Advertisement

The Structuralism of Prebisch and the Integration of Latin America

  • Armando Di Filippo
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines the differences between the Latin American structuralist and neo-structuralist paradigms, based on the different conceptions that each of them formulated regarding the topic of Latin American integration. The examination of these differences allows us to identify the “birth certificate” of neo-structuralism at the beginning of the nineties under specific historical circumstances. The principles of Latin American Neo-Structuralism not only distort but also produce a reductionism of the basic principles of structuralism that were formulated in the late forties and early fifties. On the other hand, the thread of structuralism is taken up again at the beginning of the eighties by Prebisch himself, emphasizing the continuity of structuralist thinking through his last book Peripheral Capitalism: Crisis and Transformation (1981) and providing some clues about the role of regional integration for the twenty-first century.

References

  1. Di Filippo, Armando. 2007. La Escuela Latinoamericana del Desarrollo, Revista Electrónica de Moebio, Número 29. Universidad de Chile.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2013. Poder Capitalismo y Democracia. Santiago de Chile: RIL editores.Google Scholar
  3. Di Filippo, Armando, and Rolando Franco. 2000. Integración regional desarrollo y equidad. Mexico: Siglo XXI editores.Google Scholar
  4. ECLAC. 1998. La Visión Centro Periferia Hoy, Revista de la CEPAL, número extraordinario para el 50 aniversario, páginas 175–186.Google Scholar
  5. Prebisch, Raúl. 1962. The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principal Problems. Economic Bulletin for Latin America VII (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1963. Towards a Dynamic Development Policy for Latin America. New York: United Nations. https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/14892.
  7. ———. 1970. Transformación Y Desarrollo: La Gran Tarea de América Latina. Sección de Obras de Economía. México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 1976. A Critique of Peripheral Capitalism. CEPAL Review (1): 9–76. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/12273.
  9. ———. 1981. El Capitalismo Periférico: Crisis y Transformación. México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
  10. UN ECLAC. 1951. Estudio Económico de América Latina 1949. Naciones Unidas Departamento de Asuntos Económicos E/CN.12/164/Rev.1, página 3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Armando Di Filippo
    • 1
  1. 1.Alberto Hurtado UniversitySantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations