The following paper explores the absence of development as a goal apart and different from growth in neoliberal policies, as well as the absence of social and historical analysis necessary before suggesting or designing policies that should be country-specific. It compares the process of regionalization as an alternative to globalization, or as a first step to become integrated in the global economy, and explores the differences between Latin American and South East Asian economies that merit different policy approaches to close the technological gap between the developed and developing countries; attract more capital flows, and institutionalize factor accumulation.
The paper reviews a series of articles regarding globalization and its potential effect on Latin American economies Both protractors and defenders of neoliberal globalization use the countries of East Asia as a model, either to argue that neoliberal policies are a harbinger of good news and promising growth, or to show that growth and development have not and will not take place in developing countries through such poIicies. Gundlach and Nunnekamp are among those who defend and present neoliberal policies in East Asia as the major source of growth, contrasting this with the lamentable situation of Latin American countries and their policies of intervention. The Geneva South Centre, on the other hand, attempts to show how the “recipe” of the South East Asian dragons is no such thing; the path to quick growth followed by these countries was not based on neoliberalism but directed intervention, especially in capital and financial markets. Moya Lopez adds the dimension of society and social unrest to the realities of austerity and liberalization pushed by the international community of developed countries on the volatile, pauperized peoples of Latin America. And Raquibuz Zaman attempts to show that a “baIance” of neoliberal policies and “welI-focused” intervention can make the dfference between growth and lack thereof.