Critique of Paul B. Goodwin's "The Central Argentine Railway and the Economic Development of Argentina, 1854-1881"
Professor Paul Goodwin argues that: the Central Argentine' Railway (CAR) was not built ahead of demand but "in response to clearly discerned market patterns and economic opportunity;" and that "analysis of the Central's early years also provide's a test of a variant but similar theme-the railroad created demand and was a prime' mover in economic development."' His conclusions rest on a study of indicators of increased economic activity in the' 1850s and 1860s, and especially on a number of glowing descriptions of central Argentina made by contemporaries on the eve of the construction of the CAR or shortly after its arrival to the city of Cordoba. The' first conclusion is correct if the emphasis is put on economic opportunity rather than on achievement. The second of his conclusions cannot be totally supported by a detailed analysis of the Central's early years. The descriptions of Argentina made at the time of the CAR's construction must be discounted, since to some extent they reflected not what the country was like but rat-her what it was expected to become. Certainly, the shareholders of the railway did not concur in those expectations. And once the railway was in operation, the guarantee and the land grant which induced its construction gave rise to a number of problems, none' of which aided the development of the area, but led to the rescission of the guarantee in 1884. By that date, the railway could at last live up to its promise. Regarding prerailway development, consider Goodwin's statement that population had begun to move into the area between Rosario and