Latin America Develpment : Perspectives and debates

MARISTELLA SVAMPA

Latin America since the left turn

University of Pennsylvania Press

Lugar: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Año: 2018; p. 13 - 32

One of the recurring topics in Latin American debates refers to the dynamics of accumulation and the current models of development. Critical categories such as Extractivism or Neo-extractivism, as well as pro-positive ones like Buen Vivir, Common Goods, Rights of Nature, Post-extractivism, among others, traverse social struggles and debates, and are generating a new political grammar that questions the sustainability of the current development models and poses different relationships among society, economy and nature.These discussions originated mainly in Ecuador and Bolivia, two countries where the anti-neoliberal social movements of the late 20th century and the early 21st were accompanied not only by the emergence of new governments (progressive or popular), but also by constituent processes explicitly aimed at re-thinking or re-establishing the social pact. It was in this period of radical openness when categories such as those of the Plurinational State, Nature Rights and Buen Vivir ceased to be concepts exclusively associated to theoretical schools of thought and entered the field of political dispute.Over the years, however, and in a context of consolidation of the progressive governments, the debates became increasingly complex. On the one hand, given the comparative advantages derived from the commodities boom, the Latin American progressive governments gradually reinforced a view of development linked to the growth of exports, based on primary products. On the other hand, in the heat of the territorial and environmental conflicts, and of the proliferation of projects to exploit natural resources for exportation, there was a growing criticism/objections of Extractivism or Neo-extractivism.Finally, over the decade, quite a few of the Latin American governments considered to be "progressive" or "popular" have developed strong populist traits. These governments have been reinforcing a dynamic grounded on strong personal leadership, on the subordination of social and political organizations to that leadership, on the strengthening of the state?s capacities (as compared to the neoliberal times) associated to fiscal enhancement, to the policy of social expenditure (social policies or bonds addressed to the most vulnerable sectors) and to the consumption subsidy. An additional factor is that in Latin America, more than elsewhere, the Left, whether in its anti-capitalist or its national-popular matrix, has maintained a strong developmental standpoint, tending to emphasize a reading of history that exalts the expansion of the productive forces within the framework of an industrialist or laborer-centered model.In this paper, we propose an approach to the debates about development and the intensification of the extractive model, in terms of political economy, at four different instances.-First, we present two general concepts that are a framework for our proposal: Commodities Consensus and Extractivism-Secondly, we describe a recursive, dynamic approach to the differentphases of the Commodities Consensus-In the third place, we explore the different conflicting narratives and perspectives ondevelopment in the current phase of accumulation-Finally, we discuss the progressive shift towards new forms of dependency, especially in relation with China.