Export-Led Growth in Latin America: 1870–1930

1992 ◽  
Vol 24 (S1) ◽  
pp. 163-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Cortés Conde

In 1949 Raúl Prebisch, an Argentine economist, published a study for the United Nations’ Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA), in which he attributed the failure to reach sustained economic growth in Latin America to the international division of labour. Based on research carried out by ECLA on the terms of trade between manufactures and primary goods, he concluded that – contrary to expectations – they moved against primary products. If prices decline as productivity increases (in competitive markets), industrial goods, where the technological improvements had been more significant, should have declined in price more than agricultural goods. The empirical results of the study showed the opposite.1 If the Latin American countries therefore wanted to benefit from technological progress, they should move towards industrialisation. Almost at the same time, based on the same empirical study, Hans Singer not only argued that the gains from trade had not been distributed equally, but also that foreign investments in the export sector were not part of the domestic economy, but represented an enclave belonging to the countries of the centre which received its benefits.2 Singer advanced an argument that became popular later on; he noted the existence in the underdeveloped countries of a dual economy with two sectors each with different productivity and segmented markets: a modern sector linked to the central countries and a traditional sector linked to the rest of the economy. Also, from the critics of the classical theory of trade, another argument was put forward: the different income elasticities of demand for manufactures and agricultural goods (Engels’ law) suggested that expenditure on agricultural goods would decline in relative terms as incomes rose, hurting the terms of trade for primary products.3

Author(s):  
Hurova Anna ◽  
Lustosa Maryna ◽  
Mongrolle Zhulien

The Aarhus Convention concerning the right of information, participation and access to the justice in the environmental field was adopted in 25 June 1998, and came into effect in 30 October 2001 as part of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE-UN) is open for the adherence for every State even if not located in the European continent. However, in Mars 4, 2018, the Escazú Convention was adopted as a part of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), enshrining the same procedurals rights that Aarhus. The objective of this article is to understand why Latin-American states have chosen to create their own regional convention, even if they could have joined the Aarhus Convention concerning the same rights? The approach used to the making of this article was the bibliographic research et the interpretation of legislation and the conventions. In conclusion there’s two hypotheses justify the adoption of a certain convention, the Escazú Convention could be the answer of the Latin American towards the effectiveness of the Aarhus Convention, for instance minimization of effective realization of judicial protection of environmental rights and also, the Escazú Convention is the translation of the specific conception of environmental protection in Latin America. Also, the study found that States of Latin American and the Caribbean, through preservation of indigenous peoples, are able to transform the concept of sustainable development into so-called "continued development" and "good life" concepts. These concepts are not based on the balance of environmental and economic interests, but on the predominance of the first one. The practical implementation of these ideological foundations must go a long way to being effective, but clear wording of individual legal personality of people in fragile environmental situations, which is expressed in particular at the international level, in our opinion, already, forms the basis for further changes towards saving the planet for future generations.


Author(s):  
Guillermo Cruces ◽  
Gary S. Fields ◽  
David Jaume ◽  
Mariana Viollaz

This study is based on microeconomic data from more than 150 household surveys, five million households, and eighteen million persons contained in the SEDLAC—Socio-Economic Database for Latin America and the Caribbean. These data cover the following sixteen Latin American countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Based on these household surveys and the SEDLAC harmonization methodology, the study constructs comparable time series for a wide range of labour market, poverty, and income inequality indicators. It also employs aggregate macroeconomic indicators from two sources: the World Bank’s World Development Indicators and the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean’s database on social expenditure.


1962 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles A. Frankenhoff

“Historically the spread of technical progress has been uneven,” declared Dr. Raúl Prebisch, Executive Secretary of the United Nations’ Economic Commission for Latin America, “and this has contributed to the division of the World economy into industrial centers and peripheral countries engaged in primary production, with differences in income growth.” This division of the family of nations into relatively-developed “centers” and the developing “periphery” lies at the core of the Prebisch theory of industrialism for Latin America.The Prebisch “thesis”, already twelve years old, has grown out of the Latin-American experience and is gaining an increasing acceptance among Latin-American economists. The effort of this paper will be to lay open the elements of the Prebisch analysis uncritically at its several stages of development. But first it will be useful to review briefly the earlier development of economic growth theory in Latin America.


2002 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Maria Bianchi

This paper consists of a rhetorical interpretation of two essays published fifty years ago, at the beginning of the so-called “Latin American economic school.” Both were written by the Argentinean economist Raúl Prebisch (1901–1986), who was then working at the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA). As the most prominent Latin American economist, Prebisch fostered the construction of a theoretical framework that heavily influenced Latin American development policies after World War II.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (23) ◽  
pp. 13140
Author(s):  
Edith Medina-Hernández ◽  
María José Fernández-Gómez ◽  
Inmaculada Barrera-Mellado

This article analyzes the behavior of gender indicators on the economic, physical, and decision-making autonomy of Latin-American women, based on data compiled and published in 2020 by the Gender Equality Observatory of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), for 17 countries. Using the HJ-Biplot multivariate technique, it is concluded that the three evaluated areas interact with each other, in such a way that they cannot be interpreted in isolation because their relationships and interdependencies explain the differences in the participation of men and women in the socioeconomic and political environment of the nations in the region. Additionally, it is concluded that in countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Bolivia, and Ecuador, greater public policy actions are required to seek the economic empowerment of women; while in Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia, laws are necessary to regulate violence against women. It is necessary to continue promoting gender equality in the region as a determinant factor in methodological frameworks and transformational policies to enable moving towards the construction of sustainable societies and economies.


Author(s):  
Margarita Fajardo

The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA in English and CEPAL in Spanish and Portuguese) was more than an economic development institution. Established in 1948, at the height of post-World War II internationalism, CEPAL was one of the first three regional commissions alongside those of Europe and Asia charged with addressing problems of postwar economic reconstruction. But, in the hands of a group of mostly Argentinean, Brazilian, and Chilean economists, CEPAL swiftly became the institutional fulcrum of a regional intellectual project that put Latin America at the center of discussions about international development and global capitalism. That Latin America’s place in the periphery of the global economy as a producer of primary products and raw materials in exchange for manufactured goods from the world’s industrial centers, combined with the long-term decline in the international terms of that trade, constituted an obstacle for economic development, was the foundational tenet of that project. Through regional economic surveys and in-depth country studies, international forums and training courses, international cooperation initiatives, and national structural reforms, cepalinos located themselves at the nexus of a transnational network of diplomats and policymakers, economists and sociologists, and made the notion of center–periphery and the intellectual repertoire it inspired the central economic paradigm of the region in the postwar era. Eclipsed in the 1970s by critiques from the New Left and dependency theorists, on the one hand, and by the authoritarian right and neoliberal proponents, on the other hand, the cepalino project remains Latin America’s most important contribution to debates about capitalism and globalization, while the institution, after it reinvented itself at the turn of the century, still constitutes a point of reference and a privileged repository of information about the region.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document