Clicca qui per scaricare

Lo Stato nello strutturalismo latinoamericano: negligenza teorica o condizionamenti di classe?
Titolo Rivista: DEMOCRAZIA E DIRITTO 
Autori/Curatori: Juan Grigera 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2014 Fascicolo: 2  Lingua: Italiano 
Numero pagine:  23 P. 225-247 Dimensione file:  87 KB
DOI:  10.3280/DED2014-002010
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 





  1. Amsden A. (1989), Asia’s next giant: South Korea and late industrialisation, Oxford University Press, London-
  2. Barrow C.( 2007), “Ralph miliband and the instrumentalist theory of the state: The (Mis) construction of an analytic concept”, in Class, Power and the State in Capitalist Society, a cura di P. Wetherly, C. Barrow, and P. Burnham, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke.
  3. Baumol W. J. (1969), “Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth”, in The American Economic Review, 57, 3,4 415-426.
  4. Bielschowsky R. (ed.) (1998), Cincuenta años de pensamiento de la CEPAL: textos seleccionados, CEPAL-Fondo de Cultura Economica, Mexico.
  5. Bielschowsky R. (2009), “Sesenta años de la CEPAL: estructuralismo y neoestructuralismo”, in Revista Cepal, 97, 173–194.
  6. Bielschowsky R. (2010), “Sesenta años de la CEPAL y el pensamiento reciente”, in Sesenta Años de la CEPAL. Textos seleccionados del decenio 1998-2008 a cura di R. Bielschowsky, CEPAL-Siglo XXI, Buenos Aires.
  7. Bonnet A. (2008), La hegemonía menemista, Prometeo Libros Editorial, Buenos Aires.
  8. Bonnet A, Piva, A. (2013),. “El estado en el kirchnerismo. Un análisis de los cambios en la forma de estado a partir de la crisis de 2001”, in Argentina después de la convertibilidad, a cura di J. Grigera, Buenos Aires: Imago Mundi.
  9. Braverman H. (1974), Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century, Monthly Review Press, New York.
  10. Bruton H. J.(1998), “A reconsideration of import substitution”, in Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 2, 903–936.
  11. Cardoso F. H. 1977, “The originality of a copy: CEPAL and the idea of development”, in CEPAL Review, 4, 7–38.
  12. Cardoso F. H., Faletto E. (1969), Dependencia y desarrollo en América Latina, Siglo XXI, Mexico.
  13. Cepal (1969), El pensamiento de la CEPAL, Santiago de Chile, Editorial Universitaria.
  14. Clarke S. (1991), “State, class struggle and the reproduction of capital”, in The state debate, Macmillan. London: Dosman E. (2001), “Los mercados y el estado en la evolución del ‘manifiesto’ de Prebisch”, in Revista de la CEPAL, 75, 89–105.
  15. Evans P. (1995), Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  16. Evans P., Wolfson L. (1996), “El estado como problema y como solución”, in Desarrollo Económico, 35, 140, 529–562.
  17. Fajnzylber F. (1983), La industrialización trunca de América Latina, Centro de Economía Transnacional, Santiago de Chile.
  18. Fajnzylber F. (1990), “La industrializacion en America Latina: de la caja negra al casillero vacio”, in Cuadernos de la Cepal, 60.
  19. Faria V. E. (1978), “Desarrollo económico y marginalidad urbana: los cambios de perspectiva de la Cepal”, in Revista Mexicana de Sociología, 40, 1, 9–29.
  20. Gurrieri A. (1983), “Technical progress and its fruits: The idea of development in the works of Raúl Prebisch”, in Journal of Economic Issues, 17, 2, 389–396.
  21. Chang Ha Joon (1993), The Political Economy of Industrial Policy, Macmillan, Basingstoke.
  22. Hirschman A.(1968), “The political economy of Import-Substituting industrial-ization in latin America”, in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82, 1, 1–32.
  23. Hirschman A.(1971), “Ideologies of economic development in Latin America”, in A bias for hope: essays on development and Latin America, Yale University Press, New Haven.
  24. Kay C. (1998), “Estructuralismo y teoría de la dependencia en el período neoliberal. Una perspectiva latinoamericana”, in Nueva Sociedad, 158, 100-119.
  25. Leiva F. I. (2008a), Latin American neostructuralism: the contradictions of postneoliberal development, University of Minnesota Press.
  26. Leiva F. I. (2008b), “Toward a critique of Latin American neostructuralism”, in Latin American Politics and Society, 50, 4, 1–25.
  27. Lewis C. (1999), “Industry and Industrialisation: What Has Been Accomplished, What Needs to Be Done”, in Economia, 23, 7–25.
  28. Love J. (1984), “Economic ideas and ideologies in Latin America since 1930”, in The Cambridge history of Latin America, a cura di L. Bethell, Volume 6, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  29. Nelson R. (1998), “The Agenda for Growth Theory: a Different Point of View”, in Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22, 497–520.
  30. Ocampo J.A. (1998), “Cincuenta años de la Cepal”, in Revista de la Cepal, Número especial, 11-16.
  31. Olivos M. T. (ed.) (2006), Fernando Fajnzylber: una visión renovadora del desarrollo de América Latina,Cepal, Santiago de Chile.
  32. Palma G. (1978), “Dependency: A formal theory of underdevelopment or a methodology for the analysis of concrete situations of underdevelopment?”, in World Development, 6, 7-8, 881–924.
  33. Perelman M.( 2000), The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation, Duke University Press, Durham & London.
  34. Pinto A. (1970), “Naturaleza e implicaciones de la ‘heterogeneidad estructural’ de la américa latina”, in El Trimestre Económico, 37, 145, 83–100.
  35. Prebisch R. (1949), El desarrollo económico de la américa latina y algunos de sus principales problemas, Cepal, Santiago de Chile.
  36. Prebisch R. (1951), “Theoretical and practical problems of economic growth”, Document E/CN UN 12/221, United Nations-Eclac, Mexico DF.
  37. Prebisch R. (1981), Capitalismo periférico: crisis y transformación, Fondo de Cultura Economica, México.
  38. Prebisch R. (1961), “Economic Development, Planning and International Cooperation”, UN.II.G.1961.6-8, United Nations, Santiago de Chile.
  39. Rodríguez O. (2001), “Prebisch: Actualidad de sus ideas básicas”, in Revista de la Cepal 75, 41-53.
  40. Saad-Filho A. (2005), “The rise and decline of latin american structuralism and dependency theory”, in The origins of development economics: how schools of economic thought have addressed development, a cura di K. Jomo y E. Reinert, Zed Books, London.
  41. Selwyn B. (2009), “An historical materialist appraisal of Friedrich List and his modern-day followers”, in New Political Economy, 14, 2, 157-180. Singer H. W. (1950), “The distribution of gains between investing and borrowing countries”, in The American Economic Review, 40, 2, 473–485.
  42. Spraos J. (1980), “The statistical debate on the net barter terms of trade between primary commodities and manufactures”, in The Economic Journal, 90, 357, 107–128.
  43. Sztulwark S. (2006), El estructuralismo latinoamericano, Prometeo, Buenos Aires.
  44. Viner J. (1951), “A economia do desenvolvimento”, in Revista Brasileira de Economia, 5, 2, 181–225.
  45. Wade R. (2003), Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  46. Webber J. R. (2010), “Review: Latin American neostructuralism by Fernando Ignacio Leiva”, in Historical Materialism 18 (3), 208–229.

Juan Grigera, in "DEMOCRAZIA E DIRITTO" 2/2014, pp. 225-247, DOI:10.3280/DED2014-002010

   

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche