Capitalist Agriculture and the Colonial State in Portuguese Guinea, 1926-1974

Galli, Rosemary E.

AfricaBib

bibliographic database
Line

New search

The free AfricaBib App for Android is available here

Periodical article

Leiden University catalogue

WorldCat

Title:	Capitalist Agriculture and the Colonial State in Portuguese Guinea, 1926-1974
Author:	Galli, Rosemary E.
Year:	1995
Periodical:	African Economic History
Volume:	23
Pages:	51-78
Language:	English
Geographic terms:	Guinea-Bissau Portugal
Subjects:	colonialism dual economy agricultural policy History and Exploration Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment Development and Technology Economics and Trade
External link:	https://www.jstor.org/stable/3601726
Abstract:	The Portuguese regime (1926-1974) which was later called the Estado Novo (New State) and still later the Estado Social (Social State), had a long-lasting impact on the country known today as Guinea-Bissau. Throughout most of the period of Portuguese contact, the prevailing colonial mentality was mercantilist. The goal of officials and investors - to make quick and easy money - was realized through commerce. New State policy did not extend as far as transforming production relations in the country. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the New State did not provide the kind of investment in infrastructure needed to attract capital or support capitalist development. Moreover, in its zeal to monopolize trade, the regime tried to eliminate intermediaries and, in so doing, undercut the basis for accumulation of one stratum, the 'ponteiros' (farmers on small-scale concessions). A paternalistic attitude towards rural cultivators prevented the regime from supporting Guineans as entrepreneurs. Beginning in the 1940s, Portuguese administrators discovered the virtues of 'traditional' farming practices in Guinea and became advocates of a kind of agrarian populism. This essay argues that this type of paternalism was as much a barrier to the development of production relations from below as was the lack of investment. Notes, ref.

Views