Global Crisis and Latin America

Abstract

Most would agree that the post-WWII world economic expansion-the so-called golden age of capitalism-reached a crisis in the 1970s that precipitated a period of restructuring and transformation and ushered in a new model of global capital accumulation now known as neo-liberalism. There is less agreement on the nature of this crisis or on the larger concept of globalization identified with it. My own theoretical understanding of these topics coheres with the "global capitalism thesis," which sees the turn-of-the-century global system as a new epoch in the history of world capitalism (see,

Moving from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources: The role of social learning processes in rural India, Bolivia and Mali

“…population decline, withdrawal of public and private services, agricultural restructuring and policy based on economic efficiency-these aspects are also highly relevant for most developing countries (UNEP, 2002). The main difference between developed and developing countries lies in the combination of these factors, the acuteness of the problems the latter generate, and the societal, economic and natural resources available to address the problems (Robinson, 2004;Wiesmann and Hurni, 2004). In developing countries, the understanding of 'development' as depending on governance rather than on government has a longer tradition than in developed countries, due mainly to the cumulative effects of inherent failures of governmental systems and their significant weakening through structural adjustments (Keefer, 2004).…”

Argentina Since the 2001 Crisis

“…Many scholars of the left agree with the basic supposition that the crisis was due to a lack of growth in the Argentine economy but understand it to be attributable to reasons of dependency (Robinson 2004;Bonnet 2006;Petras and Veltmeyer 2009). William Robinson's (2004, 138-39) analysis demonstrates this position well when he points to "structural asymmetries" in the global economic system, such as continued dependence on commodity exports and a steady deterioration in the terms of trade, as not only underlying reasons for the Argentine crisis, but the crisis that long plagued the whole of Latin America.…”

Comparing Critical Junctures: The Democratic Inclusion of Social Movements in Norway and Latin America

“…Although there is significant debate about the degree to which global and national capitalist structures limit policy space, there is a general understanding that (i) the emergence of social movements simultaneously in different national contexts cannot be understood as an isolated phenomenon but is linked to the development of global capitalism, and (ii) that solutions cannot be found only at the domestic level. Neither 'socialism' nor 'Keynesianism' in a single country can be sustained; they are always affected by international or global conditions and are currently much less favourable to national projects than they were when the European social movements entered power in the mid-20th century (Robinson, 2004). Thus, while counteracting neo-liberal policies is among the key demands of social movements today, the global politic-economic context put clear limitations on such attempts.…”