The Electricity Policy Debate in Brazil’s Economic Epistemic Community: the 1945-1964 Period

Francisco Ebeling
{"title":"The Electricity Policy Debate in Brazil’s Economic Epistemic Community: the 1945-1964 Period","authors":"Francisco Ebeling","doi":"10.29182/hehe.v26i1.843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article scrutinizes the evolution of Brazilian thought on electricity policy from 1945 to 1964, focusing on the topics of planning of electricity supply expansion, the FDI vs. state ownership conundrum, and the relationship between electricity supply growth and inflation. The economic debate comprised two main concurring camps during this period, one monetarist/orthodox and another developmentalist/structuralist. This bipartisan division was also present in the electricity policy debate. It is argued that while there was some degree of convergence between the two camps regarding the issue of planning, in the other two core topics of the debate, divergence was the tonic. However, despite the marked division in the economic epistemic community regarding electricity policy, political and economic conditions favored policy experimentation with a pragmatic policy stance that combined features from states and markets- which combined ideas from both camps-, even after the 1964 coup, when the debate had been mostly neutralized.","PeriodicalId":179921,"journal":{"name":"História Econômica & História de Empresas","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"História Econômica & História de Empresas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29182/hehe.v26i1.843","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article scrutinizes the evolution of Brazilian thought on electricity policy from 1945 to 1964, focusing on the topics of planning of electricity supply expansion, the FDI vs. state ownership conundrum, and the relationship between electricity supply growth and inflation. The economic debate comprised two main concurring camps during this period, one monetarist/orthodox and another developmentalist/structuralist. This bipartisan division was also present in the electricity policy debate. It is argued that while there was some degree of convergence between the two camps regarding the issue of planning, in the other two core topics of the debate, divergence was the tonic. However, despite the marked division in the economic epistemic community regarding electricity policy, political and economic conditions favored policy experimentation with a pragmatic policy stance that combined features from states and markets- which combined ideas from both camps-, even after the 1964 coup, when the debate had been mostly neutralized.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
巴西经济学界的电力政策辩论:1945-1964 年期间
本文考察了1945年至1964年巴西电力政策思想的演变,重点讨论了电力供应扩张规划、外国直接投资与国有制难题以及电力供应增长与通货膨胀之间的关系。在这一时期,经济辩论包括两个主要的并行阵营,一个是货币主义者/正统派,另一个是发展主义者/结构主义者。这种两党分歧也出现在电力政策辩论中。有人认为,虽然两个阵营在规划问题上有某种程度的一致,但在辩论的其他两个核心议题上,分歧是主旋律。然而,尽管在关于电力政策的经济知识界存在明显的分歧,政治和经济条件倾向于务实的政策立场,结合了国家和市场的特点,结合了两个阵营的想法,即使在1964年政变之后,当辩论基本上被中和时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Patriarcado na gestão, sucessão e venda da perfumaria Phebo Homenagem ao Professor Flávio Saes A agricultura brasileira após o Plano de Metas: a modernização agrícola sem reforma agrária (1961-1978) Contemporaneidade da teoria de John Rogers Commons: convergências à sociedade pós-industrial Autonomia tributária e capacidade de arrecadação: Província de São Paulo na segunda metade do Oitocentos
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1