State-Business-Labour Relations and Patterns of Development in Latin America

Gaitán, Flavio; Boschi, Renato Raul

doi:10.1057/9781137444615_11

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Así comienzan a aparecer una diversidad de abordajes en América Latina, que examinan esta literatura con ojos críticos y hasta proponen una nueva caracterización de capitalismo jerárquico (Ross Schneider, 2013). Aparecen nuevas críticas de quienes sostienen (Gaitán y Boschi, 2015) que en la región la literatura no toma en cuenta la posición estructural en los sistemas internacionales, no considera al Estado como un actor estratégico y, a pesar de reconocer la baja inversión en ciencia y tecnología, la desigualdad y la dependencia de las exportaciones primarias, se considera que es posible construir proyectos desarrollistas definidos nacionalmente. Boschi (2011) analiza al empresariado brasileño y reflexiona sobre el capitalismo en el contexto de la globalización en América Latina, donde los desafíos aparecen en función de la trayectoria, el tipo de régimen productivo y las empresas.…”

Section: Relaciones Internacionalesunclassified

Economía Política Global latinoamericana: un campo de estudio efervescente entre el desarrollo y el regionalismo

Quiliconi

2022

Rel. Int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este artículo tiene como objetivo contribuir a un debate reciente para revalorizar los aportes de América Latina a la Economía Política Internacional (EPI) desde una perspectiva más amplia y plural ofrecida por la Economía Política Global (EPG). Más que una disciplina, este enfoque representa un campo de estudio donde coexisten diversas posiciones teóricas, metodológicas, epistemológicas y ontológicas con base local para el reconocimiento equitativo de las teorías y aportes generados en el Sur Global. Aunque no representa un planteamiento contrahegemónico al pensamiento occidental, la EPG cuestiona la aplicabilidad de las teorías preponderantes de la EPI al considerarlas limitadas en términos de explicación y replicabilidad para Latinoamérica. Desde el análisis histórico, se propone comparar los eventos políticos y económicos más relevantes que propiciaron la creación de un campo regional en EPG. De esa forma, este documento aborda cómo el estructuralismo y las teorías del desarrollo se convirtieron en los pilares de una escuela de pensamiento latinoamericana que luego se ha expandido a un subcampo individual de investigación en la región. Se argumenta que estos aportes pueden identificarse como una vertiente particular construida principalmente sobre el debate de los términos de intercambio y de los estudios de desarrollo en general, pero con ramificaciones posteriores que han insertado debates en la región sobre regionalismo e inserción internacional, así como también el financiamiento para el desarrollo y variedades de capitalismo, dentro de una discusión que ha crecido en las últimas décadas. El artículo se divide en cuatro apartados que abordan los principales aportes de la EPG latinoamericana. Primero, se sintetizan los debates seminales en la construcción del campo de la EPG latinoamericana del estructuralismo y las teorías de la dependencia. Segundo, se destaca la importancia de la integración regional y el regionalismo como pilares centrales de la Escuela Latinoamericana de EPG. Tercero, se da cuenta de cómo los análisis más recientes sobre financiamiento para el desarrollo y variedades de capitalismo han contribuido a alimentar la EPG latinoamericana. Finalmente, se analiza si el campo de la EPI es de carácter global o se enfrenta a una nueva etapa en la que se revaloriza y destaca la contribución y singularidad de los debates regionales.

show abstract

Section: Relaciones Internacionalesunclassified

Economía Política Global latinoamericana: un campo de estudio efervescente entre el desarrollo y el regionalismo

Quiliconi

2022

Rel. Int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These features provide a range of socially undesirable incentives that constitute 'negative' institutional complementarities such as low private R&D investments, little innovation and a 'low-skill trap' that precludes investments in education and training (ibid., p. 34-7). Obviously, the HME model has been criticised considerably, in particular for its inadequate capacity to capture the institutional diversity of Latin American capitalism, first and foremost the fundamental role of the state and for its pessimism that allows no vision of how to overcome these deficits (Boschi and Gaitán 2009, Sánchez-Ancochea 2009, Boschi 2011, Ebenau 2012, Bizberg 2014, Gaitán and Boschi 2015.…”

Section: Comparative Capitalism and Emerging Marketsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Capitalism, Growth Models and Emerging Markets: The Development of the Field

Schedelik

Nölke

Mertens

et al. 2020

New Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, the study of emerging markets has become one of the most vibrant fields of Comparative Capitalism (CC) scholarship. CC studies have not only mapped a range of different emerging market capitalisms but have also identified both functional and dysfunctional types that further differ based on their integration into the global economy. The article reviews the evolution of these ideal-typological efforts, ranging from the notion of dependent market economies in Central Eastern Europe to hierarchical market economies prevalent mostly in Latin America, from patrimonial capitalism (such as in Russia) to statepermeated capitalism (based on the study of China and India). While the CC study of emerging markets has also addressed some of the criticisms posed against the earlier Varieties of Capitalism-framework, it still faces significant analytical and methodological challenges. Against this background, the article proposes to incorporate the Growth Model approach into the CC framework and probes its usefulness for the analysis of emerging market capitalisms.

show abstract

“…Each of these models arise according to how hegemonic coalitions have guided capitalism within each country, and how business interests have adapted to these realities (Bizberg & Théret, 2012;Gaitán & Boschi, 2015). This points to the importance of comparative analysis for studying the relationship between state and market in platform policymaking and the resulting platform economy (Sheahan, 2002;Boschi, 2011 If policy resulting from platform disruptions falls outside of these frameworks, then we can surmise that either there has been a failure of governance, or the process has been co-opted by special interests.…”

Section: Platform Developmentalism and Policy Disruption In Latin Americamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, the ability of platform businesses to mobilise electoral power has been well documented by observers around the world (Gillespie, 2010) and in Latin America (Torres Castro, 2016). classifications, however, Gaitán and Boschi (2015) argue that in Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, government plays only a "subsidiary role" in terms of regulating economic activity (p. 180) in contrast to other Latin American states where governments have pursued more interventionist roles such as Argentina and Brazil, or Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Costa Rica, for its part, is well known as an exceptional case in Latin America (Sandbrook et al, 2007).…”

Section: Platform Developmentalism and Policy Disruption In Latin Americamentioning

confidence: 99%

Platform developmentalism: leveraging platform innovation for national development in Latin America

Reilly¹

2020

Internet Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, development scholars have begun to study the platform economy. In Latin America, platformisation has resulted in the widespread reorganisation of business practices across many sectors, with important implications for incumbent industries, labour and social processes. These changes raise questions about the potential contributions of platformisation to national economic health and social welfare. This paper argues that the link between platformisation and development can be studied from a developmental state point of view. Specifically, in Latin America, the disruptions caused by platform innovations create policy windows that could result in platform developmental policy innovations, however, developmental policy-making is constrained by the structural characteristics of Latin American economies. Taking this into consideration, the paper positions Biber et al. 's (2017) model of policy disruption, and Fairfield's (2015) model of policy influence as tools to critically assess platform policymaking from a developmentalist point of view. This approach is illustrated through a survey and discussion of policy disruptions caused by platformisation in the transportation, lodging and fintech sectors of Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru. The discussion surfaces specific challenges for platform developmentalism related to policy autonomy and capture, societal mobilisation of data and other resources, and state-market collaborations. The paper concludes by positioning the 'platform society' as a normative goal and offers an agenda to advance it through comparative research of platform policymaking.Issue 4

show abstract

State-Business-Labour Relations and Patterns of Development in Latin America

Cited by 6 publications

References 20 publications

Economía Política Global latinoamericana: un campo de estudio efervescente entre el desarrollo y el regionalismo

Economía Política Global latinoamericana: un campo de estudio efervescente entre el desarrollo y el regionalismo

Comparative Capitalism, Growth Models and Emerging Markets: The Development of the Field

Platform developmentalism: leveraging platform innovation for national development in Latin America

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About