From the Latin American Manifesto to Neostructuralism: the controversy about the setback of historical-structural criticism

Abstract

This paper aims to present the controversy in the debate around the validity of                 neostructuralism as a school of thought critical to economic orthodoxy (neoclassical) and as an alternative agenda to the neoliberal program. For this, first, the CEPAL’s classic structuralism and the contribution of dependentists approaches are revisited, representing the peak of historical-structural criticism. Then, the central points of the neostructuralist agenda developed within ECLAC from the 1990s onwards are addressed, based on the Commission’s publications. Finally, the controversy present in the debate between the main intellectuals of ECLAC and the authors critical to the neostructuralist program is presented. While ECLAC argues that neostructuralism is a heterodox approach and represents a critical thinking due to the fact that it is tied to the previous decades of production of the institution through the historical-structural method, its critics understand that the “update” represents the rupture of ECLAC with the central pillars of classical structuralism. It is understood that the neostructuralist program cannot be considered to be the natural result of the evolution of ECLAC to adapt to changing times. Despite differing from neoliberalism, the program represents a major setback in the Latin American critical thinking, the original analytical power of peripheral and underdeveloped condition and a reduction of the historical-structural method to the domestication imposed by the theories produced by central countries.