The Multi-Scalar Articulation of Economic Development

  • Carlos Antônio Brandão


This chapter will attempt to introduce the notion of “multi-scalarity” to enrich Latin American Structuralistm (LAS) analysis and, at the same time, show a series of limitations of neo-structuralism in order to explain the key spatial dimensions of the remake and reproduction of the center-periphery structures associated with the contradictory dynamics of capitalism. It intends to propose a more advanced and adherent approach to the reality of the twenty-first century, seeking to grasp the hierarchical, unequal, dynamic, and contradictory development of the capitalist system, its total geo-economic and geopolitical redefinition, and its particular social production of space. Therefore, we will try to demonstrate how the notion of “multi-scalarity” is necessary to enrich structuralist analysis and capture the scalar complexity of contemporary capitalism from the periphery.


  1. Arrighi, G. 1994. The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power and the Origins of Our Times. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  2. Bértola, L., and J. Ocampo. 2012. Learning from Latin America: Debt Crises, Debt Rescues and When and Why They Work. Institute for the Study of the Americas, School of Advances Study (University of London) y Development Bank of Latin America (CAF).Google Scholar
  3. Bielschowsky, R. 1998. Fifty Years of ECLAC Thought: A Review. Reprint in: ECLAC Thinking – Selected Texts (1948–1998). Chile Santiago: United Nations. Web Services Division, 2016, pp. 7–44.Google Scholar
  4. Boyer, Robert. 1990. The Regulation Theory: A Critical Introduction. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boyer, Robert, and Yves Saillard. 2002. Régulation Theory: The State of the Art. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Brandão, C. 2015a. Capitalismo(s) y Región(es) en el singular y en el plural: desafíos para renovar el pensamiento crítico y original latino-americano e intervenir vía planificación regional. CEPAL, Serie Seminarios y Conferencias. Santiago de Chile. Santiago, Cepal/Ilpes.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2015b. Regional Dynamics of South Atlantic Brazilian Capitalism: Theoretical and Methodological Notes. Terceiro Milênio: Revista Crítica de Sociologia e Política. Campos Goyatacazes 4 (1, January/July): 13–30.Google Scholar
  8. Braudel, F. 1979. Civilisation matérielle: economie et capitalisme XVe–XVIIIe Siècle. París: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  9. Brenner, N. 2001. The Limits to Scale?: Methodological Reflection on Scalar Structuration. Progress in Human Geography 25 (4): 591–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cardoso, F.H. 1979. The Originality of the Copy: The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Idea of Development. In Toward a New Strategy for Development: A Rothko Chapel Colloquium, ed. D. Seers et al. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cardoso, F.H., and E. Faletto. 1979. Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. CEPAL. 2012. Cambio estructural para la igualdad: una visión integrada del desarrollo. Santiago de Chile: CEPAL, agosto.Google Scholar
  13. Coraggio, J.L. 1979. Possibilities and Difficulties of Radical Spatial Analysis, Comparative Urbanization Studies. School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  14. Crouch, C. 2005. Capitalist Diversity and Change: Recombinant Governance and Institutional Entrepreneurs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Mattos, C. 1972. Algunas consideraciones sobre la movilidad espacial de recursos en los paises latinoamericanos. EURE Revista De Estudios Urbano Regionales. Santiago Chile 2 (6): 31–42.Google Scholar
  16. ECLAC. 2016. ECLAC Thinking – Selected Texts (1948–1998). Chile Santiago: United Nations. Web Services Division.Google Scholar
  17. Fajnzylber, F. 1983. La industrialización trunca de América Latina. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de América Latina.Google Scholar
  18. Fernández, V.R. 2017. La trilogía del erizo-zorro: redes globales, trayectorias nacionales y dinámicas regionales desde la periferia. Buenos Aires and Santa Fe: Editorial Anthropos and Ediciones de la Universidad Nacional del Litoral.Google Scholar
  19. Filgueiras, Luiz. 2013. A natureza do atual padrão de desenvolvimento brasileiro e o processo de desindustrialização. In Novas interpretações desenvolvimentistas, ed. Inez S.B. Castro. Rio de Janeiro: E-Papers/Centro Celso Furtado.Google Scholar
  20. Fiori, José Luís. 2014. História, estratégia e desenvolvimento: para uma geopolítica do capitalismo. São Paulo: Boitempo.Google Scholar
  21. Furtado, C. 1964. Development and Underdevelopment. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 1967. Intra-Country Discontinuities: Towards a Theory of Spatial Structures. Social Science Information 6: 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gore, C. 1996. Methodological Nationalism and the Misunderstanding of East Asian Industrialization. European Journal of Development Research 8 (1): 77–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hall, P.A., and D. Soskice. 2001. Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harvey, D. 1982. Limits to Capital. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lefebvre, H. 1974. Le production d´espace. Paris: Anthropos.Google Scholar
  28. Leyva, F. 2008. Latin American Neostructuralism. The Contradictions of Post-Neoliberal Development. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  29. Marston, S.A. 2000. The Social Construction of Scale. Progress in Human Geography 24 (2): 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marston, S.A., et al. 2005. Human Geography Without Scale. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. New Series 30 (3): 416–432.Google Scholar
  31. Medeiros, C.A. 2010. Instituições e desenvolvimento econômico: uma nota crítica ao nacionalismo metodológico, Economia e Sociedade, Campinas 19, n. 3 (40): 637–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Palma, G. 1978. Dependency: A Formal Theory of Underdevelopment or a Methodology for Analysis of Concrete Situations of Underdevelopment? World Development 6: 881–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peck, J. 2017. Neoliberalism. In The Wiley-AAG International Encyclopedia of Geography, ed. D. Richardson et al., 1–12. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Pendenza, Massimo. 2016. Intimations of Methodological Nationalism in Classical Sociology. European Journal of Social Theory 19 (4): 468–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pinto, A. 1970a. Nature and Implications of the ‘Structural Heterogeneity’ of Latin America. Reprint in: ECLAC Thinking – Selected Texts (1948–1998). Chile Santiago: United Nations. Web Services Division, 2016.Google Scholar
  36. ———. 1970b. Styles of Development in Latin America. Reprint in: ECLAC Thinking – Selected Texts (1948–1998). Chile Santiago: United Nations. Web Services Division, 2016, pp. 315–340.Google Scholar
  37. Prebisch, R. 1948. The Economic Development of Latin America Economic Survey of Latin America 1948 (E/CN.12/89). Reprint in: ECLAC Thinking – Selected Texts (1948–1998). Chile Santiago: United Nations. Web Services Division, 2016, pp. 45–84.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 1963. Towards a Dynamic Development Policy for Latin America. Reprint in: ECLAC Thinking – Selected Texts (1948–1998). Chile Santiago: United Nations. Web Services Division, 2016, pp. 255–276.Google Scholar
  39. Rodríguez, Octávio. 2009. O estruturalismo latino-americano. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.Google Scholar
  40. Rofman, A.B. 1974. Dependencia, estructura de poder y formación regional en América Latina. Buenos Aires: Siglo Veintiuno.Google Scholar
  41. Sassen, S. 2014. Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, N. 1984. Uneven Development. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. ———. 1992. Geography, Difference and the Politics of Scale. In Postmodernism and the Social Sciences, ed. J. Doherty, E. Graham, and M. Malek, 57–79. New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Swyngedouw, E. 1997. Neither Global nor Local. ‘Glocalization’ and the Politics of Scale. In Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local, ed. K. Cox, 137–166. New York/London: Guilford Press/Longman.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 2004. Globalisation or ‘Glocalisation’?: Networks, Territories and Re-Scaling. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17 (1): 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tavares, M.C. 1981. Problemas de industrialización avanzada en capitalism tardíos y periféricos. Economia de América Latina, n. 6. Mexico: CIDE.Google Scholar
  47. Wallerstein, I. 1974a. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Nueva York y Londres: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  48. ———. 1974b. The Modern World-System. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  49. ———. 1979. The Capitalist World-Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Antônio Brandão
    • 1
  1. 1.Urban and Regional Research and Planning InstituteFederal University of Rio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations