This work seeks to establish the idea that when it came to the international/global economy Latin America was not simply a periphery but at various points in its history since 1492 has been at the center of production and trade. Given the stated goals of this work the body of essays tend to focus more on strictly economic or political concerns. In this way the work as a whole may not be pushing the boundaries of commodities histories as far as some of the historiography we've seen, yet it demonstrates the value of taking a more trans-national approach to the study of commodities and their impact on markets and societies. The chapters on cochineal and sugar are good examples of this. In Chapter 3 Marichal presents the dye market in its own context which allows the reader to better understand the dye trade as network run by international merchants. In Chapter 6 Crespo analysis of the sugar trade as a competition between Northern beet sugar producers and Southern cane sugar producers help demonstrate the role of state actors and international consumers in determining the price of sugar. By this method he calls into question the nature of the 'free' market with respect for sugar. These articles and the others help broaden the concept of commodity but at the same time lead me to question several things. Specifically, if such a large share of sugar is traded at prices reached through prearranged agreements at conferences then can it be called a commodity? I guess what I am driving at is how essential is the 'market' component of a commodity? Is the very idea of a 'market' based on a culturally defined ideology?
With reference to Latin America I think the fact that it is economically important had been proven beyond question by the work as a whole, but does this translate into agency for Latin America?
No comments:
Post a Comment