Since World War II, developing countries in the South have been provided with the option of adopting one of three different economic development strategies: structuralism, neoliberalism, and Marxism. The purpose of this essay is to examine the economic and political results engendered by each approach and to determine what these results suggest for future economic policy choices in the region. Three countries lend themselves to this analysis. Cuba, particularly since the overthrow of the Batista regime and the establishment of Castro's Marxist government, has pursued economic development along Marxist lines (Perez-Lopez, 1997). In Argentina, a structuralist economic order under Juan Peron gave way to a neoliberalist orientation (Smith, 1991). In Chile, a neoliberal experiment between 1974 and 1990 took place and this experiment has led to structural change in the national economy (Albala-Bertrand, 1999).
Spero (1990) describes structural theory as falling between liberalism and Marxism and is based upon the idea that the international market structure perpetuates backwardness and dependency in the South and encourages dominance by the North. Unregulated international trade and capital movements is seen as accentuating rather than diminishing international inequalities. In the case of Argentina, Peronist dogma created a situation in which an authoritarian state was succeeded by a purportedly populist democracy. State marketing boards were created to oversee trade and other economic activities, but tensions within the labor movement (which supported Peron) were endemic.
Under Raul Alfonsin and the Radical Party, efforts to reconcile democratization with rapid development and social justice were largely frustrated by a succession of failed stabilization plans (Smith, 1991). A catastrophic economic collapse led to a convincing victory by Peronist Carlos Menem in the May 1989 presidential contest. This ushered in a wa...