Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:43:21.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Intervention in Argentina's Export Trade between the Wars1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Roger Gravil
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the dramatic widening of the international economy in the last quarter of the nineteenth century foreign capital and enterprise have played a prominent role in the export trades of the primary producing countries. That so much initiative should have come from outside is not surprising since the timing of the entry of these countries into world markets was determined by the demands of the industrial nations rather than by their own level of commercial preparation. The establishment of foreign businesses inevitably brought mixed reactions in the host countries, stemming from the recognition that, while local capital and enterprise could not cope with the sudden commercial expansion, foreign interests were in a position to exploit that very fact. Primary producing countries, therefore, sought to impose statutory regulations on export companies designed to safeguard the producers and, more generally, to harmonize business operations with the government's conception of the national interest.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , November 1970 , pp. 147 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

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

2 The fullest list for 1920 appears in Pearce, A. W., The World's Meat Future (2nd ed., London, 1920)Google Scholar, and for 1930 in Richelet, Juan A., A Defence of Argentine Meat (Buenos Aires, 1930)Google Scholar, based on the Argentine Government's List for compulsory meat stamping. The consumption figures are from Smith, Peter H., Politics & Beef in Argentina (New York, 1969), p. 38.Google Scholar

3 Omètre, Geneviève, L'Industrie Frigorifique en Argentina (Paris, 1925), p. 93.Google Scholar

4 Nemirovsky, Lázaro, Estructura económica y orientación política de la agricultura en la República Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1933), p. 143Google Scholar. For the earlier development of these trades, see Hanson, Simon G., Argentine Meat and the British Market (London, 1938)Google Scholar, and Scobie, James R., Revolution on the Pampas (Austin, 1964).Google Scholar

5 de Granos, Junta Nacional, Leyes de granos y elevadores números 11.742 y 12.253. Recopilación editada por La Bolsa de Cereales de Buenos Aires (Buenos Aires, 1936), p. 5Google Scholar. Subsequently cited as Recopilación.

6 Economic Survey of Latin America, 1949, Economic Commission for Latin America, U.N. Dept. of Economic Affairs (New York, 1951), p. 124.Google Scholar

7 Discusión parlamentaria, collected in Recopilación, pp. 210–35.Google Scholar

8 Recopilación, p. 481Google Scholar. Pesos mn were national currency as distinct from pesos de oro, which were used for international transactions.

9 Duhau, Luis speaking on Ley No. 11.742 on 27 09 1932Google Scholar recorded in Recopilación, pp. 473–88.Google Scholar

10 de Granos, Junta Nacional, Ordenación de antecedentes, Interpretación jurídica de la ley 12.253 (por Eduardo J. Zembo, 1941), pp. 1–138Google Scholar, and Villegas, A. Walter, Origen y evolución de la ley de granos (Buenos Aires, 1969), pp. 14–27.Google Scholar

11 For earlier pressure to abolish the fixed price System, see La nación, 5 de diciembre de 1930, p. 18.Google Scholar

12 Villegas, A. Walter, op. cit., pp. 9–20Google Scholar, quoting Cámara de Diputados, Sesión del 27 de julio de 1932.

13 This did not prevent co-operatives from owning elevators; it simply meant that they did not control the complete network. By the mid-1960s there were some 200 societies operating elevators, silos and flour mills. Spaull, Hebe, The Cooperative Movement in the World Today (London, 1965), p. III.Google Scholar

14 Tornquist, Banco, Business Conditions in the Argentine Republic, Report No. 201 (01 1934), p. 22Google Scholar. British Chamber of Commerce in the Argentine Republic, Monthly Journal, 14 (31 01 1934), 19Google Scholar. In Oct. 1931 the Argentine Government introduced exchange control. From Nov. 1933 the ‘exporters rate’ was set at 15 pesos to the £. The ‘importers rate’ (for those with prior permits) represented the average of what collectively they were prepared to pay, which was generally 17–18 pesos to the £. The government admitted making a profit of 91 million pesos in the first nine months. This was used partly to finance state assistance to the export trades.

15 These bodies successively amalgamated and the present Junta Nacional de Granos was established in 1956.

16 Recopilación, pp. 216–17.Google Scholar

17 The most detailed accounts of subsequent developments are in República Argentina, Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería, Junta Nacional de Granos, publicación No. 64, Comercio de Granos (Buenos Aires, 1967)Google Scholar; Villegas, A. Walter, Régimen jurídico del control del comercio de granos (Buenos Aires, 1965)Google Scholar; Villegas, A. Walter, Régimen jurídico de los elevadores de granos (Buenos Aires, 1968).Google Scholar

18 Cárcano, Miguel Angel, Realidad de una política (Buenos Aires, 1938), pp. 9–16Google Scholar. However, the phasing of the programme had to be slowed down subsequently.

19 Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería, de Granos, Junta Nacional, La producción y el comercio de granos en el programa nacional de desarrollo económico (por Carlos A. del Villar, Buenos Aires, 1958), pp. 39–46.Google Scholar

20 Diario de Sesiones, Cámara de Diputados, 7, 1922, 5 de abril de 1923, p. 88.Google Scholar

21 It should be noted that both Alvear and Le Breton were against priee legislation. It seems to have been forced on them by more radical reformers.

22 Diario de Sesiones, Cámara de Senadores, 1 (1923)Google Scholar, 14 de mayo de 1923, pp. 37–9Google Scholar; 17 de julio de 1923, pp. 232–3Google Scholar; 19 de julio de 1923, pp. 255–61Google Scholar; 23 de julio de 1923, pp. 277–80, 282–7Google Scholar. Diario de Sesiones, Cámara de Diputados, 7 (1922)Google Scholar, 5 de abril de 1923, pp. 85–94Google Scholar; 6 de abril de 1923, pp. 112–38Google Scholar; 12 de abril de 1923, pp. 226–83Google Scholar; 26 de setiembre de 1923, pp. 680–702.Google Scholar

23 Ministerio de Agricultura, Sección Propaganda e Informes, Nómina de los inscriptos en el registro de contralor del comercio de carne hasta el 30 de marzo de 1924 y después del 30 de marzo de 1924 (Buenos Aires, 1924).Google Scholar

24 Federación Rural Montevideo, Junta Nacional de Carnes y la ley no 11.747 de su creación en la República Argentina. Conferencia pronunciada por el ex-presidente de dicha Junta, Dr Horacio N. Bruzone en el XXX congreso anual de la Federación Rural, efectuado en Salto en el 11 de mayo de 1946, pp. 3–5Google Scholar. Subsequently cited as Bruzone in Montevideo.

25 Sociedad Rural Argentina, Boletín de Divulgación, No. 5, Año. 1932.Google Scholar

26 Banco de la Nación Argentina, Revista Económica, 5 (3) (04 1932), 60Google Scholar, shows that England's imports of Brazilian chilled beef rose from 1,070 tons in 1926 to 30,500 tons in 1931 and Uruguayan chilled from 35,000 tons in 1926 to 39,550 tons in 1931.

27 Los frigoríficos y el Ministerio de Agricultura, Informes á la comisión investigadora del honorable senado de la Nación (Buenos Aires, 1934), p. 23.Google Scholar

28 The political aspects are thoroughly examined in the able study by Smith, Peter H., Politics and Beef in Argentina, op. cit., chapters vi, vii, viii.Google Scholar

29 Junta Nacional de Carnes, Reglamentación de la contabilidad de las empresas industrializadoras de carnes comprendidas en las resoluciones del 27 de mayo de 1935 y 9 de diciembre de 1937 (Publicación No. 18, 31 de octubre de 1946).Google Scholar

30 Tornquist, Banco, Business Conditions in Argentina, Report No. 213 (01 1937), p. 36.Google Scholar

31 Bruzone in Montevideo, p. 16.Google Scholar

32 The northern littoral includes Corrientes province; gobernaciones of Chaco; Formosa, Misiones; departamentos of Entre Rios province: Colón, Concordia, Federación, Feliciano, La Paz, Nogoya, Paraná, Rosario Tala, Villaguay; departamentos of Santa Fé province: Castellanos, Garay, General Obligado, Capital, Las Colonias, Nueve de Julio, San Cristóbal, San Javier, San Justo, Vera.

33 de Carnes, Junta Nacional, Informe de la Junta a pedido del Ministerio Agricultura con motivo de la presentación de los ganaderos del litoral (Buenos Aires, 9 de abril de 1938).Google Scholar

34 de Carnes, Junta Nacional, Respuestas del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional a los pedidos de informes de las HH.CC. de Senadores by Diputados de la Nación sobre complimiento de la ley 11.747 (Buenos Aires, 15 de junio de 1939, publicación No. 10), pp. 68–70.Google Scholar

35 Kelly, Ruth, ‘The Foreign Trade of Argentina and Australia, 1930–1960 (II)’, Economic Bulletin for Latin America, 10, No. 2, 10 1965, 191.Google Scholar

36 Extracted from Analisis y proyecciones del desarrollo económico: V. El desarrollo económico de la Argentina; Parte 2, Los sectores de la producción. Naciones Unidas (Mexico, 1959), p. 12.Google Scholar

37 Kelly, Ruth, ‘The Foreign Trade of Argentina and Australia 1930–1960 (I)’, Economic Bulletin for Latin America, 10, No. 1, 03 1965, 56.Google Scholar

38 British Chamber of Commerce in the Argentine Republic, Monthly Journal, 13 (08 1933), 15–16Google Scholar. Banco de la Nación Argentina, Revista Económica, 6 (6) (agosto 1933), 89–97.Google Scholar

39 British Chamber of Commerce in the Argentine Republic, Monthly Journal, 14 (30 12 1933), 14Google Scholar. Rowe, J. W. F., Primary Commodities in International Trade (Cambridge, 1965), p. 152.Google Scholar

40 Bank of London and South America Ltd, Fortnightly Review 3 (No. 35, 29 01 1938), p. 28.Google Scholar

41 Kelly, , op. cit., p. 50.Google Scholar

42 Clearly there was extensive expropriation under Perón (though even he paid handsomely for much of what he took) but the argument is that 1943 was precisely when Argentina decisively broke away from the pattern of development of broadly comparable countries.