Page 1

An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If th beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angry; for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate the hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of you frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angry; for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate th hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mothe coming up and missinone of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angr for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate the hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, tro on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size “Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angry; for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than success fully imitate the hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” Th Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her son “and do not be angry; for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate the hugeness of that monster”. An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If th beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angry; for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate the hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of you frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angry; for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate th hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mothe coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angr for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate the hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, tro on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size “Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angry; for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than success fully imitate the hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angry; for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate the hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the bea

1 2


WHY EXACTLY DO WE HUMANS HAVE SUCH AN INCREDIBLY LARGE INFLUENC ON OTHER SPECIES AND THE NATURAL WORLD? WE ARE UNIQUE AMONG ANI MAL SPECIES IN THAT WE SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE IN A WIDE VARIETY OF ENVIRONMENTS THROUGH CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS. IN CONTRAST, OTHER SP Currently the global human population is large enough and the technologies that allow humans to manipulate the environment are potent enough that human-caused alterations to the biosphere are causing the extinction of innumerable wildlife species. If present trends continue, there will be an eventual crash in the human population that will bring great suffering and cause widespread environmental damage. This is the root cause of the modern environmental crisis. This chapter deals with how we got into the present situation from the perspective of cultural interactions with wildlife and wild lands.

The following is a brief description of the various types of human societies, grouped according to their main mode of acquiring food and resources. Each of these types of societies is generally associated with certain types of social conditions and attitudes toward wildlife and nature. This way of organizing and describing human societies comes from a subdiscipline of anthropology called Human Ecology, which seeks to understand humans by how they interact with the natural world and with each other in

The cultural adaptations of humans have allowed them to colonize nearly every ecosystem type on Earth. In addition, cultural innovations have allowed the human population to grow exponentially for millennia. Such sustained population growth is unparalleled by any other species on the planet. The population of a typical species grows until it reaches the carrying capacity of its environment, then levels off or declines. In other words, it grows until it is fully utilizing the available resources, such as food and space.

At this point mechanisms such as disease and starvation keep the population from continuing to grow. However, we humans have responded to resource scarcity with cultural practices and technologies that increase the availability of resources. We raise our food on farms and live in multi-story apartment buildings, increasing the carrying capacity of the environment for humans. This growth eventually requires yet more cultural adaptations to increase resources, and the alteration of the natural environment and the rate of cultural evolution is accelerated.

order to survive (Richerson et al. 1996). This is essentially the way that ecologists understand other organisms, so Human Ecology fundamentally sees humans as another species of large social mammal living in the biosphere, while still recognizing their incredible uniqueness as cultural animals.

Understanding the history between resource acquisition and attitudes toward nature provides a context for the history of wildlife in North America, which is discussed in the next chapter. It may also provide some clues about how our global culture needs to change if it is to create a sustainable world in the future. The sections below divide societies into five convenient categories for discussion, but they represent a continuum of culture and values, and there are of course exceptions to the sweeping generalities that are made. The important thing to know is the general trend in how different societies relate to nature, rather than how to categorize any given society. cultural interactions with wildlife and wild lands.


WHY EXACTLY DO WE HUMANS HAVE CE SUCH AN INCREDIBLY LARGE INFLUENC ON OTHER SPECIES AND THE NATURAL I-WORLD? WE ARE UNIQUE AMONG ANI DMAL SPECIES IN THAT WE SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE IN A WIDE VARIETY OF ENVIRONMENTS THROUGH CULTURAL PEADAPTATIONS. IN CONTRAST, OTHER SP The cultural adaptations of humans have allowed them to colonize nearly every ecosystem type on Earth. In addition, cultural innovations have allowed the human population to grow exponentially for millennia. Such sustained population growth is unparalleled by any other species on the planet. The population of a typical species grows until it reaches the carrying capacity of its environment, then levels off or declines. In other words, it grows until it is fully utilizing the available resources, such as food and space.

At this point mechanisms such as disease and starvation keep the population from continuing to grow. However, we humans have responded to resource scarcity with cultural practices and technologies that increase the availability of resources. We raise our food on farms and live in multi-story apartment buildings, increasing the carrying capacity of the environment for humans. This growth eventually requires yet more cultural adaptations to increase resources, and the alteration of the natural environment and the rate of cultural evolution is accelerated.

Currently the global human population is large enough and the technologies that allow humans to manipulate the environment are potent enough that human-caused alterations to the biosphere are causing the extinction of innumerable wildlife species. If present trends continue, there will be

an eventual crash in the human population that will bring great suffering and cause widespread environmental damage. This is the root cause of the modern environmental crisis. This chapter deals with how we got into the present situation from the perspective of cultural interactions with wildlife and wild lands.

The following is a brief description of the various types of human societies, grouped according to their main mode of acquiring food and resources. Each of these types of societies is generally associated with certain types of social conditions and attitudes toward wildlife and nature. This way of organizing and describing human societies comes from a subdiscipline of anthropology called Human Ecology, which seeks to understand humans by how they interact with the natural world and with each other in order to survive (Richerson et al. 1996). This is essentially the way that ecologists understand other organisms, so Human Ecology fundamentally sees humans as another species of large social mammal living in the biosphere, while still recognizing their incredible uniqueness as cultural animals.

Understanding the history between resource acquisition and attitudes toward nature provides a context for the history of wildlife in North America, which is discussed in the next chapter. It

may also provide some clues about how our global culture needs to change if it is to create a sustainable world in the future. The sections below divide societies into five convenient categories for discussion, but they represent a continuum of culture and values, and there are of course exceptions to the sweeping generalities that are made. The important thing to know is the general trend in how different societies relate to nature, rather than how to categorize any given society. cultural interactions with wildlife and wild lands.


Current patterns of rural–urban migration also provide important opportunities to achieve land-use efficiency. Between 1990 and 2000, many rural areas throughout Latin America lost population (Preston 1997). For example, in Mexico 28% of the municipalities had negative population growth between 1990 and 2000, representing 31% of the area of Mexico. Although the populations of all Latin America countries are increasing, regions within many countries are losing population due to rural–urban migration. In some cases, rural outmigration may promote environmental degradation by reducing the local labor power needed to maintain irrigation and soil conservation systems (Zimmerer 1993, Harden 1996), or may promote less intensive but highly inefficient land uses such as cattle ranching replacing agriculture or sheep grazing (e.g., Preston 1998, Rudel et al. 2002). But, in many cases, outmigration results 2

in land abandonment, particularly in mountain and desert ecosystems, as well as areas with poor soils. Often, these ecosystems are disproportionately important for watershed and biodiversity conservation. Migration to urban centers, frequently in the USA or Europe, is generally associated with remittances to local relatives, who become less dependent on marginal agriculture, further favoring ecosystem recovery. For example, in Mexico and El Salvador there is a positive correlation between the level of remittance and forest recovery (Bray and Klepeis 2005, Hecht and Saatchi 2007). By moving to urban centers, people consume agricultural products that originate in more

efficient systems such as mechanized agriculture, planted pastures, and feedlots; and in general, they improve their living conditions in terms of education, health, and services (Polèse 1998). Furthermore, usually

within one generation, these immigrants reduce their fertility to levels typical of urban areas, helping to reduce population growth (United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) 2007). In summary, although rural–urban migrations are often complex and frequently involve conflictive social adjustments (Preston 1997, Fearnside 2008, Padoch et al. 2008), they represent an important opportunity to combine social and environmental improvements (Aide and Grau 2004, UNFPA 2007, Grau and Aide 2007). As the process of ecological transition is largely associated with the market economy and the free movement of people, goods, and information, it will be enhanced by policies facilitating migration and discouraging noncompetitive production systems. This can even favor ecosystem recovery in parts of severely

threatened ecoregions such as the Cerrado, the Atlantic forest or the Chaco dry forests, which include areas that, due to steep slopes or dry climates, are not suitable for modern agriculture. In contrast, ecosystem recovery in marginal lands will be difficult when inefficient systems of production are maintained through subsidies from government or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and where marginal conditions and external illegal markets provide opportunities for highly profitable illegal crops (e.g., coca, opium, or cannabis). Although marginal agricultural lands are being abandoned in many regions of Latin America, there is no guarantee that this will always lead to the recovery of natural ecosystems. For example, secondary forests in peri-urban areas are often dominated by naturalized exotic species 3


06

05


7

6

As human culture changes from hunter-gatherer to agrarian to industrial, increasingly large human populations require increasing manipulation of the natural world to make food production efficient enough to feed so many people.

The relationship between humans and nature has changed dramatically over the last 10,000 years.


The expansion of modern agriculture is having its greatest effects on the two most threatened biomes both at global and continental scales (Hoeckstra et al. 2005): tropical and subtropical dry forests

DEFORESTATION DEFORESTATION DEFORESTATION DEFORESTATION DEFORESTATION DEFORESTATION DEFORESTATION DEFORESTATION


N N N N N N N N

South America The Temperate Jungle of South America, which covers regions of Southern Chile and Argentina, represents the largest tract of essentially undisturbed temperate forest in the world. Chile Dominated by southern beeches such as ulmo and laurel, these ancient forests support large numbers of plant and animal species exclusive to this region.These include the Darwin Frog, the Pudú deer, the Chilote fox and the Chilean pine, or monkey puzzle tree. “Chile’s temperate forests contain at least 50 species of trees used for timber and more than 700 species of vascular plants - half of which do not occur elsewhere.” - World Resources Institute, 1997 These forests are also home to indigenous communities such as the Pehuenche community of Chile’s Quinquen Valley, the Mapuche Indians of Huitrapulli and other local communities who have long depended on the natural wealth of the forest for their physical, cultural and spiritual way of life. The Great Chaco and Yungas Rainforests of Argentina The Yungas Rainforest and the Great Chaco American forest are two neighbouring ecosystems. They are rich in biodiversity and wildlife, such as rare jaguars. However, these forests are being destroyed at one of the fastest rates in the world. The deforestation rate of the Chaco forest of northern Argentina, is up to six times higher than the world average. The rate of this destruction has accelerated since 1996, when Monsanto introduced genetically engineered soya beans into Argentina. Since then, the country has extended its agricultural frontiers to grow genetically engineered soya for export as animal feed, at the expense of its threatened forests, wildlife and the homes and livelihoods of many people.


As human culture changes from hunter-gatherer to agrarian to industrial, increasingly large human populations require increasing manipulation of the natural world to make food production efficient enough to feed so many people.


Deforestation continues to be the dominant land-use trend in Latin America (Fig. 1) (Ramankutty and Foley 1999, Achard et al. 2002), and subsistence agriculture, an important part of many local economies, is one of the major contributors (Chowdhury and Turner 2006, Pan et al. 2007). But, socioeconomic changes related to globalization are promoting a rapid change toward agricultural systems oriented to local, regional, and global markets. The Amazon basin is the region that has lost the largest area to deforestation, and where deforestation has had the greatest impact on biodiversity and biomass loss (Houghton et al. 1991, Laurance 1998, Lambin et al. 2003), but most other biomes have also been and continue to be severely affected by conversion to agriculture and pastures (e.g., Ellenberg 1979, Sader and Joyce 1988, Viña and Cavelier 1999, Galindo-Leal and De Gusmao Camara 2003, Klink and Machado 2005, Viglizzo et al. 2006, Gasparri et al. 2008). Historically, traditional shifting agriculture and cattle ranching, often favored by government subsidies and migration policies, have been the main drivers of deforestation in the Amazon, as well as in other ecosystems in Latin America such as the Andean forests, Central American lowlands, and South American dry forests (Hecht 1993, Kaimowitz 1995, Grau et al. 2008a). Although these driving forces continue to act in many places, export-oriented industrial agriculture has become the main driver of South American deforestation. In Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Argentina, extensive areas of seasonally dry forest with flat terrain and enough rainfall for rain-fed

agriculture are now being deforested for soybean production, which is mainly exported to China and the European Union (Dros 2004). This process affects the species-rich Amazon forests (Fearnside 2001, Killeen et al. 2008) and indirectly favors other forms of degradation beyond the agriculture frontier, such as logging and fire (Nepstad et al. 1999). The expansion of modern agriculture is having its greatest effects on the two most threatened biomes both at global and continental scales (Hoeckstra et al. 2005): tropical and subtropical dry forests (Zak et al. 2004, Grau et al. 2005, Silva et al. 2006) and temperate grasslands and savannas (Paruelo and Oesterheld 2003, Baldi and Paruelo 2008). Although the “soy boom” in Latin America is an important threat to the region’s biodiversity, it has brought large economic benefits to the economy sectors associated with production, transportation, commercialization, and processing of agricultural products and to the local and national governments through taxes. Furthermore, the “soy boom,” partly based on transgenic cultivars, is supplying cheap calories and high-quality protein to help meet the growing demand for food in Southeast Asia, and is thus contributing to increasing nutrition levels in this region. Although the efficiency of modern agriculture and the associated lower food costs are positive for consumers, smallhold farmers, particularly those on marginal lands, are frequently unable to compete with large-scale agriculture. This process and the increase in off-farm jobs in the service and industry sectors in the cities stimulate rural–urban migration.

The combination of agricultural modernization and rural–urban migration often leads to a shift in the mode of food production and the abandonment of marginal agricultural and grazing land, which can favor ecosystem recovery both as spontaneous processes and by facilitating the implementation of protected areas or conservation policies (Mather and Needle 1998, Mather 2001, Aide and Grau 2004, Grau and Aide 2007, Izquierdo and Grau 2008). Forest transition or more generally, ecological transition (ecosystem recovery occurs also in non-forested biomes), occurs when an economy shifts toward non-agricultural production, agriculture concentrates in the most productive lands, and marginal agriculture is abandoned, favoring the recovery of forests and other natural ecosystems. Although comparatively less important than deforestation and much less perceived by the general public and the scientific community, processes of ecosystem recovery can be observed in many Latin American areas (Fig. 1). Forest expansion or recovery of degraded forests during recent decades has been reported for several Caribbean and Central American areas in association with the strong impact of rural outmigration and economic modernization, including Puerto Rico (Lugo 2002, Grau et al. 2003, Parés Ramos et al. 2008), Dominican Republic (Grau et al. 2008c), Mexico (Klooster 2003, Bray and Klepeis 2005), El Salvador (Hecht et al. 2006), Honduras (Southworth and Tucker 2001), Costa Rica (Kull et al. 2007), and Panama (Wright and Samaniego 2008). In South America, examples of ecosystem recovery include

forest expansion in peri-urban ecosystems (Baptista 2008, Grau et al. 2008b), expansion of Andean forests into grasslands (Grau 1985, Kitzberger and Veblen 1999), and land-use disintensification in deserts and semi-arid ecosystems (Moran et al. 1996, Preston et al. 1997, Wiegers et al. 1999, Morales et al. 2005, Jepson 2005, Grau et al. 2008a). Although agriculture is being abandoned in some marginal areas, in other areas it continues to expand; for example, in regions used for illegal crops. Compared with moodern agriculture, which concentrates in fertile and flat soils, illegal crops are often cultivated in marginal areas, mainly because of poor accessibility, which reduces legal controls. The most common of these areas in Latin America are the humid slopes of the Andes, where cultivation of coca and opium are a major source of deforestation and environmental degradation (Cavelier and Etter 1995, Fjdelsa et al. 2005, Bradley and Millington 2008). These areas are also affected by armed conflicts and are outside the legal system of the country, a situation with two contrasting consequences for conservation. On the one hand, social and economic deterioration may lead to outmigration and land abandonment, but on the other hand, conditions for establishment of protected areas and legal enforcement of conservation become very difficult. OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS Latin America, particularly South America, has had the luxury of being a large continent


OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS


DEFORESTATION CONTINUES TO BE THE DOMINANT LAND-USE TREND IN LATIN AMERICA


For millennia, relationships have developed between ani- mals and people through the context of work, sport, com- panionship, or some combination of these activities. Often, a bond between animal and human results that is based on affection and/or respect. In the research environment, it is not uncommon for a bond to develop between the investi- gator, veterinarian, and/or animal care technicians and the animals with which they work; and such a bond can be just as strong for a mouse as it is for a dog. Circumstances that foster the formation of these bonds include the close and frequent contact between the researchers and their animals during studies or during training of animals to particular tasks, the long periods of time many research animals live in the facilities (often years), the dependency of the animals on the animal care staff for their daily needs, and the veteri- narian/ patient relationship, which is not unlike that of pri- vate practitioners and client-owned animals. In addition, overlaying the fundamental relationship with the research animal are special bonds that can form with certain animals. Among those that engender a special attachment are animals that are particularly friendly, amusing, or intelligent; ani- mals requiring extra supportive care; animals that show courage; animals that represent a milestone in a particular scientific advancement; and animals that reflect humans’ own strengths and foibles. The development of these rela- tionships is enriching to both personnel and animals inas- much as people who care about their animals are committed to promoting and ensuring the well-being of those animals. Key Words: animal well-being; environmental enrichment; human-animal bond; training “It’s proper to make the distinction When explanations are given; Between those who care as a hobby And others who care for a livin’.” Baxter Black, 1986 “Animal Lovers” Coyote Cowboy Poetry Kathryn Bayne, M.S., Ph.D., D.V.M., is Associate Director of AAALAC International, Rockville, Maryland. Personnel who work in animal research facilities are occasionally the targets of claims that they are unfeel- ing. However, Baxter Black (1986) more accurately captures the essence of animal facility staff as individuals who do their jobs, in sometimes difficult circumstances, because they care. It is not only an interest in scientific endeavors that leads animal research facility staff to choose a career in the field, but also a regard for animals. This caring attitude characterizes the ideal animal facility em- ployee;

however, this approach also makes it difficult for these individuals to work in this special environment. Although much has been written about the humananimal bond, both in descriptions of relationships between people and their pets as well as in animalassisted therapy programs, catalysts for the bond that develops between re- search animals and the staff that work with them have re- ceived attention only recently (Arluke 1990). As described elsewhere in this issue (Chang and Hart 2002; Davis 2002; Herzog 2002; Iliff 2002; Russow 2002), the bond that de- velops between staff and animals in the laboratory involves a variety of species used in diverse projects with differing outcomes for the animals. The following description of the circumstances in which bonds develop in the laboratory is not intended to be all inclusive. In some research studies, such as those in which the animals are infected with a highly zoonotic agent, it may be virtually impossible for a relationship of any substance to develop between staff and the animal subjects. In other cases, personnel will allow their feelings for the animals to deepen only to a limited degree as a self-protective mecha- nism, inasmuch as there is an obvious personal cost to the individual who becomes emotionally attached to laboratory animals that may eventually be euthanized. Tannenbaum (1987) argues that a true bond can only be defined as bidirectional, which he describes as a relationship that benefits both parties and is mutually voluntary. I be- lieve that a bond may be unidirectional, rather than solely bidirectional. For example, a staff member may become particularly attached to an animal that shows no special regard for that individual. In addition, an animal (e.g., a dog) may actively seek or initiate a relationship with animal facility personnel as a result of its exposure as a puppy to a socialization program that included people.


ANIMALS AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIVING TOGETHER FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, BUT THE PAST 100 YEARS

HAVE BEEN EXTRAORDINARY IN THE AMOUNT OF CHANGE IN THOSE RELATIONSHIPS ... 2


ANIMALS AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIVING TOGETHER FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, BUT THE PAST 100 YEARS

HAVE BEEN EXTRAORDINARY IN THE AMOUNT OF CHANGE IN THOSE RELATIONSHIPS ...


ANIMALS AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIVING TOGETHER FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, BUT THE PAST 100 YEARS HAVE BEEN EXTRAORDINARY IN THE AMOUNT OF CHANGE IN THOSE RELATIONSHIPS

...

Even though we understood, or perhaps because we understood the primary role of animals in our lives, we were often in a close relationship that gave us a perspective of our interdependence and the nature of life and death in our ecosystem. Today, less that 1% of families in the US are engaged in raising livestock; few children have seen or experienced the cycle of life and death of livestock or plants; few know first hand where their milk, cheese, eggs, meat, vegetables and fruit actually come from.


Current studies also show that 60-80% of dogs sleep with their owners at night in the bedroom, either in or on the bed. This indicates the closeness of a relationship and is a major change in our attitudes towards treating pets as family. Today the media and most people consider pets as part of their families.


In 1533, Spanish conquistadores sacked the imperial Incan palace

The foundations for dependency theories were laid by the group of

of Coricancha in Cuzco, stripping its sumptuous ornamentation and

economists associated with the Economic Commission for Latin Amer-

melting down the gold. The treasure that didn’t become personal

ica (ECLA) from around 1950. The ECLA economists maintained that

booty was sent to Spain and used to pay off the Flemish and Ger-

Latin American countries’ struggles for economic progress were

man bankers who had underwritten the royal family’s expeditions of

hindered by their structural disadvantage as primary producers.

conquest1.

Critiquing Ricardo’s law of comparative advantage, they argued that loss of value of raw materials relative to sophisticated manufac-

As viewed by the ‘dependency theorists’ who emerged from the 1960s

tured goods resulted in gradually declining terms of international

onwards, that was emblematic of Latin America’s post-conquest his-

trade2.

tory. The plunder which typified the Spanish and Portuguese empires continued into the post-independence age, as the rapidly industri-

The ECLA proposed that Latin America embark on a path to great-

alizing countries in northern Europe exploited Latin America for

er self-sufficiency through import-substituting industrialisation

its raw materials. Unequal exchange between the industrial ‘core’

(ISI), a process that had already begun in some countries dur-

and dependent ‘periphery’ was perpetuated in the twentieth cen-

ing the international capitalist crises of the 1930s and 1940s.

tury, as multinational companies sucked profit from Latin economies.

However, after initial progress in countries with large internal

It was this ongoing process of exploitation, argued the depen-

markets like Argentina, Mexico and Brazil, industry stagnated and

dentistas, which explained the chronic underdevelopment of Latin

was forced to rely on foreign finance, making it easy pickings for

American countries.

the multinational companies that began to dominate Latin American domestic markets. Paradoxically, the push for development through

Dependency theories provided new and penetrating analyses of Latin

local industrialisation left Latin American countries more depen-

America’s pathway to underdevelopment. However, I will argue that

dent than ever.

the perspectives which recognised the importance of political processes within dependent countries have proved more insightful and

In the face of this apparent impasse, dependency theorists moved

enduring than those which gave an exaggerated role to external

beyond the ECLA’s identification of structural inequalities between

domination.

countries, to a more radical critique of the relations between core and periphery. Most agreed that the underdevelopment of Latin


The ECLA proposed that Latin America embark on a path to greater self-sufficiency through import-substituting industrialisation (ISI), a process that had already begun in some countries during the international capitalist crises of the 1930s and 1940s. However, after initial progress in countries with large internal markets like Argentina, Mexico and Brazil, industry stagnated and was forced to rely on foreign finance, making it easy pickings for the multinational companies that began to dominate Latin American domestic markets. Paradoxically, the push for development through local industrialisation left Latin American countries more dependent than ever. In the face of this apparent impasse, dependency theorists moved beyond the ECLA’s identification of structural inequalities between countries, to a more radical critique of the relations between core and periphery. Most agreed that the underdevelopment of Latin American countries had been part and parcel of the historical expansion of capitalism, and could not simply be overcome by cultural and social ‘modernization’. However, there was significant variation in the theoretical details. Following Vernengo3, we can recognise a ‘continuum’ of dependency theories, with the respective ends represented by Andre Gunder Frank and Fernando Henrique Cardoso. In Gunder Frank’s view, the underdevelopment of the periphery was an inevitable reflection of the development of the core. He argued that the industrial ‘metropolis’ extracts a surplus from its ‘satellites’ in order to sustain its own dynamic growth. Exploitative metropole-satellite relationships are reproduced between countries in the periphery, and even within countries (as the rich countries are to Brazil, so is Brazil to Paraguay, and the industrial-commercial centre of Sao Paulo to the impoverished Brazilian northeast). While internal political and social structures contribute to the process of underdevelopment, they can only be understood as a function of this external dominance. Given the ongoing extraction of locally-generated capital, Frank doubted whether development was possible in dependent countries. Cardoso on the other hand, placed much more emphasis on the political dynamics within dependent countries. Historical economic changes, while driven by the technological and financial dominance of the core countries, offered the opportunity for a range of political responses in the periphery, including greater popular participation or resistance. Furthermore, he distinguished between the political situation of depen-

dence, and the economic question of development. For Cardoso, development was possible in a situation of dependence, even if it were only ‘associate-dependent’ development. How plausible were the dependency theorists’ accounts of the historical underdevelopment of Latin America? The arguments of the ECLA economists that underlie dependency theory have gained considerable currency4 . Not only do primary products risk declining terms of trade, but they are also prone to sudden collapses in value. Latin American history is littered with examples of boom and bust periods based on a single product, leaving little more than scars on the local environment, territorial disputes and bitterness5. Yet dependence on primary products, and a few key markets, did not necessarily condemn countries to underdevelopment. Australia, New Zealand and Canada were all colonies built on exporting primary agricultural products back to the industrial core, but by the 1950s all were firmly established as part of the developed world. Even today, two of the world’s three ‘most developed’ countries (Norway and Australia) export 70 to 80 percent primary products6. While these countries are thoroughly different from most Latin America nations, it is difficult to avoid the parallels between Australia and Argentina – both countries where colonisers drove out small native populations and established an export economy based on extensive agricultural land use. What was different about Australia and Argentina that saw them ultimately take divergent paths? Harrison7 provides a foil for dependency theory, blaming Latin American underdevelopment on the historical lack of social cohesion and economic dynamism due to fatalistic world views and authoritarian social structures inherited from Spain. Yet while his is an explicitly ‘culturalist’ thesis, Harrison’s actual analysis of Argentina’s and Australia’s differences looks not unlike the story of lost political opportunities told by Cardoso and Faletto8. In Argentina, the post-independence period of the 19th century was riven by internal conflict, while the large land-owners – Cardoso and Harrison agree – maintained a hegemonic grip on power. Despite considerable economic growth driven by agricultural export, it wasn’t until 1912 that anything like democratic government was achieved, and then it was

chaotic and faction-ridden. Peronist populism in the 1940s produced economic and political gains for some previously-excluded groups, but couldn’t reconcile the conflicts between classes and between rural and urban sectors, and in fact exacerbated them by setting the unfortunate precedent of having the military act as arbiter. By contrast, Australia saw political reforms more than 60 years before Argentina. There were forms of parliamentary government in place from 1850; land reform in Victoria from 1860; and some of the world’s first social welfare programmes by 1910. Importantly, the large landholding interests had never maintained a grip on political power. Differences in internal politics are again highlighted when we review a further challenge to dependency theory: the recent transformation of several East Asian countries from part of the poor periphery to members of the rich core. In 1950, the income per capita in Taiwan and South Korea was a third of that in Argentina and half that of Mexico. By 1990, both Asian countries were easily richer than any Latin American country, while also having some of the most equitable income distributions in the world.9 Among the direct comparisons with Latin America, Kay10 places emphasis on the much earlier and more thorough land reforms that took place in the Asian countries which ended the influence of landlords and allowed the agricultural surplus to be used to support industrialisation. While not downplaying the authoritarian nature of governments in South Korea and Taiwan, he notes that their reforms had significant redistributive effects and that they continued to promote productivity improvements in both agriculture and industry. In contrast, land reform in Latin American countries was late, partial, and ineffective. In many cases, “landlords were able to block any attempts at reform in the countryside”11. Attempts to use agricultural profit to finance industry mainly hurt peasants and the rural proletariat. Compared with East Asia, governments lacked authority and “statecraft”, partly due to the “polarised and entrenched class structure”12. Industrialists sought ongoing protection and subsidies, and policy makers were never able to engineer a move to the next phase of competitive export-oriented industrialisation. In both Australia and East Asia, internal reforms allowed the benefits of economic growth to be shared

more widely, despite continued dependence on the international economy. The conflicts which undermined similar reforms in Latin America had their origin in the rigid hierarchies and exploitative social structures dating from colonial times. But these internal factors had a life of their own, and were not just the products of economic dependence. As Cardoso argues, and as the examples from elsewhere illustrate, failures to reach new political compromises were not inevitable. While these counter-examples partly undermine the historical analyses of dependency theorists, a bigger problem for the dependentistas is summed up by Gunder Frank’s own statement that: “if the policy is ineffective, it renders suspect the theory from which it is derived”.13 The policy recommendations of dependency theorists were, at best, rather vague. On the one hand, obsession with structure allowed little attention to the human details of underdevelopment such as the ethnic inequalities which even the most casual observer can see have been a major factor in many Latin American countries. On the other hand, while the ECLA produced detailed proposals for reform (by the 1970s seen to have failed), dependency theorists identified an impasse, beyond which they could only gesture. Frank sets the Cuban revolution as his unique and mostly unexamined model. Even Cardoso and Faletto only establish the rather nebulous challenge of building “paths towards socialism”14. Given the lack of attention to detail, it is perhaps unsurprising that little was achieved by either revolutionary or reformist attempts to overcome dependence. External factors can share some of the blame, notably the US attempts to undermine socialist regimes in Cuba, Chile, and Nicaragua. But in Cuba, the relationship of dependence was hardly changed by socialist revolution, with sugar exports to the Soviet Union remaining a dominant part of the Cuban economy15. Elsewhere, as argued by diverse contributors to Edwards and Dornbusch, heroic attempts to restructure Latin American economies almost invariably resulted in balance of payments crises, rampant inflation, and ultimately a decline in real wages16. Again, several analysts point to the political difficulties in implementing stable social and economic reforms. The need to provide short-term payoffs for members of fragile alliances resulted in unsustainable economic stimulation interspersed with destabilising reactions against internal or external antagonists.


The ECLA proposed that Latin America embark on a path to greater self-sufficiency through import-substituting industrialisation (ISI), a process that had already begun in some countries during the international capitalist crises of the 1930s and 1940s. However, after initial progress in countries with large internal markets like Argentina, Mexico and Brazil, industry stagnated and was forced to rely on foreign finance, making it easy pickings for the multinational companies that began to dominate Latin American domestic markets. Paradoxically, the push for development through local industrialisation left Latin American countries more dependent than ever. In the face of this apparent impasse, dependency theorists moved beyond the ECLA’s identification of structural inequalities between countries, to a more radical critique of the relations between core and periphery. Most agreed that the underdevelopment of Latin American countries had been part and parcel of the historical expansion of capitalism, and could not simply be overcome by cultural and social ‘modernization’. However, there was significant variation in the theoretical details. Following Vernengo3, we can recognise a ‘continuum’ of dependency theories, with the respective ends represented by Andre Gunder Frank and Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

In Gunder Frank’s view, the underdevelopment of the periphery was an inevitable reflection of the development of the core. He argued that the industrial ‘metropolis’ extracts a surplus from its ‘satellites’ in order to sustain its own dynamic growth. Exploitative metropole-satellite relationships are reproduced between countries in the periphery, and even within countries (as the rich countries are to Brazil, so is Brazil to Paraguay, and the industrial-commercial centre of Sao Paulo to the impoverished Brazilian northeast). While internal political and social structures contribute to the process of underdevelopment, they can only be understood as a function of this external dominance. Given the ongoing extraction of locally-generated capital, Frank doubted whether development was possible in dependent countries.

In the face of this apparent impasse, dependency theorists moved beyond the ECLA’s identification of structural inequalities between countries, to a more radical critique of the relations between core and periphery. Most agreed that the underdevelopment of Latin American countries had been part and parcel of the historical expansion of capitalism, and could not simply be overcome by cultural and social ‘modernization’. However, there was significant variation in the theoretical details. Following Vernengo3, we can recognise a ‘continuum’ of dependency theories, with the respective ends represented by Andre Gunder Frank and Fernando Henrique Cardos

Cardoso on the other hand, placed much more emphasis on the political dynamics within dependent countries. Historical economic changes, while driven by the technological and financial dominance of the core countries, offered the opportunity for a range of political responses in the periphery, including greater popular participation or resistance. Furthermore, he distinguished between the political situation of dependependent than ever.

THIS INDICATES THE CLOSENESS OF A RELATIONSHIP AND IS A MAJOR CHANGE IN OUR ATTITUDES TOWARDS TREATING PETS AS FAMILY. .

24

Latin America  

process of final book

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you