![\"\"](\"http:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/090-093_Mem\u00f3ria_270-3-2280px.jpg\")
Reproduction of the book Ra\u00fal Prebisch (1901\u20131986): The Construction of Latin America and the Third World <\/span><\/a> Ra\u00fal Prebisch at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, in 1968Reproduction of the book Ra\u00fal Prebisch (1901\u20131986): The Construction of Latin America and the Third World <\/span><\/p><\/div>\n On the suggestion of Hern\u00e1n Santa Cruz (1906\u20131999), the Chilean ambassador to the UN, the organization became a permanent commission for Latin America, devoted to the analysis of its economic conditions and the roots of its underdevelopment.<\/p>\n \u201cHeadquartered in Santiago, Chile, under the direction of Argentinian economist Ra\u00fal Prebisch [1901\u20131986], ECLAC became the nexus of original thought on the economic reality of Latin America,” notes economist Ricardo Bielschowsky, from the Institute of Economics of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (IE-UFRJ), and one of ECLAC\u2019s leading scholars.<\/p>\n Wikicommons<\/span><\/a> Hern\u00e1n Santa Cruz, Chilean ambassador to the UN, was one of those responsible for the creation of ECLAC, in 1948Wikicommons<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n \u201cPrebisch was greatly influenced by the ideas of the British economist John Maynard Keynes [1883\u20131946] and, based on them, he developed a line of thought outside the context of European and American development,” observes economist and scholar on the subject Plinio Sampaio J\u00fanior, from the Institute of Economics of the University of Campinas (IE-UNICAMP).<\/p>\n Center-periphery<\/strong> \u201cInstead of the productivity gains from the center being transferred to the periphery, the opposite occurred,” says economist Jos\u00e9 Maria Dias Pereira from the Franciscan University, in Rio Grande do Sul. Unlike the prices of industrialized goods sold by developed countries, the prices of primary products produced in the periphery suffered constant devaluation. \u201cTo escape this peripheral condition, Prebisch argued that Latin America should raise the productivity of labor and retain the income generated by it.”<\/p>\n Folhapress <\/span><\/a> Celso Furtado: thoughts on the challenges to Brazil\u2019s developmentFolhapress <\/span><\/p><\/div>\n Based on this and other issues, ECLAC has produced new proposals for economic growth. \u201cFor the ECLAC economists, industrialization as the core of a development policy would allow Latin American economies to face social inequalities and overcome external dependence,” points out Sampaio. \u201cWith ECLAC, a Latin American Developmentalist thinking was born, which emphasized the role of the state, contrary to more hegemonic liberal thinking,” according to political scientist Sonia Ranincheski, from the School of Economic Sciences and International Relations at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS).<\/p>\n Prebisch left as director of ECLAC in 1963 to head the preparatory committee for the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), created in January of that year by the UN Economic and Social Council. At UNCTAD, his ideas gained global scope. In 1964, the committee became a permanent organ of the United Nations, and Prebisch its Secretary General.<\/p>\n The ideas of ECLAC were interpreted in the light of Brazilian conditions by economist Celso Furtado (1920\u20132004), through studies on the difficulty urban sectors were having with absorbing a labor force that was migrating from rural areas to the cities, the continuing underemployment, and wide income inequality. \u201cPrebisch and Furtado reflected on the challenges to the region\u2019s development, devising strategies that could be adapted to the conditions in each country,” says sociologist Mariano Laplane, from the Industrial Economy and Technology Center at the University of Campinas.<\/p>\n
\nIn 1949, Prebisch presented his study The economic development of Latin America and some of its main problems<\/em>, the basis for the model of interpretation of the transformation process that the economies of the continent were going through at the time. In his view, the average income of Latin American countries was lower than the industrialized nations due to the productivity differentials between the economic activities of what are termed the “center” and the “periphery.” The center was formed by the industrialized nations and the periphery by countries that were subordinated to their needs.<\/p>\n