The foregoing begs, at least, two questions: Which factors pushed this change in Prebisch’s perspective? And, why did the State become a problem in advancing industrialization strategies during those years? This is to say, in acknowledging the deficiency of industrial momentum, the State became a problematic element and a functional factor in reproducing limitations on development.
#BLOCS DE NOTAS PERSONALIZADOS GENERATOR#
This matter, which the author did not explicitly mention, was in any event implicitly present, to the extent that his references to the State changed over time.Īnd even during his earliest years at ECLAC (1949-1963), the State went from being conceived of-ex ante-as a strategic tool in development planning to become-ex post-an actor whose engagement functions as a generator rather than a reverser of the difficulties associated with industrialization. Nevertheless, despite the vital role of the State in this proposal, it failed to dive deeply into the nature of the peripheral State ( Gurrieri, 1987) and the way in which the State itself, by driving industrialization, in the end became complicit in reproducing-rather than reversing-said condition. Raúl Prebisch-and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)-furnished a central (and original) input to understanding both the dynamics of the peripheral capitalist economies and to shape industrializing strategies, which, on the foundation of state planning, would enable these countries to overcome their peripheral and dependent condition. Palabras clave: Estados latinoamericanos Raúl Prebisch pensamiento económico centro-periferia, estructuralismo acumulación capitalista
Con el objeto de explicar aquellos cambios y de reconocer los fundamentos de esa condición periférica, se introducen elementos teórico-analíticos que reconocen las dinámicas conflictuales que históricamente actuaron sobre -y se retroalimentaban en- los Estados latinoamericanos, conformando determinadas estructuras y formas de implicación que les impidieron dirigir una estrategia de industrialización tal como lo planteó el estructuralismo en general, y Prebisch en particular. Partiendo de reconocer la centralidad del Estado en la propuesta de Raúl Prebisch, pero señalando, al mismo tiempo, los límites que ésta contenía para problematizar la condición periférica de los Estados latinoamericanos, se analizan los cambios manifestados en relación con el rol del Estado para el desarrollo en la producción temprana del autor en la Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (Cepal).
0 kommentar(er)
