{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015082956259426848, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012066365007541479, 'mean_word_length': 5.3798076923076925, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Some Reflections on Latin American Industrialization Policy

Less than two decades have elapsed since Rauil Prebisch formally pleaded that the interests of the Latin American countries would be better served if their predominantly raw-material-producing economies were tempered by a greater admixture of manufacturing (Prebisch 1950; United Nations 1952). It is now 175 years since Alexander Hamilton made the same plea on behalf of the United States (Hamilton 1892). Latin America was much more industrialized at the time of the first Prebisch pronouncements than the United States was when Hamilton made his report, but the significant point is that an industrialization policy was articulated in the United States almost from the very inception of the country. The fundamental arguments of Hamilton's Report on Manufactures have a striking similarity with those of Prebisch and his staff at the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA). The case for industrialization which has been made by Prebisch and his followers is well known and need not be repeated here.1 Essentially it revolves around the problems of trade between developing and developed nations, particularly the unequal distribution of gains from trade due to instability, artificial restrictions, and other weaknesses of foreign demand for raw materials.