From a review of the history of Latin America’s economic policies with geopolitical impact, we can identify two major geoeconomic projects whose lingering effects continue to influence the political worldview in the region. In a certain sense, they also represent remnants of the Cold War bipolarity. We are referring to Latin American Developmentalism and Neoliberalism. Let us briefly examine the historical background linked to these visions.
From 1870 to 1949, the most prevalent development paradigm in Latin America was a liberal approach, influenced by the European and later North American-style industrialization.
Between 1950 and 1989, the region witnessed a contest between two welfare-oriented models: the liberal capitalist welfare promoted by the United States (epitomized in initiatives such as the Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress) and the Soviet socialist welfare model (embodied in the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance – COMECON).
However, a third actor must also be acknowledged: the so-called Non-Aligned Movement (e.g., Tito’s Yugoslavia or Nasser’s Egypt). This bloc provided the theoretical and practical foundation for what became known as Developmentalism—an economic doctrine of the so called Third World centered on industrialization, social welfare, and national sovereignty.
The Developmentalism of the Non-Aligned countries significantly influenced Latin American developmentalist policies, as seen in the cases of Juan Domingo Peron in Argentina and Juan Velasco Alvarado in Peru. Their policies promoted industrialization and national production, strong state intervention to ensure full employment and price stability, and efforts to overcome economic dependency.
From 1990 onwards (though in some Latin American regions, neoliberal reforms began as early as 1973, as in Chile), the collapse of the socialist bloc led by the Soviet Union marked the end of the bipolar world order. This gave way to a unipolar reality dominated by the United States and the abandonment of the developmentalist project—partly due to the exhaustion of the model through excessive public spending and the rise of what came to be known as the Washington Consensus.
Neoliberalism, under the banners of deficit reduction, inflation control, and privatization, promoted the concept of “trickle-down effect” economics as the key to development. Paradoxically, this notion is inherently anti-developmentalist, as it assumes that economic growth alone is sufficient to generate development, without the need for compensatory social mechanisms from the state.
Throughout Latin America, these two visions—Developmentalism and Neoliberalism—continue to stir passionate political and economic debates. This is evident in the clashes between political leaders in countries like Maduro’s Venezuela and Milei’s Argentina, or Bukele’s El Salvador and Ortega’s Nicaragua, over their contrasting views on development in the region. This also explains why, to date, only Brazil has managed to integrate itself into a major geoeconomic bloc such as BRICS, alongside other emerging powers.
A unified geoeconomic vision for Latin America remains on the horizon due to the aforementioned divisions. However, multipolar economic architectures are beginning to set the tone and may, in the future, provide models for broader regional frameworks of cooperation that transcend the outdated bipolar paradigms.
The message from BRICS to the people of Latin America is one of balance: between Modernity and Tradition, Growth and Development, Market and State, Trade and Sovereignty. Most importantly, it conveys the idea that outside of unipolar economic structures, social welfare with sovereignty is possible—or, as Peron once said: Political sovereignty, economic independence, and social justice.
