Abstract
The paper investigates how the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (CEPAL) fits into the 1950s' international debate about investment criteria and choice of techniques in development planning. In some of their documents, CEPAL economists expressed a preference for projects with low capital-labour ratios, in line with the conclusions of A.E. Kahn and Hollis Chenery's ‘social marginal productivity’ of capital criterion for investment in countries relatively short of capital. However, one may also find CEPAL economists proposing an increasing participation of heavy industries in total investment during the acceleration phase of economic growth, an approach that was supported by Maurice Dobb's and Amartya Sen's argument for capital-intensive projects. This double perspective is explained by the distinction between static and dynamic scenarios in CEPAL's framework, which sheds new light on the treatment of capital accumulation and technology as part of import-substituting industrialization policy in underdeveloped areas.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
