Latin American Neostructuralism and Its Differentiation from Latin American Structuralism

1. Introduction

Latin American neostructuralism emerged by 1990 within the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). From ECLAC’s point of view, it represented a renewed approach aimed at reviewing original Latin American structuralism because of the limitations Latin America faced in developing through industrialization. This approach also sought to update those contributions to the new phase of global capitalism. It was argued that:

In the 1990s, ECLAC updated its thinking to reflect the new reality of open trading arrangements, international capital mobility, privatization, and deregulation, against a backdrop of closer relations with the rest of the world and greater regional integration. It achieved this while conserving the key elements of its original structuralist approach and formulating alternative strategies and policies that were largely at odds with the neoliberal agenda. The expression “neo-structuralism” aptly characterizes this new stage. (Bielschowsky 2009: 172 emphasis added)

Notwithstanding ECLAC’s institutional point of view, this article argues that the emergence of Latin American neostructuralism did not represent an update of the original structuralist approach, but a differentiation from its critical contributions that were widely discussed in the region during 1950–1980, largely within ECLAC, though not exclusively.

In this sense, one of the particularities and part of the originality of Latin American structuralism was its critical approach to capitalism as a global system, which operated based on relations of power and domination in terms of “center-periphery” or “developed-underdeveloped countries” (Furtado 1999: 30). Yet, this perspective lost relevance in the shift from Latin American structuralism to neostructuralism, when ECLAC presented the new approach aimed at reviewing, updating, and adapting its former contributions to the new phase of global capitalism but from a perspective much more conciliatory toward and harmonious with the new reality. In turn, this change in the approach to capitalism was part and parcel of the neoliberal offensive that took place worldwide in general, and in Latin America in particular. So, even when Latin American neostructuralism tried to differentiate itself from neoliberalism, the new approach that emerged within ECLAC was still strongly influenced by the new global hegemony prompted by the center.

To explain this “differentiation” of neostructuralism from structuralism’s former contributions, this article focuses first on the changes in ECLAC’s approach, which de-emphasized the relevance of conflict, power, and domination as key concepts to address capitalism. This meant the displacement of the idea of the center-periphery system that was particular to Latin American structuralism, and its replacement by neostructuralism’s nonconflictual perspective that focuses more on the potential of Latin America for better international insertion.

Second, the article argues that this change in the approach of ECLAC could be better understood when considering two dimensions of analyses related to the neoliberal offensive in the region. On the one hand, the greater influence of theories and approaches generated in the center, which became dominant under globalization and displaced to a large extent critical and original Latin American contributions to development. The greater influence of these perspectives was carried out at the expense of Latin American structuralism’s imperative of avoiding the uncritical importation of concepts and theories generated in the center for the analysis of Latin America’s reality. On the other hand, because of the influence of these new perspectives, and especially in the context of the implementation of structural adjustment plans in Latin America, neostructuralism was characterized by a “depoliticization” of the discussion on development. As a result, previous contributions on the political dimension of development, which highlighted the relations of conflict, power, and domination of peripheral capitalism, lost relevance against the need to develop technologically, improve competitiveness, and achieve a better international insertion in the global economy.

The article concludes that these dimensions of analysis demonstrate the differentiation of Latin American neostructuralism from Latin American structuralism’s traditional and original approach.

2. Changes in the Approach to Capitalism

At its core, Latin American structuralism addressed capitalism as a global system formed by central and peripheral economies (Prebisch 1950; CEPAL 1951). This differentiation relied on the capabilities of the center, which specialized to a great extent in the production of manufactures, to generate and take advantage of technical progress, while peripheral economies, which specialized in the exports of natural resources, remained in a dependent and subordinated position regarding the dynamics of production and commercialization controlled by the center.

Because of the unequal appropriation of the fruits of technical progress and the impact this had on the formation of central and peripheral productive and employment structures, the process of accumulation and distribution was essentially different in central and peripheral economies. Central economies had the saving capacity to promote technical change, increase labor productivity, generate higher per capita income, and greater consumption. Moreover, these countries were in a better position to compete internationally. In the periphery, structural heterogeneity and the deterioration in the terms of trade generated low wages and created a dependent positioning in international trade. At the same time, the institutional characteristics of these economies did not allow them to retain the productivity gains they managed to generate, albeit to a lesser extent than the center.

Latin American structuralism stressed that the center was in a favorable position that subordinated the growth and development possibilities in the periphery. This is because the center-periphery relationship not only involved a gradation in terms of technological-productive development, in which the periphery was less developed, but also a functional and interdependent relationship between the two types of economies. In this sense, each economy played specific roles within the same structure—that is, the world market—which historically had been shaped around unequal relations of power and domination that the former effectively exercised over the latter (Gurrieri 2001).

By adopting a role of specialization in the production and export of natural resources in the international division of labor, the periphery did not have an endogenous force to grow but instead depended on demand from the center. At the same time, the economic dynamics of the peripheral countries were also conditioned by the decisions that the central countries or the main cyclical center implemented to manage the economic processes in their own countries. The measures implemented by the main cyclical center had a very important impact on the growth rate of the rest of the world and on the export possibilities of the different countries, which especially affected Latin American economies because of their high coefficient of foreign trade (Prebisch 1950).

In addition, the center generated the technological transformations indispensable to increase productivity and had the necessary savings to give continuity to this process. Thus, they were in an advantageous position in international trade since the possibilities of peripheral countries to compete in manufacturing production were limited. The periphery, because of its pattern of specialization, not only struggled to generate technical progress, but even a large part of the productivity gains it managed to achieve from imported technologies were transferred to the center through the prices at which they exchanged products.

This is an important point that explains the relations of power and conflict of capitalism. The characteristics of the central productive structures and the logic of their actors, mainly the states, entrepreneurs, and trade unions, entailed power relations of the center over the periphery that were related to the capacity of the former to “resolve” its internal contradictions and displace them toward the latter. In this way, Prebisch’s (1950: 13 emphasis added) cyclical analysis pointed out that, in the center:

During upswing, part of the profits is absorbed by an increase in wages, occasioned by competition between entrepreneurs and by the pressure of trade unions. When profits have to be reduced during the downswing, the part that had been absorbed by wage increases loses its fluidity, at the center, by reason of the well-known resistance to a lowering of wages. The pressure then moves toward the periphery, with greater force than would be the case if, by reason of the limitations of competition, wages, and profits in the center were not rigid. The less that income can contract at the center, the more it must do so at the periphery.

Given the difficulty in reducing the workers’ wages in the center, the pressure is then transferred to the periphery, in particular through the prices at which the central and peripheral countries exchange their export products. This dynamic is explained by what was defined as “deterioration in terms of trade” (Prebisch 1950: 10) and was explicitly denounced as a “form of domination” (Furtado 1999: 30).

The addressing of capitalism as a conflictual system is also observed in the peripheral economies, although with different characteristics from the center. The lack of organization among workers employed in primary production prevents them from obtaining wage increases comparable to those of the industrial countries and from maintaining the meager increases in their remuneration from being lost in times of decline. Moreover, because of structural heterogeneity, the large number of underemployed or unemployed workers acts as a reserve army, which tends to keep wages low. However, productivity gains that are not distributed to workers are not retained by employers either but are transferred to the centers through the prices paid for imported goods. Thus, “the reduction of income—whether profits or wages—is, therefore, less difficult at the periphery” (Prebisch 1950: 13).

Furthermore, in the periphery, the mechanisms of appropriation and distribution of surplus are more concentrated, limited, and exclusive than in the central countries. Additionally, the largely unequal appropriation of surplus in the periphery hinders the accumulation required for its development. This has to do, in turn, with another dimension of power and cultural dependence that exists between central and peripheral countries. The problem is closely related to the consumption patterns of high-income groups, which, by imitating the consumption patterns of the center—what Prebisch later called “imitative capitalism” (Prebisch 1980: 182)—waste the potential savings required for Latin American development. Thus, capital accumulation in the periphery is associated with greater income concentration, sumptuous consumption, and growing technological and cultural dependence (Love 1999).

Overall, this was the analytical basis for the promotion of import-substituting industrialization (ISI). The ISI was a strategy aimed at overcoming structural heterogeneity and achieving greater international autonomy specifically by reducing the dependence of peripheral economies on the economic turbulence and decisions of the center. However, even when ISI strategies were developed in several countries in the region, their results did not lead to Latin America’s development (Hirschman 1968). Latin American export patterns had not changed substantially and—together with the increased presence of foreign capital in the region—placed Latin America in a position of persistent weakness in relation to the power of the center, especially in technological and financial terms.

In this sense, by the 1960s, and especially the 1970s, Latin American structuralism denounced more explicitly the relations of power involved in the center-periphery scheme. In this context, capitalism was beginning a process of important transformation (Harvey 1990), which entailed, among other issues, a greater expansion of transnational corporations in the periphery (Tavares and Belluzo 2004). In this framework, accentuated by the ISI’s own restrictions on development, the center-periphery relationship was quite different from the one identified at the beginning of the 1950s. It was then argued that the greater presence of foreign capital in the periphery acted to the detriment of Latin America’s development. Technological dependence on productive processes generated and controlled by the center was accentuated; financial dependence was worsened; and important decisions for Latin America’s development were progressively being left in the hands of foreign actors (Cardoso and Faletto 1969; Furtado 1971; Pinto 1979; Quijano 1968).

Furthermore, it was also denounced that international regulations were configured around the interests of the center and conditioned the periphery. Latin American structuralism argued that the measures implemented by the central countries and international organizations were not only decided exclusively in relation to their own economic interests but also directly harmed the periphery (Pinto 1976a; Prebisch 1977). This led to direct questioning of the economic measures that the center promoted internationally, but which they themselves did not abide by when these regulations did not correspond to their needs. In this respect, Prebisch went so far as to point out that “the major countries never infringe their economic principles; if they do not like them, they simply change them!” (Prebisch 1978b: 273).

The greater interference of the center in the periphery was also manifested in a context of geopolitical changes and greater political conflict in Latin America (Dosman 2008). This had to do with the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, the failure of the Alliance for Progress, the electoral triumph of Salvador Allende in Chile, and the more determined attitude of the United States to control what was happening in the region. In this framework, the United States intervened actively in the internal politics of various Latin American countries to eradicate any questioning of the North American or capitalist hegemony. Among these actions, the United States financed local political groups and media that criticized leftist or “progressive” movements or governments; and provided political, ideological, operational-technological, and financial support to various coups that took place in the region (Dosman 2008; Paredes 2004). This was particularly evident in Chile, where the United States first tried to prevent the triumph of Salvador Allende and then became directly involved in the 1973 Coup led by Augusto Pinochet (Lowenthal 1976; Paredes 2004).

In this sense, Latin American structuralism denounced that when the internal processes of the region questioned or threatened the ideas and policies promoted by the main cyclical center, the power of the center supported processes of political “deactivation” that were carried out in different ways. On the one hand, through reformist strategies and, on the other hand, more explicitly, through military interventions and authoritarianism (Cardoso and Faletto 1977; Prebisch 1978a, 1980, 1981b).

However, this way of addressing capitalism as a hierarchical system formed by central and peripheral economies, in which the former has the power to impose conditions over the latter, lost relevance in ECLAC’s shift from structuralism to neostructuralism. Neostructuralism offered a new approach to capitalism, which was based on a nonconflictual reading of the challenges for Latin America’s development. In a context marked by important technological transformations, the triumph of capitalism after the end of the Cold War, and globalization, ECLAC’s renewed strategy focused on taking advantage of the new scenario to develop technology and improve the international positioning of Latin American countries in the world economy.

The ideas of “changing productive patterns with social equity” (CEPAL 1990) or “structural change” (CEPAL 2012) presuppose that it is possible to transform Latin American productive structures by developing technology, increasing productivity and competitiveness, and reducing structural heterogeneity as a means of always ensuring macroeconomic stability. This is presented a priori as a shared development project among the different actors. Therefore, neostructuralism calls for collaborative and cooperative practices for technology transfer among public and private actors (such as public entities, research institutes, universities, different sizes and types of companies, and workers), in order to improve productivity and competitiveness, and, hence, to achieve a successful international insertion by finding niches in the market for technology-intensive products. For this purpose, it is necessary to strengthen the “genuine” and “systemic” competitiveness of Latin American economies (CEPAL 1990).

Consequently, the former addressing of capitalism as a hierarchical and unequal system, which operated on the basis of relations of conflict, power, and domination was largely replaced by a new approach that highlights the opportunities for Latin America to develop. As a result, one of the most important concepts of Latin American structuralism, such as the center-periphery scheme, lost analytical and explicative significance both to identify the obstacles to Latin America’s development and to propose strategies to overcome them. For neostructuralism, the obstacles seem to be related to the inability of Latin America to develop technology, from which it would be possible to reduce structural heterogeneity and improve its international insertion. The development strategy then focuses on creating networks and systems of collaboration and cooperation among the different actors to generate, transfer, and share knowledge. Thus, the former reading of capitalism as a conflictive system formed by central and peripheral economies was replaced by an approach that centrally conceives capitalism as a “win-win” system (Leiva 2008: 162).

This does not mean, however, that Latin American neostructuralism has completely dispensed with concepts related to the center-periphery scheme, such as the deterioration in terms of trade, low income-demand elasticity, or even structural heterogeneity. Yet it does mean that their use is no longer part of ECLAC’s original approach that highlighted the relations of conflict, power, and domination from which the specificities of these same concepts were understood (Fernández and Ormaechea 2021).

The new approach does not consider these concepts as a result of the historical dynamics of the expansion of capitalism, which contributed to the formation of central and peripheral economies and heterogeneous socioeconomic structures within the latter. In other words, neostructuralism does not conceive the relations of the power that the center has historically exercised over the periphery, from which forms of unequal exchange are generated and reproduced. In the same vein, when focusing the strategy on forms of cooperation and collaboration to overcome structural heterogeneity, neostructuralism does not problematize the different interests and the conflictual dynamics that foreign and local actors deploy in the periphery, which contribute to aggravating the peripheral condition.

For neostructuralism, the processes of capitalist reconfiguration that followed the 1970 crisis do not represent an instance of reproduction of international asymmetries anymore. It offers, instead, new opportunities for Latin American economies’ development, as long as they are able to take advantage of the benefits of globalization (Leiva 2008). Therefore, it is on the basis of the efforts of Latin American economies to develop their full productive potential that their position in the international scenario could improve, regardless of the geoeconomic and geopolitical factors that have historically influenced Latin American economies and conditioned their development.

This way of understanding capitalism’s functioning leaves aside the recognition of the same problems and restrictions that were identified by original structuralism for Latin America’s development. This refers, for example, to the lack of cooperation of the center in the development of the periphery, or to the re-creation of an international institutional order whose regulations directly affect the periphery. This dimension is particularly evident in the policies promoted after the debt crisis and the structural adjustment programs that were implemented during the neoliberal offensive, a process that was contextual to the emergence of neostructuralism and was strongly criticized by Latin American structuralism (Furtado 1985; Pinto 1988; Tavares 1990).

Moreover, neostructuralism’s call for transnational corporations as central actors in the development of Latin America leaves aside the numerous studies carried out by Latin American structuralism denouncing the dynamics that they tended to deploy in the periphery. These big actors were not oriented toward developing the region in technological and competitive terms but ended up deepening its technological and financial dependence (Cardoso and Faletto 1969; Pinto 1979; Quijano 1968). In Prebisch’s (1978a: 224) words:

The transnational corporations, persistently encouraged by the centers, have been penetrating more and more deeply into the periphery, to the manifest detriment of the autonomy of peripheral development and of its national significance. There are some who opine that this must be accepted, as a means of removing the external obstacles to Latin American development. That objective has not been attained, as already shown; but dependence has increased.

The displacement of the notion of capitalism as a conflictual and power system could also be seen in the way of problematizing the development strategy within developing countries. The notions of “concertation” and “collaboration” that became central in neostructuralism’s discourse presuppose that the interests of the different actors would coincide in a development project aimed at transforming Latin American productive structures, regardless of the historical dynamics of the different actors and social groups. In this way:

[These] Proposals are based on making full use of the market, business initiatives, and international competition. The main role of the state is, consequently, to establish the necessary institutional framework to stimulate the creativity and vitality of productive agents, and to help them develop an ability for long-term cooperation with the state and the workers. (Muñoz Gomá 1993: 283–84)

Thus:

The main problem in this approach does not lie in the conflict between state and market but rather in how to establish a system of cooperation between economic and social agents in order to achieve sustained growth in the system as a whole. (Muñoz Gomá 1993: 284)

Yet Latin American structuralism had highlighted the contradictory dynamics of the different groups and the state and analyzed how the conflict of interests among them limited Latin America’s development, especially because of the contradictions between the need for more accumulation of capital and the claims for further redistribution of surplus. It means that, because of capitalism’s dynamics, the interests of the different actors are not necessarily compatible with a “shared” development project. According to Prebisch (1978a: 160 emphasis added):

In peripheral capitalism the appropriation of the fruits of technical progress is largely the arbitrary result of the play of power relations arising out of the social structure.. . . Income distribution has its own special dynamics, which in the course of development manifest itself through increasingly conflictive phenomena.

In the author’s approach, the analysis of the conflict dynamics of peripheral capitalism is posed in terms of the different strata: upper, intermediate, and lower; and the economic, political, and social power they possess at certain times. In critically analyzing industrialization strategies and the democratization processes, Prebisch pointed out the intensification of the distributive struggle because of the greater contextual power gained by the middle and—to a lesser extent—the lower strata.

The problem was that much of this greater recognition was achieved in a context of relatively lesser power of the upper strata, which allowed the state to make certain concessions to the middle and lower strata. However, this did not imply a significant transformation of the dominant productive and power structures. Indeed, Latin America faced numerous obstacles to dismantling the power of the traditionally dominant actors, whose interests are strongly associated with the peripheral productive structure, and who have even supported authoritarian processes insofar as the redistribution strategies proposed in political terms went beyond what they were willing to tolerate (Medina Echavarría 1976; Prebisch 1980; 1981b; Graciarena 1979). As Prebisch (1981a: 43) pointed out:

The political power of the upper strata, which seemed to be declining with the advance of democracy, eruptes again when the upheavals caused by the inflationary crisis lead to economic disarray and social disintegration. The force is then used to break the trade union and political power of the underprivileged strata.

Therefore, Latin American structuralism conceived capitalism as a system formed by relations of power, conflict, and domination. In terms of the center-periphery relationship, this refers to the capacity of the center to influence the periphery and limit its autonomy. That is to say, the center has the power to condition the periphery’s economic and political dynamics and adjust them to the center’s needs and reproductive requirements, which limits the development possibilities of Latin America (Fernández and Ormaechea 2021). Regarding the dynamics of peripheral capitalism, this implies the recognition of the conflict and contradiction between accumulation requirements and redistribution demands typical of the ISI and the democratization processes. In this framework, the analyses of Latin American structuralism highlighted the economic, social, and political power of the dominant strata to condition development strategies and, ultimately, to deactivate conflicts when they saw their position threatened.

For its part, neostructuralism no longer addresses capitalism as a contradictory and conflictual system of power in which the interests of the different actors confront each other both in center-periphery terms or, within the latter, among the social strata. On the contrary, the renewed proposal focuses on Latin America’s capabilities to transform its productive structure based on the development of technology and the collaboration among the different actors. In this way, the relations of power and conflict between the actors are not problematized in the face of a possible transformation of the productive and power structure, nor in the face of an eventual repositioning of the periphery in the global economy.

As mentioned before, this change in the approach to capitalism is framed in the context of the neoliberal offensive that took place worldwide, and in Latin America in particular. The context of the neoliberal offensive was complicated for Latin American academic and political debate. Neoliberalism not only explicitly questioned and criticized Latin American critical thought, especially the contributions of ECLAC, but also made those ideas responsible for the several crises that took place in the region by the 1980s (Sztulwark 2005). Thus, the need for rethinking ECLAC’s contributions after ISI’s restrictions and capitalist transformations was framed in a defensive context for the institution (Bielschowsky 2016; Rosenthal 2000).

At the same time, neoliberal ideas were increasingly spreading in Latin America, particularly through the programs of structural adjustment that were imposed on the region. The dominant paradigm promoted a “new reality” based on open trading arrangements, international capital mobility, privatization, and deregulation. According to this political project, the economy had to be liberalized and state interference reduced. It was also necessary to strengthen relations with the rest of the world and achieve greater regional integration (Bielschowsky 2009).

As a result, the change in the approach to capitalism that characterized the shift from structuralism to neostructuralism could be better understood by considering two elements associated with the neoliberal offensive, which penetrated ECLAC and eroded two pillars of its originality: on the one hand, the greater contextual influence of theories and approaches to development generated in the center to problematize Latin American development; and on the other, the need to depoliticize the debate on development. Both dimensions are discussed below.

3. The Influence of Contextual Approaches and the “Depoliticization” of Development

Latin American structuralism’s traditional approach to development was conceived as an original contribution of Latin American authors that sought to understand and transform Latin American economies. The start of Prebisch’s preliminary work was that of a critic of the dominant economic theory during the time in the field of international commerce (Prebisch 1950). This was the Ricardian theory of comparative advantages, which highlighted the virtues of international trade based on productive specialization. According to Prebisch, the benefits supposedly derived from this theoretical approach did not reach the “periphery” of the capitalist system. In fact, by specializing in the export of natural resources, Latin America was relegated to a subordinated position and depended on the dynamics of production controlled by the center. In this way, the center-periphery relationship was also reinforced and reproduced by the dominant ideas and theoretical approaches to development, which were generated and exported from the center and imported uncritically by the periphery.

Latin American structuralism argued, then, the need to reconsider the problems and challenges for Latin American development from a Latin American perspective (Furtado 1999). For this purpose, they considered the main approaches to economic development (such as classical theory, Marxism, Keynesianism, institutionalism, and Schumpeterian approaches ¹ ), analyzed their potential and their limitations for Latin America, and took and reformulated some of those contributions to understand Latin America’s historical situation. The focus was put on converting those ideas into a set of policies in order to overcome Latin America’s inequalities and its peripheral positioning in the global economy; a process that was defined by Cardoso as the “originality of the copy” (Cardoso 1977).

Therefore, the idea of development initially discussed within ECLAC was not so different from the one that was promoted by the United States and the center during the postwar. In this context, marked by the emergence of the new development economics and the hegemony of developmentalist ideas (Bértola and Ocampo 2012; Bustelo 1999), much of the discussion on development was aimed at addressing and responding to the needs of countries that were considered relatively more backward (Ikonicoff 1985; Nahón, Rodríguez, and Schorr 2006). Structural change, industrialization, and state intervention were considered the main strategies to improve the life quality of the population (Escobar 1988; Fiori 2018; Forcinito 2020). Yet, the idea of the originality of the copy highlights the merit of Latin American structuralism in adapting these contributions to explain the specificity and reality of Latin America. According to Cardoso (1977: 29):

Indubitably, however, the theoretical arguments put forward and the solutions proposed reveal some capacity for reformulating theses and proposals in relation to a given historical situation. In this sense, it does not seem an exaggeration to say that there is a Latin American school of economic thought.

In this sense, theories and particular historical processes were combined to give specificity to Latin American contributions to development. In addition to the critique of the then dominant theory in the field of international trade, the originality of ECLAC’s contributions centered on its approach to capitalism (in the aforementioned center-periphery scheme), as well as on the idea of transforming Latin America’s reality through economic policy and state intervention (O. Rodríguez 2006).

Moreover, Latin American structuralism highlighted the political nature of development from the very beginning. The idea of development initially entails a notion of social progress (Furtado 2000), which turns away from merely scientific and objective analyses and focuses on a desirable world. Development then refers to the political decision that certain living conditions are preferable to others, and it is therefore necessary to implement strategies to transform the periphery’s dynamics of accumulation and social reproduction. The political character of development supported the intervention of the state to coordinate and orient the transformations required.

For Latin American structuralism, the notion of development entailed economic, social, political, and cultural transformations. Even though the first analyses focused mainly on the economic factors, the authors also highlighted the contradictory dynamics deployed by different social groups—especially high-income groups—that limited Latin America’s development. Furthermore, when the restrictions of the ISI to promote development became evident, Latin American structuralism progressively focused more directly on the political dimension of analysis until it came to be discussed centrally in the notion of “peripheral capitalism” (Prebisch 1978a, 1980) and the debates on the “styles of development” (Wolfe 1976; Pinto 1976b; Graciarena 1976).

In this framework, development was addressed essentially as a political process that demanded discussing what to produce, for whom, and how (Pinto 1976b). It required discussing how the surplus was generated and appropriated, and the relations of conflict, power, and domination around this process, both internally and in the dynamics of international trade. The dominant style of development in Latin America was unequal, concentrated, and exclusive. It was based on the interests of the dominant actors, which reproduced an imitative capitalism, and whose benefits were shared by only a small part of the population. Moreover, the contradictory nature of peripheral capitalism entailed the intensification of conflicts that, taken to the extreme—or to what the dominant groups considered unbearable—were deactivated through the repressive use of state force. Repression allowed the dominant actors to enable once again the pattern of concentrated and exclusive economic and social reproduction based on their interests rather than to solve the structural flaws apparent (Prebisch 1978a; Medina Echavarría 1976; Prebisch 1980, 1981b).

However, as stated above, the renewed approach offered by ECLAC since the 1990s was characterized by both a loss of relevance of the imperative of avoiding uncritical importation of approaches promoted by the center and, related to this, by a “depoliticization” of the development debates. Both processes are related to the neoliberal offensive in the region.

Regarding the first, Latin American structuralism’s imperative of avoiding uncritical importation of theories or approaches generated by the center—an issue on which Prebisch insisted until his last publications (Prebisch 1984) and the need for which continued to be stressed by authors such as Furtado (1985: 64)—lost relevance in the face of the influence of other contextual approaches in neostructuralism’s perspective. This change took place in a context in which neoliberal ideas became dominant to understand the problems and challenges for development in both developed and developing economies.

In fact, ECLAC initially emphasized that neostructuralism emerged as an alternative to the neoliberal hegemony (Bielschowsky 2009; Sunkel and Zuleta 1990; CEPAL 2006; F. Fernández 1994; Bitar 1988; Ramos and Sunkel 1993). It was presented as a short-term approach, which attempted to provide less recessionary and less regressive solutions to inflationary and trade imbalance problems than those offered by neoliberal stabilization and structural adjustment programs (Lustig 1988). However, despite the criticisms, neostructuralism acknowledged some of the contributions and some points in common with neoliberalism. According to Bitar (1988: 48), “a strong similarity” is observed between the positions of the neostructuralists and neoliberals, but “despite the different features and even some partial convergence, fundamental differences still persist between the two approaches.”

When focusing on the similarities, Fajnzylber pointed out that:

There are four apparent similarities between the neoliberal proposal and the ECLAC proposal. The first is the belief that changes in economic management are urgently needed; the second has to do with the importance attributed to our countries’ linkages with the global economy; the third refers to the necessity of altering the role of the State in the new phase of Latin America’s development; and the fourth is that both proposals place importance on maintaining, within certain limits, macroeconomic equilibria. There are similarities, then, in these four areas: urgency, global linkages, a new role for the State and macroeconomic balances. (F. Fernández 1994: 205)

Sunkel (1993: 44) also referred to some points in common between the two proposals, which according to him:

Are unquestionably necessary in any renewed development process: new dynamic forms of export growth; the raising of productivity, efficiency, and competitiveness; the increase in savings and investment; the reduction, rationalization, flexibilization, and greater efficiency of the state apparatus; the achievement and maintenance of a reasonable degree of macroeconomic balances; and expansion in the role of the market and private economic agents.

In addition to these common points, neostructuralism pointed out its differences with neoliberalism. Neostructuralism criticized that neoliberalism is based on theoretical models that do not always correspond to reality; that it attributes great supremacy to the market; that it is based on the model of intersectoral neutrality; and that it has a subsidiary conception of the state (Ffrench-Davis 1988; Sunkel and Zuleta 1990; Ramos and Sunkel 1993; F. Fernández 1994). In response, “Latin American neostructuralists mounted an effective counterattack to neoliberal claims regarding the infallibility of market forces and price signals.” (Leiva 2008: 4) Neostructuralism also “give [s] a more important role to the state in the process of social transformation and [is] eager to involve the disadvantaged social groups to participate in this process, particularly as it has tended to exclude them” (Kay 1998: 17).

However, these differences do not represent a fundamental critique of neoliberalism either in theoretical or political-strategic terms. On the contrary, neostructuralism proposed a conciliatory reading with the dominant paradigm of development, insofar as it points out a relative approximation of the proposals by both perspectives, which is the result of, among other things, “the less ideological and more pragmatic attitudes that are beginning to dominate in these first years after the cold war” (Sunkel and Zuleta 1990: 46).

Consequently, the neostructuralist reading of the early 1990s pointed out:

That, on the basis of pragmatic considerations and the lessons of experience correctly interpreted, our countries are moving towards a compromise between the less extreme neo-liberal positions and the traditional economic conceptions of Latin American development, duly reformulated. (Sunkel and Zuleta 1990: 46)

In addition to the greater influence of the ideas promoted by neoliberalism, Latin American neostructuralism also took contributions from other approaches to development that were mainly generated in the center during that context, such as evolutionary, neo-Schumpeterian, interactional and systemic, institutionalist, and regionalist approaches (Forcinito 2020; Sztulwark 2005; Pérez Caldentey 2016; Grigera 2014; Hounie et al. 1999; Leiva 2008; V. R. Fernández, Amin, and Vigil 2008). Indeed, it was on the basis of these contributions that the main concepts of neostructuralism were built, such as “systemic competitiveness,” “flexible specialization,” “national system of innovation,” “open regionalism,” “governance,” “cooperation,” or the notion of “virtuous circles” or “concertation” between public and private actors (Leiva 2008; V. R. Fernández, Amin, and Vigil 2008). These approaches influenced the (aforementioned) new way of addressing capitalism’s functioning, which moved away from the center-periphery analytical scheme and focused more on the opportunities offered by globalization for the development of Latin America.

In any case, this does not imply, in principle, a critique on the possibilities of ECLAC of dialoguing with contributions generated in other regions, since this was also one of the “original” characteristics “of the copy” (Cardoso 1977). However, the incorporation of these approaches into ECLAC’s contributions was done on the basis of largely uncritical assimilation. Unlike Latin American structuralism, neostructuralism took contributions from several approaches in which theory preceded Latin America’s practice. In general, these approaches do not reflect specifically on Latin America but were created to explain other realities. Moreover, the expansion of these ideas is also related to a process that took place during the 90s, in which theoretical approaches generated in academic centers and research institutes from the United States and Europe were taken up by policymakers in the area of science, technology, and innovation in the periphery; and whose perspectives were promoted especially by the international financial organizations (Bértola and Ocampo 2012). According to Sztulwark (2005: 140):

The less marked presence of idiosyncratic Latin American features in the theorizations of Latin American (neo)structuralism constitutes a loss of originality, in its double meaning: in terms of its origin, insofar as it moves away from the Latin American tradition, and in terms of theoretical innovation, insofar as many of the assumptions developed in socio-historical contexts different from those of the countries of the region and their challenges are taken as valid premises.

All this implies an important difference with respect to the dominant approaches to development under Latin American structuralism and neostructuralism. An essential difference between the old and the new paradigm was the relationship between ideas and practice. In the case of Latin American structuralism and its strategy of industrialization, “the theory developed by ECLAC came at a time when the process was already quite far along. ECLAC’s tenets thus provided an analytical foundation and lent greater rationality and coherence to a practice that had been in place for several decades or, in some cases, even longer” (Bértola and Ocampo 2012: 213). Thus, even when the contributions of Latin American structuralism were influenced by external currents of thought, there was a process of reflection and adaptation of these contributions to the Latin American reality. On the contrary, with the new dominant paradigm associated with market reforms that were imposed on Latin America and influenced the contextual academic production and ECLAC’s publications, “the theory came first in the guise of an intellectual and openly ideological assault which, although it had precedents, truly came into its own in the 1970s” (Bértola and Ocampo 2012: 213).

The most paradigmatic case of this ideological offensive was carried out in Chile by the Chicago School of Economics, which was supported by the 1973 Coup led by Pinochet (Bértola and Ocampo 2012). The “Chicago Boys” severely criticized Latin American critical thinking. From their perspective, the “protectionist fantasies” and “dreams of development” of Latin American economists “were irritating” (Guillén Romo 1994: 116). Therefore, it was necessary to find an “antidote” to the orientation that Prebisch had imposed on ECLAC (Guillén Romo 1994: 118). Chile appeared to be the privileged place to implement this strategy: ECLAC’s headquarters was in Santiago, and Chile had served as a paradigm for Prebisch’s theory. For that purpose, the United States financed the training of economists, especially at the University of Chicago, who later returned to the country and occupied strategic political, academic, and journalistic positions, from where they gradually positioned themselves as an alternative to the ECLAC discourse (Guillén Romo 1994).

In general, the neoliberal strategy, when combined with the authoritarian regimes in the region, resulted not only in a change of the development paradigm but especially in the disarticulation of the sources of conflict within the periphery, which was made possible by a reconfiguration of the balance of forces. ² Prebisch (1981b: 174) denounced this political and academic offensive very clearly when he pointed out that:

This is clearly a phenomenon of deliberate propagation. Visits, interviews, and conferences, ardently supported by a free-spending and well-organized campaign in the mass media.. . . This is a systematic effort to turn back the clock, and it represents a tremendous step backwards intellectually, just at a time when we had managed to move forward, with great difficulty, in interpreting Latin American development.. . . Over thirty years ago, we demonstrated the falseness of that long-past scheme of international division of labor, to which neoclassical theoreticians would now have us return. And in the name of economic freedom, they would justify sacrificing political freedom. Let Milton Friedman understand! Let Friedrich von Hayek also understand!. . . The damage you are doing with your dogma is immeasurable!

Therefore, the fact that the ECLAC had proposed a conciliatory reading with the new dominant approach represents to a large extent a defeat to the warnings of the original structuralists regarding the neoliberal threat (Prebisch 1979, 1976; Tavares 1990; Pinto 1988, 1982, 1978; Graciarena 1978; Furtado 1992, 1985; Prebisch 1981b), as well as of the Latin American contributions that, notwithstanding their eventual limitations, were discussed in the region from a critical and Latin American perspective.

As a result, the incorporation of the new approaches into ECLAC’s perspective was not articulated with former contributions of Latin American structuralism, in the sense of revision, updating, and adaptation of these perspectives to the Latin American reality. Instead, it replaced them. The new contributions that neostructuralism proposed for Latin American development left aside not only the main concepts of Latin American structuralism, like the center-periphery scheme—and all its political, analytical, and propositional implications—but also the notions of conflict, power, and domination that were previously central to the problematization of Latin American development.

In this way, neostructuralism led to a depoliticization of the debate on Latin American development. Under a new context marked by the triumph of neoliberalism and globalization, and the ideas of a free, interconnected, and democratic world (López Nájera 2012), the understanding of capitalism and the challenges for the development of Latin America in center-periphery terms appeared as “obsolete” (Leiva 2008: 29) or “hopelessly old-fashioned—almost an embarrassment” (Dosman 2008: 486). By using a more harmonious perspective with the dominant “unique thought” of the neoliberal hegemony, the notion of center-periphery practically disappeared from ECLAC documents ³ and was replaced by other perspectives focused on collaboration and cooperation for development. According to Sztulwark (2005: 136–37):

The dominant position within the new Latin American structuralism and, in particular, within ECLAC, is less radical than in the past, inasmuch as its position, definitely critical of the reform process of the 1990s, does not get to the root of that process (the power structure), and its proposals, as is recognized even by the (neo)structuralist authors themselves and many of their closest critics, are marked by a considerable degree of pragmatism and/or convergence with certain neoliberal positions.

Therefore, the requirement to depoliticize the discussion of development is far removed from the Latin American structuralist tradition, whose main authors highlighted precisely its political nature (Furtado 1992; Cardoso and Faletto 1969; Prebisch 1978a). The former structuralist reading that emphasized the conflicts of interest between the different actors, both externally (center-periphery) and internally (which was expressed in terms of the contradictory and conflictual dynamics among the different social strata and the state), lost relevance in the face of the predominance of the notion of “cooperation.” This proposal leaves aside the analysis carried out by the original structuralism, which helped to understand both the formation and reproduction of a peripheral productive structure, as well as the ISI’s obstacles to the region’s development. In turn, neostructuralism offered a nonconflictual approach to capitalism, which presupposes development as a given project shared by the interests of the different actors.

4. Conclusion

Latin American neostructuralism emerged by the 1990s as an attempt to update former structuralist contributions. It was aimed at both reviewing Latin American structuralism’s restrictions to promote industrialization and adapting the former contributions to the new reality of global capitalism. However, this article argues that the neostructuralist approach did not mean an update of Latin American structuralism, but rather a differentiation from its original approach to capitalism and the way of problematizing Latin America’s development.

The main difference between the two approaches relies on the disappearance of the center-periphery concept, which was one original pillar of Latin American structuralism. This concept represented a critique of the dominant ideas promoted from the center, and highlighted an unequal productive and commercial scheme that implied relations of power and domination of the center over the periphery. Neostructuralism left aside the concept of center-periphery along with all its theoretical and political implications, and offered an essentially nonconflictual perspective that focuses on Latin America’s potential for better international insertion. The former perspective that directly and explicitly questioned the dynamics of capitalism that were controlled by the center and limited Latin America’s development was replaced by a new approach that, although not completely ignoring the presence of hierarchies on the international scene, focuses more on the virtues of globalization and the possibilities of development. Thus, capitalism came to be approached centrally as a win-win system (Leiva 2008).

This change should be understood within the framework of the neoliberal offensive that deployed all its strength in Latin America. ECLAC was questioned and accused of being responsible for the crises that took place in the region. From this, and in the framework of the processes of democratic instability and repression, ECLAC focused on addressing short-term problems and offered a renewed approach that “attempt to come to terms with a new reality” (Kay 1998: 17). In this way, although “neostructuralism should not be interpreted as caving into neoliberalism” (Kay 1998: 17), the intention to reach an understanding with the new reality was manifested in two central elements that ultimately also distanced themselves from the original structuralist tradition.

As uncritical approaches displaced proper Latin American reflections for development, leading to the displacement of the so-called “old-fashioned” or “obsolete” center-periphery concept, ECLAC proposed a depoliticization of the development discussion. Reflections on the problems and challenges for development began to be addressed centrally in technological, productive, and macroeconomic terms, leaving aside the contradictory dynamics deployed by the actors on the periphery. Precisely, in the original structuralist approach, these dimensions were key to understanding both the formation and reproduction of capitalism as a hierarchical and unequal system (in center-periphery terms), as well as the obstacles that were present during the ISI to promote development (because of the conflicts among the actors in the periphery).

Thus, although ECLAC openly criticized neoliberalism and attempted to offer “an alternative vision to neoliberal market dogmatism” (Leiva 2008: xix), the neoliberal influence managed to reach the institution and erode its basic pillars associated with the recognition of capitalism as a system of power and domination, in which Latin America was subordinated to the dynamics commanded by the countries and actors of the center. It is in this sense that the “attempt to come to terms with a new reality” (Kay 1998: 17) represented a difference between neostructuralism and the former structuralist ideas. In effect, the change in the approach to capitalism and the way of problematizing development strategies meant to move away from the center-periphery scheme. In other words, it meant a differentiation concerning the imperative of recognizing the problems of Latin America from a “Latin American perspective” and a depoliticization of the discussion on the relations of power and domination of peripheral capitalism.