A crítica novo-institucionalista ao pensamento da Cepal: a dimensão institucional e o papel da ideologia no desenvolvimento econômico

Abstract

ResumoEste trabalho procura discutir a procedência de críticas levantadas por autores da Nova Economia Institucional à explicação da Cepal para as causas do atraso econômico da América Latina. Argumentamos que o pensamento cepalino não negligencia a dimensão institucional do desenvolvimento econômico, nem tampouco se limita a fornecer argumentos para a adoção de políticas econômicas que reforcem a ineficiência da matriz institucional desses países. Enquanto demonstramos a improcedência dessa crítica, evidenciaremos a proximidade do pensamento cepalino em relação ao institucionalismo econômico, e destarte, a viabilidade da construção de uma agenda comum de pesquisa para essas escolas. Palavras-chave:Conselho Econômico para a América Latina (Cepal); Nova Economia Institucional (NEI); Institucionalismo; Estruturalismo; Teoria da dependência. Abstract The of ideology in economic developmentThis paper aims at discussing the validity of criticism raised by New Institutional Economics against ECLA (or Cepal) explanation of Latin America economic underdevelopment. We shall argue that the cepalista approach neither neglects the institutional dimension of the economic development nor is limited to provide reasoning for the adoption of economic policies that would reinforce the ineffectiveness of the institutional matrix of those countries. While demonstrating that such criticism is misplaced, we shall also emphasize the viability of a common research agenda between ECLA school and economic institutionalism.

Decisão das fronteiras verticais da firma: Considerações de complementaridade

“…Initially, it must be highlighted that the contemporary institutional thought is essentially divided into two main theoretical lines, the first of which is known as Old Institutional Economics (OIE). As stated in Aguilar Filho & Silva Filho (2010), this line helped disseminate the approach of economic analysis, and sought to study economic phenomena employing analytic tools from other sciences, such as psychology, grounding itself on the influence of technologic developments, social and historical facts, and practices of collective norms and values. Old Institutionalism, as it may also be known, is guided by initial thinkers, such as Commons (1959), Mitchell (1967) and Veblen (1974).…”

“…The second theoretical line, our focus in this study, is New Institutional Economics (NIE), stemming from the studies of Coase (1937), Williamson (1985) and North (1990). This framework originates from the previous theoretical line, presented earlier, but differs from it on methodology and concepts due to being based on conventional economic thinking, related to understanding of the influence of the institutional matrix on the economic environment (Aguilar Filho & Silva Filho, 2010). Joskow (2003) posits that New Institutional Economics is clearly different from Old Institutional Economics, emphasizing that NIE seeks to better explain economic phenomena so that economic policies are able to better serve social interests (Joskow, 2003).…”