Suchergebnisse

Neodevelopmentalism emerged in Brazil and Argentina in the aftermath of the demoralization of the Washington Consensus. Although its intellectual proponents place it within the long tradition of Latin American developmentalism, an important theoretical origin of neodevelopmentalism—dependency theory—has so far been ignored. The term appeared for the first time in 1978 as an expletive in the heated controversy between Ruy Mauro Marini and Fernando Henrique Cardoso and José Serra in the Revista Mexicana de Sociología. Breaking with the supposition that underdevelopment could be overcome only through social revolution, Cardoso and Serra embraced a perspective of long-term social transformation based on class alliances with fractions of the national bourgeoisie and international capital. This perspective was gradually weakened and finally abandoned in favor of full-fledged neoliberalism when Cardoso became president of Brazil in 1994, only to be resuscitated by so-called pink-tide administrations after 2002. O neodesenvolvimentismo surgiu no Brasil e na Argentina após a desmoralização do Consenso de Washington. Embora seus proponentes intelectuais o coloquem dentro da longa tradição do desenvolvimentismo latino-americano, uma importante origem teórica do neodesenvolvimentismo - a teoria da dependência - até agora foi ignorado. O termo apareceu pela primeira vez em 1978 como um palavrão na polêmica acalorada entre Ruy Mauro Marini e Fernando Henrique Cardoso e José Serra na Revista Mexicana de Sociología. Rompendo com a suposição de que o subdesenvolvimento só poderia ser superado por meio da revolução social, Cardoso e Serra abraçaram uma perspectiva de transformação social de longo prazo baseada em alianças de classe com frações da burguesia nacional e do capital internacional. Essa perspectiva foi gradualmente enfraquecida e finalmente abandonada em favor do neoliberalismo completo quando Cardoso se tornou presidente do Brasil em 1994, apenas para ser ressuscitada por administrações da chamada maré rosa após 2002.

U&CD scholarship has made vital conceptual and analytical contributions to international relations and international historical sociology scholarship during recent decades. However, so far, it has mainly focused on the longue durée of capitalist transitions rather than contemporary analyses of the dynamics, crises and policy shifts within the global political economy. A small body of literature has recently begun to apply a U&CD conceptual toolkit towards just such ends. In this special issue, we showcase a range of original thought and empirical work which advances the U&CD perspective within the growing and critically oriented field of global political economy. Transcending the pitfalls of orthodox liberal and realist approaches, U&CD draws a direct link between ruptures, contradictions and crises in the global economy and its ongoing division into a multiplicity of nominally sovereign territorial political units. Focusing on a breadth of divisions and antagonisms across lines of class, race, gender and nationality, the articles contained herein point to the immense potential for creative applications of U&CD to play a role in GPE scholarship as it emerges from the grip of the stifling orthodoxies of international political economy.

This forum arises from an online event on the theory of uneven and combined development (UCD). Following an introduction which proposes a 'special affinity' between UCD and International Relations (IR), four presenters at that event discuss their 'view from outside' UCD, including perspectives from Global Historical Sociology, Realism, Decolonial theory and Gramscian Marxism. Meanwhile four members of the audience add their views on UCD and disciplinarity, the need for pluralism in UCD methodology, UCD and 'whiteness', and its potential contribution to ecological theory and practice