aires, 1962)Google Scholar; Kulacs, Pablo, Los Terratenientes (Buenos Aires, 1971)Google Scholar; Oddone, Jacinto, La burguesía terrateniente argentina (Buenos Aires, 1975)Google Scholar; and Quesada, María S´enz, Los estancieros (Buenos Aires, 1980).Google Scholar

8 Giberti, Horacio, Historia Económica de la Ganadería Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1970)Google Scholar; Flischman, Guillermo, La renta del suelo y el desarrollo agrario argentine (Mexico City, 1977)Google Scholar and ‘Notas sobre el desarrollo agropecuario de la región pampeana argentina’, Estudios Cedes, vol. I, no. 4–5 (Buenos Aires, 1978)Google Scholar; Margenat, N., Las organizaciones corporativas del sector agropecuario y su posición frente a la renta potential (Buenos Aires, 1973)Google Scholar; Baumeister, E., Estructura agraria, ocupacional y cambio tecnológico en la región cerealera maicera. La figura del contratista de m´quinas (Buenos Aires, 1980)Google Scholar; Zemborian, Saturnino, La verdad sobre la propriedad de la tierra en Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1974)Google Scholar; and Tort, M., Trabajo rural, mecanización y estructura agraria: los contratistas de maquinaria agricola (Buenos Aires, 1982)Google Scholar; Cirio, Félix, ‘Situación del sector agrario pampeano ante la actual crisis del mercado mundial’, Mimeo (Buenos Aires, 1986)Google Scholar: and Fiorentino, R., La politico agraria para la región pampeana en las ultimas décadas, Mimeo (Buenos Aires, 1984).Google Scholar

9 de Nogueira, Roberto Martínez, ‘Las organizaciones corporativas del sector agropecuario: notas para un ensayo interpretative de sus comportamientos’, CISEA, no. 10 (Buenos Aires, 1985), p. 48.Google Scholar

10 Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, 1971) and The Rise and Decline of Nations (New Haven, 1982).Google Scholar

11 Olson, , The Rise and Decline of Nations, p. 34.Google Scholar

12 ibid., 29.

13 ibid., p. 27.

14 ibid, p. 74.

15 de Palomino, , Tradición y poder, p. 20.Google Scholar The charter of the association was signed by 66 individuals of whom 15 were Britons, and two Italians; see de Imaz, José Luis, Los Que Mandan, p. 98.Google Scholar

16 Cüneo, Dardo, Comportamiento y crisis, pp. 50–62.Google Scholar

17 ‘[The] agro-industrialists naturally adopted a middle position between the agrarian liberal free traders and the industrial protectionists. They argued that it was necessary to make a distinction between “natural” and “artificial” industry. Natural industries were those which used mostly local raw materials. They included wine, sugar, flour, meat, meat by-products, leather, edible oils, dairy products, lumber, furniture, tobacco, alcohol, beer, non-alcoholic beverages. Besides using local material, such industries needed very little sophisticated machinery, hence their costs were low and their prices competitive enough to meet the standards of the law of comparative advantage. By contrast, artificial industry required much expensive imported machinery, a great deal of imported fuel, and even imported raw materials. Most heavy industry, including iron and steel, machine building, chemicals, automobiles, electrical equipment, and rubber fell into this category. The agro-industrialists joined with the estancieros in considering such industries unsustainable for Argentina and unworthy of protection. By contrast, some temporary protection might be justified for natural industries, in order to give them a starting push.’ Lewis, Paul, The Crisis of Argentine Capitalism (Chapel Hill, NC, 1990), p. 82.Google Scholar

18 Palomino, , Tradición y poder, p. 30.Google Scholar

19 Internal elections were usually a formality as agreements were set up early to present a single list that members would vote on. The instance of an ‘alternative’ second list first appeared in 1908, and again in 1926 when breeders and fatteners (closely linked to foreign meatpackers and shipping companies) battled for the association's control, eventually resulting in the victory of the latter. Subsequently, only on three other occasions did the SRA experience internal squabbles, but such events were related to political crises affecting the whole country. Between 1954 and 1955, disagreements arose over whether to opt for an all-out confrontation or a conciliatory stance with regard to Perón. In 1962, members were divided on whether the association should take a position regarding the conflict between the azules and colorados, rival military factions. Finally, in 1972, dissension arose as a result of the debacle of the military regime and President Lanusse's decision to lift the proscription against Peronism. ibid., pp. 21 and 65.

20 Therefore, at least until 1930, contrary to the common belief which regarded the UCR as mainly representative of the urban middle class, many aristocrats as well were involved in that party's structure. We do not have data on how many aristocrats joined the SRA, but it is reasonable to speculate that many did. Between 1916 and 1930, one president (Alvear), one vice-president, and ten ministers came from the SRA's ranks. Within this time span, five out of nine presidents, and 38% of the ministers came from the Rural Society. Smith, Peter, Politics and Beef in Argentina, pp. 30–31.Google Scholar

21 De Palomino, , Tradición y poder, p. 71.Google Scholar

22 ibid., pp. 71–72.

23 A clear indication of the SRA's constant pursuit of ‘political’ connections rests on the fact that the president and vice-president of the republic, the presidents of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the ministers or secretaries of agriculture, provincial governors, and the mayor of Buenos Aites were all granted ex officio honorary membership of the association upon taking office. ibid., pp. 28–9.

24 Olson, , The Rise and Decline of Nations, p. 41.Google Scholar

25 Wynia, Gary, Argentina in the Postwar Era (Albuquerque, 1978), p. 23.Google Scholar

26 Lewis, , The Crisis, p. 23.Google Scholar

27 Waisman, Carlos, Reversal of Development in Argentina: Postwar Counterrevolutionary Policies and Their Structural Consequences (Princeton, 1987), p. 53.Google Scholar

28 Scobie, James, Argentina: A City and a Nation (New York, 1964), pp. 112–135Google Scholar; Rock, David, Argentina 1516–1987: From Spanish Colonization to Alfonsín (Berkeley, 1987), pp. 131–133, 140–143.Google Scholar

29 Taylor, Carl, Rural Life in Argentina (Baton Rouge, 1948), p. 195Google Scholar; Lewis, , The Crisis, p. 22.Google Scholar

30 Wynia, , Argentina in the Postwar Era, p. 23.Google Scholar

31 ibid., p. 24.

32 Such legislation forbade: ‘…clauses in tenant contracts restricting what could be planted and to whom it could be sold. The law also required owners to indemnify tenants for all improvements and forbade the seizure of tenants' tools and animals to pay off a debt. These results were tightened further in 1932, and in 1940 Congress aided tenants suffering from the Great Depression by making it extremely difficult for owners to evict them.’ Lewis, , The Crisis, p. 23.Google Scholar

33 ibid.

34 The Concordancia technically started with the administration of President Augustín Justo in 1932 and was supported early on by conservatives, Independent Socialists, and Anti-personalist Radicals. See Smith, Peter, Argentina and the Failure of Democracy (Madison, 1974), p. 37.Google Scholar

35 In fact, Buenos Aires agreed to: (a) reduce import tariffs to pre-1931 levels on about 350 British products; (b) have 85% of beef exports transported through British-owned shipping companies; (c) grant important concessions to British-owned railways and tramways companies operating in Argentina; and (d) have Argentina export profits in pounds be used to buy British goods. Rock, , Argentina 1516–1987, p. 224.Google Scholar

36 Potash, Robert, The Army and Politics in Argentina, 1928–1945, (Stanford, 1969), p. 83.Google Scholar See also Floria, Carlos and Belsunce, César García, Historia politica de la Argentina contempor´nea, 1880–1983) (Buenos Aires, 1988), p. 126Google Scholar; and Prebisch, Raúl, ‘Argentine Economic Policies since the 1930s: Recollections’, in The Political Economy of Argentina, 1880–1946, ed. Di Tella, Guido and Platt, D. C. M. (New York, 1986), pp. 142–143.Google Scholar

37 Lewis, , The Crisis, p. 91.Google Scholar

38 Similar provisions were made for beef exports. Until the early 1930s, foreign meatpackers had exercised a clear hegemony in terms of price setting through oligopolistic practices which were willingly accepted by cattlemen as long as business was thriving. Legislative attempts to change this state of affairs in 1923 met with little success, but the sharp drop in sales ensuing from the depression exacerbated relations between the two groups. At the end of 1933, the government sponsored in Congress a reform law, based on a proposal drafted in 1931 by the SRA, which established a National Meat Board composed of nine directors (of whom two were SRA nominees). The Board imposed a mandate on foreign importers that they register with it in order to carry out trade and that they comply with a control price mechanism explicitly aimed at guaranteeing a fixed income for livestock producers. The Board also organised a government-subsidised stockraisers' cooperative, under the name of Corporation of Argentine Meat Producers (Corporation Argentina de Productores de Carne – CAP), to manage up to 11% of beef exports to the United Kingdom within the provisions of the Roca-Runciman treaty. The Corporation's stated goal was to create a channel for Argentine producers to sell their products directly to foreign customers, thus bypassing the exporters' cartel and consequently avoiding part of their profits being taken away by the exporters' mediation. Gravil, Roger, ‘State Intervention in Argentina's Export Trade between the Wars’, Journal of Latin American Studies vol. 2, no. 2 (1970), pp. 157–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 ibid., p. 159.

40 Rock, , Argentina, 1516–1987, pp. 239–240Google Scholar; Di Tella, Guido, ‘Economic Controversies in Argentina from the 1920s to the 1940s’, in Tella, Di and Platt, , The Political Economy of Argentina, pp. 128–129.Google Scholar

41 Llach, Juan, ‘El Plan Pinedo de 1940: su significado histórico y los onígenes de la economía política del peronismo’, Desarrollo Económico, vol. 23, no. 92 (1984), pp. 529–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Wynia, , Argentina in the Postwar Era, p. 31.Google Scholar

43 Olson, , The Rise and Decline of Nations, p. 44.Google Scholar

44 ibid.

45 Concomitantly, the presence of SRA's members in the last two administrations of the Concordancia regime diminished steadily.

46 Lewis, , The Crisis, p. 153.Google Scholar

47 ibid., p. 142. See also Baily, SamuelLabor, Nationalism, and Politics in Argentina (New Brunswick, 1967), p. 77.Google Scholar

48 Lewis, , The Crisis, p. 148.Google Scholar

49 Cúneo, Dardo, Comportamiento y crisis, pp. 155–158, 174–178Google Scholar; Donghi, Tulio Halperín, Argentina la democracia de masas (Buenos Aires, 1972), p. 535Google Scholar; Luna, Félix, El 45: Crónica de un año decisivo (Buenos Aires, 1975)Google Scholar; Potash, Robert, The Army & Politics in Argentina, 1941–1962 (Stanford, 1980), pp. 15–46.Google Scholar

50 Waisman, , Reversal of Development, p. 175.Google Scholar

51 Wynia, , Argentina in the Postwar Era, p. 49Google Scholar; Rock, , Argentina, 1516–1987, p. 274.Google Scholar

52 Wynia, , Argentina in the Postwar Era, pp. 50 and 59.Google Scholar

53 Besides, it is said that the Army would not have allowed expropriation of land because most generals aspired to land owning status after retirement; some were also married to daughters of SRA members.

54 Newton, Jorge, Historia de la SRA (Buenos Aires, 1966).Google Scholar

55 Lewis, , The Crisis, p. 163.Google Scholar

56 de Imaz, , Los Que Mandan, p. 120.Google Scholar

57 For the debate arising from these contending views see de Palomino, , Poder y tradición, p. 24.Google Scholar

58 Nonetheless, pampean producers, especially fatteners, remained firmly in control of the Rural Society.

59 Olson, , The Rise and Decline of Nations, p. 47.Google Scholar

60 Randall, Laura, ‘Economic Development Policies and Argentine Economic Growth’, p. 141 in Randall, Laura (ed.), Economic Development: Evolution or Revolution? (Boston, 1964).Google Scholar

61 Hirschman, Albert, Essays in Trespassing Economics: Economics and Politics and Beyond (New York, 1984), p. 197.Google Scholar

62 Duesenberry, James, Income, Savings, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior (Cambridge, 1952).Google Scholar

63 SRA members were most numerous during the administrations of the Argentine Revolution (1966–73) and, conversely, were absent from the third Peronist administration (1973–6). The large number of the Rural Society's members during the Frondizi and Guido administrations has been explained by de Palomino as stemming from the strong military influence upon those two presidents, in particular the latter. What she seems to imply is that some of the SRA's members were closely linked with high ranking officers at the time. Thus, within this context, the armed forces viewed the participation of the SRA's affiliates in government as an assurance that ‘sound’ policies would be pursued. de Palomino also noted that 49 SRA members occupied 94 official positions during the 1956–83 period. In other words, 37% of such members served as public officials in more than one government while 40% occupied more than one post. Niosi, who analysed the behaviour of Argentine entrepreneurs between 1955 and 1969, came to the conclusion that SRA members played a decisive role during the first phase of the authoritarian governments, while later being replaced by industrial entrepreneurs, de Palomino did not find clear cut evidence for Niosi's hypothesis, but agreed that SRA's members could be found consistently in positions related to the rural sector such as minister, secretary, or undersecretary of agriculture both at the national level and at the provincial level (most notably the Buenos Aires province) during authoritarian periods. Furthermore, SRA leaders were quite involved, not only in agricultural posts, but in banking as well, which should not be a surprise because some of them owned or were shareholders of large financial companies. What all this data seems to suggest is that, at least as far as the SRA is concerned, after 1943 the participation of its members in official posts decreased over time. It also indicates that such participation was greatest after governments emerging from military coups were set up or when the armed forces had either a veto power or controlled the governmental machinery (Frondizi and Guido). de Palomino, , Tradición y poder, pp. 74–76.Google Scholar

64 Diamand, Marcelo, ‘Overcoming Argentina's Stop-and-Go Economic Cycles', in Latin American Political Economy, ed. Hartlyn, Jonathan and Morley, Samuel A. (Boulder, 1986), p. 129.Google Scholar

65 De Palomino, Mitta, ‘El Agro frente al Gobierno Constitutional’, El Bimestre, no. 28, (1986), pp. 4–9.Google Scholar

66 ibid., p. 4.

67 ibid., p. 10–11.

68 Nogueira, Martínez, ‘Las organizaciones corporativas’, p. 3.Google Scholar

69 ibid., pp. 4–5.

70 Olson, , The Rise and Decline of Nations, p. 44.Google Scholar

71 de Palomino, Mirta, ‘El Agro', p. 6.Google Scholar

72 ibid., p. 8.

73 World Bank, Argentina, p. 186.Google Scholar

74 Acuña, , ‘Intereses emptesarios’, p. 30.Google Scholar

75 All three did not actually join the strike. The first sympathised with the motivations but thought that striking was too strong an action. The CGT made similar remarks.

76 Buenos Aires Herald, 11 Aug. 1991, p. i.Google Scholar

77 De Palomino, , ‘El Agro’, p. 12.Google Scholar