This new book on Latin American development aims to provide a novel lecture about the transformations that are taking place in the global economy and especially in its periphery. To do that, the authors of the book are dedicated to recovering the contributions made by Latin American structuralism (LAS, henceforth) to development theory in a dynamic manner.

The introduction begins with Raoul Prebisch’s analytical framework to interpret Latin American development strategies that focus on center-periphery relations in the global economy. Considered as the only fruit of a theoretical thought on development policy originating in the developing world, the theory proposes an urgent need for structural change to reduce internal productive inequalities and to better participate in international competition.

Chapter 2 discusses the initial stage of LAS, as well as the development and transformation of the theory in the decades to come. Initially, LAS focused on both domestic and international relations by emphasizing the role of power and domination in order to bring periphery capitalism into full display. The chapter determines to demonstrate that the modified version of structuralism signified a dilution or even exclusion of the analysis of power and domination, the core that the initial structuralism had upheld. Meanwhile, it discusses the consequences of such absence in the formulation of development strategies in Latin America. The authors break the chapter down into four sections, discussing such issues as how development thought changed in the golden age of capitalism (from post–World War II to the mid-1970s), the convergence of the global crisis of capitalism and the Latin American crisis of industrialization in the seventies, the “last” contribution of Prebisch to “late” structuralism in a “back to the future” sense, and how LAS is supposed to be considered a theoretical platform by absorbing new elements to help formulate development policies in the region.

Chapter 3 focuses on the center and the periphery in the structural logic of the new capitalism. As a fundamental component of postwar development theory, center-periphery theory reflected a rejection of the traditional economic model and prompted people in Latin America to consider the nature of the periphery in the dynamics of the global economic system. This chapter firmly holds that despite the passage of time, the antagonism between the center and the periphery is a fundamental tool for thinking about the development challenge that Latin America is facing. Sebastián Sztulwark presents the nature of the periphery based on some the© 2020 University of Miami DOI 10.1017/lap.2019.66 oretical and methodological premises, such as the center and the periphery viewed as two structurally differentiated spaces of accumulation.

Chapter 4 intends to analyze the hierarchical, unequal, dynamic, and contradictory development of the capitalist system and at the same time redefine the geopolitical, geoeconomic, and geocultural contexts in Latin America. The literature in the past decades has shown that the discussion of structuralism focused on the national scale, with much emphasis placed on the movements of the leading hegemonic center. Subnational scales were much neglected, owing to the fact that a more dynamic and sophisticated approach to spatial scales had not been developed. Besides, neostructuralism, according to the chapter’s author, Carlos Antônio Brandao, is rather static in viewing the dynamics of variable geometry. Logically, a “multiscalarity” is much more needed to capture the scalar complexity of contemporary capitalism from the periphery.

Chapter 5 aims to explore the geopolitical and geoeconomic paths taken by Latin American countries, as well as the U.S. responses in the new century. Meanwhile, it also attempts to discuss the economic evolution from a power relations perspective internally and externally. It compares Latin America and Asia, especially East Asia, in terms of their similarities and the cause that finally led them to different paths of development. Both being regions abounding in development-oriented states, Latin America and East Asia took industrialization and improved infrastructure as their aim. The dividing line was gradually drawn during the Cold War, when open access to the U.S. market and international financing created positive external conditions for East Asia’s accelerated growth. Latin America was more like an outsider of the war, and thus located in a much less favorable position for industrialization.

The chapter also reviews Prebisch’s observations of developing countries’ various patterns of growth by pointing out that structural change was crucial in reducing the external constraints, and industrialization was the remedy for low growth rates and unemployment.

The next three chapters encompass the issues of development in the periphery of world economy. Chapter 6 aims to analyze the periphery states in the Latin American context by considering the variable geopolitical and geoeconomic empowerments or obstructions promoted from the center and the interaction between those states and their civil societies. In a comparative perspective, the chapter first differentiates strong and weak states, then explores the approach in which social conflicts within peripheral states shape the states’ capabilities in pursuing objectives, and finally discusses how ECLAC offered alternatives to the states.

Chapter 7 explores the possibilities of industrialization and structural change for the periphery in the context of globalization. Development in Latin America is featured with heterogeneity in structural disguised unemployment, underemployment, and informal employment, because of the external disequilibria shaped by economic specialization. As a result, the elasticity of demand for imported goods on the periphery is much higher than in the center. The crucial way to overcome it is by industrialization. Accordingly, the state has to play a vital role in diversifying industrial sectors via different protective means.

Chapter 8 focuses on traditional challenges of financing development in financial globalization. The financial markets in the global economy in the past decades turned out to be much more complex, as evidenced by the variety of financial assets, derivatives and hedge instruments, and increasing international capital flows. The chapter, by introducing the LAS approach to finance development, examines the role of international dimension instruments and the recent transformations of capital markets.

The concluding chapter revisits the comparative development modes between East Asia and Latin America and their causes. In East Asia, the scarcity of natural resources, along with the high population density, fostered a type of industrialization based on the import of primary products and the export of manufactured goods. Meanwhile, the preestablished civilizations cultivated a strong national identity for these societies. Latin American nations present an entirely different picture for the two above-mentioned conditions. For one thing, the abundance of natural resources, generating enormous wealth, led to the high dependence on the export of primary products and import of manufactured goods. For another, the collapse of pre-Columbian cultures, the internment of African slaves, and the irreversible superimposition of Western culture somewhat deprived Latin American nations of their national identity.

The book is an ambitious compilation of articles from different disciplinary backgrounds, aimed at contributing novel ideas to the understanding of the dynamics of world economy, especially in peripheral countries. It extensively explores the approaches in which LAS contributed to the development theory.

By focusing on power and domination as the crucial factors in analyzing the development of Latin America, the book distances itself from the school of neostructuralism that has prevailed since the early 1990s. Although described as the updated version of structuralism, neostructuralism emphasizes the integration of the global economy from center states as well as peripheral states, which essentially cancels out the conflictual dimension of analysis that serves as the foundation of structuralism. Unlike neostructuralism that downplays the potential conflicts between the center and the periphery, the structuralist perspective of readdressing the development problems in peripheral states helps explore the new asymmetries created in the dynamics of the global economy after years of accumulation in the periphery.

As for the issues waiting to be further elaborated, if any, the concept of structuralism itself can be better clarified through the comparison of various schools, such as the French, the Anglo-Saxon, and the Latin American. Meanwhile, as the book repeatedly emphasizes the notion of power and domination as the core of structuralism, one might expect a certain emphasis to be given to some related concepts. For instance, in the changing circumstances of the world economy, is power the same as that in the mid-nineteenth century? If not, how has it changed over the years? What implications does this question have for the theory of structuralism in the new era?

This book has moved one step forward in recovering Latin America’s capacity to figure out its own problems, develop its own strategies, and modify its own policies. Therefore, it is highly recommended reading for researchers, students, and practitioners in understanding and researching development strategies in Latin American countries from the peripheral perspective.