The Economic Commission for Latin America and the 1950s' Debate on Choice of Techniques

Abstract

The paper investigates how the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (CEPAL) fits into the 1950s' international debate about investment criteria and choice of techniques in development planning. In some of their documents, CEPAL economists expressed a preference for projects with low capital-labour ratios, in line with the conclusions of A.E. Kahn and Hollis Chenery's ‘social marginal productivity’ of capital criterion for investment in countries relatively short of capital. However, one may also find CEPAL economists proposing an increasing participation of heavy industries in total investment during the acceleration phase of economic growth, an approach that was supported by Maurice Dobb's and Amartya Sen's argument for capital-intensive projects. This double perspective is explained by the distinction between static and dynamic scenarios in CEPAL's framework, which sheds new light on the treatment of capital accumulation and technology as part of import-substituting industrialization policy in underdeveloped areas.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 31 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.