Structuralism (economic theory)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Structuralism is a development economics approach that emerged in Latin America in the 1950s . As structuralism , this approach is referred to, as he was engaged in global economic structures, development barriers and market imbalances. The starting point was the structure of relationships in a center-periphery model of the world economy. The Latin American structuralists were the first to systematically research the economic differences between the developing countries (periphery) on the one hand and the industrialized nations (center) on the other.

Structuralism led to economic policy recommendations that were specifically geared to the situation in developing and emerging countries. A corresponding structural economic policy was largely promoted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America ( CEPAL (Spanish) / ECLA (English) ), especially during Raúl Prebisch's tenure . It was dominant in Latin American economic policy from the 1960s to the mid-1980s.

Historical classification

CEPAL headquarters in Santiago de Chile

At the beginning of the 20th century, an export-oriented economic policy was pursued in South America , which was inspired by classic economic liberalism and, in particular, by Ricardo's model of comparative cost advantages . In the global economic crisis from 1929 onwards, however, the export-oriented developing countries proved to be particularly vulnerable to the effects of the depression on the world economy. For example, the strongly export-oriented Brazilian coffee production collapsed within a short time. Before the crisis, coffee made up 70% of Brazilian exports. Contemporary economists also observed that the prices of primary goods such as food and raw materials fell faster than the prices of industrial goods during the crisis. As a result of the problematic results of the export-oriented economic policy in the world economic crisis, the view spread in Latin America that the specialization of developing countries in primary goods exports was economically disadvantageous ( export skepticism ). As a result of the massive slump in primary goods exports ( cash crops ), there was a lack of foreign currency, which severely limited the import of goods. The need to fill the gaps in the market caused by the lack of foreign exchange caused the first wave of import-substituting industrialization in Latin America. This was continued in the phase of structuralist economic policy from the 1960s onwards, but more planning (e.g. input-output analysis ) was intended to give import-substituting industrialization a meaningful direction. Structuralist economic policy was largely promoted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America CEPAL , especially during the tenure of Raúl Prebisch (1964–1969). This was replaced in the 1980s by a phase of economic policy based on the Washington Consensus that lasted until 2000 .

Theoretical foundations

precursor

A European root of structuralism is the historical school of economics . Based on Friedrich List in particular , the structuralists assumed that there are different stages of economic development, each requiring a different economic policy. In order to be able to fully participate in economic progress, a country has to reach the top level of development, an “industrial country”. Only in the industrialized economy does the full economic dynamism unfold through progressively more highly processed products. This dynamic has a positive effect on the scientific and technical development and on the qualification and further training of the population. Such processes do not take place in underdeveloped countries. The characteristic of these economies is and remains an exploitation of finite deposits of natural resources in order to finance the luxury consumption of the elites of the periphery. Following the theory of Lists, the structuralists assumed that due to the greater competitiveness of the already existing foreign industries, the highest stage of development would not be attainable without a temporary period of protectionist economic policy ( educational tariff idea ).

Early development economists such as Albert O. Hirschman , William Arthur Lewis and Gunnar Myrdal were also influential . Contrary to the neoclassical notion of market equilibrium, these authors assumed that the free market does not necessarily have an equilibrium tendency. Market forces would tend towards equilibrium or away from equilibrium depending on the circumstances. Smallest advantages or disadvantages of certain regions could grow in the course of time to big advantages or disadvantages compared to other regions. That is why the structuralists advocated international development aid and an active role for the state, which should initiate industrialization in developing countries.

overview

The Latin American structuralists first drew attention to the fundamental differences between the Latin American economies and the economies of the classic industrial nations of Europe and North America. They argued that some of these differences were not seen or adequately taken into account in neoclassical theory (see below, world trade theory and deformation of the market process in developing countries ).

“Development policy must be based on a correct interpretation of the real circumstances in Latin America. The theories that we have followed and that we continue to follow come from countries at the heart of the world economy and are therefore not fully applicable. We who live in the periphery have to correct these theories and introduce the necessary dynamic elements to adapt them to our situation. "

- Raúl Prebisch

Following the work of Hirschmann, the strategy of imbalanced growth prevailed among the structuralists . This strategy is characterized by the fact that the limited financial resources of developing countries are to flow into the concentrated promotion of individual key industries (production stages). From these key industries, there would then be a positive development for supplier companies and ultimately also for the rest of the economy. This development strategy was judged to be more realistic than the equilibrium growth strategy because of the lower capital requirements .

World trade theory

The center-periphery model of structuralism was also taken up by the dependence theory and the world system theory. Here: countries in the center of world trade (blue), countries on the periphery (red) and countries on the semi-periphery (purple) according to Christopher Chase-Dunn, Yukio Kawano and Benjamin Brewer, Trade Globalization since 1795

Classic foreign trade theory postulates that the international division of labor leads to an increase in the welfare of all countries involved in trade. According to the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem , the factor incomes of all countries involved in world trade should equalize. The underdevelopment of the developing countries is seen as a consequence of inadequate integration into world trade. In contrast, the structuralists see the income differences between industrialized and developing countries as a consequence of world trade, namely the international division of labor.

In contrast, structuralism distinguishes a center of world trade from a periphery of world trade (center-periphery model). The center is formed by the industrialized countries, which have a comparatively homogeneous economic structure and a diversified offer. The periphery, on the other hand, has a heterogeneous economic structure (including dualism, high unemployment) and can only offer certain primary goods ( monostructure ). World trade favorable opinion of the structuralists only the center, as the periphery by unequal terms of trade ( terms of trade ) will be disadvantaged ( Prebisch-Singer hypothesis ). According to the Prebisch-Singer thesis, the international division of labor is disadvantageous for developing countries, as these predominantly export primary goods.

In the case of primary goods, for example, there is a low income elasticity in demand : rising incomes do not mean that demand, e.g. B. increases after coffee. On the other hand, a high income elasticity of demand was found for industrial goods. Rising incomes mean that the demand for industrial goods increases disproportionately.

At the same time, a high price elasticity of demand was observed for primary goods ; a price increase for a primary good often leads to a decline in sales, as it can easily be replaced by almost identical goods from other suppliers.

Due to productivity gains, income should actually improve continuously. According to the structuralists, however, this is only the case in the industrialized countries, because on the one hand, much higher productivity increases can be expected in industrial production than in primary goods production. On the other hand, increases in productivity in the industrialized countries regularly have an impact in the form of higher wages and salaries, as production mainly requires qualified workers who have a better negotiating position. In developing countries, on the other hand, productivity increases do not lead to rising incomes, but to falling prices of export goods, because unskilled labor is predominantly sufficient for the production of primary goods. However, there is an oversupply of unskilled labor, so that the labor force is in a poor negotiating position and accordingly can only demand low wage and salary increases. Accordingly, an increase in productivity mainly benefits foreign customers as a price reduction. This in turn shows that the type of international division of labor leads to rising real incomes in industrialized countries and falling real incomes in developing countries.

Because of these conditions, developing countries have insufficient import capacities (foreign exchange gap), which hinders the development of the economies of the periphery. This currency gap cannot be closed by expanding the export of primary products, since a (in terms of volume) higher export only accelerates the decline in the price of primary products. Diversification of supply into consumer and industrial goods was seen as the only way out of the deterioration in the terms of trade .

Deformation of the market process in developing countries

The structuralists assumed that the price mechanism basically works in developing countries because prices are flexible and correctly reflect the supply and demand situation. However, contrary to the neoclassical textbook theory for perfect markets , the market mechanism in developing countries does not lead to constant economic growth, but to permanent stagnation and underdevelopment. The reasons are seen in the special structures of developing countries (i.e. in the market imperfections typical of developing countries). On the one hand, there is the dualism stemming from the colonial era and the heterogeneous income structure. Another reason is seen in structural rigidity , which means that the price orientation of the economic players leads to suboptimal results.

Dualism and income concentration

Structuralism is a modernization theory . The underdevelopment of the economies of the periphery was not seen as a kind of automatic transitory stage on the way to an industrial nation, but as a self-perpetuating state. Above all, the dualistic structure of the developing countries is seen as an obstacle to development that must be overcome.

The dualistic structure results from the division of the developing countries into

  1. a small, modern sector that is export-oriented and
  2. a large informal sector characterized by subsistence farming and low productivity.

This structure emerged in the colonial era , when the entrepreneurs and skilled workers settling in the colonies from the colonial motherlands formed enclaves, which remained isolated from the economy of the rest of the country. As a result of the formation of the enclaves, the local population hardly adopted technology or entrepreneurship from the immigrants. Even after the end of colonialism, this dualistic structure remained.

Celso Furtado (right) with Lula da Silva (left)

The dualistic structure also results in an extremely unequal distribution of income . This is seen as a complex problem that needs to be overcome. Due to the unequal distribution of income, a numerically small section of the population can use a large part of the national income for their own purposes. This section of the population also differs from the bulk of the population by a strong cultural orientation towards the way of life of the former colonial mother countries. As a result, the overall economic savings rate remains below the level that is possible and necessary for the allocation of resources , because the high-income section of the population orientates itself towards “Western” living standards and therefore largely consumes its income, which is high for South American standards. Middle and lower incomes must largely be spent on living requirements, so there is no great savings potential here from the outset. The “western” consumption patterns also mean that large quantities of consumer goods are imported from the industrialized countries, which means that scarce foreign exchange reserves are used up, which are then no longer available for the import of means of production. A limitation of the growth potential thus results from the savings and investment gap . Because of the low level of income in the informal sector , a large part of the income has to be used for consumption. In the modern sector, on the other hand, capital accumulates. Due to the tightness of the domestic domestic market, which is caused by the low purchasing power in the informal sector, only a few investments are made beyond the export sector . The low income in the informal sector results in turn from low productivity . The low productivity in the informal sector results from underinvestment. It all adds up to the vicious circle of poverty.

This dualistic structure results in the narrowness of the internal market in developing countries. The informal sector represents a weak basis for the domestic market because of its low incomes, while the modern sector only covers a small number of the population, whose consumer behavior is also based on the wide range of products available in industrialized countries. As a result, there are no positive economies of scale for production geared towards the domestic market , which weakens the competitiveness of domestic products compared to imported goods. As a result, even consumer goods have to be imported that, given the technical requirements, could be produced in developing countries. The consequence of these consumer goods imports is that domestic demand only has a small effect on the domestic market.

Structural Rigidities

According to the structuralists, market imperfections in developing countries mean that the price system only provides inadequate control signals. In particular, steady growth and an acceptable income distribution would be made more difficult. This is due to the fact that the countries on the periphery are subject to restrictions and structural rigidities from which they can only free themselves through structural change (industrialization, less unequal income distribution). Structuralists see the supply rigidity observed especially in developing countries as an obstacle to growth . In the countries of the periphery, for example, products are predominantly manufactured that have a low price elasticity of the supply (especially agricultural products); an increased demand for these goods (e.g. due to population growth) does trigger price increases, but the price increase does not lead to any or only a small increase in the supply volume. Increases in demand for these goods will consequently trigger inflationary effects rather than growth impulses . The inadequate production adjustment was attributed to four main factors:

  1. the generally low productivity of agriculture and industry in developing countries
  2. institutional obstacles, especially the agricultural lease system characterized by latifundia ( pension capitalism )
  3. the often limited financial leeway of entrepreneurs (there is a lack of well-trained capital markets and consequently the possibility of obtaining loans)
  4. the reluctance of entrepreneurs to take the financial risk of expanding production. The expansion and development of production capacities in developing countries is not only dependent on principally optimistic profit expectations; socio-economic factors that dampen investment activity are also observed. As a result, marginal price increases are not sufficient, but unusually high price increases are required before positive volume effects can be achieved. Such high price increases are usually not possible in an open market economy, as this causes a surge in imports, which in turn culminates in high foreign debt and the devaluation of the domestic currency (inflation).

In order to be able to overcome these problems, a radical change in the structures through active intervention by the state in economic activity as part of development planning was deemed necessary.

Structuralist economic policy

The development of the Argentine heavy industry was particularly encouraged during the tenure of Juan Perón and Arturo Frondizi . Here: SOMISA workshop in 1960

According to structuralist observation, the market often fails in the periphery of world trade; the prices in developing countries are therefore systematically distorted. As a result, fewer goods and services would be offered than the production potential of the respective economies would allow. So there is a shortage of goods and services with a simultaneous oversupply of the labor factor. The private market players are unable to make a contribution on their own to overcome the underdevelopment. Either they did not react at all to market signals due to dampening socio-economic factors, or they increase prices when demand rises instead of expanding production. A catch-up development in developing and emerging countries therefore requires state intervention. This resulted in a development program that focused on the domestic market and the import-substituting industrialization of the economy.

Import-substituting industrialization was practiced on a large scale in Latin America even before the founding of CEPAL in 1948. As a result of the global economic crisis from 1929 onwards, the agricultural products produced for export ( cash crops ) hardly found buyers and exports collapsed. There was therefore a lack of foreign currency in order to import goods to the usual extent. This brought about the first wave of import-substituting industrialization in Latin America: far from theoretical considerations, market gaps had to be filled.

The structuralist economic policy propagated by CEPAL tried to influence this development. A distinction was made between three phases. In the first phase, the import of simple consumer goods that can be produced in domestic production will be replaced by domestic production. In the second phase, the production of intermediate products and consumer goods is initiated, the production of which is technically more difficult. In the third phase, the production of production goods is initiated. Structuralist economic policy was - at least in theory - not aimed solely at national domestic markets. In order to achieve positive economies of scale , a common internal market for the countries on the periphery was also advocated. However, the Andean Pact only partially realized this intention.

Early structuralism

Industrialization in Argentina. Here: the rolling mill in 1960

The main subject of structuralist economic policy was initially the industrialization of the South American economies. The economy should grow rapidly and per capita income should rise through import-substituting industrialization and through improving the competitiveness of domestic companies. Industrialization sought to escape the projected continuous deterioration in the terms of trade for primary products. Furthermore, it seemed more promising to increase productivity in industry than in agriculture through technological innovations. High economic growth should create jobs for the rapidly growing Latin American population.

A limiting factor in this policy was the need for foreign exchange. In order to establish domestic branches of industry, more machines and other equipment had to be imported than before. In order to limit the need for foreign exchange, an overvaluation of the domestic currency was sought. This made exports more difficult, but the necessary imports were favorably priced. Since the export goods were predominantly primary products, which, according to structural analysis, had a low price elasticity, the development of the secondary sector was promoted at the expense of the profit margins of the primary sector . This disadvantage of the primary sector was accepted because hardly any development impulses were expected from it. A policy of promoting exports through the devaluation of the currency was only considered to make sense if an industrial base sufficient in terms of quantity and quality was created. Influencing foreign trade by means of tariff and non-tariff measures (customs duties, etc.) would have been more common and would have enabled more targeted control. Such measures could not be enforced against the influential mine and large landowners. Since there were no free exchange rates from 1944 to 1973 (see Bretton Woods system ), Raul Prebisch, as president of the Argentine central bank, was able to introduce a system of "multiple" exchange rates. The exchange rates here depended on which category of goods should be imported or exported. A system of multiple exchange rates was later introduced in many other South American countries.

From 1945 onwards, Brazil was one of the first countries to implement systematic import-substituting industrialization. State-owned companies have been set up in strategic economic sectors. The development bank Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social , the mining group Companhia Vale do Rio Doce and the mineral oil company Petrobras should be mentioned in particular . The Brazilian planning minister Celso Furtado played an important role between 1961 and 1964, who had worked with Raúl Prebisch in the CEPAL . In Chile, import-substituting industrialization was promoted by CORFO .

Development in the 1970s

President Arturo Frondizi during the test drive of an automobile built in Santa Fe under license from DKW

For the initial phase of industrialization, the strategy of unbalanced growth was followed. The structuralists accepted an intensification of the income gap. Large parts of the population were actually excluded from the successes of industrialization in the growth centers. This created significant social tensions that rocked some South American countries in the 1970s.

But the beginning industrialization did not solve other problems either. For example, the economic elites continued to consume more than they invested; the overall economic savings rate was below the requirements of forced industrial development. The high imports of consumer goods also put a strain on foreign exchange reserves and domestic demand continued to have only a minor impact on the domestic market.

This situation could not be satisfactory. In order to tackle the problem of income distribution, structuralist economic policy from the mid-1970s emphasized the overcoming of poverty as an equal goal alongside industrialization. This should be achieved by securing real wages or the basic needs of the population. Such a policy should also serve social pacification at the same time. Real wages were secured through wage indexing . In this way, the frequent labor disputes in the face of high inflation rates could be reduced, which resulted in high economic follow-up costs. A (rudimentary) redistribution policy served to better satisfy the basic needs of the population. Economic politicians hoped that the redistribution would generate broader domestic demand, which in turn would better utilize the newly created domestic production capacities.

However, the policy of import-substituting industrialization resulted in high costs for the states of Latin America. The theorists of structuralist economic policy recommended a devaluation of the domestic currency and a tax reform. An effective tax system without loopholes and with tax progression could not be politically implemented for a long time. The fear of devaluation that had been widespread since the mid-1970s and the fear of political instability now encountered a more liberalized international capital market, which made it easier to transfer Latin American money capital abroad. As a result, the South American states were forced to take out more loans abroad, especially in the USA. Foreign debt increased sharply in the second half of the 1970s. Borrowing made sense at this point as the real interest rate was negative in the mid-1970s. However, the volume of longer-term investments decreased.

Development in the 1980s

The second oil crisis in 1979 also led to a recession in South America in the early 1980s. The state income of the South American countries collapsed. The rapidly growing US budget deficit under the Reagan presidency led to high interest rates on US dollar loans in the early 1980s. Since a large part of the foreign debt of Latin American countries consisted of short-term loans denominated in US dollars, several countries could no longer service their debt during the recession ( Latin American debt crisis ).

The debt crisis led to a massive outflow of capital, which led to the Latin American currencies depreciating sharply and thus real interest rates and inflation rising sharply. Against this background, the attempt to limit inflation by means of a heterodox shock program came to the fore in the 1980s . In contrast to the competing monetarism (“ Chicago Boys ”) coined by Milton Friedman , structuralist economic policy tried to limit rising inflation through state price controls. In the opinion of Eliana Cardoso / Albert Fishlow, both approaches explained the phenomenon inadequately and each led to economically disadvantageous stabilization programs.

The structuralists' heterodox shock program essentially consisted of a currency reform . Since there is traditionally a high inflation expectation in developing and emerging countries, the structuralist economists were of the opinion that the currency reform had to be supplemented by legal bans. For example, it was temporarily prohibited by law to index contracts , i.e. to agree an automatic adjustment of the price to the general price development. A price-wage freeze was also passed, i.e. a ban on negotiating higher wages and raising prices.

Effects

The Brazilian mineral oil company Petrobras was founded in 1953 under the motto “We own the oil!”.

The successes in industrialization were quite different. The large South American countries such as Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Venezuela had significant successes to show (see also Mexican miracle ). In Argentina and Chile problems arose in the 1970s, but they were more caused by political instability. In the smaller South American countries, on the other hand, the structuralist economic policy was less successful.

Although not all measures were effective, there was high economic growth in South America in the 1960s and 1970s, which led to the emergence of a significant industrial sector and a diversification of the tertiary sector . A middle class developed and urbanization increased . A strong protectionist trade policy was predominantly pursued. This resulted not least from the pressure on politicians to find work for the masses of people who were pushing their way from unprofitable agriculture to urban employment. Despite the impressive growth and some land reforms , extremely unequal incomes and assets remained formative for South America, and women and the indigenous population in particular were excluded. The informal sector could also not be overcome in principle, so that the sales market for domestic industrial products remained relatively small.

According to Celso Furtado, the economic development of South America during the period of structuralist economic policy can be divided into three phases:

  1. In the first phase up to the mid-1960s, import-substituting industrialization, benefiting from strong currencies and favorable terms of trade, was able to drive high economic growth.
  2. From the mid-1960s, the terms of trade deteriorated rapidly and economic growth slowed. In addition, the Cuban Revolution brought the entire South American economic policy internationally under suspicion of disguised Marxism.
  3. In the 1970s, South America experienced strong economic growth again, but this was offset by high capital imports.

The over-enthusiasm caused by the early successes meant that the successes of import-substituting industrialization were overestimated and the costs were underestimated. Also due to reckless lending due to the petrodollar glut , there was excessive borrowing in the 1970s, which together with a later high interest phase around 1980 led to the Latin American debt crisis.

As a result of the Latin American debt crisis, the IMF and the World Bank took over the task of debt restructuring. Within this framework, the IMF granted loans to Latin American countries on condition that these countries carry out structural adjustments. To implement the structural adjustment programs, they held constant consultations with the economic policy elites of the Latin American countries. These structural adjustment programs were an implementation of the Washington Consensus , which represented the political program of the then hegemonic economic policy forces in the USA, which were organized in the IMF, the World Bank, the US Treasury and the numerous Washington think tanks .

This made the continuation of a policy of import-substituting industrialization impossible and led to economic, political and social problems.

Differences to the Dependency Theory

The dependency theory took up the main issues raised by the structuralists, but developed its own explanatory models and solutions. While structuralism sees itself as a modification of the economic mainstream (the orthodox economy), the dependency theory represents a modification of the Marxist economic theory. For structuralists, the dependence on the center of the world economy is the sum of all factors that limit the decision-making freedom of one's own nation-state. The dependency theory understands dependence as exploitation and domination on a world scale. Structuralists pursue a structuralist economic policy and hope for a reshaping of external relations through a New World Economic Order and through regional integration ( Mercosur ). According to the dependency theory, on the other hand, a structuralist economic policy operated at the national level is doomed to failure because a single national state cannot shake off its dependence. Accordingly, the dependence theory seeks a revolutionary transformation of the capitalist system on a world scale. A political representative of the dependency theory was Che Guevara , who after the overthrow in Cuba tried to carry out a revolution in Bolivia in order to break the chain of the capitalist world system.

reception

The import-substituting industrialization had the positive effects of pushing the learning processes of managers and workers and promoting technological innovation and thus productivity. The negative effects consisted in the fact that the overvaluation of the national currencies worsened the export conditions for traditional primary goods and thus made it more difficult to obtain foreign currency. The new industries were also often lighthouse projects, in which usually only one company per branch of industry could operate monopoly on a domestic market protected by high import duties , which intensified inflationary tendencies. A common mistake was prioritizing the development of capital-intensive heavy industry, which could overwhelm the financial possibilities of developing and emerging countries.

In the 1980s, the World Bank gave up its supportive attitude towards the policy of import-substituting industrialization and joined the criticism of some economists. These declared that the structuralist economic policy was responsible for the problems of the Latin American debt crisis and high inflation that appeared in the 1980s, which were known as macro mess . Other economists later explained that problems such as the overvaluation of the domestic currency, trade deficits and government budget deficits were not the original consequence of a structuralist economic policy, but the result of poor monetary and financial policy. The Latin American debt crisis is primarily based on the strong fluctuations in the capital market, which in the 1970s had provided incentives for increased borrowing with low interest rates and a high willingness to lend ( petrodollar effect), while in the 1980s there was a phase of high interest rates with restrictive lending. In this situation, the South American countries got into the debt crisis under the most varied of circumstances. For example, Chile, for example, had already adopted an economically liberal policy in the 1970s under the economic leadership of the Chicago Boys .

The “condemnation” of import-substituting industrialization is rejected by some economists as being ahistorical. A comparison with the successful Asian tiger states shows that the creation of an industrial base also took place here through a kind of import-substituting industrialization . A study by the Oxford economists Astorga, Berges and FitzGerald has shown that Latin America in the twentieth century was in the best position in terms of standard of living from 1940 to 1980, i.e. in the phase of import-substituting industrialization. During this phase, Latin America experienced average economic growth of 2.7% per year. In the phase of export-oriented economic policy between 1900 and 1939, the large South American economies experienced an average economic growth of 1.3% per year. In the phase of economic policy based on the Washington Consensus between 1980 and 2000, economic growth averaged 0.6% per year. Even if economic growth was of course influenced not only by economic policy, but by many factors, the results suggest that import-substituting industrialization was more successful than its critics assumed. The results of this economic policy should therefore not be measured against pure textbook theories, but against the results of other actually implemented development strategies.

The economic policy promoted by the World Bank in the 1980s and aligned with the Washington Consensus was viewed by critics as neoliberal- inspired policy imposed on the South American countries from abroad . It resulted in below-average economic growth compared to earlier phases and proved to be very unpopular with the population. Starting with the election of Ricardo Lagos in Chile, a number of center-left governments were elected in Latin America, which switched to a pragmatic economic policy, which also took up and further developed some ideas of structuralist economic policy. This is known as neostructuralism .

South American structuralism also exerted a strong influence on the development of the dependence theory . Following the structuralists' analyzes, some of the rigidities discovered were incorporated into neoclassical models.

literature

  • Fernando Ignacio Leiva: Toward a Critique of Latin American Neostructuralism. In: Latin American Politics and Society. Vol. 50 No. 4 (Winter, 2008), pp. 1-25.
  • Charles A. Frankenhoff: The Prebisch Thesis: A Theory of Industrialism for Latin America. In: Journal of Inter-American Studies. Vol. 4 No. 2 (Apr., 1962), pp. 185-206.

supporting documents

  1. ^ A b Joseph L. Love: The Rise and Decline of Economic Structuralism in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 100-125. P. 101.
  2. ↑ José Gabriel Palma: "Structuralism" In: Amitava Krishna Dutt, Jaime Ros: International Handbook of Development Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008, ISBN 1-84542-327-5 , p. 136.
  3. ↑ See also Ludwig Schätzl: Wirtschaftsgeographie. 9th edition. UTB, 2003, ISBN 3-8252-0782-X , p. 189.
  4. ^ Sandra Kuntz Ficker: From Structuralism to the New Institutional Economics: The Impact of Theory on the Study of Foreign Trade in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 145-162. Pp. 146, 147.
  5. ^ Joseph L. Love: The Rise and Decline of Economic Structuralism in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 100-125. P. 113.
  6. ^ Sandra Kuntz Ficker: From Structuralism to the New Institutional Economics: The Impact of Theory on the Study of Foreign Trade in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 145-162. Pp. 146, 147.
  7. ^ Joseph L. Love: The Rise and Decline of Economic Structuralism in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 100-125, p. 114.
  8. ^ Joseph L. Love: The Rise and Decline of Economic Structuralism in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 100-125. P. 103.
  9. ^ Joseph L. Love: The Rise and Decline of Economic Structuralism in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 100-125. P. 107.
  10. ^ Matthias P. Altmann, Contextual Development Economics , Springer Science + Business Media, 2011, ISBN 978-1-4419-7230-9 , p. 112
  11. ^ Stockmann, Menzel, Nuscheler: Development Policy. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2010, ISBN 978-3-486-58998-6 , p. 104.
  12. ^ Matthias P. Altmann: Contextual Development Economics. Springer Science + Business Media, 2011, ISBN 978-1-4419-7230-9 , p. 112.
  13. ^ Sandra Kuntz Ficker: From Structuralism to the New Institutional Economics: The Impact of Theory on the Study of Foreign Trade in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 145-162. P. 146
  14. ^ Hendrik Hansen: Politics and economic competition in globalization. 1st edition. GWV Fachverlag, 2008, ISBN 978-3-531-15722-1 , p. 133.
  15. ^ Sandra Kuntz Ficker: From Structuralism to the New Institutional Economics: The Impact of Theory on the Study of Foreign Trade in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 145-162. Pp. 146, 148.
  16. ↑ quoted from G. Krishnan-kutty: Thoughts of Francois Perroux and Raul Prebisch on Development Strategy of Third World Countries. Northern Book Center, New Delhi, ISBN 8-172-11106-1 , p. 45.
  17. ^ Sigurd Klatt, Manfred Wilms, structural change and macroeconomic control. Festschrift for Fritz Voigt on completion of the 65th year of life , Duncker & Humblot, 1975, ISBN 978-3-428-03286-0 , p. 211
  18. ^ S. Charushila: Structuralism and Individualism in Economic Analysis. Routledge, 2005, ISBN 0-415-94927-0 , p. 59.
  19. ↑ Reinhard Stockmann, Ulrich Menzel, Franz Nuscheler: Development Policy: Theories - Problems - Strategies. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2010, ISBN 978-3-486-58998-6 , p. 102.
  20. ↑ a b Werner Lachmann: Development Policy, Volume 1 Basics. 2nd Edition. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2004, ISBN 3-486-25139-2 , p. 87.
  21. ↑ Christian Watrin: Economic theories and economic policy action. In: Theoretical and institutional foundations of economic policy - Festschrift for Theodor Wessels. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1967, p. 20.
  22. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 33.
  23. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 48.
  24. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , pp. 30, 31.
  25. ^ Geisa Maria Rocha: Celso Furtado and the Resumption of Construction in Brazil: Structuralism as an Alternative to Neoliberalism. In: Latin American Perspectives. Vol. 34, No. 5, Brazil under Cardoso (Sep., 2007), pp. 132-159, p. 134.
  26. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , pp. 35, 36.
  27. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 44.
  28. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 36.
  29. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 45.
  30. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 48.
  31. ↑ Werner Lachmann: Development Policy, Volume 1 Basics. 2nd Edition. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2004, ISBN 3-486-25139-2 , p. 87.
  32. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 39.
  33. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 40.
  34. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 40.
  35. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , pp. 41-43.
  36. ↑ Spiridon Parskewopoulos, the problem of economic underdevelopment. In: Spiridon Parskewopoulos (ed.): Economic order and economic development. Lucius & Lucius Verlag, 1997, ISBN 3-8282-0034-6 , p. 9.
  37. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 63.
  38. ^ Sandra Kuntz Ficker: From Structuralism to the New Institutional Economics: The Impact of Theory on the Study of Foreign Trade in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 145-162, p. 149.
  39. ^ Joseph L. Love: The Rise and Decline of Economic Structuralism in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 100-125, p. 114.
  40. ^ Joseph L. Love: The Rise and Decline of Economic Structuralism in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 100-125, pp. 104-105.
  41. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 65.
  42. ^ Joseph L. Love: The Rise and Decline of Economic Structuralism in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 100-125, p. 102.
  43. ^ Joseph L. Love: The Rise and Decline of Economic Structuralism in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 100-125, p. 103.
  44. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 67.
  45. ^ A b Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 69.
  46. ^ Björn Gerstenberger: The position of the central bank in the economic and political system of Brazil. In: Economic policy research at the University of Cologne. Volume 36. ISBN 3-8288-8164-5 , p. 10.
  47. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 86.
  48. ↑ Gonzalez, An Economic Policy for Development in Cepal Review No. 34, 1988, p. 8.
  49. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , pp. 44, 48.
  50. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 64, p. 86
  51. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 86.
  52. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 85.
  53. ^ Rosemary Thorp: Progress, Poverty and Exclusion, An Economic History of Latin America in the 20th Century. Inter American Development Bank, Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland 1998, ISBN 1-886938-35-0 , p. 198.
  54. ^ Rosemary Thorp: Progress, Poverty and Exclusion, An Economic History of Latin America in the 20th Century , Inter American Development Bank, 1998, Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland, ISBN 1-886938-35-0 , p. 208.
  55. ^ Rosemary Thorp, Progress, Poverty and Exclusion, An Economic History of Latin America in the 20th Century , Inter American Development Bank, 1998, Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland, ISBN 1-886938-35-0 , p. 207.
  56. ^ Rosemary Thorp: Progress, Poverty and Exclusion, An Economic History of Latin America in the 20th Century. Inter American Development Bank, 1998, Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland, ISBN 1-886938-35-0 , p. 203.
  57. ^ Rosemary Thorp: Progress, Poverty and Exclusion, An Economic History of Latin America in the 20th Century. Inter American Development Bank, Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland 1998, ISBN 1-886938-35-0 , p. 205.
  58. ^ Rosemary Thorp: Progress, Poverty and Exclusion, An Economic History of Latin America in the 20th Century. Inter American Development Bank, Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland 1998, ISBN 1-886938-35-0 , p. 216.
  59. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 64.
  60. ^ Eliana Cardoso, Albert Fishlow: Latin American Economic Development: 1950-1980. In: Journal of Latin American Studies. 24, Quincentenary Supplement: The Colonial and Post Colonial Experience. Five Centuries of Spanish and Portuguese America (1992), pp. 197-218. Pp. 207, 208.
  61. ↑ Martina Metzger: Economic Policy and Development, A Keynesian Critique of Structuralism and Neoliberalism. Campus, Frankfurt 2003, ISBN 3-593-37385-8 , p. 94.
  62. ^ A b c Rosemary Thorp: Progress, Poverty and Exclusion, An Economic History of Latin America in the 20th Century. Inter American Development Bank, Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland 1998, ISBN 1-886938-35-0 , p. 199.
  63. ^ Rosemary Thorp: Progress, Poverty and Exclusion, An Economic History of Latin America in the 20th Century. Inter American Development Bank, Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland 1998, ISBN 1-886938-35-0 , p. 195
  64. ^ Peter Preston, Development Theory: An Introduction , John Wiley & Sons, 1996, ISBN 978-0-631-19555-9 , p. 186
  65. ^ Rosemary Thorp: Progress, Poverty and Exclusion, An Economic History of Latin America in the 20th Century. Inter American Development Bank, Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland 1998, ISBN 1-886938-35-0 , p. 197
  66. ^ Peter Preston: Development Theory: An Introduction. John Wiley & Sons, 1996, ISBN 978-0-631-19555-9 , p. 186.
  67. ^ Peter Preston: Development Theory: An Introduction. John Wiley & Sons, 1996, ISBN 978-0-631-19555-9 , pp. 186, 187.
  68. ↑ Christian Kellerman, The Organization of the Washington Consensus , Transcript, 1st Edition, 2006, ISBN 978-3899425536 , pp. 95, 96
  69. ^ Peter Preston, Development Theory: An Introduction , John Wiley & Sons, 1996, ISBN 978-0-631-19555-9 , p. 186
  70. ^ Peter Preston, Development Theory: An Introduction , John Wiley & Sons, 1996, ISBN 978-0-631-19555-9 , p. 186
  71. ↑ Stockmann, Menzel, Nuscheler, Entwicklungspolitik , Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2010, ISBN 978-3-486-58998-6 , pp. 108, 109
  72. ^ Joseph L. Love: The Rise and Decline of Economic Structuralism in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 100-125. P. 104.
  73. ^ Justin Yifu Lin, New Structural Economics, A Framework For Rethinking Development . (PDF; 345 kB) p. 9.
  74. ^ Joseph L. Love: The Rise and Decline of Economic Structuralism in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 100-125. P. 105.
  75. ^ Richard O'Brian, External Debt and Capital Flows in Latin America in: Kevin J. Middlebrook, Carlos Rico, The United States and Latin America in the 1980s. University of Pittsburgh Press, 1988, ISBN 0-8229-6087-7 , p. 210.
  76. ^ Justin Yifu Lin, New Structural Economics, A Framework For Rethinking Development . (PDF; 345 kB) p. 13.
  77. ^ Joseph L. Love: The Rise and Decline of Economic Structuralism in Latin America. In: Latin American Research Review. Vol. 40 No. 3 (2005), pp. 100-125. P. 107. (The reference point of the statistics are the 5 largest economies in South America).
  78. ^ Justin Yifu Lin, New Structural Economics, A Framework For Rethinking Development . (PDF; 345 kB) p. 10.
  79. ^ Fernando Ignacio Leiva: Toward a Critique of Latin American Neostructuralism. In: Latin American Politics and Society. Vol. 50 No. 4 (Winter, 2008), pp. 1–25, p. 1
  80. ^ Joseph L. Love, The Origins of Dependency Analysis. In: Journal of Latin American Studies. Vol. 22 No. 1 (Feb., 1990), pp. 143-168. P. 143.
  81. ↑ Werner Lachmann: Development Policy, Volume 1 Basics. 2nd Edition. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2004, ISBN 3-486-25139-2 , p. 88.