What is the most accurate way to understand this puzzling and wonderful country? The answers are, of course, multiple and fallible. Think
Peru means imagine, considering carefully and reflect past, present and future of this nation to raise a point of view then that helps to understand their identity. The design
independence, the immediate destination of Peru was expressed in two opposing. For one, San Martín, who advocated a monarchical state, and secondly, Bolívar, who was in favor of the republican regime. In both cases, ever, despite the noble ideological aspirations of the two liberators, took into account the structural country, that they are now called in a tone comforting and compassionate "profound." Both San Martin and Bolivar were essentially men of action and had the Peru a very abstract idea.
then were Creoles and members of the Society of Friends of the Country, those who thought the country with the same inclusive vision than their predecessors. But it was not until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when ideas generated more systematic and vigorous on the Peruvian reality. Intellectuals and politicians such as Manuel González Prada, José de la Riva Agüero, Víctor Andrés Belaunde and José Carlos Mariategui raised socio-political theory which aims were to interpret reality correctly. Its merit lies not only in having developed own thinking, but also have been connected with passion with the country that they had to live.
the late nineteenth century 40, migration from the countryside to the city transformed the face of the country and, therefore, posed a new challenge to thinkers, especially social scientists. They introduced the notions of "choledad" and "mestizo Peru, which were insufficient to understand the changes. In 1984, José Matos Mar said that Peru was the case a "popular overflow" of policy and institutional limits of formal Peru.
Two years later, an economist, Hernando de Soto, in a sense completed the thesis Matos Mar. His point of view, liberal, raised the notion that existed in Peru economy "informal" held by small production units are not legally registered who had created their own market economy in parallel with formal activities. The main causes of this phenomenon were the profound indifference of the state with regard to the social sectors peripherals and high bureaucratic costs to be paid by those who wanted to be "formal." In 2007, another economist, Francisco Durand, took the ideas of José Matos Mar and Hernando de Soto, adding that Peru was "broken" by horizontal cracks (rural / urban, rich / poor) and vertical gaps (formal economy, informal and criminal economy) that led to the culture of "transgression", which jeopardized the construction of an inclusive state. After
intellectuals, politicians, sociologists and economists, who have dedicated themselves to think Peru are, in some ways, marketers and management, who were accused of being naive and overly optimistic in his approach. So, Rolando Arellano, holds a number of years that the economic distance, political and social differences between rich and poor has narrowed, that Peru is not a pyramid (discriminatory), but a diamond (to some degree democratic, "in fondo hay sitio "). This has occurred due to changes in consumer habits and new cultural referents introduced in the popular imagination. According to him, are the lifestyles and parameters not racial, economic, political and social one right way to classify the current Peruvian society. Lifestyles are six: sophisticated, progressive, modern, tailored, conservative and resigned, and would be much more important than money for culture and politics. Arellano
ideas do not deny the above or fall short of those advocated by the great thinkers of the early last century, yet they represent a new way of thinking Peru. The debate is served.
Peru means imagine, considering carefully and reflect past, present and future of this nation to raise a point of view then that helps to understand their identity. The design
independence, the immediate destination of Peru was expressed in two opposing. For one, San Martín, who advocated a monarchical state, and secondly, Bolívar, who was in favor of the republican regime. In both cases, ever, despite the noble ideological aspirations of the two liberators, took into account the structural country, that they are now called in a tone comforting and compassionate "profound." Both San Martin and Bolivar were essentially men of action and had the Peru a very abstract idea.
then were Creoles and members of the Society of Friends of the Country, those who thought the country with the same inclusive vision than their predecessors. But it was not until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when ideas generated more systematic and vigorous on the Peruvian reality. Intellectuals and politicians such as Manuel González Prada, José de la Riva Agüero, Víctor Andrés Belaunde and José Carlos Mariategui raised socio-political theory which aims were to interpret reality correctly. Its merit lies not only in having developed own thinking, but also have been connected with passion with the country that they had to live.
the late nineteenth century 40, migration from the countryside to the city transformed the face of the country and, therefore, posed a new challenge to thinkers, especially social scientists. They introduced the notions of "choledad" and "mestizo Peru, which were insufficient to understand the changes. In 1984, José Matos Mar said that Peru was the case a "popular overflow" of policy and institutional limits of formal Peru.
Two years later, an economist, Hernando de Soto, in a sense completed the thesis Matos Mar. His point of view, liberal, raised the notion that existed in Peru economy "informal" held by small production units are not legally registered who had created their own market economy in parallel with formal activities. The main causes of this phenomenon were the profound indifference of the state with regard to the social sectors peripherals and high bureaucratic costs to be paid by those who wanted to be "formal." In 2007, another economist, Francisco Durand, took the ideas of José Matos Mar and Hernando de Soto, adding that Peru was "broken" by horizontal cracks (rural / urban, rich / poor) and vertical gaps (formal economy, informal and criminal economy) that led to the culture of "transgression", which jeopardized the construction of an inclusive state. After
intellectuals, politicians, sociologists and economists, who have dedicated themselves to think Peru are, in some ways, marketers and management, who were accused of being naive and overly optimistic in his approach. So, Rolando Arellano, holds a number of years that the economic distance, political and social differences between rich and poor has narrowed, that Peru is not a pyramid (discriminatory), but a diamond (to some degree democratic, "in fondo hay sitio "). This has occurred due to changes in consumer habits and new cultural referents introduced in the popular imagination. According to him, are the lifestyles and parameters not racial, economic, political and social one right way to classify the current Peruvian society. Lifestyles are six: sophisticated, progressive, modern, tailored, conservative and resigned, and would be much more important than money for culture and politics. Arellano
ideas do not deny the above or fall short of those advocated by the great thinkers of the early last century, yet they represent a new way of thinking Peru. The debate is served.
0 comments:
Post a Comment