Emerging Modalities of the Regional Question: Peru 1919–1940

Abstract

The Inter-War period in Peru has been the subject of an interesting theoretical and political discussion (Alfageme, 1979; Cara vedo, 1976, 1977; Cotler, 1978; Quijano, 1978; Rénique, 1986a; and Thorp and Bertram, 1976). One of the recurring issues of this literature concerns our previously-examined problem of levels of analysis, and the debate around the so-called ‘exogenous’ and ‘endogenous’ factors of capitalist development. Thus, whereas Quijano (1978) privileges the international level, granting imperialism a dominant position in the explanation of Peruvian socioeconomic change, Alfageme and Caravedo both argue, convincingly in my view, that Quijano’s approach fails to take sufficiently into account the complexities of internal change, especially in relation to the formation of social classes, the territorial heterogeneity of capital accumulation and the intricate mosaic of state-society relations.¹ However, Alfageme and Caravedo, in contrast to Thorp and Bertram, do not deny the importance of a theory of imperialism and the internationalization of capital; rather they advocate a combination of such a theory with a detailed consideration of the historical specificities of Peruvian development. My own point of departure rests on a belief in the importance of some such combination or imbrication and in the following analysis I shall attempt to integrate elements from the earlier discussion of world economy into my treatment of the organization of space in the 1919–1940 period.