Peripheral capitalism and dynamics of power: reflections on the role of the state for development in Latin American structuralism and neo-structuralism

ORMAECHEA, E.

Buenos Aires

Conferencia; YSI Pre-Olivera Conference for Young Scholars: ?The future of capitalism: Latin American challenges?; 2019

Young Scholars Initiative (YSI).

The emergence of Latin American structuralism represented an important contribution to reflect about the problems of Latin American development and the challenges associated with the transformation of its productive structure. This latter was related to the promotion of the import-substituting-industrialization (ISI) led by the states. However, although the states had a central role in this strategy (and this was one of the more distinctive elements of the theory, as well as one of the most criticized), they were not initially theorized by the structuralism, which initially preserved a predominantly economicist matrix of analysis. Nevertheless, since then, the way in which ECLAC referred to the state in its theoretical production has gone through several changes. This can be explained for: The problems and constraints experienced by the ISI; the capitalism?s transformations after the 70s; the advent of a new global neoliberal hegemony; and the way in which ECLAC?s diagnosis and its proposals coupled or reacted to these processes. So, considering the ECLAC?s theoretical production since its creation up to date, three analytical contexts can be identified regarding the way in which the institution addressed the of the state for Latin American development. In this sense, it can be distinguished: i.A first moment related to the emergence of structuralism, characterized by an undisputed centrality of the state, where a technocratic and optimistic understanding of their intervention predominated. In this framework, the states were supposedly endowed with the needed requirements to promote and coordinate the ISI. ii.A second moment of what we call ?late-structuralism?, in reference to ECLAC?s theoretical production of the 60s and 70s. Here, the consideration of the state?s intervention is no longer addressed from an economicist point of view, but from a perspective that revalued the contributions of the sociology of power, conflict, social classes, and domination. iii.And a third moment associated with the emergence of neo-structuralism, where the state?s role is understood in terms of promoting public and private cooperation mechanisms, through processes of ?strategic-consensus building? and/or pacts. In this way, it is argued that the shift from structuralism to neo-structuralism is characterized by a clear displacement of the former centrality of the state, as well as by an omission of its peripheral nature analysis and its restrictions to operate in the periphery. Thus, this implies a displacement of those contributions that had emerged more clearly during the former decades, especially during the so-called late-structuralism. After presenting these research results, some reflections on the implications of this power?s displacement for the problematization of Latin American development are shared.