CEPAL and ISI: Reconsidering the Debates, Policies and Outcomes - Núm. 68, Abril 2019 - Revista de Estudios Sociales - Libros y Revistas - VLEX 777660761

CEPAL and ISI: Reconsidering the Debates, Policies and Outcomes

Autor:Colin M. Lewis
Cargo:Ph.D. in Economic History. Professor Emeritus of Latin American Economic History at the London School of Economics & Political Science, United Kingdom
Páginas:8-26
RESUMEN

Reappraising cepalina import-substituting industrialisation (ISI) means exploring strategies associated with diagnoses and policy prescriptions, recognising that ideas and processes changed over time, that there was divergence between original diagnoses of development problems and policy interventions designed to resolve them, and that some strategies and outcomes attributed to ECLA were distant... (ver resumen completo)

 
EXTRACTO GRATUITO
8
CEPAL and ISI: Reconsidering the Debates, Policies and Outcomes *
Colin M. Lewis **
Received date: June 1, 2018 ·Acceptance date: October 29, 2018 · Modication date: February 28, 2019
https://doi.org/10.7440/res68.2019.02
How to cite: Lewis, Colin M. 2019. “CEPAL and ISI: Reconsidering the Debates, Policies and Outcomes”. Revista de Estudios Sociales
68: 8-26. https://doi.org/10.7440/res68.2019.02
ABSTRACT | Reappraising cepalina import-substituting industrialisation (ISI) means exploring strategies associated
with diagnoses and policy prescriptions, recognising that ideas and processes changed over time, that there
was divergence between original diagnoses of development problems and policy interventions designed to
resolve them, and that some strategies and outcomes attributed to ECLA were distant from original proposi-
tions. Section one locates the ECLA project within a stylised chronology. The second focusses on two sub-periods:
(i) proto-cepalismo; (ii) the classic phase of cepalismo. The third re-evaluates the project, challenging contem-
porary and current opinions. The main ndings emphasise continuities between the two sub-periods, arguing
that current vilication of the project by the left and the right is/was myopic. Industrial growth was underway
in some economies by/before the end of the nineteenth century; industrialisation may have occurred in some
countries before 1940; and what had been achieved by the 1990s in parts of the continent was considerable.
KEYWORDS | Development; industry; policy; State intervention
CEPAL e ISI: reconsideración de los debates, las políticas y los resultados
RESUMEN | Revaluar la industrialización por sustitución de importaciones (ISI) cepalina implica explorar estra-
tegias asociadas con diagnósticos y prescripción de políticas y, a la vez, reconocer que las ideas y los procesos
cambiaron con el tiempo, que hubo divergencias entre los diagnósticos originales de los problemas de
desarrollo y las intervenciones políticas diseñadas para resolverlos, y que algunas estrategias y varios resul-
tados atribuidos a la CEPAL se alejaban de sus propuestas originales. La primera sección localiza el proyecto
de la CEPAL dentro de una cronología estilizada. La segunda sección se centra en dos subperíodos: (i) el
proto-cepalismo y (ii) la fase clásica del cepalismo. La tercera revalúa el proyecto y cuestiona algunas opiniones
contemporáneas y actuales. Los hallazgos principales enfatizan las continuidades entre los dos subperíodos,
argumentando que el vilipendio actual del proyecto por parte de la izquierda y la derecha ha sido y sigue siendo
miope. El crecimiento industrial ya estaba en marcha en algunas economías desde antes del nal del siglo XIX;
la industrialización pudo haber ocurrido en algunos países antes de 1940; y lo que se alcanzó para la década de
los noventa en algunas partes del continente fue notable.
PALABRAS CLAVE | Desarrollo; industria; intervención estatal; política
CEPAL e ISI: reconsideração dos debates, políticas e resultados
RESUMO | Reavaliar a industrialização por substituição de importações (ISI) cepalina implica explorar estratégias
associadas com diagnósticos e prescrição de políticas e, por sua vez, reconhecer que as ideias e os processos
mudaram com o tempo, que houve divergências entre os diagnósticos originais dos problemas de desenvolvi-
* Elements of this article are based on a larger, independent research project part-funded by the LSE Staff Research Fund, with
incidental assistance from the Brazilian Association of Economic History (ABPHE).
** Ph.D. in Economic History. Professor Emeritus of Latin American Economic History at the London School of Economics & Political
Science, United Kingdom. Latest publications: Historical Dictionary of Argentina, (Bernardo Duggan, co-author). Lanham: Scarecrow
Press, 2019; Latin America, Economic Imperialism and the State. The Political Economy of the External Connection from Independence
to the Present, (Christopher Abel, co-editor). London: Bloomsbury Press, 2015. * c.m.lewis@lse.ac.uk
9
DOSSIER
CEPAL and ISI: Reconsidering the Debates, Policies and Outcomes | Colin M. Lewis
mento e das intervenções políticas criadas para resolvê-los, e que algumas estratégias e resultados atribuídos
à CEPAL se afastavam de suas propostas originais. A primeira seção localiza o projeto da CEPAL dentro de uma
cronologia estilizada. A segunda seção se centra em dois subperíodos: (i) o proto-cepalismo e (ii) a fase clássica
do cepalismo. A terceira reavalia o projeto e questiona algumas opiniões contemporâneas e atuais. As principais
descobertas enfatizam as continuidades entre os dois subperíodos e argumentam que o vilipêndio atual do projeto
por parte da esquerda e da direita foi e continua sendo míope. O crescimento industrial já estava em andamento
em algumas economias desde antes do nal do século XIX; a industrialização pôde ter ocorrido em alguns países
antes de 1940, e o que se alcançou para a década de 1990 em algumas partes do continente foi notável.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE | Desenvolvimento; indústria; intervenção estatal; política
Industrialization, with more rational policies for
import substitution industry (ISI), was recommend-
ed [in R. Prebisch The Economic Development of
Latin America and its Principal Problems, New York,
UN, 1950]. Under Prebisch’s leadership, the Com-
mission’s key policy thesis was that, unless gov-
ernment took corrective action, the existing form
of “spontaneous” ISI would have negative welfare
eects. The call for industrialization was not in itself
new for Latin Americans, who had found inspira-
tion in the ideas of the German Friedrich List, the
Romanian Mihail Manoilescu, and the Argentinean
[sic.] Alejandro Bunge, the last a former teacher of
Prebisch. The dierence was that, inspired by new
international insights, Prebisch embraced active
government intervention, arguing that industrial-
ization had to be planned, or “programmed”, to use
CEPAL’s language. To speak of “programming” was
new and challenging in connection with the idea
of ISI, as was the need for a regional dimension for
such a policy to be ecient. (Rivarola Puntigliano &
Appelqvist 2011, 41)
The Great Depression of the 1930s and the world
trade shocks triggered by the Second World War
dealt a fatal blow to export-led growth […] This
opened the way for the emergence of a new devel-
opment pattern in Latin America that we will refer
to as state-led industrialization. This term com-
bines the two main characteristics of this process:
an increasing focus on industrialization as a main-
stay of development and a considerable expansion
of the scope of state action in economic and social
aairs. The third characteristic of this pattern was
that it was geared towards the domestic market.
This orientation has been referred to in ECLAC
writing as “inward-looking development” but is
more commonly known as “import-substitution
industrialization” […] however, import-substitution
was not the most salient feature of this pattern
over time, nor one that was shared by all countries
during the half-century in which this development
strategy held sway. (Bértola & Ocampo 2012, 138)
The largest economies in South America had one
of the most impressive rates of industrial catch up
between the late nineteenth century and the late
1970s (Bénétrix et al. 2012; Williamson, 2006). The
largest economies in the region had rapid catch
up before 1920, in the 1930s, and then Brazil and
Colombia had very rapid and sustained catch up
with the global leaders between 1940 and 1980. The
1980s and early 1990s slowed down the region, but
by the rst decade of the twenty-rst century all
major economies started to industrialize rapidly
again. As such, this rapid process of industrializa-
tion is one of the most impressive and important
processes in the economic history of the Western
World and deserves careful scrutiny. (della Paolera,
Durán Amorocho & Musacchio 2015, 2)
Introduction
As the quotations above illustrate, explanations of
industrialisation in Latin America dier considerably,
and have changed over time. For much of the period
addressed in this article, the prevailing orthodoxy was
that the processes dated from c.1930. This reected the
view that insertion in the global economic system was
inimical to the development of manufacturing in periph-
eral economies —structural and conjunctural factors
associated with the terms of trade, diering elasticities
of demand for primary commodities and secondary
goods, plus the distinct functioning of factor markets in
centre and peripheral/satellite economies was inimical
to industrialisation (taken to mean development) in the
latter. To over-simplify, concerted state action in favour
of industry was the only remedy. Revisionist explana-
tions, in contrast to demand-side constraints identied
by structuralists, later rened by dependistas, empha-
sised supply-side factors associated with growth phases
driven by economic engagement with the world econ-
omy. These included factor and technology ows —not
least entrepreneurship, the thickening of the market
and consolidation of market-making institutions, and,
subsequently, a particular interpretation of (manufac-
tured) export-led growth in some East Asian economies

Para continuar leyendo

SOLICITA TU PRUEBA