Democracy and Development in a Globalized World: Thinking About Latin America from Within

Abstract

The choice among paths that countries should follow has been a staple of political debates in Latin America and, over the past 40 years, Fernando Cardoso has brought his analysis to bear on these debates. This article summarizes and then assesses Cardoso's argument about the choice of paths faced by Latin American countries, the consequences for democracy and development of following different paths, and the political position that is supported by this analysis of choices and their consequences. Though Cardoso explicitly supports the path of globalized social democracy over an anti-globalization option in the current period, I suggest that the current state of knowledge does not offer unequivocal support for the argument that choosing to follow the path of globalized social democracy-or that of antiglobalization-is the best political option for all countries in Latin America. Different countries might very well be doing what is best for them, given their circumstances, by following different paths.

What is populism? Who is the populist?

“…In contrast, redistributive populism looks to rein in global economic elites and redistribute wealth. Redistributive populism can manifest in various ways, from progressive attempts to regulate the market economy (Quaglia 2012) and to achieve a just economic system in which "[e]verybody does better when everybody does better" (Frazer 2017: 70) to protectionist measures against globalization (Munck 2009, specifically in the Latin American context) and even to ethnonationalist fantasies of returning to an economic golden age where one earner was enough to sustain the household (Baum 2017).…”

The transformation of state-business relations in an emerging economy

“…It emerged as a critique of classic dependency theory, which saw the prospects for Third World countries to develop as blocked by their dependence on the export of low-value primary products (such as raw materials and agricultural goods) to the core countries of the capitalist global economy (Prebisch, 1962;Frank, 1966). The theory of dependent development sought to account for important changes in the global economy that had occurred during the 1950s and 60s: the emergence of multinational corporations (MNCs) increasingly investing in manufacturing industry in the periphery and the partial success of some developing countries in fostering industrialization through the use of import-substitution industrialization (ISI) policies (Harriss, 2009;Munck, 2009;Cardoso and Faletto, 1979;Heller et al, 2009). Dependent development broke with traditional dependency theory by arguing that -for at least a subset of Third World countries (the more advanced, or semi-peripheral, countries) -development through industrialization was possible even under conditions of dependency.…”