Latin America has long struggled with uneven development and economic instability. Since gaining independence in the early 19th century, most Latin American nations have grappled with how to generate self-sustaining economic growth and improve standards of living. Access to capital, technology transfers, and the diffusion of economic ideas have been crucial but vexing issues.
This article provides an overview of capital, ideas, and development in Latin America over the past two centuries. It analyzes the interplay between foreign capital inflows, shifts in economic thought, government policies, and development outcomes. The focus is on how capital and ideas have shaped Latin American economies, from the early export-led growth models to import-substitution industrialization to market liberalization reforms.
The Colonial Legacy
Latin America’s colonial legacy weighs heavily on its development trajectory. The Spanish and Portuguese colonizers oriented their American colonies around extracting and exporting natural resources to the metropolis. This created an economic structure dependent on external demand and foreign capital.[1] Mining and plantation export economies used coerced native labor and imported African slaves.[2] This fostered concentrated landownership and income inequality patterns which still plague the region today.[3]
Post-independence, most Latin American countries struggled to diversify their economies away from primary product exports. The legacy of the colonial trade monopolies made Latin American countries dependent on British and other foreign capital to build railroads and port facilities required for expanding commodity exports.[4] Export concentration left Latin American economies vulnerable to volatile world prices. Meanwhile, the wars of independence cut off capital flows from Spain and Portugal, which contributed to political instability in the early national period.[5]
The Incorporation into the Global Economy
In the late 19th century, Latin American countries began importing more capital and ideas from Europe and North America. This facilitated export-led growth based on commodities and some light manufactures.[6] However, this also meant dependence on foreign technology and capital goods imports.[7]
British capital financed major infrastructure projects like railroads, ports, utilities in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico.[8] U.S. capital became increasingly important after 1914. By 1929, over 60% of Latin American foreign capital was of U.S. origin.[9] External borrowing helped expand export sectors but also increased indebtedness. Debt crises erupted in the 1870s and again in the 1930s, exacerbating financial dependence.[10]
Classical liberal economic thought permeated Latin American positivist circles in the late 1800s.[11] Free trade, balanced budgets, hard currency cover, and capital inflows were seen as foundations for modernization.[12] However, some like Mexico’s Justo Sierra argued liberal orthodoxy failed to generate domestic capital for development.[13]
The dramatic growth of exports, foreign capital, and urban populations fostered optimism about progress. But social structures remained highly unequal and most people were still rural and poor.[14] Export orientation also brought recurring balance of payments problems.[15] These dynamics fueled an early critique of classical liberalism and dependent insertion in the global economy.[16]
Import Substitution Industrialization
The Great Depression of the 1930s led many Latin American countries to shift toward import substitution industrialization (ISI). The collapse of global trade and capital flows undermined the old export model. ISI emerged as a popular development strategy that aimed to build domestic industries to supply the internal market and reduce dependence on imports.[17]
ISI was promoted by the United Nations Economic Commission on Latin America (ECLA) under Raul Prebisch.[18] ECLA thinkers argued that unfavorable terms of trade for commodity exporters made ISI imperative for escaping underdevelopment. They helped design policies of quantitative restrictions, multiple exchange rates, and state-led industrialization.[19]
ISI was adopted to varying degrees in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and across the region from the 1930s-1970s. It fostered rapid industrialization and urbanization, though oil-exporting countries Venezuela and Mexico industrialized less.[20] State agencies, subsidies, protective tariffs, and multinationals promoted industrial growth.[21] But ISI generated inefficient, capital-intensive industries reliant on imported machinery and inputs.[22] It also failed to absorb the rapidly growing urban workforce.[23]
ISI was accompanied by Keynesian-style policies of countercyclical state spending, sometimes financed by money printing and budget deficits. Populist and leftist politicians expanded state intervention, public investment, and welfare programs.[24] But loose macro policies eventually yielded debt and hyperinflation crises in the late 1970s-1980s.[25]
Dependency Theory and Heterodox Thinking
The perceived shortcomings of ISI led Latin American thinkers to develop structuralist and dependency theories to explain persistent underdevelopment.[26] They argued ISI failed because Latin American countries occupy a dependent position in the global capitalist system dominated by rich core countries.[27]
Dependency theorists like Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Enzo Faletto, and Theotonio Dos Santos saw Third World underdevelopment as systematically conditioned by the patterns of world trade, global capital flows, and technological diffusion dictated by core economies.[28] Even with ISI, Latin American countries remained trapped in dependent positions due to reliance on foreign capital goods and technology.[29]
Structuralists like Raul Prebisch, Celso Furtado, and Anibal Pinto offered a related critique focused on the internal economic structure of wages, profits, technology access, and income distribution. Underdevelopment resulted from the interplay between external dependency and domestic structural factors.[30] For example, inadequate wages limited domestic demand expansion needed for sustained industrialization.[31]
Heterodox economists called for greater state intervention to remedy structural imbalances and dependency. Policy proposals included redistributive land reform, wage increases, expanding credit, resisting foreign capital dominance, and democratizing resource access.[32] But decades of ISI yielded disappointing results for poverty and inequality, leading to disillusionment with state-led development.[33]
The Debt Crisis and Lost Decade
By the 1970s, the inherent flaws of excessive state intervention under ISI had become apparent. High trade barriers hurt export competitiveness while overvalued exchange rates exacerbated balance of payments deficits.[34] Widespread subsidies, price controls, and enterprise bailouts strained public finances.[35] Persistent fiscal deficits monetized by central banks fueled rising inflation.[36]
The oil shocks of the 1970s pushed many Latin American countries’ external balances into critical territory. Rather than adjust, countries turned to foreign borrowing to cover deficits and sustain economic activity.[37] This expanding debt load set the stage for a disastrous regional debt crisis in the 1980s.
When the U.S. Federal Reserve sharply raised interest rates in 1979, the burden of floating rate debt soared overnight.[38] As global commodity prices collapsed, Latin American export revenue plummeted. Countries unable to meet debt payments faced the threat of default.[39] The 1980s became known as the “lost decade” as financial crises, capital flight, hyperinflation, and depression took hold.[40]
The debt crisis discredited ISI and state-led development.[41] It forced countries to implement tough fiscal austerity and request emergency financing from the IMF and World Bank.[42] The multilateral lenders required market reforms and macroeconomic discipline as conditions for debt relief.[43] This marked a turning point toward the market-oriented policies that would dominate from the 1990s onward.
The Rise of the Washington Consensus
The 1980s debt debacle triggered a paradigm shift in Latin American economic thought. Faith in state-led development was supplanted by a neoliberal policy framework that emphasized open markets, privatization, deregulation and fiscal restraint.[44] Known as the “Washington Consensus,” this model was promoted aggressively by the U.S., IMF and World Bank.[45]
Pioneered by economists at the University of Chicago, neoliberalism held that market mechanisms and private entrepreneurship were most efficient for growth, not state planning.[46] Government intervention should be limited to establishing property rights, rule of law, sound money, and open trade.[47]
This reasoning strongly influenced IMF stabilization programs and World Bank structural adjustments programs prescribed to crisis-stricken Latin American countries.[48] By conditioning debt relief on adopting reforms like privatizing state enterprises, lowering trade barriers, and opening capital accounts, the Washington institutions integrated the region into global markets.[49]
The Washington Consensus approach was first applied in Chile under dictator Augusto Pinochet, becoming a laboratory for neoliberalism.[50] The model then spread to neighbors like Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador throughout the 1980s-90s.[51] Governments slashed tariffs, deregulated finance, opened capital accounts, and privatized industries and social security.[52]
Proponents argued market reforms would unleash efficiency gains, attract investment, and integrate Latin American countries into the global economy.[53] However, results were mixed. Unregulated capital inflows exacerbated financial crises, privatizations became crony capitalism, and inequality rose sharply.[54] The Washington Consensus drew increasing challenges from the 2000s onward.[55]
The Commodities Boom and the Return of the State
A global commodities boom from 2003-2013 allowed Latin American countries to break from neoliberal policies of the Washington Consensus period. Rising Chinese demand for South American soybeans, minerals, oil and other resources contributed to an export windfall and growth resurgence.[56]
The commodities boom expanded government fiscal resources through taxes and royalties.[57] This facilitated more heterodox, state-led approaches championed by Leftist leaders like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, and Rafael Correa in Ecuador.[58]
Even moderate Left leaders like Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil, Néstor Kirchner in Argentina, and Michele Bachelet in Chile increased social spending and implemented countercyclical stimulus during the 2008-09 global financial crisis.[59] They leveraged state banks like Brazil’s BNDES to provide subsidized enterprise credit.[60]
The commodities boom allowed these governments to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and regain macroeconomic sovereignty.[61] However, high commodity prices also appreciated exchange rates, hurting manufacturing competitiveness.[62] And countercyclical stimulus yielded overheating, inflationary pressures, and rising debt.[63]
When Chinese demand slowed after 2012, the commodities boom ended abruptly. Growth stalled and leftist populism floundered.[64] Center-right leaders replaced Left incumbents in Argentina, Brazil and Chile, promising market-friendly reforms and fiscal discipline.[65] The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed millions back into poverty, reversing social gains.[66] Most countries still face the imperative of economic diversification and productivity growth.
The Search for a New Paradigm
Latin America entered the 21st century seeking an elusive development formula that synthesizes the perceived strengths of state guidance and market mechanisms. The rise of China and Asian late industrializers offer potential lessons on structural transformation.[67] But replicating East Asia’s state capitalism or export-oriented industrial policies has proven challenging.[68]
Leading economists call for pragmatic, empirically-driven reforms tailored to contemporary Latin American economic realities.[69] Targeted interventions to overcome structural weaknesses in skills, innovation, infrastructure, and institutions are advocated over universal policy prescriptions.[70]
There is greater emphasis on building competitive “twenty-first century socialism” over either pure free markets or extensive nationalization.[71] Tapping global markets, attracting technology, and leveraging the region’s diversity within a sustainable development framework are seen as imperative.[72]
Increased South-South cooperation offers new channels to attract non-traditional financing for development.[73] China has become a major source of investment, lending, and technology transfers, though often with high environmental and social costs.[74] Collaboration within Latin American forums like CELAC and Mercosur aims to amplify regional growth and bargaining power.[75]
Conclusion
Over 200 years of independent history, Latin American countries have experimented with various models of development conditioned by access to capital and prevailing economic ideas. Export-led growth brought prosperity but incomplete development and external dependence. ISI fostered rapid industrialization but inefficient industries and macro instability. The Washington Consensus integrated Latin America into global markets but failed to resolve social inequalities. The recent commodities boom allowed greater policy autonomy but exposed risks of export concentration.
Looking ahead, Latin America still faces the twin challenges of raising productivity and diversifying economies while building more inclusive, sustainable societies. This will require mobilizing higher levels of domestic savings and technology development. It will also hinge on political reform and social consensus-building to surmount entrenched interests. Getting the balance right between markets and state reformism remains the enduring quest for the region.
References
[1] Bulmer-Thomas, Victor. The Economic History of Latin America since Independence. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
[2] Coatsworth, John. “Economic and Institutional Trajectories in Nineteenth Century Latin America.” In Latin America and the World Economy Since 1800, edited by John Coatsworth and Alan Taylor, 23-54. Harvard University Press, 1998.
[3] Engerman, Stanley and Kenneth Sokoloff. “Factor Endowments, Inequality, and Paths of Development among New World Economies.” Economia 3, no. 1 (2002): 41-88.
[4] Stone, Irving. “British Direct and Portfolio Investment in Latin America Before 1914.” The Journal of Economic History 37, no. 3 (1977): 690-722.
[5] Centeno, Miguel Angel. “Blood and Debt: War and Taxation in Nineteenth-Century Latin America.” American Journal of Sociology 102, no. 6 (1997): 1565-1605.
[6] Thorp, Rosemary. Progress, Poverty and Exclusion: An Economic History of Latin America in the 20th Century. Inter-American Development Bank, 1998.
[7] Prebisch, Raul. “Commercial Policy in the Underdeveloped Countries.” American Economic Review 49, no. 2 (1959): 251-273.
[8] Stone, Irving. “British Long-Term Investment in Latin America, 1865-1913.” Business History Review 42, no. 3 (1968): 311-339.
[9] Gellert, Gisela. “Foreign Capital in Latin America in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.” Working paper, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, 1995.
[10] Marichal, Carlos. A Century of Debt Crises in Latin America: From Independence to the Great Depression, 1820-1930. Princeton University Press, 1989.
[11] Drake, Paul. “The Theory and Practice of Autonomy: Kemmerer and the Argentine Converts to the Gospel of Gold.” Pacific Historical Review 54, no. 1 (1985): 21-42.
[12] Kemmerer, Edwin Walter. “Economic Advisory Work in Latin America.” The American Economic Review 27, no. 1 (1937): 236-254.
[13] Sierra, Justo. The Political Evolution of the Mexican People. University of Texas Press, 1969.
[14] Bulmer-Thomas, Victor. The Economic History of Latin America since Independence. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
[15] Diaz Alejandro, Carlos. “Latin America in the 1930s.” In Latin America in the 1930s, edited by Rosemary Thorp, 17-49. Palgrave Macmillan, 1984.
[16] Kay, Cristobal. Latin American Theories of Development and Underdevelopment. Routledge, 1989.
[17] Hirschman, Albert. “The Political Economy of Import-Substituting Industrialization in Latin America.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 82, no. 1 (1968): 2-32.
[18] Prebisch, Raul. The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal Problems. United Nations, 1950.
[19] Fitzgerald, Valpy. “ECLA and the Formation of Latin American Economic Doctrine.” World Development 6, no. 5 (1978): 455-470.
[20] Thorp, Rosemary. Progress, Poverty and Exclusion: An Economic History of Latin America in the 20th Century. Inter-American Development Bank, 1998.
[21] Haggard, Stephan. “The Newly Industrializing Countries in the International System.” World Politics 38, no. 2 (1986): 343-370.
[22] Baer, Werner. “Import Substitution and Industrialization in Latin America: Experiences and Interpretations.” Latin American Research Review 7, no. 1 (1972): 95-122.
[23] Portes, Alejandro. “Urban Latin America: The Political Condition from Above and Below.” Working paper, University of Texas-Austin, 2009.
[24] Kaufman, Robert and Barbara Stallings. “The Political Economy of Latin American Populism.” In The Macroeconomics of Populism in Latin America, edited by Rudiger Dornbusch and Sebastian Edwards, 15-43. University of Chicago Press, 1991.
[25] Dornbusch, Rudiger and Sebastian Edwards. The Macroeconomics of Populism in Latin America. University of Chicago Press, 1991.
[26] Kay, Cristobal. Latin American Theories of Development and Underdevelopment. Routledge, 1989.
[27] Frank, Andre Gunder. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. NYU Press, 1969.
[28] Cardoso, Fernando Henrique and Enzo Faletto. Dependency and Development in Latin America. University of California Press, 1979.
[29] Dos Santos, Theotonio. “The Structure of Dependence.” American Economic Review 60, no. 2 (1970): 231-236.
[30] Prebisch, Raul. “A critique of peripheral capitalism.” CEPAL Review 1, no. 1 (1976): 9-76.
[31] Pinto, Anibal. “A Note on the Impact of Trade Diversification on the Supply Elasticity of Exports.” Journal of Political Economy 78, no. 1 (1970): 139-149.
[32] Kay, Cristobal. “Why East Asia Overtook Latin America: Agrarian Reform, Industrialization and Development.” Third World Quarterly 23, no. 6 (2002): 1073-1102.
[33] Kuczynski, Pedro-Pablo and John Williamson. After the Washington Consensus: Restarting Growth and Reform In Latin America. Institute for International Economics, 2003.
[34] Edwards, Sebastian. Crisis and Reform in Latin America: From Despair to Hope. Oxford University Press, 1995.
[35] in Latin America: Radical, Reformative, and Pragmatic Views.” In Development Strategies Reconsidered, edited by Finn Tarp and Peter Hjertholm, 127-144. Routledge, 2000.Corbo, Vittorio. “Development Strategies and Policies
[36] Calvo, Guillermo and Carlos Vegh. “Inflation Stabilization and Nominal Anchors.” Contemporary Economic Policy 13, no. 2 (1995): 35-45.
[37] Diaz-Alejandro, Carlos. “Latin American debt: I don’t think we are in Kansas anymore.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2 (1984): 335-403.
[38] Edwards, Sebastian. “The Order of Liberalization of the External Sector in Developing Countries.” Essays in International Finance 156 (1984): 1-31.
[39] Cline, William. International Debt Reexamined. Peterson Institute for International Economics, 1995.
[40] Pastor, Manuel. “Latin America, the Debt Crisis, and the International Monetary Fund.” Latin American Perspectives 16, no. 1 (1989): 79-110.
[41] Williamson, John. “Democracy and the Washington Consensus.” World Development 21, no. 8 (1993): 1329-1336.
[42] Vreeland, James Raymond. The IMF and Economic Development. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[43] Kuczynski, Pedro-Pablo and John Williamson. After the Washington Consensus: Restarting Growth and Reform In Latin America. Institute for International Economics, 2003.
[44] Williamson, John. “What Washington Means by Policy Reform.” In Latin American Readjustment: How Much has Happened, edited by John Williamson, 5-20. Institute for International Economics, 1989.
[45] Rodrik, Dani. “Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion? A Review of the World Bank’s Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform.” Journal of Economic Literature 44, no. 4 (2006): 973-987.
[46] Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press, 1962.
[47] Lal, Deepak. The Poverty of Development Economics. MIT Press, 1983.
[48] Kuczynski, Pedro-Pablo and John Williamson. After the Washington Consensus: Restarting Growth and Reform In Latin America. Institute for International Economics, 2003.
[49] Stokes, Susan. Mandates and Democracy: Neoliberalism by Surprise in Latin America. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[50] Valdes, Juan Gabriel. Pinochet’s Economists: The Chicago School of Economics in Chile. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[51] Weyland, Kurt. “Neopopulism and Neoliberalism in Latin America: Unexpected Affinities.” Studies in Comparative International Development 31, no. 3 (1996): 3-31.
[52] Edwards, Sebastian. Crisis and Reform in Latin America: From Despair to Hope. Oxford University Press, 1995.
[53] Williamson, John. “Democracy and the Washington Consensus.” World Development 21, no. 8 (1993): 1329-1336.
[54] Rodrik, Dani. “Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion? A Review of the World Bank’s Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform.” Journal of Economic Literature 44, no. 4 (2006): 973-987.
[55] Burki, Shahid Javed and Guillermo Perry. Beyond the Washington Consensus: Institutions Matter. World Bank, 1998.
[56] Jenkins, Rhys. “Latin American Economic Development: A Causal Analysis in Historical Perspective.” Bulletin of Latin American Research 36, no. 4 (2017): 421-440.
[57] Baker, Andy and Kenneth Greene. “The Latin American Left’s Mandate: Free-Market Policies and Issue Voting in New Democracies.” World Politics 61, no. 1 (2009): 43-77.
[58] Levitsky, Steven and Kenneth Roberts. The Resurgence of the Latin American Left. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011.
[59] Weyland, Kurt. “The Rise of Latin America’s Two Lefts: Insights from Rentier State Theory.” Comparative Politics 41, no. 2 (2009): 145-164.
[60] Ban, Cornel. “Brazil’s Liberal Neo-Developmentalism: New Paradigm or Edited Orthodoxy?” Review of International Political Economy 20, no. 2 (2013): 298-331.
[61] Corrales, Javier. “Market Reforms.” In Constructing Democratic Governance in Latin America, edited by Jorge Dominguez and Michael Shifter, 74-99. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.
[62] Bastos, Fabiano. “The Contradictions of Export-Led Growth in Brazil: Economy, Society and Politics (2002–2008).” Latin American Perspectives 39, no. 4 (2012): 126-139.
[63] Daude, Christian and Eduardo Fernández-Arias. “On the Role of Productivity and Factor Accumulation in Economic Development in Latin America and the Caribbean.” Inter-American Development Bank working paper 246, 2010.
[64] Levitsky, Steven and Kenneth Roberts. The Resurgence of the Latin American Left. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011.
[65] Murillo, Maria Victoria, Lucas Ronconi, and Andrew Schrank. “Latin American Populism in the Twenty-First Century.” In The Oxford Handbook of Populism, edited by Cristobal Rovira Kaltwasser, 201-218. Oxford University Press, 2017.
[66] ECLAC. Social Panorama of Latin America 2019. United Nations, 2019.
[67] Wise, Carol. “The Post-Reform Trajectory in Latin America: Growth, Policy and Politics.” CEPAL Review 102 (2010): 7-23.
[68] Gallagher, Kevin and Roberto Porzecanski. The Dragon in the Room: China and the Future of Latin American Industrialization. Stanford University Press, 2010.
[69] Ocampo, Jose Antonio. “Latin America and the World Economy in the Long Twentieth Century.” In The Handbook of Latin American Economics, edited by Jose Antonio Ocampo and Jaime Ross, 77-107. Routledge, 2011.
[70] Birdsall, Nancy, Dani Rodrik, and Arvind Subramanian. “How to Help Poor Countries.” Foreign Affairs 84, no. 4 (2005): 136-152.
[71] French-Davis, Ricardo. Economic Reforms in Chile: From Dictatorship to Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
[72] Machinea, Jose Luis and Cecilia Vera. “Trade, direct investment and production policies.” In Development strategies and policies in Latin America: a historical perspective, edited by Jose Marcio Rego and Marco Antonio Sandoval de Vasconcellos, 153-180. IPEA, 2009.
[73] Ray, Rebecca and Adam Chimienti. “Lineages of Latin American Structuralism and Dependency Theory.” Routledge Handbook of Latin American Development, 2017.
[74] Gallagher, Kevin and Roberto Porzecanski. The Dragon in the Room: China and the Future of Latin American Industrialization. Stanford University Press, 2010.
[75] Sanahuja, José Antonio. “Regionalism, Development and Cooperation in Latin America: Trends and Challenges at the Turn of the Century.” Iberoamericana 15, no. 58 (2015): 77-92.
