La estructura económica del (sub)desarrollo y el equilibrio general o ¿qué ocurrió con la teoría del desarrollo y con las estructuras económicas?

Formerly the concept of economic development involved transforming the productive structures in order to employ the population in higher productivity activities, so that welfare improved. Development implied that economic systems followed development paths (not always in equilibrium) in order to reach more desirable welfare results: Equilibrium was not the main target. More recently, economic strategies emphasize reaching growth within equilibrium paths, thus, preserving economic structures. The latter vision yields incompatible results with the former. This paper revises some issues concerning structural change versus equilibrium targets as a means to reach development.

The structuralist tradition in economics: methodological and macroeconomics aspects

This paper examines the structuralist tradition in economics, emphasizing the role that structures play in the economic growth of developing countries. Since the subject at hand is evidently too large to cover in a single article, an emphasis has been brought to bear upon the macroeconomic elements of such a tradition, while also exploring its methodological aspects. It begins by analysing some general aspects of structuralism in economics (its evolution and origins) associated with ECLAC thought, in this instance focusing on the dynamics of the center-periphery relationship. Thereafter, the macroeconomic structuralism derived from the works of Taylor (1983, 1991) is presented, followed by a presentation of neo-structuralism. Centred on the concept of systemic competitiveness, this approach defines a strategy to achieve the high road of globalization, understood here as an inevitable process in spite of its engagement being dependent on the policies adopted. The conclusions show the genuine contributions of this tradition to economic theory.

The general equilibrium theory as economic metatheory

Many economists show certain nonconformity relative to the excessive mathematical formalization of economics. This stems from dissatisfaction with the old debate about the lack of correspondence between mainstream theoretical models and reality. Although we do not propose to settle this debate here, this article seeks to associate the mismatch of mathematized models with the reality of the adoption of the hypothetical-deductive method as reproduced by general equilibrium. We begin by defining the main benefits of the mathematization of economics. Secondly, we address traditional criticism leveled against it. We then focus on more recent criticism from Gillies (2005) and Bresser-Pereira (2008). Finally, we attempt to associate the reproduction of the hypothetical-deductive method with a metatheoretical process triggered by Debreu's general equilibrium theory. In this respect, we appropriate the ideas of Weintraub (2002), Punzo (1991), and mainly Woo (1986) to support our hypothesis.