Dados is one of the most widely-read social sciences journals in Latin America. Created in 1966, it publishes innovative works, originating from academic research, by Brazilian and foreign authors. Edited by IESP-UERJ, it aims to reconcile scientific rigor and academic excellence with an emphasis on public debate based on the analysis of substantive issues of society and politics.
Dados n. 18 Rio de Janeiro 1978
Abstract
Through a critical review of Salm and O'Brien's important study "Unemployment and Underemployment in Brazil", this article attempts to analyze some features of the intellectual production of government experts on the subject of Brazil's economic policy, as part of which production the Salm and O'Brien study should be required reading. The subject of employment of the labor force, traditionally underlying all economic and sociological literature which has been critical of the Brazilian economic performance, was deliberately muffled by the technocratic intellectual production developed after 1964 and which peaked during the '69-'74 period when the so called "Brazilian miracle" took the stage at the expense of much silent devastation occurring behind the scenes. Breaking away from this trend, the Salm and O'Brien study once more raised the topic, supported by an international bibliography and recent statistical data. However, the study still paid tribute to the criticism it represented vis· à-vis the technocratic school, in the form oi a "consensus within dissension" which is characteristic of that segment of the intellectual field wherein the battle of ideas was being waged. This article attempts to perform a critical reading of that "consensus" while still pointing out the merits of the Salm and O'Brien study. An analysis of the authors' "bibliographical review" shows that while reference to the importance of contemporary thinkers in relation to the era of classic political economy is omitted, the "Keynesian Revolution", is overestimated. The study also lacks a historical specification when criticizing the transplantation of concepts and creating underemployment typologies, and the authors are ambiguous - a reflection of the very literature on which their work rests when dealing with antithetical constructs developed around the concepts of marginal productivity, on the one hand, and subsistence, on the other hand, to the benefit of the dominant trend associated with the former of these concepts. This article also analyzes the authors criticisrn of the literature considering unemployment disguised as a "free factor" to be potentially manipulated by economic policy. ln the second part of this article, reference is made to the lack of continuity between the bibliographical, review and the analysis based on the statistical data presented in "Unemployment and Underemployment in Brazil". The author also points to the need for examining the implications of the method used to arrive at said statistical data.
Notas Críticas ao "Desemprego e Subemprego no Brasil"
Português do Brasil
Español