> Evans' discussion of this alliance
> between state, domestic, and international capital - which he calls the
> tripé - formed the base of support for the Brazilian miracle, whose heyday
> was quite short (1969-74). The owl of Evans flew at midnight, so he
> mistakenly identified an eclipsed model as the basis of a permanent model
> of associated-dependent development in Brazil; he was right about the
> past, but not the future (just like Malthus). The era of heavy borrowing
> and increasing inflation came after 1974, but it wasn't until 1982 that
> the model collapsed completely.
This doesn't necessarily contradict what I wrote -- Kubitschek's model was a polarizing, state-led industrialization project devoid of rural reform, redistribution, or a larger geopolitical strategy. What Evans is describing is the next logical step -- once Brazil's newly-formed proletarians started to demand higher wages, the Brazilian ruling class tossed democracy aside and resorted to naked force to keep down wages. Which then sabotages net demand, so the authorities resort to hyperinflation and eventually overseas borrowing.
> Inconveniently for believers in a
> developmental state, the era when state-led industrialization in Brazil
> had the greatest success was also the era of the harshest political
> repression.
Developmental states are complicated things. Finland had a highly democratic one; South Korea's version democratized over time. Stalin industrialized Russia and Mao industrialized China, at a terrible cost, but the boom periods in both countries came during periods of comparative democratization (Deng and Putin), not tyranny.
-- DRR