Prebisch, Raúl

views updated May 23 2018

Prebisch, Raúl 1901-1986

Raúl Prebisch was a highly influential Argentinian economist and policymaker of the twentieth century. He is best known for proposing the idea that the world economic system consists of two connected elements—an industrialized center and an underdeveloped periphery—wherein the former dominates the latter. Contrary to the Ricardian claim that trade benefits all, Prebisch argued that trade between the center and periphery is unequal and detrimental for the periphery, and that became increasingly true as the world economy developed. His ideas were central to Latin American structuralist and dependency schools of thought. During the middle decades of the twentieth century, they led to the widespread adoption, in the periphery, of import substitution industrialization (ISI) policies that focused on “inward-directed” industrial development.

Prebisch’s ideas achieved a wide dissemination and receptivity when he headed the United Nations (UN) Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) between 1948 and 1963. One of his central theses was that, in the long run, primary producers in the periphery faced declining terms of trade for their exports vis-à-vis manufactured goods. This view received empirical support from a 1949 UN study, Relative Prices of Exports and Imports of Underdeveloped Countries, which examined the period between the late nineteenth century and end of World War II. Prebisch and the ECLA pointed out that during the upswing of a trade cycle, prices of primary goods rise faster than those of industrial goods, but that they fall much more steeply during the downswing, causing an overall decline in prices by the end of the cycle. In the industrialized center, the strength of organized workers and firms causes a relatively smaller decline in the prices of industrial goods during a downswing, while the vulnerability of farmers and unorganized workers leads to sharp declines in prices in the periphery.

Prebisch’s ideas were shaped by the experience of Argentina in its trade with industrialized nations such as Great Britain and the United States, both before and after the Great Depression. Another UN economist, Hans Singer, argued that income elasticity of demand for industrial goods (percentage increase in the demand for industrial goods associated with a percentage point increase in people’s incomes) is higher than that for primary goods, thereby causing a decline in the benefits from trade for the periphery over the long run. Together, these ideas came to be known as the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis.

Prebisch’s work has predictably attracted criticism from mainstream trade theorists. While the UN report that originally provided the empirical basis for Prebisch’s theory has been largely discredited, later studies have supported the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis. International Statistics Institute (ISI) policies have been blamed for certain longstanding problems, such as unsustainable debt levels in the periphery. Notwithstanding such critiques, ISI policies have also led to substantial increases in income and the development of an industrial base in a number of developing countries.

Prebisch’s insights remain important today for regions and countries in the periphery, notably Africa. Scholars continue to argue in favor of careful, “inward-directed” policies with concerted cooperation among countries in the periphery, and for the establishment of multilateral institutions that genuinely represent their interests. This vision informed the founding (in 1964) of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), a multilateral organization that Prebisch headed for its first six years. If there was ever a need for such institutions to represent the interests of the periphery on the world stage, it is at the present critical juncture of global integration. Indeed, there is a strong and growing literature among critical development scholars on the negative effects of globalizing policies for developing countries. These scholars are arguing that existing multilateral organizations such as International Monetary Fund or World Trade Organization have not represented the interests of the periphery adequately.

SEE ALSO Dependency Theory; Import Substitution; Industrialization; Ricardo, David; Structuralism

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bloch, Harry, and David Sapsford. 2000. Whither the Terms of Trade? An Elaboration of the Prebisch Singer Hypothesis. Cambridge Journal of Economics 24: 461–481.

Love, Joseph L. 1980. Raul Prebisch and the Origins of the Doctrine of Unequal Exchange. Latin American Research Review 15 (3): 45–72.

Ocampo, José Antonio. 1993. Terms of Trade and Center-Periphery Relations. In Development from Within: Toward a Neostructuralist Approach for Latin America, ed. Osvaldo Sunkel. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Prebisch, Raúl. 1950. The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principal Problems. New York: United Nations.

Singer, Hans. 1950. The Distribution of Gains between Investing and Borrowing Countries. American Economic Review 40 (2): 473–485.

Vamsi Vakulabharanam

International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences

Raúl Prebisch

views updated Jun 11 2018

Raúl Prebisch

Raúl Prebisch (1901-1986) was known primarily for his work as a scholar specializing in international and development economics and for his leadership as an executive in various agencies of the United Nations. His greatest contribution to economics is known as the Prebisch thesis.

Raúl Prebisch was born on April 17, 1901, in Tucumán, Argentina. After studying economics at the University of Buenos Aires he joined the faculty of its School of Economics and was professor of political economy from 1925 to 1948. During this period he also held several important positions in the Argentine public sector. These included deputy director of the Argentine Department of Statistics (1925 to 1927), director of economic research for the National Bank of Argentina (1927 to 1930), under-secretary of finance (1930 to 1932), and first director-general of the Argentine Central Bank (1935 to 1948). In 1948 he joined the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) and was appointed its executive secretary, a position he held until 1963. From 1965 to 1969 he was secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). After 1969 he was director-general of the United Nations Latin American Institute for Economic and Social Planning.

Prebisch achieved his greatest fame as an economist while serving with the Economic Commission for Latin America. There he began to formulate and publish his views on international trade and development, which were to have a significant impact on future Latin American policy making. Prebisch's views on international trade were a direct attack on classical-orthodox trade policy based on the theory of comparative advantage which was developed by British economist David Ricardo (1772-1823). Under comparative advantage a country was suppose to specialize in the production of those goods in which the country's efficiency was greatest. Thus, Latin America and other lesser developed regions would specialize in the production of primary products such as foodstuffs (e.g., tropical fruits, sugar, and coffee) and raw materials (e.g., copper, tin, and bauxite), while the United States and other advanced countries would specialize in the production of manufactured goods (e.g., capital goods and machinery). Trade between nations would distribute these goods and also the benefits of international specialization and division of labor.

Prebisch challenged this view of the world and set forth what has become known as the Prebisch thesis. This theory asserts that the gains of international trade and specialization have not been equitably distributed and that the advanced, industrialized countries have reaped far greater benefits than have the lesser developed regions of the world. This was due to the fact that the relative price of manufactured exports from industrialized countries was increasing, while the relative price of primary exports from lesser developed countries was decreasing. As a result, the commodity terms of trade (a country's export prices divided by its import prices) had been moving against Latin America and other lesser developed regions for several decades.

Prebisch reached this conclusion after examining various export and import price indices for the 1876-1947 period. He explained that this secular decline in the Latin American terms of trade was due to unique demand factors and the uneven impact of technological change. Lesser developed countries exported primary products, the demand for which grows at a slow rate, while advanced countries exported manufactured goods, the demand for which grows at a rapid rate. The net results of such a relationship will be export prices of manufactured goods (Latin American imports) increasing at a more rapid rate than export prices of primary products (Latin American exports).

Prebisch also argued that technological change was more favorable to the advanced countries of the world. Primary products were sold in competitive markets so that productivity increases caused the price of raw materials and foodstuffs to decline. Industrial products, however, were produced in oligopolistic markets, typified by administered prices and price rigidity. Productivity gains in such noncompetitive markets did not result in a decline in the price of manufactured goods but were instead used to augment the incomes of capital and labor.

The Prebisch thesis had significant policy implications for Latin America. Since the price of manufactured goods was rising relative to the price of primary products, Prebisch argued that Latin America should embark upon its own process of industrialization. This process, known as import substituting industrialization, involves producing domestically manufactured goods that were previously imported. Prebisch and the Economic Commission for Latin America repeatedly stressed the need for Latin American countries to utilize industrialization as an instrument of economic growth. Latin American policy makers responded enthusiastically, and industrialization became the primary means of growth for most Latin American nations during the post World War II period.

In order to achieve industrialization Prebisch and the Economic Commission for Latin America advocated policies that were in sharp conflict with prevailing Western economic orthodoxy. They urged government to take an active role in fostering the process of industrialization. Governments were urged to implement high tariffs and restrictive import quotas in order to severely limit, and often eliminate, the importation of those manufactured goods that Latin American nations were beginning to produce themselves. Such high levels of protection would remove the threat of international competition and would provide a highly favorable environment for the profitable local production of manufactured goods.

The most critical role that the government was to perform was that of allocating foreign exchange. Large amounts of foreign exchange are required to import the machinery and capital goods necessary for the establishment of new industries. Since foreign exchange is extremely scarce in almost all lesser developed countries, Prebisch argued that the government must implement exchange controls in order to allocate foreign exchange only to those industries that it considers to be of high priority to the growth and development of the country. Thus it is by its foreign exchange policies that a government decides which industries to encourage. This decision can only be made in a rational manner if the government first engages in economic planning to determine priority sectors of the economy. This emphasis on government planning is diametrically opposed to the Western orthodox view that free market forces should determine what goods will be produced. Nevertheless, most Latin American governments have adopted policies of protection, exchange controls, economic planning, and growth strategies based upon industrialization.

Prebisch was in Santiago, Chile, advising ECLA when he died of a heart attack in 1986. He was survived by his wife Liliana and son Raul.

Many scholars believe that Raäl Prebisch has had greater influence than any other single individual in focusing and shaping Latin American development policy.