IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Why has productivity growth stagnated in most Latin-American countries since the neo-liberal reforms? (Revised 26-07-2011)

Listed author(s):
  • Palma, J.G.

Latin America’s economic performance since the beginning of neo-liberal reforms has been poor; this not only contrasts with its performance pre-1980, but also with what was happening simultaneously in Asia. I shall argue that the weakness of the region’s new paradigm is rooted as much in its intrinsic flaws as in the particular way it has been implemented. From the latter’s perspective, what characterised Latin America’s economic reforms most was that they were undertaken as a result of the perceived economic weaknesses of the region—i.e., it was an attitude of ‘throwing in the towel’ vis-à-vis their previous state-led industrialisation strategy, as most politicians and economists interpreted the 1982 debt crisis as conclusive evidence that it had led the region into a cul-de-sac. As Hirschman argued, part of the problem was that people got stuck with some bad choices for too long, leading to such frustration and disappointment with existing institutions and policies that there was a remarkable ‘rebound effect’. Consequently, the discourse of the reforms ended up resembling a compass whose 'magnetic north' was simply the reversal of as many aspects of the previous development strategy as possible. This helps to explain the peculiar set of priorities and the rigidity with which the reforms were implemented in Latin America, as well as their poor outcome, as distinct from many Asian countries—where reforms were intended mainly as a more pragmatic mechanism to help lift pressing economic and financial constraints in order to continue and strengthen their existing ambitious industrialisation strategies.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge in its series Cambridge Working Papers in Economics with number 1030.

in new window

Date of creation: 29 May 2010
Handle: RePEc:cam:camdae:1030
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cam:camdae:1030. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jake Dyer)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.