Suchergebnisse

Este artículo tiene como objetivo contribuir a un debate reciente para revalorizar los aportes de América Latina a la Economía Política Internacional (EPI) desde una perspectiva más amplia y plural ofrecida por la Economía Política Global (EPG). Más que una disciplina, este enfoque representa un campo de estudio donde coexisten diversas posiciones teóricas, metodológicas, epistemológicas y ontológicas con base local para el reconocimiento equitativo de las teorías y aportes generados en el Sur Global. Aunque no representa un planteamiento contrahegemónico al pensamiento occidental, la EPG cuestiona la aplicabilidad de las teorías preponderantes de la EPI al considerarlas limitadas en términos de explicación y replicabilidad para Latinoamérica.
Desde el análisis histórico, se propone comparar los eventos políticos y económicos más relevantes que propiciaron la creación de un campo regional en EPG. De esa forma, este documento aborda cómo el estructuralismo y las teorías del desarrollo se convirtieron en los pilares de una escuela de pensamiento latinoamericana que luego se ha expandido a un subcampo individual de investigación en la región. Se argumenta que estos aportes pueden identificarse como una vertiente particular construida principalmente sobre el debate de los términos de intercambio y de los estudios de desarrollo en general, pero con ramificaciones posteriores que han insertado debates en la región sobre regionalismo e inserción internacional, así como también el financiamiento para el desarrollo y variedades de capitalismo, dentro de una discusión que ha crecido en las últimas décadas.
El artículo se divide en cuatro apartados que abordan los principales aportes de la EPG latinoamericana. Primero, se sintetizan los debates seminales en la construcción del campo de la EPG latinoamericana del estructuralismo y las teorías de la dependencia. Segundo, se destaca la importancia de la integración regional y el regionalismo como pilares centrales de la Escuela Latinoamericana de EPG. Tercero, se da cuenta de cómo los análisis más recientes sobre financiamiento para el desarrollo y variedades de capitalismo han contribuido a alimentar la EPG latinoamericana. Finalmente, se analiza si el campo de la EPI es de carácter global o se enfrenta a una nueva etapa en la que se revaloriza y destaca la contribución y singularidad de los debates regionales.

This article aims to contribute to a recent debate to re-evaluate Latin America's contributions to International Political Economy (IPE) from a broader and more pluralistic perspective offered by Global Political Economy (GPE). This approach emerges as a set of conversations and questions about the world order that are answered from diverse perspectives and conceptual umbrellas. Thus, rather than a discipline, it represents a field of study where diverse theoretical, methodological, epistemological and ontological positions coexist with a local basis for the equal recognition of theories and contributions generated in the Global South (Seabrooke and Young, 2017). Although it does not represent a counter-hegemonic approach to Western thought (Vivares, 2020), the GPE recognises that each region has its own intellectual traditions and, above all, intellectual production that does not always find space in the dominant theories of the North for its demand for agency (Deciancio and Quiliconi, 2020). Hence, I question the applicability of the prevailing theories of IPE as limited in terms of explanation and replicability for Latin America. Northern IPE has had a dichotomous view of the world divided into positivist versus interpretivist in terms of knowledge production, or, more broadly, a geopolitical division into North American versus British schools focused on power politics and economics under very different points of view. These are self-centred perspectives on Anglo-Saxon thought that place Latin American ideas on the periphery, considering them as area studies rather than regional contributions to IPE (Tussie, 2020). It has not been taken into account that, since the late 1940s, Latin America has questioned the alleged universality of growth theories, constructing a local debate separate from the prevailing theories given its own discussions on development. The Latin American schools of structuralism and heterodox economics took a critical view of the ontological basis of orthodox trade, arguing that knowledge ...

"This volume analyses South American regional and international cooperation during the COVID19 crisis started in 2020. Across thirteen chapters a collection of leading experts address how regional collaboration has developed, evolved, and recoiled. The chapters explore the state of regionalism at the pandemic surge and the challenges and opportunities this situation has opened for regional and international cooperation. Authors analyze the role of extra-regional powers and traditional regional leaders during the pandemic, identifying the extent to which regional cooperation has been possible across several policy agendas. They argue that fragmented visions of regionalism, ideological polarization, and weak leadership, has prevailed from before the pandemic which, accompanied by adverse interactions among major powers, has ensured that cooperation has remained bilateral rather than regional. Ultimately all these factors have created a complex scenario in which disintegration dynamics have emerged, darkening, even more, the South American regional panorama. Regional and International Cooperation in South America After Covid will be an invaluable resource for students, scholars and policy specialists of regionalism and regional integration, Latin American studies, international relations and international political economy"--

This book presents a systematic collation of the regional and global dimensions of the leadership role of BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). It analyses the rising regional and global leadership of BRICS, using specific benchmarks to gauge the nature of this leadership. The elements examined include willingness to lead, the capacity to do as much, and the degree to which the given actor is accepted as a leader both within and beyond its region. The chapters in the book capture the nature of trends in regional and global leadership within the contexts of a changing international order. It is taken for granted that Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are now engineering a unique pool of governance that is seeking alternatives to the current order of global economic and political affairs. The fact that these countries have jointly decided to forge ahead with the BRICS constellation of states that is now taking consequential decisions such as the creation of the BRICS' New Development Bank, is not to be treated lightly. In this book the majority of papers take a step back and systematically analyse the real state of the leadership that is provided by the BRICS on a litany of regionally and globally relevant issues. While no one doubts the fact that these countries have the capacity to provide leadership especially in their various regions on many issues, what remains moot is whether they are willing and capable to do so at the global level. Even in those cases where there is the willingness and capacity, the book argues that the acceptance of such leadership by potential followers is not always a given.