Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T14:19:07.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Viability of Small Countries

Uruguay and New Zealand Compared

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

John Kirby
John Kirby*
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The argument advanced by Bordaberry … by the United States and Brazilian embassies, and by the cattle and meat interests, is that Uruguay does not have a viable independent economy. It is smaller, on most terms of reference, than the southernmost state of Brazil–Rio Grande do Sul–and would, they say, be far better off if its economy were “rationalized” and integrated with the more “modern” large-scale Brazilian economy.

Latin America, Vol. VIII, No. 31, August 3 ,1973

Leaving aside the obvious self-interest of the various proponents (although one is tempted to speculate whether President Bordaberry argues on behalf of his country or his own ranching interests), their conclusion follows logically on much of the analysis which has focused on the causes of Uruguay's stagnation. Since the mid-1950s, the growth of the economy has barely kept pace with the small population increase of 1.2 percent per annum.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , August 1975 , pp. 259 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 1975

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

Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior (1974) Comercio Exterior. (Mexico D.F.)Google Scholar
Bank of London and South America (1968) Review. (London.)Google Scholar
Brannon, R. H. (1968) “Agricultural development and policy in Uruguay,” in Fletcher, L. B. and Merrill, W. C. (eds.), Latin American Agricultural Development and Policies. Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Daly, H. E. (1966) “An historical question and three hypotheses concerning the Uruguayan economy.” Inter-Amer. Econ. Affairs 20 (Summer): 87–93.Google Scholar
Department of Statistics (various years) New Zealand Official Yearbook. Wellington.Google Scholar
Dirección General de Estadística y Censos (1971) 1966-69 Anuario Estadistico, Fascículo 3, Ganaderia y Agricultura. Montevideo.Google Scholar
Economist Intelligence Unit (various years) Quarterly Economic Review–Uruguay and Paraguay. London.Google Scholar
Finch, M.H.J. (1971) “Three perspectives on the crisis in Uruguay.” J. of Latin Amer. Studies 3 (2): 173–190.Google Scholar
Fitzgibbon, R. H. (1956) Uruguay–Portrait of a Democracy. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Fitzgibbon, R. H. and Johnson, K. F. (1965) in Martz, J. D. (ed.), The Dynamics of Change in Latin American Politics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
I.B.R.D./F.A.O. (1951) The Agricultural Development of Uruguay. Washington and Rome.Google Scholar
Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura (1967) Estudio Económico y Social de la Agricultura en el Uruguay. Montevideo.Google Scholar
New Zealand Meat and Wool Board (1973) Sheep Farm Survey 1971/2. Wellington.Google Scholar
Odell, P. R. and Preston, D. A. (1973) Economies and Societies in Latin America: A Geographical Interpretation. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Solari, A. E. (1958) Sociologia Rural Nacional, 2nd ed. Montevideo: University of the Republic.Google Scholar