was roon terminated for budgetary rearons he oontinued on in a prívate capacity for
many years?4 Attempts were made by the privately owned railway oompanies to develop
suitable seed varieties and to encourage improved methods of farming in the 1920s and
under Le Breton, the progressive Minister for Agriculture in President Alve3r's
adminitration, the Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaden'a established rese3rch statíons to
experiment with suitable seed varieties? s However, these projects and many which
followed were not carried through with determination, and their effectiveness and their
stimulation were limited through budgetary oonstraints. A wholehearted response to the
~enerally
reoognízed need for large scale scientific research in agriculture with adequate
extension serví ces to disseminate the results was not forthooming until the mid·1950s. It
was not until the establishment of the Instituto Nacional de Tecnologi'a Agropecuaria
(I.N.T.A.) in 1956 that the Argentina government really undertook adequate
responsibility for scientific research in agriculture.
Australia and Argentina both experienced similar phases in the aa:¡uisition and
transfer of agricultural technology. The major difference has been that whereas the
Australian government accepted the major responsibility for scientific research in
agriculture early in the rrodern period of science based technology, the Argentina
government nas only oomparatively recently accepted this role.
MANUFACTURING ECONOMIES
The modern industrial structures of both Australia and Argentina are largely
derivative. That is to say that the growth of manufacturing in both oountries has been
dependent on the acquisition of new technology from overseas and airo, in many
instances, on foreig n sources of capital to finanoe the industrial expansiono Since the F irst
World War the industrial sectors of both oountries have grown oonsiderably and the
greater part of this expansion has been in those branches of industry employing the
"new" technology. The main vehicle for the introduction of this technology has been the
setting up of subsidiaries of overseas oompanies. This process has been deliberately
assisted by governments through tariff policiesand tax ooncessions. Import and exchange
restrictions, necessitated by balance of payments difficulties and wartime disruptions,
have aIso oontributed to this process. An alternative has been to oontract with a foreign
firm or oonsortium for a "turnkey job",wherethe plant isbuilt and operated for a while
by t he foreign ooncern unt iI loca Is are trained to operate the enterprise. In either case the
overseas technology is bought, the only question is the rocial and economic price that has
to be paid. The former alternative is the cheaper in the short term as the initial oost is
virtually nil. However in the long term the effects of repatriation of profitson the balance
of payments have to be oonsidered and the intangible oosts of affront to national pride
these days weigh increasing Iy important in the calculations of governments.
The following statistics indicate the increasing importance of manufacturing in the
structure of both eoonomies. Th.e share of manufacturing as a percentage of G.D.P. in
1914 was 13.4%
in Australia and 15.3%
in Argentina. In 1956 t he proportions were
28%
and ':5)%
respectivelyand in 1966.28.5
0 /0
and 35
0 /0?6
The mest striking
24
25
26
186
Review of the River Plate, 2/3/23, p. 267.
Ibid ..
2n!1920,
P. 19; 6/10/22, p. 823.
Díaz Alejandro, op. cit., pp, 415 to 420.
E.A. Boehm, Twentieth Century Economic Development in Australia, (Longman, Melbourne.
1971). p. 8. The high differentia I between Argentina and Australia in 1966 is a reflection of the
virtual stagnation in the rate of growth of value of Argentina agricultural output. Both
Australian and Argentina mánufacturing output grew at approximately similar rates.
