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