A National Institution!

This might be the first substance we have seen that has become a commodity because people were actively trying to make it one.

Unlike bananas, chocolate, tobacco and other substances, I don't get the impression that Cocaine was actively sought by various populations or powerful people. Rather, it seems to be a trade born out of necessity; Peru had little to offer and a national reputation to begin building. Candice did point out the potential for cocaine as an indicator of political economy, although the avenue wasn't fully explored. One must remember that coca and cocaine were essentially Peru's contribution to the world; unlike other commodities it not only existed in Peru alone, but it was the target of Peruvian science and might. It was proof that native Peruvians like Bignon could produce life-saving medicine or how Durand could turn backwaters like Pozuzo into productive towns. In short, its combination of native culture and modern application (pg 100-101, paraphrased) made it the perfect ambassador for Peru, especially following the Pacific War when it needed one. Hence the beginning statement. Cocaine can be seen less as a commodity people really wanted or needed and more of Peru's attempts to modernize. It is, therefore, a trade item undeniably defined by culture. So, in answer to Eric's question, I would say that this is a commodity; perhaps even more so a commodity because its ties to culture define its value more than other previous items.

This might be seen as the other side of the coin James has put forward: not only was cocaine brought down by American interests but by Peruvian pride as well. It was this desire to be modern and respected on the world stage that began their downfall. Put another way, it was their preference for cocaine over coca; growing of coca leaves took a backseat to processing them into the drug. (153, again, paraphrasing.) In fact, it almost seems that Peru ignored the potential regular coca leaves had in the U.S. market, going as far as to demonize them as examples of backwardness while trying to sell a product the U.S. flatly refused to buy. The argument can be made that this was because selling the leaves would be putting the country in a state of weakness against the U.S., but most of the descriptions of the leaf (like on pg. 168) seem to point towards internal danger rather than economic weakness.

Although the process for producing the drugs seem to have lagged as well. The original Bignon method of processing the leaves remained unchanged for years, and considering the cultural value of both coca and Bignon in Peru at the time, I can only wonder if nationalism had any hand in the matter. Naturally, the costs of Javanese competition did play a part, but one would think that their focus on drugs rather than leaves might have caused them to partially overlook other sources of coca.

On a side note, I wonder if there are any similarities between coca and tobacco in their relation to Peru and the U.S. respectively. It might be such comparisons that give or take meaning to some of the arguments I've read (including this one.)