undoubtedly occurred, and these changes had important consequences for political economy,
for norms and for groups. The next section of this paper will explore how the changes came
about, their nature and implications for group functioning.
IV. CHANGING PARADIGMS: WHY THEY OCCURRED AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
A. The colonial and neo-colonial period
There is no unique ‘colonial model’. The political systems and philosophies of the Colonial
powers themselves differed, as did the political and economic structures and resource base of
the colonised areas. Moreover, in some areas settler communities were numerous and
powerful, while in others they were relatively few. Each of these differences led to differences
in Colonial governance (see Young 1994). Nonetheless, the overriding and universally shared
motive of Colonial policy was to secure economic benefits for the colonial powers - usually,
to provide raw materials for Europe’s growing needs and, in some situations, to generate
markets for European manufactured goods3. The European settlers (and landowners) in Latin
America shared the objectives espoused by the Colonial powers elsewhere. To achieve these
goals required some infrastructural development, and limited investments in local health and
education. There were major differences in policy according to the nature of the commodity
to be extracted; among countries where physically concentrated mineral production was the
main colonial product, there was little need to extend infrastructure or development beyond a
small enclave - even workers were often imported; in contrast where production of the
commodity was spread widely geographically (e.g. coffee, rice), there was more extensive
development of the country. Where the climate was propitious for European settlers,
production was organised into plantations which they owned, depriving local people of land
and opportunities other than that of near or actual slave labour on the plantations. In less
salubrious climes, production was left to peasants who thereby acquired some cash
opportunities, retained their land, and were provided with necessary education and services.
3 Furnivall, 1948, argues that whether it was a desire to increase raw material supplies or
to generate markets accounted for a good deal of the difference in colonial structures.