This article examines and compares the economic growth trajectories of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico from 1950 to 2019. Using a classical-Marxian approach, we explore the region’s economic performance. Latin America was one of the most dynamic regions in the global economy during the golden age of 1945–1973. However, during neoliberalism, most Latin American countries fell behind. Our analysis reveals that these nations are locked in a low profitability trap, resulting in persistent reduced investment and sluggish growth. A new developmental strategy is necessary to overcome this quasi-stagnation.
AbramovitzMoses. 1986. Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind. Journal of Economic History66 (2): 385–406.
2.
AmsdenAlice H.2001. The Rise of “The Rest”: Challenges to the West from Late-Industrializing Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
DuménilGérardLévyDominique. 1995. A stochastic model of technical change, application to the US Economy (1869–1989). Metroeconomica46 (3): 213–45.
4.
DuménilGérardLévyDominique. 2006. Imperialism in the neoliberal era: Argentina’s reprieve and crisis. Radical Review of Political Economics38 (3): 388–96.
5.
DuménilGérardLévyDominique. 2010. The classical Marxian evolutionary model of technical change. In Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Growth, ed. MarkSetterfield. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.
6.
DuménilGérardLévyDominique. 2016. Technology and distribution in managerial capitalism. The chain of historical trajectories à la Marx and countertendential traverses. Science and Society80: 530–49.
7.
FeenstraRobert C.InklaarRobertTimmerMarcel P.2015. The next generation of the Penn World Table. American Economic Review105 (10): 3150–82.
8.
FoleyDuncan K.MichlThomas R.TavaniDaniele. 2018. Growth and Distribution, 2nd ed.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
GerschenkronAlexander. 1962. Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
KennedyCharles. 1964. Induced bias in innovation and the theory of distribution. Economic Journal74: 541–47.
11.
LibmanEmilianoMontecinoJuan A.RazmiArslan. 2017. Sustained Investment Surges. Department of Economics Working Paper no. 2017-09. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Accessed at: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14394/22201.
12.
LindenMarcel. 2007. The “law” of uneven and combined development: Some underdeveloped thoughts. Historical Materialism15: 145–65.
MarquettiAdalmirMiebachAlessandroMorroneHenrique. 2024. Unequal Development and Capitalism: Catching Up and Falling Behind in the Global Economy. London: Routledge.
15.
MarquettiAdalmirMiebachAlessandroMorroneHenriqueLeiteSamuel Volkweis. 2025. Investigating the dynamics of the profit rate, the exchange rate, and terms of trade in Brazil. PSL Quarterly Review78 (312): 95–114.
16.
MarxKarl. 1981. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, volume 3. London: Penguin.
17.
McQuinnKieranWhelanKarl. 2007. Conditional convergence and the dynamics of the capital/output ratio. Journal of Economic Growth12: 159–84.
18.
Mendoza PichardoGabriel. 2007. Economic growth models and growth tendencies in major Latin American countries and in the United States, 1963–2003. Investigación económica66 (262): 59–87.
19.
PritchettLant. 1997. Divergence, big time. Journal of Economic Perspectives11 (3): 3–17.
20.
RicardoDavid. 1911. The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: J.M. Dent & Sons.
21.
SzirmaiAdam. 2012. Industrialization as an engine of growth in developing countries, 1950–2005. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics23: 406–20.
22.
TavaniDanieleZamparelliLuca. 2017. Endogenous technical change in alternative theories of growth and income distribution. Journal of Economic Surveys31 (5): 1272–303.
23.
TrotskyLeon. 1932. The History of the Russian Revolution. New York: Simon and Schuster.
24.
VillanuevaLuisJiangXiao. 2018. Patterns of technical change and deindustrialization. PSL Quarterly Review71 (285): 161–82.
