Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article offers a critical assessment of the first postneoliberalism development framework that emerged in Latin America after 1990. The ability of neostructuralism to present an attractive narrative about a twenty-first-century "modernity with solidarity" is based on abandoning key tenets of ECLAC's structuralism and the thinking of Raúl Prebisch and Celso Furtado; namely, a focus on the distribution and appropriation of economic surplus and a framing of Latin American development problems in a world capitalist system. This article argues that Latin American neostructuralism's discursive strengths, as well as its analytical weaknesses, stem from the marginalization of power relations from key dimensions of the region's political economy. Since 2000, neostructuralism has exacerbated its descriptive, short-term perspective, further dulling its analytical edge, by focusing on policies that promote social cohesion and state intervention in the cultural and the socioemotional realm.

This landmark work is the first sustained critique of Latin American neostructuralism, the prevailing narrative that has sought to replace "market fundamentalism" and humanize the "savage capitalism" imposed by neoliberal dogmatism. Fernando Leiva analyzes neostructuralism and questions its credibility as the answer to the region's economic, political, and social woes. Recent electoral victories by progressive governments in Latin America promising economic growth, social equity, and political democracy raise a number of urgent questions, including: What are the key strengths and weaknesses of

Latin American neostructuralism emerged within the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean by 1990. As such, it was aimed at reviewing original Latin American structuralism and updating those contributions to the new phase of global capitalism. Notwithstanding this institutional point of view, this article argues that neostructuralism did not represent an update to Latin American structuralism but rather a differentiation from its critical and original contributions, which relies mainly on the displacement of the center-periphery concept. In the framework of the neoliberal offensive, this change toward capitalism was the result of the greater influence of theories and approaches generated in the center to problematize Latin America's development, as well as of the requirement to depoliticize the discussion of development. JEL Classification: B2, B5, O1

Cover -- Half Title -- Series Page -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- List of Tables -- List of Figures -- Acknowledgments -- About the Contributors -- Introduction -- 1 Latin American Economic Development and the International Environment -- 2 From Structuralism to Neostructuralism: The Search for a Heterodox Paradigm -- 3 Monetarism and Structuralism: Some Macroeconomic Lessons -- 4 Review of the Debate over the Origins of Latin American Industrialization and Its Ideological Context -- 5 Deindustrialization and Industrial Restructuring in Latin America: The Examples of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile -- 6 Financial Strategies in Latin America: The Southern Cone Experience -- 7 Structural Adjustment Reforms and the External Debt Crisis in Latin America -- 8 IMF and World Bank Roles in the Latin American Foreign Debt Problem -- List of Acronyms -- About the Book and Editor -- About the Series -- Index.

In the 2000s a new aid regime evolved. This promised to move beyond the former neoliberal approach in a number of ways. It would involve greater consultation between donors and recipients, shift the focus from economic growth to broader factors, including poverty, and hand back the responsibility for this to the nation-state. This approach bears strong resemblance to the rise of neostructuralism, a development paradigm that has become highly influential in Latin America. In this article we trace the shifts in the aid regime and ask to what extent the contemporary regime can be defined a postneoliberal paradigm.

This paper aims to analyze the emergence of Latin America Pink Tide and others, especially in political-economic paradigm (liberalism, neoliberalism and post-neoliberalism). Firstly, this paper describes an international political economy development generally and theoretically. Secondly, it describes political economy conditions in Latin America. Thirdly, it analyzes neoliberalism context that affects the development process in Latin America countries. Fourthly, it analyzes neoliberal development model, which is adopted in the context of Latin America. Fifthly, author is trying to address alternatives of neoliberalism development model that was conceived and adopted by the countries in Latin America, associate with pink tide phenomenon that recently emerging up in most countries in Latin America. Keywords: Alternative model, Development, International Political Economy, Latin America, Liberalism, Neoliberalism, Post-neoliberalism and Pink Tide.

En este trabajo analizaremos el proyecto neodesarrollista en Argentina iniciado en 2002, luego de la crisis del neoliberalismo. Presentaremos críticamente sus fundamento de economía política que remiten al neoestructuralismo. Discutiremos la ausencia de una perspectiva de clase en ese proyecto y su fundamento teórico. Mostraremos como esa ausente conduce a limitaciones para comprender la dinámica concreta del proyecto neodesarrollista, sus barreras y límites. Para ello presentaremos una discusión crítica de los supuestos neoestructuralistas y analizaremos el desempeño empírico del proyecto neodesarrolllista en Argentina. Concluiremos con algunos elementos de lo que podría ser una alternativa desde la perspectiva de la clase trabajadora. ; In this article we will analyze the neodevelopmentalist project in Argentina, that begun after the crisis of neoliberalism. We will critically present its political economy foundations that are tied to neoestructuralism. We will discuss the absence of a class perspective in neodevelopmentalism and in its theoretical foundations. We will show how such an absence turns into limitations to comprehend the concrete dynamics of the neodevelopmentalism project, its barriers and limits. To that aim we will present a critical discussion of the neostructuralist suppositions and we will analyze the empirical record of neodevelopmentalism in Argentina. We will conclude with some elements of what might be an alternative from the perspective of the working class. ; Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación

AbstractThis review-essay offers an extended engagement with Fernando Ignacio Leiva's Latin American Neostructuralism, one of the most important contributions to contemporary Latin-American political economy. It situates Leiva's critique of neostructuralism against the wider backdrop of Latin America's contradictory turn to the Left since the late 1990s, and compares the treatments of change in Latin-American capitalism over the course of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries developed by the schools of classical structuralism, neostructuralism, and neoliberalism. The essay finds that Leiva's critique of neostructuralism and his explanation for its influence on large segments of the region's Left is the best work on the topic currently available in English. Leiva systematically demolishes neostructuralism's claim to be a progressive alternative to neoliberalism. At the same time, it is argued that Leiva's theoretical framework is compromised by its uncritical adoption of categories from French regulation-theory, and its nostalgia for elements of classical structuralism and its associated development-model of import-substitution industrialisation. Further, it is found that Leiva's implicit attachment to certain myths propagated by the Marxism of the Second and, especially, Third Internationals regarding the national bourgeoisie's role in Third-World capitalist development leaves him unduly dogmatic about the necessity, and unduly optimistic about the possibility, of building a progressive stage of capitalism in Latin America today. The same mythologies prevent Leiva from drawing the appropriate conclusions as regards the urgent necessity of rebuilding the socialist project in Latin America and internationally.

La següent investigació aborda les estratègies per al desenvolupament de Xile des de la mirada de l'elit política i econòmica. Per aconseguir donar resposta a això, va ser necessari comprendre dos processos: el primer correspon a la constitució de l'elit, principalment des del pensament de Pierre Bourdieu, el qual ens permet comprendre principalment la conformació de l'habitus dels agents i la interacció d'aquests en els camps que, en el nostre cas específic correspon als camps de la política i l'economia. El segon procés correspon a l'aspecte teòric del desenvolupament en el qual es pot apreciar que no existeix una teoria pura del desenvolupament, sinó més aviat, que aquesta es troba inscrita en un procés no exempt de conflicte entre els camps que es van construint històricament, és per aquest motiu que a la secció de teories del desenvolupament s'aborden quatre grans moviments en els quals ha transitat la discussió respecte al desenvolupament d'una nació subdesenvolupada, amb això ens referim principalment a les teories de la modernització, la dependència, el neoliberalisme i el neoestructuralisme. ; La siguiente investigación aborda las estrategias para el desarrollo de Chile desde la mirada de élite política y económica. Para lograr dar respuesta a esto, fue necesario comprender dos procesos: el primero corresponde a la constitución de la élite, principalmente desde el pensamiento de Pierre Bourdieu, el cual nos permite comprender principalmente la conformación del habitus de los agentes y la interacción de estos en los campos que, en nuestro caso específico correspondiente a los campos de la política y la economía. El segundo proceso corresponde el aspecto teórico del desarrollo en el cual se puede apreciar que no existe una teoría pura del desarrollo, sino más bien, que esta se encuentra inscrita en un proceso no exento de conflicto entre los campos que se van construyendo históricamente, es por este motivo que en la sección de teorías del desarrollo se abordan cuatro grandes movimientos en los cuales ha transitado la discusión respecto al desarrollo de una nación subdesarrollada, con esto nos referimos principalmente a las teorías de la modernización, la dependencia, el neoliberalismo y el neoestructuralismo. ; The following research covers strategies for the development of Chile from a political and economic perspective. In order to provide a response to this, it was necessary to understand two processes: the first refers to the establishment of an elite; mainly along the lines of the thoughts of Pierre Bourdieu, which enables us, mainly, to comprehend the makeup of the habitus of the agents and their interaction in those fields which, in our specific case, touches upon those concerning politics and the economy. The second process refers to the theoretic aspect of the development, where it can be observed that there is no such thing as a pure development theory. Rather, this lies within a process that is not devoid of conflict between the fields that are being built historically. It is for this reason that in the section on development theories, four large movements are tackled in which a discourse has evolved regarding the development of an under-developed nation and with this we refer mostly to the theories of modernization, dependency, neo-liberalism and neo-structuralism.