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.