LACC Home Page About LACC Events Calendar Conferences LACC Faculty LACC Minor LAC 200 LAC 488 Internships LACC Library LACC Art Gallery Video Library Day of the Dead - Dia de los Muertos Scholarships & Awards Rockefeller Fellowship Tinker Field Research Grant Workstudy Opportunities Related LinksLACC
N-333 Social & Behavioral Sciences Bldg.
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, NY 11794-4345
Tel: 631.632.7569
Fax: 631.632.9432
Email Us!
Site Designed by
Melissa Bishop/DoIT Last Modified 10/15/2002 11:39:57 AM EDT
ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION: HUMANITIES FELLOWSHIPS (INSTITUTIONAL)
DURABLE INEQUALITIES IN LATIN AMERICA:
HISTORIES, SOCIETIES, CULTURES
THEMATIC ESSAY
Latin American and Caribbean Studies (LACS)
Stony Brook University
Paul Gootenberg, Director
pgootenberg@notes.cc.sunysb.edu (631) 632-7569
January 2002
OVERVIEW: THE PROBLEM OF INEQUALITY
The theme of Stony Brook University’s Latin American and Caribbean Studies proposal is “Durable Inequalities in Latin American Histories, Societies, Cultures.” It addresses two of the Rockefeller Foundation’s core programmatic concerns: “the resilience of social systems” and “the construction of race, gender and ethnicity.” Through this Residential Scholars program, we seek both to shape a new academic discourse about inequality, power and culture in Latin America and to support intellectual work which positively contests, in civil society, the region’s multiple, resilient inequalities. The project also seeks to identify transnational factors in growing inequalities across the Americas, including the United States, and to study migration and traveling ideas in linking, from below and above, hemispheric patterns of inequalities. Inspired by social science paradigms, the program especially aims to amend and extend them from cultural, historical and humanistic perspectives.
Latin Americans live and see daily deep disparities in how they do politics, build urban spaces, work the land, join new and older social movements, suffer crime and environmental stress and access educational, nutritional, health, legal, cultural and media resources. Indeed, Latin America is critical for the global study of inequalities. Neither the poorest nor most culturally-divided region of the world, Latin America is by far the most unequal. By standard social indicators (cross-national “gini-coefficients”) Latin America is far more unequal than Asia, Africa and of course the post-industrial west (IDB, Facing Up to Inequalities, 1999). These measurements derive from wage differentials, and miss other material factors (such as wealth or work stability) which further skew opportunity structures. The problem is not simply the existence of rampant “poverty” in the region--by the mid-1990s some 210 million in distress, or fully 40 percent of all Latin Americans. The other half of the problem, more conveniently ignored, is the sheltered presence of extraordinarily wealthy upper classes. The wealthiest 5 percent of the population hoards a quarter of all incomes, making some nations--Brazil, Guatemala--among the most unequal places on earth (IDB, 1999; Korzeniewicz & Smith, 2000). Few exceptions exist to the typical Latin American pattern. Only Uruguay, Costa Rica and Trinidad sustain reasonably egalitarian societies, and even relatively developed economies, such as Argentina and Colombia, have recently suffered sharp rises in social inequality, leading to explosive social conflicts and governability crises. Even Cuba, after its revolutionary post-1959 social programs, has experienced renewed inequality over the last decade (with dollarization), replete with new forms of racial and gender discrimination. It is clear that Latin America’s inequalities are not simply a matter of underdevelopment, poverty or bad policy: they are something deeper still.
Since the birth of European colonialism, Latin America has been the zone of the sharpest global inequalities--the eternal “land of contrasts,” of privilege and destitution. Historians have long suggested this larger picture. Caste divisions born from the Spanish Conquest and African slavery hardened during centuries of colonialism; through the advent of two dozen independent republics and liberal export-capitalism during the nineteenth century, such inequalities changed into class, cultural, and citizenship differences but carried forth anew (Burns, 1983; Thurner, 1997). Twentieth-century modernities (urbanization, mass culture, industrialism), active (agrarian-reform, populist, democratic and revolutionary) liberation movements, and now globalization and neo-liberalism, have done little to change Latin America’s historical inequality, despite the high hopes invested in such ideas and programs (e.g., Eckstein, 1977/88). In fact, during the 1980s and 1990s Latin America suffered deepening social gaps, in its “lost decade” of development. Latin American inequality is thus a most disturbing paradigm of “the resilience of social systems.”
We borrow the concept “durable inequalities” from master sociologist Charles Tilly’s recent book of that title (Tilly, Durable Inequalities, 1998). Tilly challenges us to confront the centrality of inequalities in modern societies: “categorical inequalities,” shaped by relational processes, boundary-making and resilient social bonds. Inequality has “a bewildering array” of concrete dimensions: of wealth, income and opportunity; gender, race, age, region and ethnicity. Hierarchies of power, education, technology, language, culture, honor, beliefs and influence permeate individuals, groups and nations--more than anytime in history. Tilly’s is part of a new methodological movement to reclaim, in flexible ways, the subtle role of the social in cultural and historical analysis--as a foil to the “methodological individualism” of mainstream Social Science and to some variants of the “cultural turn.” (For this broader emerging critique see Douglas/Ney, Missing Personhood, 1998; Bourdieu/Wacquant, Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, 1992; Wolf, Envisioning Power, 1999; Jacobs, The Nature of Economics, 2000.) However, with his stress on relational structures, even Tilly tends to downplay cultural, historical or global dimensions of inequality.
Inequalities are too important to be left solely to data-hungry or model-building social scientists. But neither can they be wished away by critical discourse or post-modern abstractions, as useful as these are for understandings of both “poverty” or “development” (Escobar, 1995). In cultural-historical terms, the “durable inequalities” approach is a way to unveil the larger commonalities behind ephemeral or essentialized fissures of racial, class or gender discrimination and difference. It is also a move beyond the non-analytical particularism of academic “identity politics” (Brubaker & Cooper, 2000). If Foucauldian-inspired Cultural Studies heighten awareness of constructed power-laden realities, those insights can be combined with this approach to explore why inequalities still pervade social, cultural and political edifices. Not a single paradigm or research agenda, durable inequalities can interrogate and interpret the ways in which diverse societies and cultures have historically reproduced (and tolerated, elided, contested, altered) resilient inequalities over the long haul. It combines the cultural, social and historical concerns at the heart of Latin American, Caribbean and Latino/a-diaspora studies.
Inequality is a global concern. If the twentieth-century world was marked by fundamental struggles over the “color line” or between Capitalism-Socialism, the new century may well be defined by varied global struggles over inequality. Concerned international organizations such as the Inter-American Development Bank (Iglesias, 1992; IDB, 1999), social scientists, foundations and prescient public thinkers are beginning to trace out the new profile of this global dilemma. Inequalities are not fading away with twenty-first century “globalization”: quite the opposite, most observers predict widening disparities along with global informational processes of change, which pervasively lower labor costs, and reward high-tech, capitalized and educated strata. The current round of historical globalization does not attempt to legitimate itself by making universal equality-claims, significantly unlike past liberalism or humanism, and is evoking an intellectual and ethical backlash. Such global fragmenting and its rationalizers have not escaped the notice of respected socio-cultural analysts (such as Appadurai, Harvey and Jameson), who tend to read the post-modern global condition in terms of these intensifying kaleidoscopic inequalities.
Another factor in play is steeply rising inequality (and tolerance for such) in the United States, a country already the outlier among post-industrial societies. In the so-called “New Economy” since the 1980s, 47 percent of income gains accrued to the top 1 percent of families (Wolff, 1995/2001; Stille, 2001). With the erosion of its blue-collar working class, U.S. wealth distribution now approaches Latin American profiles, with a 5-percent upper-crust holding nearly half of all national assets. This shift has occurred alongside the abandonment of hard-won social-welfare policies, freer hemispheric trade, and the arrival of a new generation of unskilled immigrant workers--mainly refugees from Latin American inequalities--that are forming novel classes of “categorical inequalities.” Our own “global cities” (Sassen, 1991) now exhibit “third-world” extremes, with homelessness, hunger, street bazaars, terrorism and resurgent diseases of poverty. The Latin American experience of harsh inequalities may have much to say now to North Americans, and about the growing linkages between them.
Finally, there are both scholarly and real-world movements to contest inequalities, driven by recognition that not all hierarchies are solely based in material conditions--concerns such as gender, sexual orientation, nature, indigenous and cultural autonomy, or human rights. We not only refer to the long-vaunted “new” social movements of Latin America (Alvarez & Escobar, 1992) or to the developed world’s motley “anti-globalization” forces (likely to lay low after 9/11). There are multiple voices: an emergent post-marxist discussion, rooted in Latin American labor and civic rights, of “open-economy social democracy” (Roxborough, 1992; Castañeda, 1993); sociological specialists on inequality call for “the high road to globalization” for Latin America, enriched with equity, sustainability and social-capital concerns (Korzeniewitz & Smith, 2000). There are surprising cases such as Costa Rica, which have grasped equality-enhancing environmental and high-tech niches in the new global context. The newly democratic (and devoted capitalist) President of Mexico embraces micro-empresa experiments, with NGO support, as a novel path out of Mexico’s persistent inequalities. One cannot approach inequalities in the Americas from the standpoint of dismal stubborn social realities alone, in the spirit of “fracaso-mania” (Albert O. Hirschman’s wise lament of Latin American policy fatalism: Hirschman, 1972). One must also identify and embrace new ideas, possibilities or “utopistics” (Wallerstein, 1998) of hope and change.
LITERATURES
Much has been said and written about inequality in the Latin American context. Indeed it may be the dominant--if rarely explicit--motif of the region since 1492. All of these works, including those cited above, point to major omissions: studies of inequality over long historical transitions, of non-material sources of inequality, and of persistent cultures and political-cultures of inequality.
Economists and Political Scientists are prominent in explicit studies of inequality, and among the most methodologically conservative of social science researchers. At mid-century, Economics discourse on inequality was dominated by debate of the “Kuznets curve”: the notion that developing countries faced a necessary “trade-off” between accumulation/growth and distribution. The policy lesson--taken well in Latin America--was that countries should jump into rapid large-scale “development,” and later worry about equity. In today’s era of neo-liberalism an opposing view has emerged. Interestingly, now investments in social and human capital, or democratic and micro-institutions, are actually seen as a spur to economic growth. In part this reflects better research, as no meaningful correlations were found between growth and inequality. It also reflects the example of East Asia, which with more equalitarian post-war societies, and even distributional reform, managed to far out-perform Latin America, at least until today’s crisis (Haggard, 1990). Among economists, a small group of Latin Americanists always valorized equity concerns. “Developmentalists” such as Rosemary Thorp, whose recent IDB economic history of Latin America focuses on the “quality” of growth and exclusion, draw from the Latin American structuralist tradition of CEPAL. In one classic provocative essay, Albert O. Hirschman shifted the dilemma to subjectivities: Under what conditions do people tolerate growing maldistribution? Do hopes count in economic equations? (Hirschman, 1973). There is plenty of new thinking now in Economics. Nobel-laureate Amartyra Sen is rethinking “development” as qualitative enhancement of human freedoms (Sen, 1999); UN agencies now officially take “human development” as their standard.
Latin American Political Scientists have long concerned themselves with the functioning or stability of political systems under constraints of inequality. A core concept in such studies was “clientelism” or “populism”: vertical urban or rural mobilizations unthreatening to the status quo. Others focused on the nebulous Latin American “middle sectors” in political regimes--bypassing the key problem of the extremes (Johnson, 1958). During the 1970s, the “bureaucratic authoritarianism” school of Latin Americanists, led by Guillermo O’Donnell, posited a necessary link between regressive distribution, industrialization, and the era’s systematized military repression. A vigorous debate superceded much of bureaucratic-authoritarian theory, including its economic determinism (Collier, 1979). By the 1990s, and the return of shaky and narrow democracies to the region, some scholars turned to the timely dilemma of how to consolidate “democratization” or governance in conditions of deep inequality (Tulchin, 2001). Others look at movements pitted against regimes of inequality (Rubin, 1997), even among so-called “marginals” and “informal” sectors.
Sociologists are fruitfully concerned with inequalities, in part, because it is their job to measure and theorize inequality at multiple social levels--individual, community, national and international (van den Burghe/Primov, 1977). Sociology is also attuned to “hermeneutics”: how it is that people interpret their own social predicaments, and act upon them collectively, or how subjective identities of class, gender or race are formed and enacted. Thus, Latin American “social movements” literature has a mainly sociological or ethnographic tilt (Edelman, 1998; Auyero, 2000). Recently, sociologists have engaged the powerful theoretical tools of Foucault and Bourdieu: the former helps to grasp invisible threads of power, the other the gamut of power inequalities. Bourdieu’s chief contribution is accelerating the shift from strictly material definitions of power to other kinds of allotments and struggles over “social,” “cultural” or “political capital.” Besides this socio-cultural turn, sociologists of Latin America ponder why “grand theories” of society fail to fit or make sense under historical conditions of sharp inequality (see especially Centeno and López-Alves eds., The Other Mirror: Grand Theory through the Lens of Latin America, 2001).
We have already touched on Tilly’s Durable Inequalities (1999), which partly inspires and informs this proposal. Tilly’s generalist modeling is about “categorical inequalities,” those that create, subordinate and sustain ordered types of human beings beyond transitory identities, and that lie behind current preoccupations with the triad race/gender/ethnicity. Tilly believes that four social mechanisms consolidate and spread inequalities: “opportunity hoarding,” “exploitation,” “emulation” and “adaption.” Like Bourdieu, he is militantly relational: inequality cannot happen without strong bonds to others. But Tilly’s categories themselves require greater historical and cultural investigation, which can be well performed in the Latin American context.
Anthropologists expand on similar themes, though many were long active in fieldwork unearthing the micro-dynamics of unequal relations in Latin America (Lewis, 1961; Murphy & Stepick, 1991). Through inventive cross-disciplinary and historical work, anthropologists have long overcome the “culture of poverty” or “folk-modern” binaries of the past. Two striking recent examples address race and ethnicity: Indigenous Mestizos (Marisol de la Cadena, 1999) and Vision, Race and Modernity (Deborah Poole, 1997). Both books pursue how racial and cultural categories form over the long-term. One sees “cultural difference,” the other visual representation, as uncanny modern notions for building ever changing Andean pyramids of discrimination. These anthropologists use inequality and domination as barometers for critically examining cultural distinctions. Similarly, Claudio Lomnitz questions the recent scholarly mania for Benedict Anderson’s “Imagined Communities” in Latin America’s history: vertical and dependent ties, rather than fraternal bonds of equality, have defined the imaginary as well as the real nation (Lomnitz, 2001; Anderson, 1983/95).
An entire essay might survey how historians have placed inequality in Latin American history. It is an implicit theme underlying virtually all historical work. Inequality is often considered as a constant that replicates itself across periodizations (though some historians note eras of “de-compression” or remote zones of relative social fluidity). Late Pre-Columbian states, Aztecs and Incas, were hierarchically organized yet had distinctive ideologies to mask their rule (Katz, 1972). The Conquest built upon such structures of domination and subordination in core colonies; Europeans also imported feudal and caste distinctions into their realms, defining Indians or African slaves as inferiors. In colonial historiography, the concentration of land and labor resources becomes central, as befits a rural society more unequal than Europe itself (Gibson, 1965). Catholic and baroque cultural projects reified these colonial hierarchies. The growing historiography of the nineteenth century follows how such social distances fared with national ruling groups, states and export capitalism. A key thesis researched by social historians is that in Latin America market forces and liberalism have worked primarily to reinforce inequality. Resources and influence accrued to the wealthy and Europeanized, who monopolized emerging individual citizenship claims against “subaltern” actors or alternatives (Burns, 1983; Tutino, 1988; Mallon, 1995). Positivist and racist doctrines of “progress” paved this oligarchic path. For the twentieth century, there is more and more research on class, gender and race in the making of broad national hegemonies. Historians also explore how “modernity” projects--including national and social revolutions--spawned new inclusions and exclusions, often based on the reworking of extant categories (Ferrer, 1999; Joseph & Nugent, 1994). Historians naturally privilege the long-term, and usually “continuity,” but they often lack the theoretical tools to grapple with such long-range problems in Latin America (Adelman, 1999; Stein & Stein, 1970). Here, much can be learned from sustained sociological or cultural analysis.
In recent years we have witnessed an explosion of novel literary, cultural and humanistic approaches to Latin America. The ethics of unequal cultural practice has become a burning concern. This power-sensitive new Cultural Studies is thus approaching the now interpretive Social Sciences. Literary specialists trace how changing literary canons divide nations and agency by gender, region and race (Sommer, 1991; Shumway, 1991). Silenced subjects are heard in testimonial and ethnographic voices; other literary theorists explore how politics and social exclusion construct cultural consumption and the ways that genres and identities perform or transgress cultural hegemony. “Post-modern,” “post-colonial” and globalization debates are critically read in the light of highly heterogeneous societies which seemingly exist in multiple and divergent times and spaces. Feminist scholars unpack the conundrums of private and public “sameness/difference.” (See Nepantla, 2000, for a sampling of booming Latin American Cultural Studies.) A rich essay by the Mexican Roger Bartra, La jaula de la melancolía (Bartra, 1987), exemplifies the new critical approaches to national mythologies and to the durability of cultural identities across historical change. For contemporary Latin Americanists, the dominant paradigm is “hybridity” (García-Canclini, 1989; Dussel, 1998; Moreiras, 2001). Their stress on “difference” or “alterity” contrasts with the official nationalist mestizaje (culture blending) of nation-states and with the homogenizing narratives of cultural imperialism and globalization.
These subtle new tools of cultural analysis are crucial to enriching the more structural studies of inequality sketched above. In what ways do hybrid cultural fragments breed or resist relations of inequality? On the other hand, an explicit social sensibility may benefit understandings of how cultural hybridities are made and inherited as lasting categorical inequalities over the long haul--the “durable inequalities” that may very well define the Américas as a cultural and social whole.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Inequality is a vast terrain of Latin American history, society and culture, though it has rarely been an explicit object of study. We recognize that standard approaches to inequality exist-- sensitive and broader measurements, ameliorating public policies--but they have unfortunately not gained wider intellectual bases or mobilized effective constituencies over the past decades. An innovative focus on “durable inequalities” draws on the rich research traditions and concepts just surveyed. The thrust of our Residential Scholars program involves a set of core questions that make explicit and central the long-term cultures and production of inequality. We welcome scholarship from any academic discipline which addresses the following eight areas. We aspire to an inter-disciplinary and inter-American site that brings together, in creative ways, social, historical and cultural concerns.
1) The Historical Long-Term: How and when do invented, flexible or temporal categories of inequality--built on caste, gender, class, race, region--become durable ones? How do such identities or boundaries interact in making durable or double inequalities?
2) Hybridity and Difference: How do hybridity, diversity and difference, common cultural terms across the Americas--become transformed into hierarchies of inequality? Conversely, how do relational inequalities impinge on difference? When is hybridity neutral or equal? When does “sameness” mask imbalances of peoples and cultures?
3) Transitions and Metamorphosis: How do inequalities survive or shift forms during periods of political and social stress or rupture (post-colonial regimes, revolutions, new global orders)?
What are their specific mechanisms, processes or cultures of continuity?
4) Agency and Resistance: How do long-privileged sectors protect, justify and camouflage bonds of social, political and cultural inequality? How and when do subaltern actors come to recognize and contest such bonds and narratives of inequality?
5) Flows of Ideas and Peoples: How do universalizing ideals of equality, or of naturalized hierarchy, migrate across the Americas? How do historical contacts and accelerating global flows of peoples reinforce, or perhaps loosen, durable inequalities? How do North-South power disparities intersect with local inequalities?
6) Inequality as a Social-Culture: Where is the “location” of Latin American inequality? What makes it so seemingly diffuse, stubborn, resistant? What “theoretical” tool-kits or combinations of tools work best for its study? How can this abstract knowledge aid actors and activists?
7) Qualitative Equalities: How do the novel qualitative norms of equality (in Social Sciences) relate to new identity movements and liberation politics in the Americas? How can a cultural stress on differences--of race, gender, creed, position--transform into new thinking on equality?
8) Revolutionizing Inequalities: How can Latin American civil society--itself riven by difference inequalities--place greater equality onto political agendas? How can Latin American equality movements link or relate equally to global forces (NGOS, movements, institutions)? What can North Americans learn about their own predicaments from the Latin American experience of durable inequalities?
The outcome or product of such a dialogue, between North-South scholars and intellectuals, is not to be a concrete new “data-set” or set of policy recommendations, which exist abundantly in governmental and non-governmental proposals (IDB, 1999; Chalmers, et.al., 1997). Rather, we hope to cultivate a new sensibility about the problem, a new urgency to the problem, a new dialogue and transnational community, that go well beyond the confines or interests of policy-elites and think-tanks. This concern would have multiplying effects on a number of broad concurrent conversations across the Americas, about civil society, democratization, globalization, rights and identities. We also wish to cultivate, among working intellectuals, a richer and sharper sense of the place of inequalities in their subjects and disciplines, in framing how questions are posed about this so decisive of social questions. Inequalities means “bringing the social back in” --renewed social commitment--to our scholarly communities and endeavors.
CITATIONS
Adelman, Jeremy, ed. Colonial Legacies: The Problem of Persistence in Latin American History (Routledge, 1999)
Alvarez, S. & A. Escobar, eds. Making of Social Movements in Latin America (Westview, 1992)
Anderson, Benedict Imagined Communities: Reflections on Origins of Nationalism (Verso, 1983)
Appadurai, Arjun Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization (Minnesota, 1996)
Auyero, Javier Poor Peoples Politics: Peron Survival Networks & Legacy of Evita (Duke, 2001)
Bartra, Roger La jaula de la melancolía: Identidad y metamórfosis del mexicano (Grijalba, 1987)
Bourdieu, Pierre & L. Wacquant An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (Chicago, 1992)
Brubaker, Rogers & F. Cooper “Beyond Identity” Theory and Society 29/1 2000
Burns, E. Bradford The Poverty of Progress: Latin America in the 19th Century (California, 1983)
de la Cadena, Marisol Indigenous Mestizos: Politics of Race and Culture in Peru (Duke, 1998)
Castañeda, Jorge Utopia Unarmed: The Latin American Left After the Cold War (Knopf, 1992)
Centeno, Miguel & F. Lopez-Alves eds. The Other Mirror: Grand Theory through the Lens of Latin America (Princeton, 2001)
Chalmers, Douglas et.al. The New Politics of Inequality in Latin America: Rethinking Participation and Representation (Oxford, 1997)
Collier, David, ed. The New Authoritarianism in Latin America (Princeton, 1979)
Douglas, Mary & S. Ney Missing Persons: A Critique of Personhood in the Social Sciences (California/Russell Sage, 1998)
DRACLAS NEWS (Harvard) “Health in the Americas” 2000; “Food in the Americas” Fall, 2001
Dussel, Enrique Etica de la liberación en la edad de globalización y la exclusión (Madrid, 1998)
Edelman, Marc Peasants against Globalization: Rural Movements in Costa Rica (Stanford, 1999)
Escobar, Arturo Encounter Development: Making & Unmaking of Third World (Princeton, 1995)
Ferrer, Ada Insurgent Cuba: Race, Nation and Revolution, 1868-1898 (North Carolina, 1999)
García Canclini, Néstor Culturas híbridas: Estrategías para entrar y salir de la modernidad (Mexico, 1989)
Harvey, David The Condition of Postmodernity (Blackwell, 1989)
Hirschman, Alberto O. “The Tolerance for Inequality in the Course of Economic Growth” in Essays in Trespassing (Cambridge, 1981) and “Problem-Solving and “Policy-Making: A Latin American Style?” in Journeys Towards Progress (Norton, 1972) Iglesias, Enrique Reflections on Economic Development (IDB/John Hopkins, 1992)
Inter-American Development Bank Facing Up to Inequality in Latin America (1998-1999 Report) IDB/Washington DC, 1999
Jacobs, Jane The Nature of Economics (Modern Library, 2000)
Jameson, Frederic Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (Verso, 1991)
Johnson, John Political Change in Latin America: Emergence of Middle Sectors (Stanford, 1958)
Joseph, Gil, & D. Nugent Everyday Forms of State Formation: Revolution and the Negotiation of Rule in Mexico (Duke, 1994)
Katz, Friedrich The Ancient American Empires (Norton, 1972)
Korzeniewitz, Roberto P, and W. Smith, “Poverty, Inequality and Growth in Latin America: Searching for the High Road to Globalization” Latin American Research Review 35/3,2000
Lewis, Oscar, The Children of Sanchez (Vintage, 1961)
Lomnitz, Claudio “Nationalism as a Practical System” in Centeno/López, The Other Mirror 2001
Mallon, Florencia Peasant & Nation: Making of Postcolonial Mexico & Peru (California, 1995)
Moreiras, Alberto The Exhaustion of Difference: Politics of LA Cultural Studies (Duke, 2001)
Murphy, A. & Stepick Social Inequality in Oaxaca: Resistance and Change (Temple, 1991)
Nepantla: Views from the South (Duke University Press), Vol. 1/no. 1, 2000
Poole, Deborah Vision, Race and Modernity: A Visual Economy of Andes (Princeton, 1997)
Roxborough, Ian “Neo-Liberalism: Limits and Alternatives” Third-World Quarterly 1992
Rubin, Jeffrey De-Centering the Regime: Ethnicity, Radicalism & Democracy in Juchitán, Mexico: (Duke, 1997)
Sassen, Saskia Global Cities: New York, London, Tokyo (Princeton, 1991)
Stein, Stanley and Barbara The Colonial Heritage of Latin America (Oxford, 1970)
Stille, Alexander “Grounded by an Income Gap,” The New York Times 15 Dec. 2001, A-17-19
Sommer, Doris Fictional Foundations: National Romances of Latin America (California, 1991)
Shumway, Nicholas The Invention of Argentina (California, 1994)
Thorp, Rosemary Progress, Poverty and Exclusion: Economic History of L.America (IDB, 1998)
Thurner, Mark From Two Republics to One Divided: Contradictions of Postcolonial State-making in Andean Peru (Duke, 1997)
Tilly, Charles Durable Inequalities (California, 1998)
Tokman, V. & G. O’Donnell, eds. Poverty and Inequality in Latin America: Issues and New Challenges (Notre Dame, 1998)
Tulchin, Joseph ed., Democratic Governance and Social Inequality (L. Rienner, 2001)
Tutino, John From Insurrection to Revolution in Mexico, 1750-1940 (Princeton, 1986)
van den Berghe, P. & Primov Inequality in the Peruvian Andes: Class, Ethnicity (Missouri, 1977)
Wallerstein, Immanuel Utopistics: or, Historical Choices for the 21st Century (New Press, 1998)
Wolf, Eric R. Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis (California, 1999)
Wolff, Edwin N. Top Heavy: A Study of Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America (Twentieth Century Fund, 1995/2001)