The study of development in Latin America has been approached from a variety of academic disciplines. International Political Economy scholars have provided a number of different approaches for studying, analyzing and understanding the political and institutional constrains that have shaped the development of Latin American countries. They have also incorporated into the analysis variables such as the influence of international organizations and the economic and class history, and its relation with one of the principal characteristics of Latin American countries: the disparity between the wealthy and the poor.
Throughout this work, I intend to summarize and review four of the most representative theories that have helped shape the study of the economic development of Latin America: Hegemonic Stability, Dependency, Class Analysis and Neoliberalism.
The need for a more accurate theoretical framework, [than modernism] to analyze and interpret the causes for development and underdevelopment, and a possible way of explaining the unrelenting poverty of the underdeveloped countries gave rise to the Dependency Theory.
Under the umbrella of this theory is the acknowledgement that the nation-state forms part of an International System, and is not as an individual, truly independent entity. The system consists of two sets of states, generally described as core (developed) and satellite (underdeveloped) countries.
This theory states very clearly two facts: a) the economic dynamic that results from the relationship between core and satellite countries does not necessarily translate into growth in the poorer, less industrialized entities, but instead tends to intensify the unequal developing patterns, and b) developed countries were ...
... middle of paper ...
...t repression of these movements not only failed to suppress the mobilization and the demands for change, but “actually helped forge revolutionary coalitions that fought for control of the state”.
The social discomfort suffered as a consequence of class disparity in most countries in Latin America has evolved into a steady, more organized Electoral Leftist trend. Starting in 1990 and up until the early 2000s countries like Chile, Brazil, Venezuela and Bolivia have elected political leaders from leftist parties. Although the circumstances are different for every country, the performances of Presidents like Michelle Bachelet and Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva and even Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez (in the very beginning of the movements that put them in power) have helped legitimized a way of govern that is based on the interests of what Marx called the working class.
Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated racism and economic exploitation, and paved the way for all-consuming, cultural wars in the centuries to come.
Time and rules have been transforming countries in many ways; especially, in the 1850’s and the 1920’s, when liberals were firmly in control across Latin American region. Liberalism can be defined as a dominant political philosophy in which almost every Latin American country was affected. A sense of progress over tradition, reason over faith, and free market over government control. Although each country was different, all liberals pursued similar policies. They emphasize on legal equality for all citizens, progress, free trade, anti-slavery, and removing power from church. Liberals declared promising changes for Latin American’s future. But Latin America had a stronger hierarchical society with more labor systems, nothing compare to the United States societies. Liberals weren’t good for Latin America. What I mean by “good” is the creation of a turning point or some type of contribution towards success. I define “good” as beneficial or helpful. The Latin American economy was stagnant between 1820 and 1850 because of independence wars, transportation and the recreation of facilities. I describe this era as, “the era when Latin America when off road”.
Mignolo, W. D. (2005). The Idea of Latin America (pp. 1-94). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Burns, E. B., & Charlip, J. A. (2007). Latin America: an interpretive history (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
In chapter three Isbister explains that social scientists wrestled to justify conditions in the third world, as a result, a mixture of indefinite theories developed. A point often overlooked, by social scientists is that the struggle and growth of Asia, Africa, and Latin America cannot be measured “in statistics, nor in treatises of social scientists and historians.” After reading the chapter, an obvious conclusion stood out poverty is tangible for most of the world’s people and nations. Why is this and who is to blame? Are the poor people to be blamed for their own poverty? The answers are arranged into three different groups: mod¬ernization, dependency, and Marxism.
... a great contrast to the most apparent feature of the Western Society. The Westerners created new political ideologies never seen before, resulting in neither an absolute or dictatorial structure. The Catholic Church still remained an intricate part of the Latin American life and continued to provide a key cultural adhesive throughout the Latin civilization, as the Western Societies role of religion lost popularity. The loss of interest in the church was partly because of the rising popularity nationalism and socialism provided as competition for the church. Lastly, The Latin American economy depended mainly on their agriculture and consisted of each country developing a cash crop or mineral specialty, while industrialization left an immense imprint on the shape of society in Western nations, by creating new specialty professions which required extensive training.
Neoliberalism is a form of economic liberalism that emphasizes the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalized trade, and relatively open markets. Neoliberals seek to maximize the role of the private sector in determining the political/economic priorities of the world and are generally supporters of economic globalization. During the 1930s and the late 1970s most Latin American countries used the import substitution industrialization model to build industry and reduce dependency on imports from foreign countries. The result of the model in these c...
Filmmaker Oliver Stone embarked on a journey across the Latin American continent pursuant to the filling of gaps left by mainstream media about the social and political movements in the southern continent. Through a series of interviews he conducted with Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Cristina Kirchner and former president Nėstor Kirchner of Argentina, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Lula da Silva of Brazil, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Raúl Castro of Cuba, Stone was able to compare firsthand information from the leaders themselves with that reported and published by the media (“Synopsis,” n.d.). It gives light to the measures these leaders had to take in order to initiate change in their respective countries, even if their public identities were at stake. Several instances in the film showed the mismatch between these two sources, pointing at the US government’s interests for greatly influencing the media for presenting biased, groundless views.
Hugo Chavez's political discourse based on the Marxist thoughts soon was creating "The Bolivarian Revolution", and since its beginning offered the XXI century socialism, which one was never described specifically to people. As a result, with the passing of the years Chavez created an atmosphere of division, violence and unrest within the population. Thus, Created a marked difference between the supporters and opponents of his policies, a situation that President Hugo Chavez took in advantages for his own purposes, deploy a communist regime disguised as a socialist. In other words, Chavez tricked Venezuela’s people, offering the establishment of a socialism that was nothing more than a dictatorship adapted to their own purposes, become the most recognized leader of the left in worldwide.
The insinuation behind this model, as Dependency Theory suggests, is that satellite countries become connected to the economic success of metropolis countries (a connection that is neither “self-generating nor self-perpetuating”). When countries within the core experience growth, countries within the fringe tend to experience growth at a proportional level. When world metropoles experience economic recession, however, the satellite countries feel it at a larger rate because of the loss of their resources and their subordinate relationship to metropoles. This is often a generality and isn 't consistently the case.
Scholars have debated not only the nature of Iberian colonialism, but also the impact that independence had on the people of Latin America. Historian Jaime E. Rodriguez said that, “The emancipation of [Latin America] did not merely consist of separation from the mother country, as in the case of the United States. It also destroyed a vast and responsive social, political, and economic system that functioned well despite many imperfections.” I believe that when independence emerged in Latin America, it was a positive force. However, as time progressed, it indeed does cause conflict.
Much G. L., 2004, Democratic Politics in Latin America: New Debates and Research Frontiers, Annual Reviews
Many factors can lead to the underdevelopment of a country. The most common sign of underdevelopment is that of a “Dual Economy”, this takes place when a “small modern elite and middle class make up about 20-30% of a country’...
...hat: poor countries are separated from the world economy. It ignores the possibility that one country's prosperity may mean another countries poverty. Further, modernization theory ignores the roles that powerful state governments play in helping with wealth-creation as they support, regulate, and direct economic growth.
in relation to development. Development is explained by the Oxford Dictionary as the process of developing or developed in a specified state of growth or advancement. Underdeveloped as according to the Oxford Dictionary is ‘not fully developed or not advanced economically’ which is meant for a country or a region. We can certainly see the difference between underdeveloped and developed where the changing situation emerges from the economic point of view. To be more specific, worlds within world were created i.e. the nomenclature of First World and Third World came into picture. The First World is said to be the industrialised, capitalist countries of Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand who are developed (as explained in the definition). The Third World includes the developing countries of- Asia, Africa and Latin America who are still in the mode of developing. Normally we understand the situation of underdevelopment is because the third world was under the colonies or the colonial rule for a certain period of time and lags behind the first world in every aspects like- social, economical, political, technological advancements which are yet to be seen in the third world fully like the first world. In this paper we will talk about various theorists from - Karl Marx (capitalism and class conflict), Kay and Amin (merchant capitalism, colonialism and neo-colonialism), Vladimir Lenin (imperialism), Andre Gunder Frank (third world dependency), Lipton (urban bias) and dependency theory. Here in this paper we will try to explain and understand the relevance of the various underdevelopment theories and different attributes related to it terms of the Indian Context.