Critica Al Estructuralismo Cepaliano

Toward a Critique of Latin American Neostructuralism
Author(s): Fernando Ignacio Leiva

Source: Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Winter, 2008), pp. 1-25
Published by: Distributed by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Center for
Latin American Studies at the University of Miami
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30130893
Accessed: 01-02-2018 23:02 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press, Center for Latin American Studies at the University of
Miami are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin American
Politics and Society
This content downloaded from 128.119.202.106 on Thu, 01 Feb 2018 23:02:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Toward a Critique of
Latin American Neostructuralism
Fernando Ignacio Leiva
ABSTRACT
This 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
Ralil Prebisch and Celso Furtado; namely, a focus on the distribu-
tion 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 mar-
ginalization 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.
Anew development
makers approach
in Latin America. has gained
Officially ascendancy
launched in 1990 among policy-
with the pub-
lication of Changing Production Patterns with Social Equity by the
United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the
Caribbean (ECLAC), Latin American neostructuralism has gr
replaced neoliberal market fundamentalism as the prevailing ec
development perspective in the region.1
Eighteen years since its 1990 debut and six decades since the
ing of ECLAC, neostructuralism has garnered widespread inte
and political influence, successfully moving from the margins to th
center of economic development policy formulation. Neoliber
failure to deliver high rates of economic growth and its role in
widespread popular discontent and massive mobilizations, alon
electoral victories by center-left coalitions, point to the declin
hegemony of neoliberal economic ideas in the region. The elec
progressive candidates like Ricardo Lagos (2000) and Michelle B
(2006) in Chile, Luiz Inicio Lula da Silva in Brazil (2002), Nistor
ner (2003) and Cristina Fernindez de Kirchner (2007) in Argenti
Tabare Visquez in Uruguay (2005) raises hopes that an alter
development path shaped by Latin American neostructuralism
cessfully deal with the unresolved socioeconomic problems faced
c 2008 University of Miami
2 LATIN AMERICAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY 50: 4
majority of almost six hundred million Lati

Street Journal article acknowledged, a "new
dedicated to combining "the left's traditiona
with a newfound appreciation for cold eco
pies key economic posts in Latin America (
such shifts have been seen either as a welcom
to globalization (Korzeniewicz and Smith 20
atic "revival of structuralism" among econom
Whether one agrees with such interpret
putable that since 2000, the election of progre
Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Venezu
more recently Guatemala, along with the c
erful social movements, suggests that a hist
and intellectual realignment is under way.
The emergence and rise to predominance
approach to economic development, known a
turalism, is an important factor, though clear
Latin America's "postneoliberal" turn. Yet d
influence, no systematic and comprehensive
postneoliberal development approach is curr
tions posed by Latin American neostructuralism
eralism remain unaddressed: What are the k
of this new development discourse? What sc
Latin American neostructuralism really ena
internal consistency and overall impact of t
neostructuralist framework? How can a critical evaluation of Latin Amer-
ican neostructuralism proceed at a time when it enjoys widespread intel-
lectual and political support and its lines of defense seem impregnable?3
Using Terry Eagleton's apt metaphor, this essay attempts to look behind
neostructuralism's "imposing tapestry" to "expose in all its unglamorously
disheveled tangle the threads constituting the well-heeled image it pres-
ents to the world" (Eagleton 1986, 80).4
THE MANY FACES OF LATIN AMERICAN

NEOSTRUCTURALISM
Latin American neostructuralism is the first fully articulated development
discourse to challenge directly the hegemony of neoliberal ideas. While
calling Latin American neostructuralism a new paradigm might seem to
some an overreach, just calling it a package of economic policies is mis-
leading.5 Even before Anthony Giddens, Britain's New Labor, or Euro-
pean Social Democracy had formulated the Third Way, Latin American
neostructuralists working at ECLAC had laid the intellectual foundations
for contesting neoliberalism's supremacy (Giddens 1998).6 Over the
LEIVA: LATIN AMERICAN NEOSTRUCTURALISM 3
course of its ascent, neostructuralism recast conception

tionship among economy, state, and society; it introdu
opment lexicon that was increasingly embraced by int
opment institutions, such as the World Bank and the
Development Bank; and it advanced a program of action
ing a new relationship among institutional reform, m
cohesion, and globalization in the twenty-first century.
What is Latin American neostructuralism, then? Its disc
derives from being simultaneously an alternative visi
dogmatism, a comprehensive development strategy, an
framework, and a grand narrative about the path toward m
the twenty-first century allegedly offers to Latin Americ
societies. To reduce it to just one of these dimensions is
and underestimate it. Precisely because it is more than
policy approach, Latin American neostructuralism has been
ence policy planners and international development age
fuse the discourse of center-left political coalition
presently governing in Chile, Brazil, and Uruguay.
An Alternative Vision to Neoliberal Market Dogm
Latin American neostructuralism is the first counterdiscourse to confront

neoliberal dogmatism and to surface in the wake of the profound
processes of capitalist restructuring experienced over the past decades.
It is the response by thinkers at ECLAC to the intellectual offensive of
neoliberalism, and to the perceived deficiencies of structuralism and
state-led industrialization development strategy that neoliberalism sup-
ported from the late 1940s to the 1960s. Whereas during the second half
of the 1970s and 1980s, neoliberals insisted that market and price sig-
nals alone remained the fundamental tools for reforming Latin American
economies and achieving international competitiveness, neostructural-
ists countered that though market forces continued to be primary, poli-
tics and government intervention were imperative for constructing the
societywide "systemic competitiveness" necessary to compete success-
fully in world markets (ECLAC 1990). Political and institutional inter-
vention, they argued, were essential for generating the synergy, coordi-
nation, and social harmony indispensable for fluid and speedy
integration into the globalization process.
By replacing the market dogmatism of the 1970s and 1980s with a
more holistic approach that restores the political, institutional, and cultural
dimensions to economic development, Latin American neostructuralism
promises to transform Latin America. To recouple economic growth with
social equity in the new historical context, ECLAC argues, intellectual and
political leadership, not just laissez-faire policies, are needed (see table 1).
Table 1. Structuralism, Neoliberalism

Latin American Neostructuralism
Latin American
Structuralism Neoliberalism Neostructuralism
Paradigm (1950-1970) (1973-present) (1990-present)
Motto Structural change Structural Productive
adjustment transformation with
social equity
Purpose Modernization via Modernization via Modernization via

industrialization privatization internationalization
View of Requires explicit Spontaneous out- Deliberate process

development political will and come of market in which social and
state intervention forces and free political energies are
rationalized operation of prices focused in support
through planning as allocative of export drive and
process mechanism achieving dynamic
entry into world
economic flows
Key agent of State Market Technical change

development resulting from
dynamic insertio
world economy
Obstacles Legacy of historical Mistaken domestic Pattern of external

power relations policies that hobble insertion: uncoor-
and institutions that market allocation: dinated productive
erode efficiency inward-looking apparatus that traps
of price system growth strategies, countries in "low"
International overvalued cur- road (competing via
market that rency, protection- cheap labor and
reproduces center- ist policies; state currency devalua-
periphery role that suffocates tions) rather than
asymmetries private initiative through productivity
increases and
innovation
Role of the Structural reforms Provide minimum Generate social and

state Steer capital conditions for political consensus
accumulation market to function: Increase competi-
Develop key private property; tiveness of exports
industrial sectors enforce contracts; (clusters, public-
Protect economy maintain order, private partnerships)
from external collect data, Facilitate adaptability
fluctuations provide limited and upgrading of
safety net labor force
Produce social
cohesion
Table 1 (continued)
Latin American
Structuralism Neoliberalism Neostructuralism
Paradigm (1950-1970) (1973-present) (1990-present)
Social conflict State absorbs Repression to dis- Channel/subordinate
pressure from con- articulate collective social conflict to
flicting social social actors "common goal" of
groups politically to "Trickle down" competitive insertion
regulate economic effect in world economy
variables Targeted subsidies Tap social capital
Link civil society to
export drive
Outcome Economy is Politics is Political and cultural

subordinate to subordinate to space is shaped by
politics economy requirements of
globalization
Source: Adapted from Petras and Leiva 1994.
A Development Strategy Offering Economic Grow

Equity, and Democracy
In contrast to the trauma and suffering brought by laissez

ics and dictatorial rule during the "lost decade" of the 1980
ican neostructuralism hoists the highly seductive notion th
competitiveness, social integration, and political legitimacy
tically be attained by swimming along with, not agains
rents unleashed by globalization. Through a concep
framework wherein economic growth, equity, and dem
reinforce one another, it offers the region a new path thr
remake the countenance of globalization and Latin Ame
economic insertion into it (Ocampo 2000; Ocampo and
Without challenging the power of transnational corporate
relying on a lucid policy and political intervention, n
makes it possible to fashion a new "globalization with a
Neostructuralists argue that if Latin America and th
to travel down this more desirable path toward globali
vision of economic development is required; governmen
and political systems must prepare themselves to play a qu
ferent leadership role in ensuring international comp
ductive development policies, in addition to social pacts
tiatives to sustain social cohesion, must become part o
menu of development policies. Through this more hol
individual export enterprises, as well as entire economie
formed into radiating hubs propagating globa

nological, and social benefits. Chile since 1990
site, testing ground, and, arguably, showcase f
development approach.
An Integrated Policy Framework That Sup

a "Post-Washington Consensus"
Latin American neostructuralism has also been

nomic measures that will help remedy the cri
alism through policies that "will prove viable
nomically but also promote democratic reg
justice" (Meller 1991, 1). Neostructuralism's main
a different set of economic policies, more attenti
ical, and cultural factors too long excluded by fre
countries can attain the high road to globalizat
This requires a shift toward exports with hi
international competitiveness based on increase
vation. If Latin America is to gain the econom
benefits offered by globalization, it must abando
file, based mainly on the export of natural res
processing and produced by low-wage workers.
rent, unfavorable low road to the promising h
requires exporting ketchup instead of tomato
assemble furniture rather than sawn wood; f
instead of fresh fish and produce.
Instead of radical reforms, Latin America's
poverty, inequality, and disappointing economi
fore be better addressed by ensuring a more d
markets. On the basis of "reforming the refor
design, international competitiveness, econom
political <democracy, and legitimacy can be ma
one another in an ever-expanding virtuous cir
Latin American neostructuralism therefore
awareness that if market forces are to operate
be complemented by non-market-based form
nomic policies must be conceived with an eye
tions, culture, and social capital play in econo
nomic growth, social equity, democratic gover
consequently require a much expanded policy
main characteristic of the neostructuralist policy
active promotion of new forms of social coor
offered by market forces alone. Neostructura
the importance of institutional intervention,
trust-based networking to overcome market imp

information, and transaction costs, and most i
of international competitiveness.
In terms of economic policies, neostructurali
active export promotion policies, exports wou
a few firms and a few products vulnerable to
tional demand, trapping a country's exports in
als with low levels of processing. Among poli
area, neostructuralists call for supporting tech
partial subsidies and the promotion of strateg
and transnational firms, along with programs aim
force and improving its skills through firm-s
(ECLAC 1994). Such a framework represents a sig
neoliberalism's market-reductionist, laissez-fai
A Narrative About "Progressive Modernit

the Twenty-first Century
It is, however, as a grand narrative about how

elusive goal of modernity that Latin American
its greatest discursive potency and enacts its mos
tices. Latin American neostructuralists and ECLAC have constructed a
discourse and operational guidelines aimed at promoting modernization
(the means) to achieve modernity (the goal) at a time when other paths
those offered by socialist revolution in the 1960s and neoliberalism in
the 1980s, have shown themselves to be seriously flawed, particularly in
light of the technological and cultural transformations and challenges
brought about by globalizing capital.
The thrust of neostructuralism's discourse and policy efforts is to
midwife the region's transition to a "progressive modernity," one in
which "macroeconomic equilibrium, and productive modernization
coincide also with macrosocial and macroenvironmental equilibria"
(Rosales 1995, 99). To achieve it, one needs to understand that
A solidarity-based modernization will be possible only insofar as it

emanates from solid social accords, supported by institutions that
promote informed debate among those social actors who are most
representative and have a greater technical component in their pro-
posals, engaged not only in the diagnosis, but also in the solution,
with a culture of shared compromises and of negotiated solution to
conflicts." (Rosales 1995, 98-99)
ECLAC argues that such a progressive or solidarity-based modernity

requires a new pragmatism that places social cohesion at the essential core
of international competitiveness, and ergo, as the beacon guiding the
design of social policy (ECLAC 2007). Instea

property rights or redistributing the economi
places the center of gravity in policy interven
realm of subjectivity, symbolic politics, and
actions of the state and political institution
type of expectations, new citizens, and ways o
congruent with this new master narrative. Pol
placed to operate at the symbolic, socioemo
to produce identities, behaviors, and modes of
region's transnationalized, export-oriented reg
THE PASSAGE FROM STRUCTURALIS

To NEOSTRUCTURAISM
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, in the face of the neoliberal onslaught,
ECLAC policymakers were on the defensive, unable to articulate a
coherent counterproposal as neoliberal policies supported by the World
Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the repressive power of
much of Latin America's military imposed far-reaching programs of
structural reform inspired by neoliberalism. As Gert Rosenthal, then
secretary-general of ECLAC, recalls, "the institution was frankly on the
defensive, both in terms of the collective imaginary as well as in the
academic world" (Rosenthal 2000, 74).
Caught between neoliberal orthodoxy and the exhausted import
substitution industrialization pattern of accumulation, the ECLAC lead-
ership confronted the daunting task of providing the answer to a key
question: what development paradigm could be offered to the region?
Facing increasing pressure, ECLAC found itself intellectually disoriented
and theoretically unarmed to respond to the new challenges and the
new conditions. Rosenthal describes the intellectual climate among the
staff he directed: "Some staff members leaned toward defending the
cepalino message of yore, while others were finding some merits to the
theoretical winds that were starting to blow, especially in the Southern
Cone" (Rosenthal 2000, 74). Buffeted by these crosswinds, ECLAC found
itself without a theoretical rudder for a good part of the 1980s. "For
many years, there was no synthesis of the internal debate into a reno-
vated and coherent message, but it led to different proposals that
offered ambiguous and even contradictory signals regarding the institu-
tional stance" (Rosenthal 2000, 75).
It was not until ECLAC stole neoliberalism's thunder, thanks to the
intellectual leadership of Fernando Fajnzylber in the 1990 publication,
that the defensiveness, perplexity, and internal disarray could be over-
come. During its subsequent upward trajectory, Latin American
neostructuralism challenged neoliberal market-reductionist thinking;
reconceptualized the relationship between economy, sta

and introduced a new development discourse that, ove
years, would be increasingly embraced by government
tional development institutions.
In its metamorphosis from structuralist to neostruct
however, ECLAC jettisoned the "core-periphery" par
despite its shortcomings (emphasis on circulation and
tions of production), had the merit of conceptualizing t
of development and underdevelopment is a single pr
center and periphery are closely interrelated, forming par
economy" (Kay 1989, 26).
Thus, although it is a step forward in relation to dog
alism, Latin American neostructuralism represents a signif
cal and political retreat in comparison to the best trad
American critical thinking (see table 1).
SEVEN CRITICAL PROPOSITIONS ON
LATIN AMERICAN NEOSTRUCTTURALISM
Since its 1990 debut, Latin American neostructuralism has gained intel
lectual and political influence in the region at an impressive speed.7 It
discursive innovations, its ability to nourish the political discourse o
center-left electoral coalitions intent on channeling rising popular dis
content with neoliberal dogmatism, and the absence of fully formed,
more radical alternatives have shielded Latin American neostructuralism
from a critical evaluation. Such a critique is long overdue. It can provide
greater insight into the nature of the emerging economic development
approach, the current narrative about globalization and Latin America's
path to modernity, and the progressive project for recasting the rela-
tionship between the state, society, and subjectivity.
A comprehensive assessment of Latin American neostructuralism is
undoubtedly a vast and multidimensional endeavor. As a contribution to
a necessary debate, this essay presents the following insights in the form
of theses on Latin American neostructuralism.
Proposition 1. Latin American neostructuralism differentiates itself

from neoliberalism through five foundational core ideas that operate as
foundational myths.
Latin American neostructuralism makes five central assertions about
the prospects of Latin American countries. These assertions, and the
assumptions behind them, act as the five "foundational myths" that
enable Latin American neostructuralism to differentiate itself from neo-
liberalism and to construct a discourse that has seduced policymakers
and voters. These five "myths" allow neostructuralists to frame the prob-
lem of Latin American development, in the con

alizing processes, fundamentally as one of dec
holistic policies, so that the region may re
dynamic and equitable development. The five
following:
* The prospect of a relatively easy on-ramp

globalization
* The promotion of open regionalism, which
nomic rules of the World Trade Organizatio
aspirations for regional integration
* The possibility of delinking distribution
that "productive transformation with s
achieved within the confines of (and on account of) the current
export-oriented regime of accumulation
* The purported dichotomy between "spurious" (cheap labor-
based) and "genuine" (productivity- and innovation-based) com-
petitiveness at the firm and country level
* The desirability of building a national consensus behind the export
drive and the effectiveness of political interventions and "new
social contracts" in the context of the region's open economies
Each one of these idces-forces starkly highlights major differences

from neoliberalism. Instead of a dismal economic future determined by
an export-oriented economy that competes via superexploited workers
and unprocessed natural resources, neostructuralism raises the prospect
of reversing the deindustrialization of Latin American economies pro-
duced by neoliberal policies by achieving a different export profile, one
based more on manufactures, productivity increases, and technical inno-
vation. Instead of betraying Bolivar's dream and deepening neocolonial
subordination to U.S. geopolitics and U.S.-based transnational capital,
economic globalization, as promoted by the WTO, NAFTA, and the
FTAA, when seen through the lens of open regionalism, is transformed
into an adjutant to the dream of Latin American integration. Instead of
the neoliberal "trickle-down" theory, in which equity and the well-being
of entire generations have to be sacrificed at the altar of market-centric
policies, neostructuralists promise that sensible economic and social
policies can offset the exclusionary and wealth-concentrating dynamics
of markets and export-oriented growth.
Under neoliberalism, participation in global markets became socially
destructive because international competition was achieved through
"spurious" means-lowering of wages, artificial devaluations. Neostruc-
turalists offer an alternative path, one that can engender virtuous circles.
Instead of authoritarian regimes, which imposed the laws of the market
through state terrorism and the threat of imprisonm

propose an alternative form of participatory and
of the economy and the efforts to make a count
Increased public-private sector partnerships, state
and taking advantage of existing social capital are all
dination that increase a society's capacity to innov
the race to achieve international competitiveness.
In sum, each of these five assertions is highly att
political reasons, but because each is presented a
sound economic theory and to a more comprehen
the economy than what prevailed when neolibera
Deeply embedded in each of these five notions
found contradictions, which stem precisely from
and marginalization of power relations from eco
acts of exclusion should be understood not as re
economic analysis" but as stemming from the tra
ment to "social harmony" after the "Greek traged
economist who suffered, in the flesh, the experie
centration camps explains the neostructuralists' min
sensitivity to conflict.
The experience of the Southern Cone countries le

social scientists and political leaders to explain th
democratic systems at least partially in terms of the
tain minimum social agreements and the unleashin
over the appropriation of state surplus. . . . These e
influenced the neostructuralist paradigm, promoting
a modality of consensuses, concerted action and pa
makes it possible either to reduce conflicts, or at l
them to the attainment of a common goal. (Bitar 1
Like the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome, the tr

suffuse the theorizing of neostructuralists, impairin
tion their founding myths. Although in Chile, su
them successfully to negotiate a political transition f
ian regimes, it is not proving as effective in navigat
twenty-first-century capitalist globalization. How
achieved when Latin American states have become even more subordi-
nated to domestic conglomerates and transnational capital than in the
1960s, losing all political and administrative capacity to "discipline cap-
ital"? To what extent does open regionalism legitimate foreign capital
control of assets and WTO rules that gut the possibilities for activist
industrial, trade, and technology policies essential for achieving the high
road? Do a transnationalized economy and a capitalist class constrain
fiscal social policies from counterbalancing the poverty and inequalities
intensified in global economies? Given the nature of the labor process
and large firms' competitive strategies, doe

between "spurious" and "genuine" competiti
and participatory governance become a way
mony instead of popular sovereignty (Schild
2005)? Answering each of these questions re
spective that explicitly incorporates power
social, and political analysis, a step that Latin A
so far has refused to take.
Proposition 2. Latin American neostructuralism's mode of theorizing

marginalizes key power relations from the analysis of the economy and
society.
A critical assessment of the emergent approach must focus not only
on those concepts that differentiate it from its neoliberal predecessor-
systemic competitiveness, open regionalism, technical progress, proac-
tive labor flexibility, virtuous circles--but must also account for Latin
American neostructuralism's own "inconsistency syndromes" (Stallings
and Peres 2000).9 These inconsistencies are rooted in two linked
processes intrinsic to Latin American neostructuralism's formulation.
First, neostructuralist theorizing commits critical acts of omission, mar-
ginalizing key dimensions of social reality from careful analytic consid-
eration.10 In the construction of systemic competitiveness, proactive
labor flexibility, and the high road to globalization-the foundations for
the virtuous circle-neostructuralism excludes critical aspects of Latin
American social reality from theorization.
Specifically, neostructuralism excises fundamental analytical cate-
gories dealing with power and those power relations that constitute the
realm of labor-capital relations, the increasingly transnationalized cir-
cuits of accumulation of capital, and the capital accumulation-social
reproduction nexus. It excludes categories such as class and labor
process from discussions about productivity and technical change. It
ignores the gendered nature of the economy and social reproduction in
countries that have undergone drastic, many times violent, transforma-
tions of social arrangements at the level of the household, workplace,
and community. Latin American neostructuralism fails to delve deeply
into the nature of power relations that characterize the current dynam-
ics of the international political economy, where transnational produc-
tive and finance capital exercise ever-increasing control over the
region's resources, economies, and societies, deepening the asymme-
tries in today's global economy.
Second, neostructuralist theorizing engages in more than just acts of
exclusion; it explicitly characterizes key economic relations as essen-
tially nonantagonistic. More than an "attempt to come to terms with a
new reality" (Kay and Gwynne 2000, 62), neostructuralism radically
breaks with its structuralist intellectual origins by postul

mutually beneficial relationship between global flows,
ented regime of accumulation established by neolibera
of Latin American economies, and equity and social d
Latin American societies.
It is this marginalization of power relations from production, the

sphere of social reproduction, and international economic relations,
along with a utopian, sanitized vision of corporate-led globalization that
emphasizes management over explanation, which lies at the base of
neostructuralist conceptualization. If the intellectual roots of neoliberal-
ism's "practical set of recommendations" can be traced to the economic
liberalism of previous centuries, the forefathers of neostructuralism and
neostructuralist policies are of a much more recent origin: the 1950s and
the work of Rail Prebisch and ECLAC, which came to be known as
structuralism.11 Whereas neoliberals resuscitate their ancestors' concep-
tions, however, neostructuralists forswear the ideas of their progenitors.
Proposition 3. Latin American neostructuralism's capacity for seduc-

tion (its discursive and policy formulation strengths) and its inherent
contradictions (its weakness) have the same root: an analysis of Latin
American economy and society sanitized of conflict and asymmetrical
power relations, an approach that abjures core tenets of critical Latin
American thought.
By accepting the status quo (the export-oriented regime of accu-
mulation) and by rejecting core ideas from its structuralist past-the
main one being that transnational corporations and the internationaliza-
tion of productive structures helped to reproduce Latin America's under-
development-neostructuralism proceeds to hyperbolize the purported
harmonious nature of Latin America's actually existing capitalism.12 Both
neoliberalism and neostructuralism have sought thoroughly to reshape
the region's economic and social structures, at the same time that they
have actively marginalized key dimensions of economic and social life
from theorizing and policy formulation. Deeply embedded in neostruc-
turalist conceptualization and practice, such a contradiction offers a
crevice through which both its strengths and weaknesses can be decon-
structed. Raul Prebisch, the intellectual father of structuralism, in his
mature years pointed out,
the root cause of the incapacity of neoclassical thinking to interpret

peripheral capitalism lies above all in its failure to take into con-
sideration the economic surplus, which is the hub of this system's
basic characteristics. It disregards the structural heterogeneity which
makes possible the existence of a surplus; it bypasses the structure
and dynamics of power which explain how the surplus is appro-
priated and shared out; it shuts its eyes to the monetary mechanism
of production which allows the surplus to be retained by the upper
strata; and it underestimates the waste involve

which the surplus is currently used." (Prebisch 1
by Kay 1989, 214)
By placing international competitiveness as t

economics and politics, Latin American neostru
take account of economic surplus but also tend
ing set of power relations that are embedded
bution, and consumption.
Instead of being the root and propagating m
backwardness, internationalization of productiv
tures is now welcomed as the only route to mo
ital and multinational corporations, previously
for deepening technological underdevelopment
pensable promoters of productive modernizat
innovation.13
Therefore, neostructuralists do not disagree
"outward-oriented" development strategy defe
opponents, but criticize neoliberals' tendency
output success to a fairly narrow set of policy in
ulated in a tightly defined way. Their analysis tak
else" (Colclough 1991, 11). In the words of S
"emphasize fiscal, monetary, tariff, and tax instr
tural, institutional and politicalfactors"' (Bitar
Proposition 4. Despite its claim of deploying a m

ological approach than that of neoliberalism, L
turalism remains incapable of fully understandin
mations Latin American capitalism has experien
Its omission of power and power relations
sis-and its tendency to mollify conflicts-r
neostructuralism incapable of adequately expla
ization and financialization of the region's eco
informalization of labor-capital relations. Mor
increasing transnationalization of capital, s
reproduction practices, neostructuralism tends
situation and to emphasize short-term policies
explanations that attempt to reveal the deep stru
economies (Osorio 2002; Robinson 2003, 2004).
ises of virtuous circles and productive transform
grounded more in ideological motives than in o
ics in the political economy, dull neostructura
This impairment is especially evident when i
explaining different phenomena, such as the c
of the social and technical basis of production

rising transnationalization of Latin American capit
tion of the economy, the increasing informalizatio
tions and precariousness of employment that a
of globally integrated systems of production, a
tion of the capitalist class, capitalist productive
ments for the social reproduction of the popul
understudied trends undermines the possibilities o
mation with social equity as originally conceive
they seriously undermine and condition the ch
cies to produce social cohesion and effective, n
accords negotiated among elites.
Each one of these processes is qualitatively ch
and social structure and dynamics of the region, y
the scope of neostructuralist concerns. Althoug
tangentially reflected in ECLAC studies, the ne
has so far failed to place these processes at the
less to explain how each of these three qualita
transnationalization, precarization, and financi
linked to one another, and how they all increasing
sibility of achieving economic development an
region. The weight of these ignored dynamics a
sistency of the key claims of neostructuralism
achieving the high road to globalization under
and in the current constellation of power.
To reverse such a situation would mean retu
spirit and not the specifics of the discarded c
digm; namely, the notion that Latin Americ
intelligible only when it is inscribed within t
world capitalist system as a whole. In other wo
ups and downs of the external sector of a par
country where fruitful explanations are to be
understanding the development of capitalism
cidating how this process shapes the productio
distribution of economic surplus in Latin Ame
torical moment, where the key insights about
opment are to be found.
Proposition 5. Latin American neostructuralis

to neoliberalism; instead, it completes the historic
liberalism, the consolidation and legitimation of
regime of accumulation.
Neoliberalism and neostructuralism are not w
nomic models or economic development strateg
ferences, they have played complementary r

process of capitalist restructuring in the reg
of comparative advantage and zealously d
neoliberals helped to topple and destroy t
mechanisms that, under ISI, provided i
important levels of autonomy from the iron
turalists, on the other hand, wield the con
ness. They emphasize social harmony and p
erate consensus, participatory governance
of coordination, and to constitute individuali
ities. They contribute later on to the conso
the establishment of an appropriate mode
tecting individuals, communities, and firms
turalists deploy a vast palette of policies
those people to the laws of an increasingly
and transnationalized system of capital v
neostructuralists can be seen as a tag team
they deploy policies that radically transform
lation of forces in society, making it possi
from ISI to an export-oriented (EO) regim
By situating Latin American neostructural
context in the process of capitalist restructu
regime of accumulation to another, an
neostructuralism has had on existing socia
that it is not a genuine alternative to neo
does not "cave in" to neoliberalism, but n
sharp rupture with the existing economic
lation; nor does it radically redefine its inter
theoretical and policy innovations, it con
legitimating the export-oriented regime o
experiences of Chile and Brazil demonstrat
be supported by a wide array of social ac
marginalized from shaping public policies
ment of the state apparatus to a new set o
cies that draw on the social capital and so
while leaving unquestioned the main cons
the bloc in power, Latin American neostru
solidating and legitimating the new regim
Thanks to its political imaginary and
neostructuralism is better equipped to con
of institutions, behaviors, and expectations t
mulation demands. Therefore it can be sit
more than strictly that of economics, where
izations currently seem to be having their
political realm that we find the most politically and i

of Latin American neostructuralism's core foundation
that concerted action, effective leadership, and prom
tory governance can best ensure society's adaptabilit
ments of international competitiveness, while at the
ing equity and social cohesion.
It is here that neostructuralism fully assumes its role
grand narrative for Latin America's path toward modern
first century. This grand vision promotes the active tho
cumscribed agency of a broad spectrum of social actors,
managers, capitalist exporters, and unionized workers to
cal parties, nongovernmental organizations, and comm
turalism sees participation and concerted action as t
means of marshaling the forces of cooperation in a socie
raging fires of competition, constantly fanned by global
provided by a restructured state and supported by the co
a political system, is essential for orchestrating and g
transformations required; such state intervention constit
guaranteeing that the virtuous circle of internationa
social cohesion, and political stability can take root and p
To achieve these goals, public policies formulated b
can neostructuralism include the promotion of diffe
consensus building, participatory governance, public-p
nerships, taking advantage of and nurturing social c
structing new forms of citizenship that rely on s
alliances. Although these policies are not uniquely EC
merit of Latin American neostructuralism lies in using t
a seemingly coherent framework for strengthening the
ological role of the state and for establishing aciton-o
through which politically to direct the state's contrib
term stabilization of the export-oriented regime of ac
History has had a way of ironically twisting the pr
economic development paradigms that have preva
over the past three decades. In this sense, neoliberalis
"orthodox paradox"; namely, that "economic policy r
expanding the role of markets appear to strengthen the
of the state, the executive branch, and to enhance it
economic policy variables which affect the outcome
activity" (Bates and Krueger 1993, 463, emphasis add
can neostructuralism, in turn, gives rise to what may
erodox paradox; namely, that economic and social
expanding the role of participatory governance and c
in reinforcing the subordination of the public sphere
nomic realm to the logic of transnational capital.14 T
weakening of popular sovereignty and cit

of transnational capitalist hegemony.
Proposition 6. Latin American neostruct

as fixed or unchanging but instead as bei
given that it must constantly strive to ne
between its rhetoric and socioeconomic re
Just like many perishable commodities s
ble "sell by" date, economic discourses als
life," a span of time after which their ab
decline. Alas, unlike yogurt or sour cream
come to us with a previously embossed ex
ice regulatory agency performs such a ben
economic discourses is the outcome of a co
tors, not the least of which is each disco
own internal inconsistencies and adapt to
American neostructuralism has deployed m
own shelf life since its 1990 debut. It has evolved as it confronts the
recalcitrant realities of Latin American capitalism.
Although its headquarters are in Santiago, ECLAC has offices
throughout Latin America and the Caribbean and employs scores of
economists and social scientists, who regularly produce an impressive
amount of research and data on the economy and societies of the
region. Like any large bureaucracy and international organization, it has
its internal currents and cliques, and its discourse is highly sensitive to
political pressures and realities. All of this further underlines the neces-
sity of understanding Latin American neostructuralism as being in a con-
stant state of change and adaptation. Divergent voices continue to
speak, and new research problematizing Latin American neostructural-
ism's initial assumptions and different aspects of its foundational myths
is constantly being produced (see, e.g., Bouzas 2005).
Instead of moving in a more status quo-transforming direction,
however, Latin American neostructuralism's official discourse is moving
backward. With the publication of ECLAC's Productive Development in
Open Economies in 2004, Latin American neostructuralism attempted to
plug the gaping holes in its analytical apparatus. It finally discarded the
exuberant optimism supporting "productive transformation with social
equity" that had prevailed during much of the 1990s. This shift took the
form of dusting off and updating the old structuralist notion of structural
heterogeneity through a new characterization of Latin America as a
"three-speed" economy.
This three-speed model sought better to capture the diversity of
Latin America's productive structure. Using a classification based on the
size and legal status of enterprises, it identified three sectors: informal
enterprises, which, "because of their structure and capaci

productivity and operate in an environment that offers t
tunity for development and learning" (ECLAC 2004, 2
and medium-sized enterprises, which face difficu
resources (particularly financial) and gaining access to
and large national and foreign enterprises, with "product
rivals businesses operating on the global scale, but with
rest of the economy, and in some cases, with poor cap
tion" (ECLAC 2004, 21). Besides sharing a common spa
the nation-state, nothing structurally or dynamically con
sectors-not the underlying process of capitalist accum
unfolding on a world scale. All pretense of situating the e
ture, and reproduction of these three sectors as rooted
ing logic of capitalist accumulation on a world scale ha
After 2004, neostructuralists further acknowledge
would not easily flow from productivity-led export gr
izing processes, as originally thought. A more focused
ated policies was necessary as neostructuralism shifted
"society-creating" and social cohesion-enhancing policy
In "Elusive Equity in Latin American Development
Vision, A Multidimensional Approach," a documen
sented to the Fourth Meeting of Former Presidents of
June 2005, Jose Luis Machinea, the current execut
ECLAC, and Martin Hopenhayn, from ECLAC's Social D
the "strategic lines of action for a pro-equity ag
according to ECLAC's new three-speed model. This
interest because the authors identify those specific ke
effects can be more encompassing over society,
toward the productive sector, employment, education
transfers" (Machinea and Hopenhayn 2005, 35). The r
for persistent inequality is the refurbished notion of s
geneity, which tended to intensify during the 1990s
transnationalization per se, but as a result of "segmen
alization," defined as the "segmented incorporation o
sector into the information and knowledge economy
Hopenhayn 2005, 8). In other words, unequal and diffe
opment is the product not of capitalist globalization b
capitalist globalization.
ECLAC's 2007 publication Social Cohesion: Inclusion
Belonging in Latin America and the Caribbean, prepare
ber 2007 Ibero-American Summit of Heads of State a
illustrates the current directions of Latin American neost
ing (Ottone and Sojo 2007). This document seeks to re
politics, and culture by showing that "in terms of econ
societies with higher levels of social cohesion pr

framework for economic growth that constitut
investment by offering an environment of
(ECLAC 2007). From an analytical point of
reveals that Prebisch's key question-how the
captured, distributed, and used by enterpris
conglomerates, transnational corporations,
"high speed" sector-has not even been imag
possible component of ECLAC's "forward-look
Proposition 7. The only effective antidote

disenchantment, and crisis accompanying Lat
ism is a revitalization of a theoretically self-c
cal economy.
As the neostructuralist paradigm gains predominance and the
center-left gains electoral support, strong incentives come into play to
foster and prolong a climate of intellectual complacency and pragma-
tism. In the aftermath of the massive poverty and persistent inequality
left by neoliberal policies, the promises of Latin American neostruc-
turalism, its broader perspective and intellectual sophistication, make it
sound soothingly seductive; it is able to tap into broadly based unreal-
ized expectations and desires for inclusion and change. On an individ-
ual level, intellectuals and economists who have been marginalized for
decades have seen in Latin American neostructuralism the possibility of
leaving behind their condition as outcasts and actually administering
key levers of power. The silver coin demanded is acceptance of the
"existing realities" of the global economy and a commitment to envision
only policies that do not undermine the present structures constituting
the current status quo.
The subordination of intellectual activity and economic analysis to
the parameters permitted by "social consensus," or subordination to a
"common goal," is a recipe for analytical mediocrity and obscurantism.
Such a climate can be altered only by engaging in creative and rigorous
analysis of the region's political economy and increased theoretical self-
awareness about how we construct our meanings; in other words, a
revitalization of critical political economy that does not avoid the analy-
sis of power relations or conflict but that locates these at the center of
analysis is the pressing intellectual challenge of the moment.
CONCLUSIONS
The meteoric rise of Latin American neostructuralism, its expanding

influence in shaping public discourse, its capacity to advance debates
on economic policy and development strategy merit acknowledgment
and careful study. The delay in critically engag

partly based on the misplaced belief that Latin
ism indeed offers an alternative to neoliberalism
power to realize the hope that the dramatic so
of neoliberal policies can be assuaged within the
rent status quo. It is also rooted in the persisten
awareness on the part of economics in general
nomics in particular.
Given the dearth of critical assessments, this
possible approach for exploring the nature of L
turalism, its conceptual and policy innovations,
rently playing in the development of Latin Am
jecting Latin American neostructuralism to a cr
assessment remains a pressing task in the stud
nomic ideas and of development models in L
where. Such an approach seems possible only
policymakers, and particularly economists bec
to how they construct their claims to knowledg
This self-awareness, however, does not seem
essary that in the process they strive to become
economic ideas and theories in the reproductio
the existing constellation of power. Until such
predominant in economics and especially de
neoliberalism, and the allegedly more benev
neostructuralism, will remain instruments at t
social power, despite their repeated claims to objec
and more recently, a promised capacity to deli
immiseration or social dislocation.
NOTES
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful com-
ments and suggestions. The usual disclaimers apply. All translations are mine.
1. Neoliberalism has become an omnipresent term, employed with vastly
different meanings in the literature to denote alternatively a set of economic
ideas, a policy regime, an economic model, and the all-encompassing mode of
experiencing economic, political, and cultural existence under the current era of
globalization. This study uses neoliberalism in a tightly restricted sense of indi-
cating a particular set of economic ideas and policies. It employs the term
transnationalized export-oriented regime of accumulation when referring to the
"new economic model" that replaced import substitution industrialization (ISI)
in most countries of the region. Ergo, declining influence of neoliberal economic
ideas or election of center-leftists does not necessarily mean that the export-ori-
ented regime of accumulation (erroneously called the neoliberal model) that
neoliberals helped implant is being questioned. Clarity on this difference is key
for understanding the historical political-econo

American neostructuralism.
2. The literature on Latin American neostructuralism is woefully outdated.

Most authors (e.g., Meller 1992; Colclough 1991; Sunkel 1993; Green 2003) have
focused on comparing the policy bundles endorsed by each of these two
schools of thought. For the most part, these authors are wholly partial to and
uncritical of the neostructuralist approach, and acknowledge it as an "alterna-
tive" to neoliberalism. More recent works, such as Gwynne and Kay 2004 and
Kirby 2003, offer useful descriptive treatments of Latin American neostructural-
ism but avoid critically probing its origins, conceptual underpinnings, or socie-
tal outcomes.
3. This essay draws on a broader research project. See Leiva 2008.

4. See Leiva 2008 for detail on how the study combines political econ-
omy with elements from literary theory, and specifically the work of Terry
Eagleton (1986, 1991, 1996). The method deployed consists of a series of con-
nected analytical steps, which can be described as identifying its core con-
cepts, historicizing Latin American neostructuralist economic discourse,
revealing acts of omission, studying how economic discourse interacts with
existing power relations, and tracing efforts to prolong the "shelf life" of
neostructuralist concepts.
5. Calling Latin American neostructuralism a paradigm is justified if we
follow Thomas Kuhn's definition. Ben Fine's work (2000) highlights the notion
that a paradigm has three components: an exemplar, a world vision, and a body
of professionals. Even though it is not an academic creation but has emerged as
a collection of policy orientations and proposals to deal with concrete problems,
in my opinion, Latin American neostructuralism meets all of these criteria.
6. Though neostructuralism pioneered the formulation of an alternative
development discourse, it later incorporated many of the Third Way's recom-
mendations on how the role of the state and public policies needed to be recon-
ceptualized and reconfigured.
7. For expository purposes, this essay treats Latin American neostructural-
ism as a monolithic entity. The analysis presented here is based on those writ-
ings that have received ECLAC's institutional nihil obstat or that have been pub-
lished by key staff members. These publications appear in the list of institutional
publications on the ECLAC website. This assumed uniformity, however, is far
from the truth. Latin American neostructuralism has experienced significant
modifications since its launching in 1990, as evidenced in various ECLAC publi-
cations (1992, 1994, 2004) and the impressive amount of research and policy
papers produced. At the same time, a number of ECLAC authors have attempted
to address some of the omitted issues, but have done so mostly indirectly, with-
out challenging neostructuralism's core tenets.
8. Rosales argues that their structuralist past was to blame for the "Greek
tragedy of social change" (Rosales 1991, 5).
9. Stallings and Peres identify three inconsistency syndromes (policies that
operate at cross-purposes) that were embedded in Latin America's neoliberal
reform process. These syndromes revolved around capital account liberalization
and the short- and long-term effects of reversible capital inflows; financial lib-
eralization and monetary policy that resulted in higher interest rates; and reduc-
ing fiscal deficits at the same time that tax reform lowere
lowering tax rates on corporations and individuals.
10. Every discourse inevitably commits certain acts of o
sion in the process of its formulation; what becomes relevant
and determining their impact on the discourse's internal c
important (following Eagleton), the impact that such om
maintenance or challenge of social power and the status qu
11. For an excellent discussion of structuralism, see Kay
12. The rupture with the structuralist past is evident in
Internationalization of productive structures is now welco
seen as helping to reproduce international asymmetries.
multinational corporations are envisioned as a key positive
development. Private capitalists and the market, not the sta
the key actors in development; and distribution is now
autonomous from accumulation. For a discussion of the transition from struc-
turalism to neostructuralism see Petras and Leiva 1994, chap. 4.
13. Other key tenets of structuralism renounced by neostructuralism are
that the logic of distribution is now theorized as independent from the logic of
capitalist accumulation, and that private capitalists and the market, not the state,
are today the key and most efficient actors in economic development. See Leiva
2008, esp. chap. 2.
14. For an analysis of the Chilean case, see Leiva 2005.
REFERENCES
Bates, Robert, and Anne Krueger. 1993. Political and Economic Interactions
in Economic Policy Reform: Evidence from Eight Countries. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Bitar, Sergio. 1988. Neoliberalismo versus neoestructuralismo en America Latina.

Revista de la CEPAL 34 (April).
Bouzas, Roberto. 2005. El nuevo regionalismo y el irea de libre comercio de las
Americas: un enfoque menos indulgente [The New Regionalism and the
Free Trade Area of the Americas: A Less Complacent View]. Revista de la
CEPAL 85 (April): 7-12.
Colclough, Christopher. 1991. Structuralism versus Neoliberalism: An Introduc-
tion. In States and Markets: Neoliberalism and the Development Policy
Debate, ed. Colclough and J. Manor. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Eagleton, Terry. 1986. Against the Grain: Essays 1975-1985. London: Verso.
-. 1991. On Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso.
-. 1996. The Illusions ofPostmodernism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). 1990.
Changing Production Patterns with Social Equity. Santiago: United Nations.
. 1992. Social Equity and Changing Production Patterns: An Integrated
Approach. Santiago: United Nations.
. 1994. Latin America and the Caribbean: Policies to Improve Linkages with
the Global Economy. Santiago: United Nations.
. 2004. Productive Development in Open Economies. Santiago: United
Nations.
-. 2007. Social Cohesion: Inclusion and a Sense

ica and the Caribbean. Press release. Februa
Fine, Ben. 2000. Economic Imperialism and th
as Kuhnian Paradigm Shift? World Developm
Giddens, Anthony. 1998. The Third Way and t
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Greaves, Edward F. 2004. Municipality and Com
ined Civic Communities and Its Impact on th
34, 2: 203-30.
Green, Duncan. 2003. Silent Revolution: The Rise and Fall of Market Economics
in Latin America. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Gwynne, Robert, and Crist6bal Kay. 2004. Latin America Transformed: Global-
ization and Modernity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kay, Crist6bal. 1989. Latin American Theories of Development and Underdevel-
opment. London: Routledge.
Kay, Crist6bal, and Robert Gwynne. 2002. Relevance of Structuralist and Depen-
dency Theories in the Neoliberal Period: A Latin American Perspective. In
Critical Perspectives on Globalization and Neoliberalism in Developing
Countries, ed. Richard L. Harris and Melinda J. Seid. Leiden: Brill Academic.
Kirby, Peadar. 2003. Introduction to Latin America: Twenty-First Century Chal-
lenges. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Korzeniewicz, Roberto P., and William C. Smith. 2000. Poverty, Inequality, and
Growth in Latin America: Searching for the High Road to Globalization.
Latin American Research Review 35, 3: 7-54.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Leiva, Fernando Ignacio. 2005. From Pinochet's State Terrorism to the Politics of
Participation. In Democracy in Chile: The Legacy of September 11, 1973, ed.
Silvia Nagy-Zekmi and Leiva. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press.
2008. Latin American Neostructuralism: The Contradictions of Post-
Neoliberal Development. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Luhnow, David. 2005. Latin America's Left Takes Pragmatic Tack. Wall Street
Journal, March 2: A15.
Machinea, Jose Luis, and Martin Hopenhayn. 2005. La esquiva equidad en el
desarrollo latinoamericano: una visi6n estructural, una aproximaci6n multi-
facetica [Elusive Equity in Latin American Development: A Structural Vision,
A Multidimensional Approach]. Informe y Estudio Especial no. 14. Santiago:
United Nations. June.
Meller, Patricio, ed. 1991. The Latin American Development Debate: Neostruc-
turalism, Neomonetarism, and Adjustment Processes. Boulder: Westview
Press.
Ocampo, Jose A., ed. 2000. Equidad, desarrollo y ciudadania: visi6n global. Vol.
1, Visio6n global; vol. 2, Agenda social; vol. 3, Agenda economica. Santiago/
Bogot.: CEPAL/Alfaomega.
Ocampo Jose A., and Juan Martin, eds. 2002. Globalization and Development.
Santiago: United Nations.
Osorio, Jaime. 2002. Sobre las recetas para salir del subdesarrollo. Polftica y
Cultura 17: 69-98.
Ottone, Ernesto, and Ana Sojo. 2007. Cohesion social:

pertenencia en America Latina y el Caribe [Social C
a Sense of Belonging in Latin America and the Carib
Nations.
Petras, James, and Fernando I. Leiva. 1994. Democracy and Poverty in Chile: Th
Limits to Electoral Politics. Boulder: Westview Press.
Prebisch, Raiul. 1981. Dialogue on Friedman and Hayek from the Standpoint of
the Periphery. CEPAL Review 15: 153-74.
Robinson, William I. 2003. Transnational Conflicts: Central America, Social
Change, and Globalization. London: Verso.
-. 2004. A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and State in a
Transnational World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rosales, Osvaldo. 1991. Posibilidades y desafios de una estrategia de desarrollo
alternativo [Possibilities and Challenges for an Alternative Development
Strategy]. In Chile: problemas yperspectivas del actual modelo de desarrollo,
vol. 2. Santiago: Sociedad Chilena de Economia Poliitica.
-. 1995. Hacia una modernizaci6n solidaria: el debate entre progresismo y
neoliberalismo. Debates y Propuestas: Revista del Instituto Fernando
Otorgues 3: 98-126.
Rosenthal, Gert. 2000. Los afios ochenta y noventa. In La CEPAL en sus 50 anos:
notas de un seminario conmemorativo. Santiago: United Nations. 73-80.
Schild, Ver6nica. 2000. Neoliberalism's New Gendered Market Citizens: The
"Civilizing" Dimensions of Social Programmes in Chile. Citizenship Studies
4, 3: 275-305.
Stallings, Barbara, and Wilson Peres. 2000. Growth, Employment, and Equity.:
The Impact of the Economic Reforms in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution/ECLAC.
Sunkel, Osvaldo, ed.. 1993. Development from Within: Toward a Neostructural-
ist Approach in Latin America. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Weyland, Kurt. 2007. The Political Economy of Market Reform and a Revival of
Structuralism. Latin American Research Review 42, 3: 235-50.

Critica Al Estructuralismo Cepaliano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critica Al Estructuralismo Cepaliano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Toward a Critique of Latin American Neostructuralism

Author(s): Fernando Ignacio Leiva

Fernando Ignacio Leiva

This article offers a critical assessment of the first postneoliberalism

c 2008 University of Miami

majority of almost six hundred million Lati

THE MANY FACES OF LATIN AMERICAN

course of its ascent, neostructuralism recast conception

An Alternative Vision to Neoliberal Market Dogm

Latin American neostructuralism is the first counterdiscourse to confront

Table 1. Structuralism, Neoliberalism

Purpose Modernization via Modernization via Modernization via

View of Requires explicit Spontaneous out- Deliberate process

Key agent of State Market Technical change

Obstacles Legacy of historical Mistaken domestic Pattern of external

Role of the Structural reforms Provide minimum Generate social and

Outcome Economy is Politics is Political and cultural

Source: Adapted from Petras and Leiva 1994.

A Development Strategy Offering Economic Grow

In contrast to the trauma and suffering brought by laissez

formed into radiating hubs propagating globa

An Integrated Policy Framework That Sup

Latin American neostructuralism has also been

trust-based networking to overcome market imp

A Narrative About "Progressive Modernit

It is, however, as a grand narrative about how

A solidarity-based modernization will be possible only insofar as it

ECLAC argues that such a progressive or solidarity-based modernity

design of social policy (ECLAC 2007). Instea

THE PASSAGE FROM STRUCTURALIS

reconceptualized the relationship between economy, sta

SEVEN CRITICAL PROPOSITIONS ON

LATIN AMERICAN NEOSTRUCTTURALISM

Proposition 1. Latin American neostructuralism differentiates itself

lem of Latin American development, in the con

* The prospect of a relatively easy on-ramp

Each one of these idces-forces starkly highlights major differences

through state terrorism and the threat of imprisonm

The experience of the Southern Cone countries le

Like the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome, the tr

and large firms' competitive strategies, doe

Proposition 2. Latin American neostructuralism's mode of theorizing

breaks with its structuralist intellectual origins by postul

It is this marginalization of power relations from production, the

Proposition 3. Latin American neostructuralism's capacity for seduc-

the root cause of the incapacity of neoclassical thinking to interpret

strata; and it underestimates the waste involve

By placing international competitiveness as t

Proposition 4. Despite its claim of deploying a m

of the social and technical basis of production

Proposition 5. Latin American neostructuralis

ferences, they have played complementary r

political realm that we find the most politically and i

weakening of popular sovereignty and cit

Proposition 6. Latin American neostruct

enterprises, which, "because of their structure and capaci

societies with higher levels of social cohesion pr

Proposition 7. The only effective antidote

The meteoric rise of Latin American neostructuralism, its expanding

and careful study. The delay in critically engag

for understanding the historical political-econo

2. The literature on Latin American neostructuralism is woefully outdated.

3. This essay draws on a broader research project. See Leiva 2008.

Bitar, Sergio. 1988. Neoliberalismo versus neoestructuralismo en America Latina.