THE COLONIAL HERITAGE



I. PATTERNS OF POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

A. ABSOLUTISM

1. AMERICAN EMPIRE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF IBERIAN MONARCHS--SUBJECTS HAD FEW TRADITIONAL RIGHTS--NO COMMON-LAW HERITAGE

2. AMERICAN EMPIRE ADMINISTERED BY COLONIAL BUREAUCRACY RESPONSIBLE ONLY TO DISTANT CROWN, NOT TO SUBJECT POPULATION (LEGACY OF UNRESPONSIVE/UNDEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT)

3. INSTITUTIONAL UNCERTAINTY--NO PREDICTABLE RULE OF LAW--'ROYAL EXCEPTIONS'

B. CORPORATISM/STATE FEUDALISM

1. COLONIAL LATIN AMERICA WAS POLITICALLY

BACKWARD, BUT IT WAS NEVER 'FEUDAL' IN THE

SENSE OF EARLY MODERN EUROPEAN FEUDALISM

2. RATHER THAN USING FEUDAL NOBLE CLASS, CROWN RULED DIRECTLY THROUGH BUREAUCRACY OR

THROUGH THE CORPORATIONS--NO RURAL NOBILITY

AS INTERMEDIARY

3. CORPORATISM GAVE STATE WITH ONLY A WEAK

PHYSICAL PRESENCE THE CAPACITY TO RULE COLONIAL SOCIETY--LIKE INDIAN VILLAGERS, OTHER INTEREST GROUPS ASSIGNED SPECIAL RIGHTS & PROTECTION IN EXCHANGE FOR ALLEGIENCE--'A BALANCING ACT'

C. CENTRALISM

1. CONCENTRATION OF POLITICAL POWER IN

IMPERIAL CENTERS--I.E. MEXICO CITY AS dOMINANT POWER CENTER FOR MEXICO

2. PROVINCES/PROVINCIAL CITIES POLITICAL

SUBORDINATE/OFTEN SUFFER ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION AS WELL



3. SOURCE OF POLITICAL CONFLICT AFTER INDEPENDENCE / REMAINS CHARACTERISTIC OF CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL SYSTEMS IN L.A.

D.INSTITUTIONAL FLEXIBILITY

1. POLITICAL SYSTEM FUNCTIONED DESPITE

VOLUMINIOUS REGULATIONS/MANY CONTRADICTIONS/ETC.

2. 'OBEDEZCO, PERO NO CUMPLO' (LEGACY OF

UNENFORCED BODY OF LAW)

3. PROPRIETARY OFFICE-HOLDING--MADE

BUREAUCRATS MORE SENSATIVE TO INTERESTS OF

LOCAL ELITES (LEGACY OF INSTITUTIONALIZED

POLITICAL CORRUPTION)



II. PATTERNS OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

A. FAMILISM

1. FAMILY AS THE 'ESSENTIAL CORPORATION' IN

CORPORATIVELY-DISPOSED SOCIETY

2. FAMILY AS THE NEXOS/INTERFACE BETWEEN

POLITY--ECONOMY--SOCIETY

a. SUBSTITUTE/SURROGATE FOR INCOMPLETE

INSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION OF POLITY/ECONOMY

b. CLASS/NATIONALITY NOT USEFUL CRITERIA

FOR STRUCTURING ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR

3. POLITICAL FUNCTIONS OF FAMILY:

a. PROVIDED STABILITY--INTEGRATING

FUNCTION: KINSHIP USED TO ABSORB & INCORPORATE NEW SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ELEMENTS WITHOUT RADICALLY ALTERING SOCIAL STRUCTURE

b. PREVENTED SOCO-ECONOMIC DIFFEREN-TIATION: URBAN-RURAL INTERESTS/CREOLE-PENINSULAR INTERESTS COMBINED INTO SINGLE LARGE EXTENDED

FAMILY UNITS

c. SO EFFECTIVE--DISCOURAGED SOCIAL

CHANGE--THAT SOCIETY STAYED VIRTUALLY UNCHANGED



B. CLIENTELISM

1. EXCHANGE OF GOODS AND SERVICES BETWEEN

PERSONS OF UNEQUAL STATUS (PATRON-CLIENT SYSTEM) --REINFORCED WITH COMPADRAZGO-- RITUAL KINSHIP

2. CLIENTELISTIC NETWORKS STABILIZED POLITICAL SYSTEM (INFORMALLY) THROUGH SERIES OF

VERTICAL HIERARCHICAL LINKAGES CONNECTING L.A. ELITES WITH L.A. MASSES (DISCOURAGED CLASS CONFLICT)

3. REMAINS ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN MANY

CONTEMPORARY L.A. POLITICAL SYSTEMS

C. RACIALISM

1. MODIFIED CASTE SYSTEM: PRESCRIBED SOCIAL & OCCUPATIONAL ROLES ACCORDING TO ETHNICITY

2. PENINSULAR SPANIARDS AT TOP OF SOCIAL

PYRAMID (0.3%) OF POP.; FOLLOWED BY CREOLES ( 8%); MESTIZOS-MULATTOES (2 %); BLACKS (0.7%); INDIANS (60%)

3. EXPRESSIONS:

a. "TWO REPUBLICS"--DISTINCT MINI-STATES

FOR WHITE & INDIAN POPULATIONS WITH SEPARATE LEGAL CODES, POLITICAL OFFICIALS, COURT SYSTEMS, RESIDENCE

RESTRICTIONS, DRESS, LANGUAGES, ECONOMIES

b. SLAVERY FOR BLACKS

c. BASIS FOR 'DUAL SOCIETIES' CHARACTERISTIC OF CONTEMPORARY L.A. SOCIETY--WHITE 'HAVES' V. INDIAN 'HAVE-NOTS'

d. AMBIGUOUS ROLE FOR MESTIZOS--

INTERMEDIARIES--CONFLICT WITH BOTH WHITES & INDIANS



III. PATTERNS OF ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION

A. CORPORATISM

1. BASIC FORMAT FOR ORGANIZING ECONOMY

2. ECONOMIC SECTORS ORGANIZED AROUND SELF-

REGULATING GUILDS: MINERS, MERCHANTS,

ARTISANS, ETC.



3. CORPORATIONS SURVIVE AS ECONOMIC INTEREST GROUPS

B. STATE INTERVENTIONISM

1. COLONIAL ECONOMY FORMALLY ORDERED IN NON-CAPITALIST FASHION: USED NON-MARKET FORCES--NO EXTENSIVE FREE MARKET FOR LABOR OR CAPITAL

2. EXTENSIVE REGULATION OF ECONOMY

a. FOR FISCAL ENDS: LICENSING, MONOPOLIES

(ECONOMIC ACTIVITY NOT A RIGHT)

b. FOR POLITICAL ENDS: PRICE-FIXING TO

KEEP SOCIAL PEACE/CORPORATE CONTROLS-PRIVILEGES

3. CONSEQUENCES

a. ECONOMIC COSTS: DISCOURAGED PRODUCTIVITY / NO INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK TO SUPPORT CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT--I.E. NO COMMERCIAL CODES, BANKING LAWS, LIMITED LIABILITY, PATENT RIGHTS, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, NO "SPACE" FOR ENTREPRENEUR TO WORK MIRACLE

b. POLITICAL COSTS: POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE

SYSTEM--I.E. POLITICAL SYSTEM NOT INSULATED FROM ECONOMIC ACTIVITY--BUT LINKED--VERY UNLIKE LAISSEZ-FAIRE SYSTEM WHERE MARKET FORCES (NOT STATE) DETERMINE ECONOMIC FORTUNES--REQUIRES

STRONG STATE TO MEDIATE & ARBITRATE ECONOMIC CONFLICTS OF INTEREST-- WITHOUT STRONG STATE EVERY MOVEMENT OF ECONOMY WILL SET OFF DIVISIVE

POLITICAL CONFLICTS

C. FAMILISM

1. FAMILY ENTERPRISES PROVIDE LINKAGES ACROSS ECONOMIC SECTORS--MINING-RANCHING- COMMERCE-MANUFACTURING-FINANCE

2. FAMILY PROVIDED INFORMAL INTERNAL STRUCTURE WITHIN THE CORPORATIONS--I.E. FAMILY

CLIQUES DOMINATED CONSULADO OF MEXICO



D. REGIONALISM

1. EMERGENCE OF SERIES OF DISTINCT REGIONAL

ECONOMIES

2. PRODUCT OF GEOGRAPHY, HIGH COST OF

TRANSPORT, LOCAL POLITICAL CONTROLS

3. BASIS FOR MUCH POLITICAL CONFLICT AFTER

INDEPENDENCE

E. NASCENT CAPITALISM

1. SPONTANEOUS DEVELOPMENT OF MARKETS IN

CAPITAL AND LABOR DESPITE DESPITE CROWN ATTEMPTS TO RESTRICT--I.E. MONEY MARKETS, WAGE LABOR IN MINES AND HACIENDAS, SIMPLE MANUFACTURING ENTERPRISES --OBRAJES

2. CONFLICT WITH TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS

CARRIED OVER/INTENSIFIED AFTER INDEPENDENCE: I.E. HACIENDA VERSUS INDIAN VILLAGES/LATER CLASS CONFLICT, ETC.