Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Las fuentes del estructuralismo latinoamericano

Joseph L. Love
Desarrollo Económico
Vol. 36, No. 141 (Apr. - Jun., 1996), pp. 391-402
DOI: 10.2307/3467398
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3467398
Page Count: 12
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($12.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Las fuentes del estructuralismo latinoamericano
Preview not available

Abstract

El estudio considera la formulación original del estructuralismo de Raúl Prebisch y de la Comisión Económica para la América Latina (CEPAL) de la ONU. Examina el argumento de Prebisch de 1949, y defiende tres tesis: 1) que los cambios en el clima intelectual de entreguerras ocasionaron una brecha en la ortodoxia neoclásica, incluso entre los economistas de la Sociedad de Naciones (hecho que Prebisch jamás reconoció en sus declaraciones de la posguerra); 2) que Prebisch fue muy ecléctico, construyendo su argumento de varias proposiciones derivadas de la economía neoclásica, keynesiana y corporativista; 3) que la atribución del corporativismo como la fuente principal de la inspiración de Prebisch es errónea: más bien, los economistas, trabajando en una tradición neoclásica (Cassel, Kondratieff, Sommer y Kindleberger), así como Keynes, suministraron las fuentes básicas de su obra original y la de la escuela estructuralista latinoamericana. /// The study considers the original formulation of Raúl Prebisch's structuralism, which became that of the Economic Commission for Latin America of the United Nations. It defends three theses with regard to Prebisch's argument of 1949: 1) that changes in the intellectual climate of the 1930s and 1940s brought about a breach in neoclassical orthodoxy, even among economists of the League of Nations (a fact which Prebisch never recognized in postwar statements); 2) that Prebisch was highly eclectic, constructing his argument from various propositions derived from neoclassical, Keynesian, and corporatist economics: and 3) that the attribution of corporatism as the principal source of Prebisch's inspiration is erroneous: rather, economists working in a neoclassical tradition (Cassel, Kondratieff, Sommer, and Kindleberger) as well as Keynes, provided the main sources for his early work and that of the Latin American structuralist school.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
391
    391
  • Thumbnail: Page 
392
    392
  • Thumbnail: Page 
393
    393
  • Thumbnail: Page 
394
    394
  • Thumbnail: Page 
395
    395
  • Thumbnail: Page 
396
    396
  • Thumbnail: Page 
397
    397
  • Thumbnail: Page 
398
    398
  • Thumbnail: Page 
399
    399
  • Thumbnail: Page 
400
    400
  • Thumbnail: Page 
401
    401
  • Thumbnail: Page 
402
    402