Structuralism - neo-structuralism and the analysis of productive development




structuralism, neo-structuralism, center, periphery, analysis of productive sectors


The main purpose of this article is to explain, at a theoretical level, the main characteristics of structuralism and neo-structuralism, in order to assume elements that contribute to the analysis of productive development, especially when there is a clearly identified center of social economic development versus a depressed and heterogeneous periphery in the structure. This approach does not attempt to analyze particular cases of countries or regions.

The evolution of structuralism (late 1940s and 1950s) to neo-structuralism (1980s) resulted in a new approach – an alternative paradigm to the neoliberal adjustment – overcoming the original structuralist paradigm from which it was inspired. This new approach included, in the analysis of economic cycles, asymmetries between centers and peripheries and the various effects of globalization resulting from open regionalism and deregulation. In addition, it included three relevant axes: economy, social equity and national autonomy, although its analytical base continued to be structuralist. In this new stage, development is proposed as a result of productive transformation with equity.

Based on a structuralist and neo-structuralist theoretical approach, this paper explores the main elements of analysis that, from this perspective, can facilitate the behavior of productive sectors and the characterization of territories, providing the necessary information for the decision-making process in the design and implementation of public policies that eliminate failures in peripheral markets regarding the so-called centers and thus promote a higher level of development.

Author Biography

Shirley Benavides Vindas, Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica

PhD. Académica e investigadora del Programa Desarrollo Productivo, Competitividad y Comercio Internacional de la Escuela de Economía, Universidad Nacional, Costa Rica.


CEPAL-UNESCO (1992). Educación y conocimiento: eje de la transformación productiva con equidad. Recuperado de

Cortés, O. (2011). Estructuralismo, neoestructuralismo y las estrategias de desarrollo en América Latina. En H. Márquez, R. Soto y E. Záyago (Coords), El desarrollo perdido. Avatares del capitalismo neoliberal en tiempos de crisis (pp.55-69). Recuperado de

Lustig, N. (1987). Del estructuralismo al neoestructuralismo: la búsqueda de un paradigma heterodoxo documento de trabajo (Núm. X-1987). Recuperado del sitio del Centro de estudios económicos del Colegio de México:

Rodríguez, O. (2006). El estructuralismo latinoamericano. Recuperado de

Vázquez-Barquero, A. (2000). Desarrollo endógeno y globalización. EURE, 26(79). Recuperado de



How to Cite

Structuralism - neo-structuralism and the analysis of productive development. (2016). Economía Y Sociedad, 21(50), 1-15.



Articles (Arbitrated section)

How to Cite

Structuralism - neo-structuralism and the analysis of productive development. (2016). Economía Y Sociedad, 21(50), 1-15.

Comentarios (ver términos de uso)

Similar Articles

1-10 of 300

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.