IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pai/apunup/es-15-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enseñanzas revisionistas de la experiencia peruana en la producción agrícola cooperativista

Author

Listed:
  • Michael R. Carter

Abstract

Quince años han pasado desde que el Gobierno Militar Revolucionario de Juan Velasco puso al Perú en la senda de una gran Reforma Agraria. Aún así, y a pesar del éxito en cumplir con las audaces metas redistributivas, la Reforma Agraria encuentra hoy pocos defensores. Las empresas cooperativas (autogestionarias), que son la primera herencia de la Reforma, encaran la quizá negligencia de un gobierno dispuesto a acabar con la producción y la propiedad colectiva. Muchas investigaciones tratan a la Reforma como un implacable desastre económico. La atención analítica en esos estudios se enfoca sobre las fuerzas económicas y macro-políticas que condenan la Reforma al fracaso, examinando resultados tales como, sus motivos, inconsistencias lógicas en el modelo de Reforma y políticas gubernamentales de precios y créditos que pudieran haber transtornado dicha medida. Sin discutir las inconsistencias y fallas históricas de la misma, este trabajo presenta una interpretación revisionista de la experiencia de la Reforma Peruana. Se argumentará que, a pesar de sus fallas macroeconómicas, ella presenta enseñanzas positivas sobre lo que podría ser llamado, consecuencias micro-organizacionales en la producción cooperativista.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael R. Carter, 1985. "Enseñanzas revisionistas de la experiencia peruana en la producción agrícola cooperativista," Apuntes. Revista de ciencias sociales, Fondo Editorial, Universidad del Pacífico, vol. 12(15), pages 51-65.
    • Handle: RePEc:pai:apunup:es-15-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://revistas.up.edu.pe/index.php/apuntes/article/download/203/205
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jensen, Michael C & Meckling, William H, 1979. "Rights and Production Functions: An Application to Labor-managed Firms and Codetermination," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(4), pages 469-506, October.
    2. Sen, Amartya, 1973. "On Economic Inequality," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198281931.
    3. John M. Brewster, 1950. "The Machine Process in Agriculture and Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(1), pages 69-81.
    4. Wells, Miriam J, 1982. "Political Mediation and Agricultural Cooperation: Strawberry Farms in California," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(2), pages 413-432, January.
    5. Tyson, Laura DAndrea, 1979. "Incentives, income sharing, and institutional innovation in the yugoslav self-managed firm," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 285-301, September.
    6. Herbert Gintis & Herbert Gintis, 1976. "The Nature of Labor Exchange and the Theory of Capitalist Production," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 8(2), pages 36-54, July.
    7. Stephen A. Marglin, 1974. "What Do Bosses Do?," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 6(2), pages 60-112, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Spencer, David A, 2000. "The Demise of Radical Political Economics? An Essay on the Evolution of a Theory of Capitalist Production," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 24(5), pages 543-564, September.
    2. Lin, Chung-cheng & Chang, Juin-jen & Lai, Ching-chong, 2002. "Profit sharing as a worker discipline device," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 815-828, November.
    3. Belloc, Filippo & Burdin, Gabriel & Landini, Fabio, 2020. "Robots and Worker Voice: An Empirical Exploration," IZA Discussion Papers 13799, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Dow,Gregory K., 2019. "The Labor-Managed Firm," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107589650.
    5. Belloc, Filippo & Burdin, Gabriel & Landini, Fabio, 2022. "Robots, Digitalization, and Worker Voice," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1038, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    6. Gajdos, Thibault & Maurin, Eric, 2004. "Unequal uncertainties and uncertain inequalities: an axiomatic approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 93-118, May.
    7. Uwe JIRJAHN & Stephen C. SMITH, 2018. "Nonunion Employee Representation: Theory And The German Experience With Mandated Works Councils," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 89(1), pages 201-233, March.
    8. Juan Antonio Duro & Jordi Teixidó-Figueras & Emilio Padilla, 2017. "The Causal Factors of International Inequality in $$\hbox {CO}_{2}$$ CO 2 Emissions Per Capita: A Regression-Based Inequality Decomposition Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(4), pages 683-700, August.
    9. Vincenzo Atella & Jay Coggins & Federico Perali, 2005. "Aversion to inequality in Italy and its determinants," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 2(2), pages 117-144, January.
    10. Derek Jones & Panu Kalmi & Niels Mygind, 2005. "Choice of Ownership Structure and Firm Performance: Evidence from Estonia," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 83-107.
    11. Martens, Karel & Golub, Aaron & Robinson, Glenn, 2012. "A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: Implications for transportation planning practice in the United States," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 684-695.
    12. Mohammed SHARIF, 2000. "Inverted “S”—The complete neoclassical labour-supply function," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 139(4), pages 409-435, December.
    13. Alan B. Krueger, 2002. "Inequality, Too Much of a Good Thing," Working Papers 845, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    14. Thibault Gajdos & John Weymark, 2005. "Multidimensional generalized Gini indices," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 26(3), pages 471-496, October.
    15. Marja Riihelä & Risto Sullström & Matti Tuomala, 2001. "What Lies Behind the Unprecedented Increase in Income Inequality in Finland During the 1990's," Working Papers 0102, Tampere University, Faculty of Management and Business, Economics.
    16. Duro, Juan Antonio, 2012. "On the automatic application of inequality indexes in the analysis of the international distribution of environmental indicators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-7.
    17. Ansgar Richter & Susanne Schrader, 2017. "Levels of Employee Share Ownership and the Performance of Listed Companies in Europe," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 55(2), pages 396-420, June.
    18. Rolf Aaberge & Anders Björklund & Markus Jäntti & Mårten Palme & Peder J. Pedersen & Nina Smith & Tom Wennemo, 2002. "Income Inequality and Income Mobility in the Scandinavian Countries Compared to the United States," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 48(4), pages 443-469, December.
    19. Allanson, Paul & Hubbard, Lionel, 1999. "On the Comparative Evaluation of Agricultural Income Distributions in the European Union," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 26(1), pages 1-17, March.
    20. Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Bernard Van Praag, 2003. "Income Satisfaction Inequality and its Causes," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 1(2), pages 107-127, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pai:apunup:es-15-04. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Giit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiuppe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.