With the present article the author rounds off the series he began with “A critique of peripheral capitalism” (published in Review No. 1), and continued with “Socio-economic structure and crisis of peripheral capitalism” (No. 6) and “The neoclassical theories of economic liberalism” (No. 7). While in all the preceding articles his main concern was to offer a critical interpretation of the functioning of peripheral capitalism and to show the inability of neoclassical theory to comprehend it in depth, in this one he seeks to trace the lines along which that system should be changed.
After recalling the basic features of his critique of how capitalism works in the periphery (chapter I), he sketches the criteria by which the process of change should be guided and which, in toto, constitute a synthesis of central values of socialism and liberalism (chapter II). He then goes on to pose certain inevitable questions as to the political conditions of change, through which he reaffirms the value of democracy as the ideal foundation for a harmonious society (chapter III). The next chapters (IV and V) are devoted to completing the presentation of his ideas via the analysis of problems of change linked to technique, demand, the structure of production, the specific features of peripheral capitalism, etc. In the final chapters he slightly shifts his angle of approach in order to deal, on the one hand, with the role of centre-periphery relations in change (chapter VI); and on the other hand, with the present crisis in the centres and its repercussions on the periphery (chapter VII); ending with a few reflections on ethics, rationality and foresight (chapter VIII).
His central ideas will give rise to controversy, not only because of their provenance, but also because they pivot upon the vexed questions of appropriation and social use of the surplus. But the writer is convinced that the present crisis will not be overcome with superficial measures; if it is to be surmounted and a developed, democratic and equitable society is to be built up, the process of change will have to strike at the very roots of the system.

Con este artículo el autor pone fin a la serie que iniciara con “Crítica al capitalismo periférico” (publicado en el N° 1), y continuara con “Estructura socioeconómica y crisis del sistema” (N° 6) y “Las teorías neoclásicas del liberalismo económico” (N° 7). Si en todos los anteriores su preocupación principal consistió en interpretar críticamente el funcionamiento del capitalismo periférico y demostrar la incapacidad de la teoría neoclásica para comprenderlo en profundidad, en este procura brindar los lineamientos que debería seguir la transformación de ese sistema.
Después de recordar los rasgos básicos de su crítica al funcionamiento del capitalismo en la periferia (Cap. I), esboza los criterios que deben orientar la transformación, los que, en suma, constituyen una síntesis de valores centrales del socialismo y del liberalismo (Cap. II). A continuación, plantea algunas cuestiones inevitables sobre las condiciones políticas de la transformación, por medio de las cuales reafirma el valor de la democracia como ideal de convivencia (Cap. III). Los capítulos inmediatamente siguientes (IV y V) están dedicados a completar sus planteamientos a través del análisis de problemas de la transformación vinculados a la técnica, la demanda, la estructura productiva, los rasgos específicos del capitalismo periférico, y otros. En los capítulos finales cambia un tanto su foco de análisis para tratar, por una parte, el papel de las relaciones centro-periferia en la transformación (Cap. VI); y, por otra, la crisis actual de los centros y sus repercusiones sobre la periferia (Cap. VII); para finalizar con unas reflexiones sobre ética, racionalidad y previsión (Cap. VIII).
Sus ideas centrales provocarán polémicas, no solo por quien las escribe, sino también porque giran alrededor de las controvertidas nociones de apropiación y uso social del excedente. Pero el autor está convencido de que la crisis actual no será superada con medidas superficiales; si se quiere salir de ella y construir una sociedad desarrollada, democrática y equitativa, será necesario que la transformación llegue hasta las raíces del sistema.

Globalization poses both challenges and opportunities. Prebisch confronted this development dilemma in the global world and left three messages which form the great legacy of his work. Firstly, central countries form visions of the world order that serve their own interests; and peripheral countries need to rebel against this theoretical framework to resolve the dilemma. Secondly, it is possible to transform reality and achieve a symmetrical non-subordinate relationship with the world’s power centres. Thirdly, the transformation requires a fundamental change in productive structures to incorporate knowledge into economic and social activity, since this is the fundamental instrument of development. These messages remain fully current to this day.

This paper examines growth in a set of Latin American countries from 1980 to 2004 by analysing total factor productivity (tfp) from a twofold perspective: maximization of output (gdp) and minimization of the co2 emissions generated in the production process. Malmquist productivity indices are constructed for this purpose. In addition, kernel density functions are employed to analyse convergence (or divergence) in the efficiency estimated. The results obtained indicate that incorporating environmental factors into the measurement of efficiency and productive change significantly improves the estimates for certain countries in the region by comparison with those obtained by more traditional methods.

The aim of this paper is to study the economic dynamics of a set of countries of the Americas during the 1955-2003 period. It does this by introducing an alternative concept of economic performance based on the idea of dynamic regimes. These regimes are defined by the level and growth rate of per capita gross domestic product (gdp). By introducing a non-parametric clustering method, the study identifies two main performance clubs whose evolution is studied. One of them, identified as the club of high-performing countries, displays a relatively homogeneous structure. The second group, conversely, presents a high level of dispersion in performances, suggesting the existence of subclusters with a degree of divergence between them. The study also finds that there is mobility between the low- and high-performing groups and that the distance between clusters increases over time.

This article seeks to quantify basic infrastructure trends in the region, and assess the extent to which they have fallen behind those in Southeast Asian countries, which were clearly less developed than their Latin American counterparts in the late 1970s. The specific aim is to identify the main general characteristics of basic infrastructure development in Latin America, highlighting the problems faced by the investment process, with a view to identifying the main consequences of those problems and thus specify the challenges facing the region’s countries.

The discussion of styles of development has been complicated by the improper use of this and other associated terms. In order to avoid misunderstandings, this article starts by examining the concepts of system and structure and on this basis, goes on to define a style of development as “the way in which human and material resources are organized and assigned within a particular system with the object of solving such questions as what goods and services to produce; how; and for whom”.
More specifically, it notes two sets of features of such styles: (a) those which make up the structural basis of the production apparatus, especially the sectoral structure of the product and employment, the various technological strata, and the predominant type of external relationship, and (b) the dynamic elements of the system, which are revealed by analyzing the level and composition of demand and its underlying basic factors, namely the level and distribution of income. These two sets of features are closely linked by a circle of mutual cause and effect.
The article does not limit itself to a conceptual explanation: on the basis of statistical data it also describes the prevailing economic styles in Latin America, the fundamental problems which beset them, and the possible options for solving these.

La discusión sobre estilos de desarrollo se ha visto complicada por el uso inadecua do de este y otros términos conexos. Para evitar malentendidos, este artículo examina ante todo los conceptos de sistema y estructura y, sobre esa base, define un estilo de desarrollo como el modo en que “dentro de un determinado sistema se organizan y asignan los recursos humanos y materiales con el objeto de resolver los interrogantes sobre qué, para quiénes y cómo producir los bienes y servicios”. Más concretamente, señala en los estilos dos conjuntos de rasgos: a) los que componen la base estructural de la organización productiva, en especial la estructura sectorial del producto y del empleo, los diversos estratos tecnológicos y el tipo de relacionamiento externo predominante, y b) los elementos dinámicos del sistema, que se revelan a partir del análisis del nivel y composición de la demanda y de sus antecedentes, que son el nivel y distribución del ingreso. Ambos conjuntos de rasgos están estrechamente vinculados por medio de un círculo de causalidad acumulativa.
El artículo no se limita solo a una elucidación conceptual; sobre la base de material estadístico caracteriza los estilos económicos predominantes en América Latina, los problemas fundamentales que los aquejan y las posibles opciones para resolverlos.