Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Transforming Brazil: A History of National Development in the Postwar Era

2018; Duke University Press; Volume: 98; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1215/00182168-7160787

1527-1900

Eve E. Buckley,

Brazilian History and Foreign Policy

This is an important political and economic history of the late 1950s in Brazil, from the last years of Getúlio Vargas's presidency (and tragic death) through the administration of President Juscelino Kubitschek (1956–61). It relies on significant archival research in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo as well as analysis of government and industry publications. Rafael Ioris traces conflicts over development policy during these years that, he argues, laid the groundwork for political fractures that culminated in the military coup of 1964. Central debates regarding development policy included the degree to which industrialization should be prioritized over agricultural sectors, the importance (and desirability) of attracting greater foreign investment, and the appropriate role of the federal government—versus the private, corporate sector—in spurring economic growth. The book's final chapters discuss the impact of spiraling inflation on working people and the organized response of unions to carestia (the exorbitant prices of basic goods relative to wages).Ioris views development policy under the Kubitschek administration as highly technocratic, with federal agencies focused on economic policies that would (bureaucrats believed) facilitate the expansion of private industry and foreign investment without obligating the state to directly manage new industries, as had been attempted during the latter Vargas years. The automotive industry is an example of this. Kubitschek's advisers advocated “favorable exchange rates, fiscal benefits, preferential credit terms, and market guarantees via tariff protection” to (quite successfully) catalyze partnerships between domestic parts suppliers and foreign car manufacturers, while eschewing state-run automotive production along the lines pursued by Vargas (p. 105). In outlining Kubitschek's developmentalist ideology, Ioris weighs the influence of both regional and national economists, like Raúl Prebisch and Celso Furtado, and the US Eisenhower administration on Brazilian policies.The second half of the book discusses alternatives to Kubitschek's market-oriented approach to development that were influential during his presidency but largely overlooked by his administration. By the end of the decade these conflicting views produced what Ioris terms “ideational cacophony, ideological divergence, and political polarization” (pp. 177–78). Nationalist intellectuals at the Higher Institute of Brazilian Studies (ISEB), particularly Hélio Jaguaribe and Roland Corbisier, offered one alternative developmental vision that focused on the conditions of underdevelopment shared by many postcolonial states. In their view, development was in part a psychological process, aimed at achieving autonomy from foreign influences, that must include popular sectors and not merely privileged classes. Ioris contrasts this with the Kubitschek administration's equation of development with rapid economic growth “under a logic that clearly meant the downplaying . . . of the very search for political autonomy that had been so forcefully argued for by most members of the institute [the ISEB]” (p. 141).More successful in gaining the Kubitschek administration's attention were industrial associations. Nonetheless, Ioris's analysis of several influential business and industry publications reveals mounting criticism of the Kubitschek government as being overly interventionist and accommodating to demands from organized labor. The final chapter traces pressure exerted by labor unions—often working illegally together—to rein in the prices of food and basic goods. These organizations advocated land reform and increased support for local farmers (rather than multinational food producers) as essential structural changes, measures that many policymakers in Kubitschek's administration opposed. Without discounting the importance of João Goulart's presidency (which followed Kubitschek's) and US Cold War ideology in the aftermath of Fidel Castro's rise to power in Cuba, Ioris concludes that “what provoked the final destabilization of the democratic political system” in 1964 was “that the wider social conceptions and expectations related to national development were flattened . . . into a top-down plan centered exclusively on fostering fast rates of absolute economic growth” (p. 224). Few Brazilians realized the benefits promised by Kubitschek's ambitious development schemes, and many suffered from the inflation that his administration's overextension provoked.Scholars of this period in Brazilian history will welcome Ioris's detailed explication of the academic institutions, industry organizations, and labor groups that vied to influence economic policy during the Kubitschek administration. Ioris's research helps to resolve a conundrum in Brazilian historiography, in which the decade from 1955 to 1964 is often narrated as a period of developmentalist euphoria followed by fractious social unraveling and political collapse. This book corrects that sense of inexplicable rupture by demonstrating the rising discontent among ordinary Brazilians during the latter Kubitschek years. It is a densely argued work, not easily accessible to students below the graduate level. As a social historian, I would have appreciated more detailed examination of the individuals involved, including Kubitschek himself. There is some high drama indicated in this account, particularly the escalating food crisis that precipitated a month-long shutdown of São Paulo's industrial production in October 1957. Yet Ioris's focus on social sectors and organizations only occasionally suggests how ordinary Brazilians experienced such events. There is also an underlying critique of populist regimes throughout the book, which could be more explicitly articulated.