Advertisement

Why Does Structuralism Return to the Forefront?

  • Víctor Ramiro FernándezEmail author
  • Gabriel Brondino
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter discusses the evolution of Latin American structuralist thought and the transformations it underwent after the neo-structuralist renewal. Contributions in the first decades after World War II increasingly introduced the role of power and domination in defining the structure of both domestic and international social relations in peripheral capitalism. The emergence of neo-structuralism after the Latin American crisis of the eighties implied a dilution or simply exclusion of the analysis of power and domination relations. The chapter discusses the consequences of such absence for the analysis and formulation of development strategies and suggests to revisit structuralist thought. Such revisiting demands both to attend the transformations that have taken place in capitalism in the last 40 years and to introduce some other elements that were initially weakly theorized.

References

  1. Acosta Espinosa, Alberto. 1998. La Deuda Externa en América Latina: Origen, Evolución y Alternativas de Solución. Revista Ecuador Debate 45: 64-92.Google Scholar
  2. Agarwal, Manmohan, and Dipankar Sengupta. 1999. Structural Adjustment in Latin America: Policies and Performance. Economic and Political Weekly 34 (44): 3129–3136. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4408573.
  3. Anlló, Guillermo, and Fernando Peirano. 2005. Una Mirada a los Sistemas Nacionales de Innovación en el Mercosur: Análisis y Reflexiones a partir de los Casos de Argentina y Uruguay. Serie Estudios y Perspectivas. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas.Google Scholar
  4. Arrighi, Giovanni, Beverly J. Silver, and Benjamin D. Brewer. 2003. Industrial Convergence, Globalization, and the Persistence of the North-South Divide. Studies in Comparative International Development 38 (1). Springer-Verlag: 3–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baer, Werner. 1972. Import Substitution and Industrialization in Latin America: Experiences and Interpretations. Latin American Research Review 7 (1). Latin American Studies Association: 95–122. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2502457.
  6. Balassa, Bela. 1984. Adjustment Policies in Developing Countries: A Reassessment. World Development 12 (9): 955–972.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(84)90053-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baldwin, Richard. 2011. Trade and Industrialisation after Globalisation’s 2nd Unbundling: How Building and Joining a Supply Chain Are Different and Why It Matters. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 17716. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17716.Google Scholar
  8. Bértola, Luis, and José Antonio Ocampo. 2012. Latin America’s Debt Crisis and ‘Lost Decade.’ https://goo.gl/W6ej3s.
  9. Bielschowsky, Ricardo. 2008. Sixty Years of ECLAC: Structuralism and Neo-Structuralism. CEPAL Review, 97: 171–192. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/11325.
  10. ———. 2016. Fifty Years of ECLAC Thought: A Review. In ECLAC Thinking, Selected Texts (1948–1998), ed. Ricardo Bielschowsky, 7–43. United Nations.Google Scholar
  11. Bodenheimer, Susanne J. 1970. The Ideology of Developmentalism: American Political Science’s Paradigm-Surrogate for Latin American Studies. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 15. Regents of the University of California: 95–137. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41035171.
  12. Bryan, Michael. 2013. The Great Inflation. Federal Reserve History. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great_inflation.
  13. Burki, Shahid Javed, Guillermo Perry, and William R. Dillinger. 1999. Beyond the Center: Decentralizing the State. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique. 1977. The Originality of a Copy: CEPAL and the Idea of Development. CEPAL Review 4: 7–40.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 1980. El Desarrollo en el Banquillo. Comercio Exterior 30 (8): 846–860.Google Scholar
  16. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, and Enzo Faletto. 1969. Dependencia y Desarrollo en América Latina. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 1979. Dependency and Development in Latin America. University of California Press. https://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520035270.
  18. Castells, Manuel. 2009. The Rise of the Network Society: Volume I. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444319514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cavalieri, Tiziano, Pierangelo Garegnani, and Meri Lucii. 2004. Anatomia Di Una Sconfitta. La Rivista Del Manifesto, no. 48. http://www.larivistadelmanifesto.it/archivio/48/48A20040312.html.
  20. CENDES. 1969. Estilos de Desarrollo. El Trimestre Económico 36 (144(4)). Fondo de Cultura Economica: 517–576. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20856097.
  21. Cimoli, Mario, and Gabriel Porcile. 2016. Productivity and Structural Change: Structuralism and Its Dialogue with Other Heterodox Currents. In Neostructuralism and Heterodox Thinking in Latin America and the Caribbean in the Early Twenty-First Century, ed. Alicia Bárcena and Antonio Prado, 205–222. Santiago de Chile: United Nations.Google Scholar
  22. Clarke, Simon. 1991. Marx, Marginalism and Modern Sociology. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21808-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Devlin, Robert, and Ricardo Ffrench-Davis. 1995. The Great Latin American Debt Crisis: A Decade of Asymmetric Adjustment. Revista de Economia Política 15 (3): 117–142.Google Scholar
  24. Di Filippo, Armando. 2007. La Escuela Latinoamericana del Desarrollo: Tensiones Epistemológicas de un Movimiento Fundacional. Cinta de Moebio, no. 29. Universidad de Chile: 124–154. http://www.redalyc.org/html/101/10102901/.
  25. Duménil, G., and D. Lévy. 2001. Periodizing Capitalism: Technology, Institutions and Relations of Production. In Phases of Capitalist Development, ed. R. Albritton, M. Itoh, R. Westra, and A. Zuege, 141–162. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. 2007. Crisis y Salida de la Crisis. Orden y Desorden Neoliberales. México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
  27. Eatwell, John, and Murray Milgate. 2011. The Fall and Rise of Keynesian Economics. Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199777693.001.0001.
  28. ECLAC. 1990. Changing Production Patterns with Social Equity: The Prime Task of Latin American and Caribbean Development in the 1990s. Santiago de Chile: United Nations. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/37869?show=full.
  29. ———. 2010. Time for Equality: Closing Gaps, Opening Trails. Santiago de Chile: United Nations. https://www.cepal.org/en/publications/3066-time-equality-closing-gaps-opening-trails-thirty-third-session-eclac.
  30. ———. 2012. Structural Change for Equality: An Integrated Approach to Development. Santiago de Chile: United Nations. https://www.cepal.org/en/publications/3079-structural-change-equality-integrated-approach-development-thirty-four-session.
  31. ———. 2014. Compacts for Equality: Towards a Sustainable Future. Santiago de Chile: United Nations. https://www.cepal.org/en/publications/36693-compacts-equality-towards-sustainable-future.
  32. Evans, Peter, and Frederic Deyo. 1987. The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism. Anthropology of Contemporary Issues. Cornell University Press. https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=GLEClK_3tq4C.
  33. Fajnzylber, Fernando. 1985. La Industrialización Trunca de América Latina. Buenos Aires: Grupo Editor Latinoamericano.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 1988. International Competitiveness: Agreed Goal, Hard Task. CEPAL Review 36: 7–23.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 1990. Industrialization in Latin America: From the “Black Box” to the “Empty Box.” United Nations, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/27811.
  36. Fernández, Víctor Ramiro. 2014. Global Value Chains in Global Political Networks: Tool for Development or Neoliberal Device? Review of Radical Political Economics 47 (2): 209–230.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613414532769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ———. 2017. La Trilogía del Erizo-Zorro: Redes Globales, Trayectorias Nacionales y Dinámicas Regionales Desde La Periferia. Barcelona and Santa Fe: Anthropos Editorial and Ediciones UNL.Google Scholar
  38. Ferraro, Carlo, ed. 2010. Clusters y Políticas de Articulación Productiva en América Latina. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas.Google Scholar
  39. Ffrench-Davis, Ricardo. 1988. An Outline of a Neo-structuralist Approach. CEPAL Review 34: 37–44. https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/10233.
  40. Fiori, José Luís. 1992. The Political Economy of the Developmentalist State in Brazil. CEPAL Review 37: 173–186. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/10408.Google Scholar
  41. Fröbel, Folker, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye. 1977. The Tendency Towards a New International Division of Labor: The Utilization of a World-Wide Labor Force for Manufacturing Oriented to the World Market. Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 1 (1): 73–88.Google Scholar
  42. Furtado, Celso. 1966. US Hegemony and the Future of Latin America. The World Today 22 (9): 375–385.Google Scholar
  43. Gabay, Eliana. 2008. Revisitando a Raúl Prebisch y el Papel de la CEPAL en el Campo de las Ciencias Sociales Latinoamericanas. Íconos 12 (2): 103–113. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/doaj/13901249/2008/00000012/00000002/art00008.
  44. Garegnani, Pierangelo. 1978. Notes on Consumption, Investment and Effective Demand: I. Cambridge Journal of Economics 2 (4). Oxford University Press: 335–353.  https://doi.org/10.2307/23596466.
  45. ———. 1979. Notes on Consumption, Investment and Effective Demand: II. Cambridge Journal of Economics 3 (1). Oxford University Press: 63–82.  https://doi.org/10.2307/23596374.
  46. Gereffi, Gary. 2015. Global Value Chains, Development and Emerging Economies. Inclusive and Sustainable Industrial Development Working Paper Series WP 18.Google Scholar
  47. Glassman, Jim, and Pádraig Carmody. 2001. Structural Adjustment in East and Southeast Asia: Lessons from Latin America. Geoforum 32 (1): 77–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(00)00039-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gonzalez Casanova, Pablo. 1990. El Estado en América Latina: Teoría y Práctica. Biblioteca América Latina. México, D.F.: Siglo XXI. https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=Np1LkHW290YC.
  49. Graciarena, Jorge. 1976. Power and Development Styles. CEPAL Review 1: 172–193. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/12304.Google Scholar
  50. Gunder Frank, Andre. 1966. The Development of Underdevelopment. Monthly Review 18 (4): 17.  https://doi.org/10.14452/MR-018-04-1966-08_3.
  51. ———. 1969. Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  52. ———. 1977. Dependence Is Dead, Long Live Dependence and the Class Struggle: An Answer to Critics. World Development 5 (4): 355–370.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(77)90041-9.
  53. Gurrieri, Adolfo. 1987. The Validity of the State-as-Planner in the Current Crisis. CEPAL Review 31: 193–209. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/10203.Google Scholar
  54. Harrison, Ann, and Andres Rodríguez-Clare. 2010. From Hard to Soft Industrial Policies in Developing Countries. VoxEU.org. http://voxeu.org/article/hard-soft-industrial-policies-developing-countries.
  55. Hernández, René A., Jorge Mario Martinez-Piva, and Nanno Mulder, eds. 2014. Global Value Chains and World Trade: Prospects and Challenges for Latin America. Santiago de Chile: United Nations.Google Scholar
  56. Hirschman, Albert O. 1968. The Political Economy of Import-Substituting Industrialization in Latin America. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 82 (1). Oxford University Press: 1–32.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1882243.
  57. Hounie, Adela, Lucía Pittaluga, Gabriel Porcile, and Fabio Scatolin. 1999. ECLAC and the New Growth Theories. CEPAL Review 68: 7–34. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/10684.Google Scholar
  58. Kay, Cristóbal. 1989. Latin American Theories of Development and Underdevelopment. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Kerner, Daniel. 2003. ECLAC, Transnational Corporations and the Quest for a Latin American Development Strategy. CEPAL Review 79: 83–95. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/10930.
  60. Kotz, David M., and Terrence McDonough. 2010. Global Neoliberalism and the Contemporary Social Structure of Accumulation. In Contemporary Capitalism and Its Crises: Social Structure of Accumulation Theory for the 21st Century, ed. Terrence McDonough, Michael Reich, and David M. Kotz, 93–120. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Krueger, Anne O. 1974. The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society. The American Economic Review 64 (3). American Economic Association: 291–303. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1808883.
  62. Laclau, Ernesto. 1971. Feudalism and Capitalism in Latin America. New Left Review 67 (May-June): 19-38.Google Scholar
  63. Leiva, Fernando Ignacio. 2008. Toward a Critique of Latin American Neostructuralism. Latin American Politics and Society 50 (4). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2008.00028.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Love, Joseph. 1990. The Origins of Dependency Analysis. Journal of Latin American Studies 22 (1–2). Cambridge University Press: 143.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022216X00015145.
  65. ———. 1995. Economic Ideas and Ideologies in Latin America Since 1930. In The Cambridge History of Latin America: Volume 6: 1930 to the Present, The Cambridge History of Latin America, ed. Leslie Bethell, vol. 6, 391–460. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521232265.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lundvall, Bengt-Ake. 1992. National Systems of Innovation: An Analytical Framework. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  67. Lustig, Nora. 1991. From Structuralism to Neostructuralism: The Search for a Heterodox Paradigm. In The Latin American Development Debate: Neostructuralism, Neomonetarism, and Adjustment Processes, ed. Patricio Meller. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  68. Marinho, Luiz Cláudio. 1981. The Transnational Corporations and Latin America’s Present Form of Economic Growth. CEPAL Review 14: 9–34. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/12292.Google Scholar
  69. Marini, Ruy Mauro. 1977. La Acumulación Capitalista Mundial y el Subimperialismo. Cuadernos Políticos 12. Ediciones Era: 21–39.Google Scholar
  70. Millet, Damien, and Eric Toussaint. 2003. The Debt Scam: IMF, World Bank, and Third World Debt. Mumbai: VAK Publication.Google Scholar
  71. Nelson, R., and G. Winter. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1978a. Reflections on the Patterns of Change in the Bureaucratic-Authoritarian State. Latin American Research Review 13 (1). Latin American Studies Association: 3–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2502640.
  73. ———. 1978b. State and Alliances in Argentina, 1956–1976. The Journal of Development Studies 15 (1). Taylor & Francis Group: 3–33.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220387808421699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Padilla Pérez, Ramón. 2014. Fortalecimiento de las Cadenas de Valor como Instrumento de la Política Industrial: Metodología y Experiencia de la CEPAL en Centroamérica. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas.Google Scholar
  75. Palley, Thomas. 2013. Financialization: The Economics of Finance Capital Domination. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  76. Palma, José Gabriel. 1978. Dependency: A Formal Theory of Underdevelopment or a Methodology for the Analysis of Concrete Situations of Underdevelopment? World Development 6 (7–8). Elsevier: 881–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pérez Caldentey, Esteban. 2016. A Time to Reflect on Opportunities for Debate and Dialogue Between (Neo)Structuralism and Heterodox Schools of Thought. In Neostructuralism and Heterodox Thinking in Latin America and the Caribbean in the Early Twenty-First Century, ed. Alicia Bárcena and Antonio Prado, 31–84. Santiago de Chile: United Nations.Google Scholar
  78. Pinto, Aníbal. 1970. Naturaleza e Implicaciones de la ‘Heterogeneidad Estructural’ de la América Latina. El Trimestre Económico 37 (145(1)). Fondo de Cultura Económica: 83–100. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20856116.
  79. ———. 1978. Estilos de Desarrollo: Conceptos, Opciones, Viabilidad. El Trimestre Económico 45 (179(3)). Fondo de Cultura Económica: 557–610. www.jstor.org/stable/23394727.Google Scholar
  80. Polanyi, Karl. 2001. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  81. Prebisch, Raúl. 1949. El Desarrollo Económico de la América Latina y Algunos de sus Principales Problemas. El Trimestre Económico 16 (63(3)). Fondo de Cultura Económica: 347–431. https://doi.org/10.2307/20855070.
  82. ———. 1952. Problemas Teóricos y Prácticos del Crecimiento Económico [Theoretical and Practical Problems of Economic Growth]. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/13572.
  83. ———. 1962. The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principal Problems. Economic Bulletin for Latin America VII (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
  84. ———. 1963. Towards a Dynamic Development Policy for Latin America. New York: United Nations. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/14892.Google Scholar
  85. ———. 1976. A Critique of Peripheral Capitalism. CEPAL Review 1: 9–76. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/12273.Google Scholar
  86. ———. 1978. Socio-Economic Structure and Crisis of Peripheral Capitalism. CEPAL Review 6: 159–252. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/10450.Google Scholar
  87. ———. 1979. The Neoclassical Theories of Economic Liberalism. CEPAL Review 7: 167–188. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/10451.Google Scholar
  88. ———. 1980. Towards a Theory of Change. CEPAL Review 10: 155–208. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/12263.Google Scholar
  89. ———. 1981. El Capitalismo Periférico: Crisis y Transformación. México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
  90. ———. 1988. Dependence, Interdependence and Development. CEPAL Review 34: 197–205. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/10242.Google Scholar
  91. Rodríguez, Octavio. 1980. La Teoría del Subdesarrollo de la CEPAL: Síntesis y Crítica. Comercio Exterior 30 (12): 1346–1362.Google Scholar
  92. ———. 2006. El Estructuralismo Latinoamericano. Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
  93. Rosales, Osvaldo. 1988. An Assessment of the Structuralist Paradigm in Latin America Development and the Prospects of Its Renovation. CEPAL Review 34: 19–36. https://goo.gl/vmjS7f.Google Scholar
  94. Ross, Robert J.S., and Kent C. Trachte. 1990. Global Capitalism: The New Leviathan. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  95. Schelling, Thomas C. 1978. Micromotives and Macrobehaviors. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  96. Sunkel, Osvaldo. 1971. Capitalismo Transnacional y Desintegración Nacional en la América Latina. El Trimestre Económico 38 (150 (2)). Fondo de Cultura Económica: 571–628.Google Scholar
  97. ———. 1989. Structuralism, Dependency and Institutionalism: An Exploration of Common Ground and Disparities. Journal of Economic Issues 23 (2). Routledge: 519–533.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1989.11504918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Sunkel, Osvaldo, and Gustavo Zuleta. 1990. Neo-Structuralism versus Neo-Liberalism in the 1990s. CEPAL Review 42: 35–51. https://goo.gl/8zdMnk.Google Scholar
  99. Thorp, Rosemary. 1998. Progress, Poverty and Exclusion: An Economic History of Latin America in the 20th Century. IDB.Google Scholar
  100. Toye, John, and Richard Toye. 2004. The UN and Global Political Economy: Trade, Finance, and Development. The UN and Global Political Economy. Indiana University Press. https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=dyz07g-NsCIC.
  101. Varsavsky, Oscar. 1971. Largo Plazo: ¿un Sólo Estilo? El Trimestre Económico 38 (152(4)). Fondo de Cultura Económica: 1011–1040.Google Scholar
  102. Werner, Marion, Jennifer Bair, and Víctor Ramiro Fernández. 2014. Linking Up to Development? Global Value Chains and the Making of a Post-Washington Consensus. Development and Change 45 (6): 1219–1247.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Williamson, John. 1990. What Washington Means by Policy Reform. In Latin American Adjustment: How Much Has Happened? ed. John Williamson. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  104. World Bank. 1997. World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/5980.
  105. ———. 2002. World Development Report 2002: Building Institutions for Markets. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/5984.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of the Humanities and Social Sciences of LitoralNational Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and National University of Litoral (UNL)Santa FeArgentina

Personalised recommendations