IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/compes/v65y2023i2d10.1057_s41294-022-00185-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From the British to the Chinese Periphery: Capital Accumulation Through Primary-Commodity Production in Australia and Argentina

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas Grinberg

    (National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET)
    National University of San Martin (UNSAM)
    IDAES (UNSAM))

Abstract

This paper compares the economic development of Australia and Argentina. Drawing on key insights of Marx’s critique of political economy, it argues that both national portions of global capital accumulation have been structured under the same specific form; namely: to produce primary commodities under favourable natural conditions. Consequently, they have both been sources of large amounts of ground-rent which rent-paying international capital could appropriate/recover through nation-state mediation. Differences in the economic development of Australia and Argentina are explained in terms of the concrete historical and natural conditions under which this national modality of capital accumulation came about in the two national economies. This analysis serves to highlight the specificities of national processes of economic development structured to produce raw materials for world markets as well as the conditions leading to differentiation.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas Grinberg, 2023. "From the British to the Chinese Periphery: Capital Accumulation Through Primary-Commodity Production in Australia and Argentina," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 65(2), pages 288-323, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:compes:v:65:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1057_s41294-022-00185-4
    DOI: 10.1057/s41294-022-00185-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41294-022-00185-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41294-022-00185-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen Broadberry & Douglas A. Irwin, 2007. "Lost Exceptionalism? Comparative Income and Productivity in Australia and the UK, 1861–1948," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 83(262), pages 262-274, September.
    2. Ragnar Nurkse, 1961. "International Trade Theory and Development Policy," International Economic Association Series, in: Howard S. Ellis (ed.), Economic Development for Latin America, chapter 0, pages 234-274, Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. C.B. Schedvin, 1990. "Staples and regions of Pax Britannica," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 43(4), pages 533-559, November.
    4. Bart van Ark, 1992. "Comparative in British and American Manufacturing," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 142(1), pages 63-74, November.
    5. C. B. Schedvin, 1987. "The Australian Economy on the Hinge of History," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 20(1), pages 20-30, March.
    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. Malcolm Abbott & Jill Bamforth, 2022. "Determining the reasons for the failure of British aircraft manufacturers to invest in Australia's industry, 1934–1941," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 105-122, July.
    2. Droller, Federico & Fiszbein, Martin, 2021. "Staple Products, Linkages, and Development: Evidence from Argentina," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(3), pages 723-762, September.
    3. Kym Anderson, 2023. "Why did agriculture’s share of Australian GDP not decline for a century?," Departmental Working Papers 2023-09, The Australian National University, Arndt-Corden Department of Economics.
    4. Brian D. Varian, 2025. "Effective Rates of Protection in an Industrialising, Settler Economy: Estimates for Victoria (Australia) in 1880," CEH Discussion Papers 02, Centre for Economic History, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    5. Stephen Broadberry & Claire Giordano & Francesco Zollino, 2011. "A Sectoral Analysis of Italy's Development, 1861-2011," Quaderni di storia economica (Economic History Working Papers) 20, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    6. Bergeaud, A. & Cette, G. & Lecat, R., 2015. "Productivity trends from 1890 to 2012 in advanced countries," Rue de la Banque, Banque de France, issue 07, June..
    7. repec:hal:cepnwp:hal-01583559 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Edwyna Harris, 2008. "Colonialism And Long‐Run Growth In Australia: An Examination Of Institutional Change In Victoria'S Water Sector During The Nineteenth Century," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(3), pages 266-279, November.
    9. David Greasley & Jakob B. Madsen, 2017. "The Rise and Fall of Exceptional Australian Incomes Since 1800," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 57(3), pages 264-290, November.
    10. Cameron, Gavin & Proudman, James & Redding, Stephen, 2005. "Technological convergence, R&D, trade and productivity growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 775-807, April.
    11. Wolcott, Susan, 2010. "Explorations' contribution to the 'Asian Century'," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 360-367, July.
    12. Andrew Dilley, 2010. "‘The rules of the game’: London finance, Australia, and Canada, c.1900–14," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 63(4), pages 1003-1031, November.
    13. repec:dgr:rugggd:199410 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Taylor, Alan M & Williamson, Jeffrey G, 1994. "Capital Flows to the New World as an Intergenerational Transfer," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(2), pages 348-371, April.
    15. Ralph Lattimore & Kym Anderson & Peter Lloyd & Donald MacLaren, 2008. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Australia and New Zealand," World Bank Publications - Reports 28184, The World Bank Group.
    16. Ian W. McLean, 2010. "Responding to Shocks: Australia's Institutions and Policies," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2010-30, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    17. Broadberry, Stephen & Fukao, Kyoji & Zammit, Nick, 2015. "How Did Japan Catch-up On The West? A Sectoral Analysis Of Anglo-Japanese Productivity Differences, 1885-2000," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 231, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    18. Ivanova, Galina, 2014. "The mining industry in Queensland, Australia: Some regional development issues," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 101-114.
    19. Brian D. Varian, 2022. "Revisiting the tariff‐growth correlation: The Australasian colonies, 1866–1900," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(1), pages 47-65, March.
    20. Mehrdad Vahabi, 2018. "The resource curse literature as seen through the appropriability lens: a critical survey," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 393-428, June.
    21. Laura Panza & Jeffrey G. Williamson, 2017. "Australian Exceptionalism? Inequality and Living Standards 1821-1871," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 2027, The University of Melbourne.
    22. Broadberry, Stephen & Gupta, Bishnupriya, 2010. "The historical roots of India's service-led development: A sectoral analysis of Anglo-Indian productivity differences, 1870-2000," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 264-278, July.

    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:pal:compes:v:65:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1057_s41294-022-00185-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    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.