ISSN 0798 1015
ISSN 0798 1015
Vol. 38 (Nº 54) Year 2017. Page 6
Gabith Miriam QUISPE FERNANDEZ 1; Víctor Dante AYAVIRI NINA 2
Received: 09/07/2017 • Approved: 05/08/2017
ABSTRACT: 21st century development models theory led countries to make changes in their internal policies, aiming to sustainable economic growth, included in their country's Economic Development Plans. The objective of this research is to conduct a comparative analysis of development models based on the analysis of endogenous (locally-generated) development mechanisms, showing that Latin American countries development models, such as those from Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia, are closely related to the endogenous development model, for which the participation of local stakeholders in processes and goals is fundamental. Results show that current development models in such countries answer to specific local needs by strengthening territorial capacities, if not, such development mechanisms and policies are resisted, giving birth to a new development model. |
RESUMEN: Los modelos de desarrollo basados en la teoría del siglo XXI, condujeron a los países a realizar cambios en sus políticas internas a fin de lograr un crecimiento económico sostenible, mismas que se contemplan en sus Planes de Desarrollo Económico de cada país. La investigación tiene el objetivo de realizar un análisis comparativo de los modelos de desarrollo partiendo del análisis de los mecanismos del desarrollo endógeno a fin de explicar, que los modelos de desarrollo de los países de América Latina como el caso de Venezuela, Ecuador y Bolivia se aproximan al modelo de desarrollo endógeno, siempre y cuando exista la participación de los stakeholders locales en sus modos, procesos y su ideal de desarrollo. Los resultados muestran que los modelos de desarrollo existentes en los países responden a las necesidades de cada localidad cuando éstas permiten potenciar las capacidades territoriales; de lo contrario, los mecanismos y las políticas de desarrollo aplicados son resistidos y dan lugar al inicio de un nuevo modelo de desarrollo. |
Latin America is a jungle for development studies because of the different ways – in place – to understand what development of a country means, being addressed from different points of view and subject to a cluster of constant debates, trying to understand what development is? Implemented development models and their current status?, especially, when in the middle we can find local communities’ development aspirations, different stakeholders and local agents, being related to economic growth and poverty reduction as well. Therefore, to study the development of a country, it is important to consider poverty levels and economic growth, present in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Economic and poverty data show that “over the last ten years, average, the global economy has shown around 3% of sustained growth per year. Although the US economy continues being the main driver of global economy, China, India and some other developing economies have become more important because of their dynamic growth. In addition, fastest-growing economies are investment-prone economies, open economies, capable of merging into global economy and attract foreign investment, having promoted and introduced institutional reforms to guarantee respect for contracts and property rights, where the role of institutions has become key for long-term growth, as they guarantee political stability, property rights and legal systems efficiency. In the same vein, efforts made to reduce poverty and meet the millennium goals have been positive” (Quispe, 2016, pp. 98-99). Although evolutionary data for economic growth shows poverty reduction starting 2012, under-developed countries have had a significant change, since they are considered now as developing countries because of their sustained growth and poverty reduction progress.
This economic and social behaviour leads to the generation of different explanations – from different points of view, so much so that studies try to generalize concepts, systematize development processes, generate new theories, analyse new development models, consider how local players participation contribute to growth, development, and change, among others; however, whatever the objective of economic development analysis is, most of the time, merely economic aspects are reflected on, as stated by Bustelo (1999, pp.13) “leaving aside social and political aspects”, to this we need to add historical, human, cultural, environmental, and religious aspects, aiming to explain how economic development is understood and achieved in countries, especially in Latin America. In this context, development models used or introduced to Latin American countries have been under debate for the last decades, especially those in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. The current economic, social, political and cultural situation provides important elements for analysing the development models applied in these countries, from an analytical, comparative and exploratory perspective, considering their results and how they can be related with the endogenous development model, since this model involves the active participation of local agents and players in the formulation of local policies, transformation and progress of localities.
In this line, this research aims to identify common and distinguishing elements of development models used in Latin American countries, mainly from Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia; thus, explain if development applied policies and development mechanisms coincide with those of the endogenous development model. Work hypothesis is: Current policies and development mechanisms in Latin America countries – from 2008 to 2016 – partially coincide with those stated in the endogenous development model. H1 that endogenous development mechanisms are similar to development models. H2 that distinguishing elements between the country-development model and the endogenous development model are connected with local players’ development aspiration and participation.
Research uses a descriptive-scientific and explanatory methodological approach for endogenous development theories, considering economic development and its relationship with the economic growth and local development policies; for this, a theoretical – explanatory analysis is done, keeping in mind that the development of scientific theories is another characteristic of scientific research logic and rationality, “theory is a set of hypothetical propositions and related concepts, providing a systematic point of view, thus, explain and foresee the different phenomena” (Kerlinger. 1983, pp.6 in Ávila. 2006, pp.9). Local and Country Development model documents were reviewed as information sources, both, theory and experiences. For the analysis, Vázquez (2007) endogenous development model was considered, making a comparison with Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador development models.
To make a comparative analysis of development models in countries as Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia, and to prove H1. That endogenous development mechanisms are similar to development models, Vazquez (2007, pp. 1) states that after its birth “in the eighty’s”, the endogenous development model has been contributing to understand what economic development is because of the following:
a) It became a new theory and model to explain economic development, considering both, the economic and social areas, where development is understood as the “integration of visions/interests and strategic agreement of public and private agents within a territory” (Vázquez, 2007, pp. 22), considering that it is a sustainable and structural change growth process where local communities are committed to have more employment, reduce poverty, improve population’s life level and satisfy citizens’ demands and needs. All these, made researchers contribute to the understanding of concepts and definition, providing different variables and ways of measurement, since – still – definitions are “different” (Vázquez, 2007, pp. 1).
b) It has become “a valid action tool within a context of constant economic, organizational, theological, political, and institutional transformations” (Vázquez, 2000, pp. 2) where “value is given to individuality and endogenous, in contrast with uniformity and exogenous” (Vázquez, 2001ª, pp. 22), recognizing “the participation of local players in development processes) (Vázquez, 2005, pp. 2); at the same time, the civil society plays an important role in the development processes, since the process aims for improving the life quality of citizens within a territory in a continuous and sustained manner.
c) It shows that long-term and sustainable growth does not only “depend on the endowment of resources within a territory and the capacity each economy has to save and invest” (Vázquez, 2005, pp.37), but, especially, of the good operation of development groups and “capital accumulation mechanism (organization of production systems, dissemination of innovations, territorial urban development and change of institutions), and the interactions between these forces” (Vázquez, 2005, pp. 37), which influence on productivity and allow reaching growing yields. Thus, endogenous development considers the mode of development and not the mode of production, where actions in a community or territory aim for production yield, “defining surplus quality and quantity in contrast to the production mode, which determines the appropriation and use of surplus” (Castells, 2000, pp. 9).
d) “Endogenous development theory considers that capital accumulation and technological advance are, doubtless, key factors for economic growth, suggesting that such growth results from different processes that determine capital accumulation, such as the creation and dissemination of production system innovations, production flexible organization, generation of agglomeration and plethora economies in cities, and the development of institutions. But, also, identifies a self-sustainable development path – endogenous – stating that factors that contribute to capital accumulation processes, generate external, internal, and scale economies, reducing general and transaction costs and favouring plethora/diversity economies” (Vázquez, 2002, pp.8).
In this context, the endogenous development model constitutes an optional strategy for communities’ local development, apart from the current development models; it is also a tool for analysing and comparing the existing development models in Latin American countries. It can be used to analyse development processes, without specifying the development level, since all the countries develop, including the most advanced ones; also, the economic development mechanisms allow analysing the different types of economies, it can also be used in local development policies because of their characteristics, since it is in localities where you will find active participation of local players and agents. Aside from being a theory to explain development processes, it can also be practical for local development processes. Therefore, endogenous development is shaped by theory and practice, where theory explains how development processes occur in local communities, and practice through development policies via development mechanisms.
The theoretical background (rationale) for development models in these three countries is based on the following theoretical – practical proposals.
1) Karl Marx and Engels’s socialist theory (1974) close to communism, because it is a response to the dominance of capitalism; however, scientific socialism gives solution to material problems through equitable and practical production and distribution because it is related to production paths and the dispossession of one class over another.
2) Bolivarianism, it is a set of political doctrines based on Simón Bolívar thoughts and ideology, involving Bolivarian Countries (Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Perú, Panamá, and Colombia) and considering important: a) ideological aspects, based on the three roots three (Simón Bolívar, Simón Rodríguez and Ezequiel Zamora), where an indigenous ideological model is embodied based on the social reality of Venezuela, its creation lies on the knowledge of the country's and region’s concrete history, and that the model is unique and that does not follow prefabricated models for other contexts and times; b) economic development strategy, where citizens are key, capable of carrying out the necessary transformations (pluralist subject), where to overcome underdevelopment it is necessary to break inequality through the nationalization of natural resources and regional integration; and c) socialist project, where it is emphasized that people should receive the benefits of nature, where benefit should not be only of a minority ruling class but of all the people (Antolin & Garcia, 2009, pp. 4 a 9).
3) Socialism in the 21st century is a concept devised by Heinz Dieterich Steffan in 1996, written in his book “Hugo Chavez and Socialism of the 21st Century spread by that time President Hugo Chavez at the Fifth World Social Forum of January 30, 2005. Dieterich (2007, pp. XXII) shows the importance of three elements: 1) the popular order in government management where the population is not only a passive recipient of governmental actions, but also promotes a profound participation of people in the government; thus, achieve authentic social well-being, allowing people materialize the formulation, planning, execution, control and supervision of public policies. It is important to have a “society without capitalism or market, without a State that performs as an instrument of repression and without alienation, this will be achieved with the definitive overcoming of social class " (pp. XXI); 2) Individualism must be overcome by giving way to a collective conception, where men and women live and develop within a social environment; 3) development of a country will only occur “if institutions and social relationships of the new socialist political economy promote the end of capitalism, where three concepts are the most important: 1. the participation of citizens in transcendental macroeconomic decisions; 2. Operation of important national economy sectors on objective value and equivalence principles, and 3. The participation of citizens in fundamental microeconomic decisions “ (pp. XXVI). (Dieterich, 2007, pp. 112) mentions that for the change process it is important to overcome capitalism and the transition towards participatory democracy, where people take over government through a participatory process. This way, countries like Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia without leaving aside Paraguay have taken Bolivarianism and 21st century socialism as the corner stone to plan their development models.
Venezuela, starting 1936, adopts an indigenous Keynesian model, where the “state should simply spend oil revenue on health, education, public works, and subsidies, providing at the same time a policy of soft loans and protectionism, entering a rentier capitalist model; in 1949 Venezuela ranks among one of the nations in the world with the highest average per capita income compared to other countries (US$ 332 increasing in 1953 to US$ 530)” (Toro, 2009, pp. 6-8). However, from the 60’s to the 80’s there were abrupt oscillations, then, starting 2007 – the mortgage crisis in European countries – brought fall of oil price and demand, such drop showed the vulnerability of this economy.
This set of facts, caused the raise of a development model embodied in development plans, going “through a change process that begins on February 2, 1999” (General Assembly of the Republic of Venezuela, 2007, pp. ), based on a Country Project embodied in the Ninth Development Plan of the Nation 1995-1999, which aimed to the reconstruction of the societal consensus, broken up after the social and political crisis inherited from the former constitutional period; on July 22, 1996, President Hugo Chavez presented the 1996 Bolivarian Alternative Agenda (blue book) defined as “a weapon for total counter fight, elaborated based on a humanistic, comprehensive, holistic and ecological approach” (National Assembly of the Republic of Venezuela, 2013, pp. 7), aiming to address neoliberal nature economic measures. Thus, in 2001, following this change process, the National Economic and Social Development Plan 2001-2007 was elaborated, which objective aimed for the construction of the Simón Bolívar National Project; in 2007 presents its First Socialist Plan (PPS) for the Economic and Social Development of the Nation, 2007-2013, aiming to the construction of 21st Century Socialism, with guidelines, such as: the new socialist ethic, supreme Happiness, revolutionary protagonist democracy, socialist productive model, new national geopolitics, Venezuela: world energy power, new international geopolitics and; finally on June 11, 2012 the country program for 2013-2020 is presented, embodied in the “Plan de la Patria” (Country Plan), being this the second Socialist Plan for the Economic and Social Development of the Nation, 2013-2019, as a measure to move towards the 21st Century Bolivarian Socialism, based on five major objectives.
According to the Country Plan (Plan de la Patria), Second Socialist Plan for the Economic and Social Development of the Nation 2013-2019, the development model seeks to guarantee and achieve Independence with Equality and Social Justice, moving towards the gradual restoration of the economic, social, political, territorial and international balance of Venezuela. It emphasizes citizen participation, linked to the promotion of the endogenous development on behalf of the Venezuelan State. Likewise, endogenous development is considered to be development from within. It is defined as a socioeconomic model where communities develop their own proposals, where leadership is born at community level, and decisions come from within the community. Therefore, endogenous development aims to satisfy the basic needs, promote community participation, and environmental protection, all these within a community given territory. This model looks forward the cooperation of local and global models, having not only local and community development, but also scaling up to nation and worldwide levels. According to the MINEP (2005) in (Bracho J. & Gonzales M., 201, pp. 11-12), it is considered as an endogenous development model that seeks to correct imbalances based on the Bolivarianism and 21st Century Socialism proposal.
Identified development mechanisms are: 1) Changes in the productive system to achieve a better distribution of economic benefits, characterized by the nationalization of important companies; 2) Transformation of natural resources to generate employment and achieve well-being, guaranteeing life quality and environment preservation; 3) Elimination of oil income dependence; 4) Local production promotion through self-management; 5) Fostering of productivity-led growth with social inclusion, linking popular economy, being these small, medium, and big companies.
The development model of the Republic of Ecuador is marked by a historical background that involved a model of wealth accumulation that started in 1861, being in place until 2006 time when structural adjustments were made, a year after, in 2007 the endogenous development model started, aimed, basically, to meet population’s basic needs, called “development model for good living”. In 2013, the economic model for good living embodied in the Development Plan for Good Living 2009 -2013 is presented, proposing changing the traditional development concept – where economic growth and evolutionary and linear vision was emphasized – to consider new development approaches, such as, sustainable development, endogenous development, human development, and local development, shifting for the Good Living development, having life in fullness, unity in diversity, harmony with the environment, promotion of rights, freedoms, opportunities, potentialities, and building of a fair and shared future.
The 1998 Constitution expressed the negotiations between the different social players for the redefinition of the State model, incorporating principles and rights on territorial constituencies recognition, starting with the new model through the adoption of the “indigenous worldview present in the Quichuan culture as the Pachacutic, which means return to the origin, to be born again, or change to something new linked to “circular-time”; that is to say, that time and space, Pacha, when moving back, you never reach the same point in time, but to a new different one” (Hidalgo, 2006, pp. 266).
Thus, Ecuador becomes a Country State, where by turning into a territorial category “there is no sense of identity since power does not come from society, nor from the state of the nation, and political meaning is not a social expression; then, it is only a geographical presence” (Hidalgo, 2006, pp.277). Finally, a Plurinational State that collects indigenous movements’ contributions, named as “Indianism” (search for the return of the Tawantinsuyo), socialism (popular alliance) and ethno-populism (fusion of indigenous demands with state policies)” is built (Hidalgo, 2006, pp. 277).
In 2009, with the government of Rafael Correa, article 280 of the Constitution of Ecuador, stated that “the National Development Plan is the tool to which public policies, programs and projects must adhere to; as well as budget programming and implementation, investment and allocation of public resources, for which, central and local decentralized governments need to coordinate competences. Compliance is mandatory for the public sector and a benchmark for the other sectors”. This article is enforced by the implementation of the National Plan for Good Living 2009 – 2013. Building a Plurinational and Intercultural State, considered as the start point for the Decentralized National System of Participatory Planning, materialized the self-denominated “Citizen Revolution and Citizen Participation”.
This new model, not directly declared as socialist, but maintaining such guidelines under the name of citizen revolution, emphasizes public expenditure (social and educational), where economy is social and solidary, where investment is made on road infrastructure and electrification projects and having social benefits for indigenous populations; it aims to reduce poverty rates and strengthen local players’ participation, especially that of the indigenous sector.
Players are: 1) mid and small-scale farm, industry, and commerce business people; 2) city and countryside workers (workers and peasants); 3) mid-class professionals; 4) growing social marginal groups and all other social groups that depend from internal market economic sector development; 5) the State as a change process leader – through redistribution economic policies – will play a cohesive role for on behalf of all social groups.
1) Territory and geography, where territory is considered a complex and dynamic system in constant transformation, where geography influences infrastructure location, transport means, agriculture production systems and industry location; 2) technological innovation; 3) population; 4) food sovereignty; 5) diversity enhancement and cultural heritage.
The economic, social, communitarian and productive model of the Republic of Bolivia is a response to the called neoliberal model, given birth in 1999 by the “Duende” group - formed by ex-service men from Ps-1 political party with the participation of university professors of the Higher University of San Andres. According to the Ministry for Economy and Finances (2011, pp. 11) in 2005, Luis Arce Catacora elaborated the Government Economy Plan together with Carlos Villegas, which is the germ of the new Government Model of the Movement for Socialism (MAS).
The development model of the Pluri-national State of Bolivia is present in the State Political Constitutions (2009), Article 306, which reads: “the Bolivian economic model is plural and aims for improving the quality of life and living well of all Bolivian population”, understanding that living well comes from the “Andean Quechua Culture, Sumak Kawsay (Quechua), Sumaj Qamaña (Aymara) and Nande Reko (Guarani), meaning Good Living or Living Well, generally understood as living in harmony and balance with Mother Earth cycles, Universe, with life and history, and in balance with all beings” (Makaran, 2013, pp.144 -145). It is a community socialist model aiming for capitalism death, where the cessation of resources looting and the defence of indigenous territories and cultures is advocated for.
Under this socialist perspective, the development model is translated in 2005, with the National Development Plan: Bolivia dignified, sovereign, productive and democratic to live well (2006-2011). This first development plan aims for balanced coexistence and equal complementarity of the State and Community Economy – based on production processes, promoted by social and community organizations, as well as by micro and small businesspeople, artisans, peasant economic organizations, productive organizations, community and urban and rural associations –, mixed and private economy. The second development plan is for the 2010 – 2015 period, it aims to eliminate the roots of inequality and social exclusion. Finally, the 2016-2020 Economic and Social Development Plan, based on the 2025 Patriotic Agenda and the 2015-2020 Government Program, aims to consolidate achievements made since 2006, implementation of the Democratic and Cultural Revolution, and meeting the challenges for the building of a Plurinational State – basing actions on the building of the historic horizon to Live Well. Therefore, it is a model that prioritizes the Living Well, giving place for a comprehensive development project in harmony with Mother Earth.
According to the State Political Constitution (CPE), it is possible to identify four players: the State, the private sector, cooperatives and communities; however, there are also local players involved in communities’ development processes, such as, population, business entrepreneurs, business people, business associations, social associations, women's associations, neighbourhood associations, grassroots organizations, guild federations, municipal or territorial governments, educational institutions (Universities), indigenous organizations, unions, confederations.
Development mechanisms are defined by (1) the strategic sector that generates surplus and by (2) the sector generating income and employment. Bolivia has four strategic sectors that generate economic surplus: hydrocarbons, mining, electricity and environmental resources. Among sectors generating income and employment we have the manufacturing industry, tourism, housing, agricultural development and others that still have not been revitalized. (3) The state is the one redistributing wealth, having the capacity to transfer resources from surplus generating sectors to employment and income generators.
Finally it is shown that for H2, differential elements between the country-development models and the endogenous development model are associated to local players’ development aspirations and participation.
In this context, after reviewing the different development models and their respective development plans, considering as well other elements such as local communities’ vision, development aspiration and approaches, differential elements were identified, presented next - chart 1.
Chart 1. Comparative analysis of development models
Factors |
Venezuela Model |
Bolivia Model |
Ecuador Model |
Endogenous Development Model |
Development aspiration |
Sumaj Kausay |
Sumaj Kausay |
Sumaj Kausay |
Local Development |
Community Participation |
Local players and stakeholders participation. |
Local players and stakeholders participation. |
Local players and stakeholders participation. |
Local players and stakeholders participation. |
Economic System |
Based in production modes |
Based in production modes |
Based in production modes |
Based in development modes. |
Economic development model |
Socialist production economic model |
Plural economic model |
Production economic model with emphasis on nature. |
Production economic model with emphasis on territory transformation. |
Development players |
State, citizens, and local business people. |
The State, private sector, cooperatives and communities. |
Business people, workers (workers and peasants), mid-class professionals, social groups and State. |
Players and local agents. |
Development Mechanism |
Production system, natural resources transformation, local production self-management, production growth. |
Territory and geography (agriculture), technological innovation, population and culture. |
Strategic (Hydrocarbons, mining, electricity, and natural resources), income and employment generator. |
Organization of production systems, innovations dissemination, territory urban development, and institutions change/shift. |
Development |
Socio-economic model where communities generate their own answers. |
Economic model that aims for the Sumaj Kausay – Living Well |
Economic Model that aims for the Good Living |
Economic model based on capital accumulation based on a territory process where the entrepreneurial and innovating capacity performs as a transformation mechanism. |
Objectives |
Basic needs satisfaction, community participation, environment protection, and community localization within a specific territory. |
Citizens’ basic needs satisfaction, community participation, and environment protection. |
Citizens’ basic needs satisfaction, community participation, and nature protection. |
Local population needs satisfaction through community active participation. |
Types of Processes |
Change of the production system |
Production system structural change, introduction of new technologies and research. |
Structural change based on industrialization. |
Structural change based on the improvement of the production process. |
Source: Own elaboration
It can be evinced that there are common elements since the three countries consider production modes more important than development modes.
It is identified that development policies and mechanisms in so-called social countries in Latin America coincide with the endogenous development model.
Endogenous development theory provides with an endogenous identity to countries’ development models - based on the 21st century socialism theory, where it is evident that local players’ participation is important to achieve localities’ development and to generate new endogenous models and policies.
Development models mechanisms used in these countries partially coincide with the determinants of the endogenous development model, since modes of production are prioritized against development modes; it is evinced that countries’ development models have a relationship with local players’ development aspirations and participation, where development aspiration answers to production and development modes, being close to objectives stated in the endogenous development model.
Finally, endogenous development in countries is a response to Simón Bolívar development aspiration, where local players play a leading role by participating in their localities’ development processes.
Antolin, E., & Garcia, M. (2009). Movimientos sociales: el Boliviarianismo. (págs. 1-12). Buenos Aires: XXVII Congreso de la Asociación Latinomericana de Spciologia. Jornadas de Sociologia de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Asamblea General de la República de Venezuela. (2007). Proyecto Nacional Simón Bolívar en su Primer Plan Socialista (PPS) del Desarrollo Económico y Social de la Nación para el periodo 2007–2013. Gaceta Oficial de la Republica Bolivariana, págs. 1-148.
Asamblea Nacional de la República de Venezuela. (2013). Plan de la Patria. Segundo Plan Socialista de Desarrollo Económico y Social de la Nación, 2013-2019. Gaceta Oficial de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, págs. 1-40.
Boisier, S. (2005). ¿Hay espacio para el desarrollo local en la globalización?, CEPAL, Nº 86, Santiago de Chile, págs. 1-16.
Boisier, S. (2007). America Latina en un medio siglo (1950/2000): El desarrrollo ¿donde estuvo?, Revista académica EUMED, Universidad de Málaga, Año 1, págs. 3-41.
CEPAL. (2015). Estudio Económico de America Latina y El Caribe: Desafios para impulsar el ciclo de inversión con miras a reactivas el crecimiento. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas.
Dieterich, H. (2007). Hugo Chavez y el Socialismo del Siglo XXI. Editorial Edwis Linares, Venezuela.
Finanzas, M. d. (2011). Economía Plural . Mninisterio de Economia y Finanzas Públicas, Nº1, septiembre, págs. 1-14.
Garcia, A. (2009). El papel del Estado en el Modelo Nacional Productivo. Discursos y ponencias del Vicepresidentes del Estado Plurinacional de bolivia (La Paz Vicepresidencia del Estado), Año 2, N° 6, págs. 1-30.
Hamburger, A. A. (2014). El Socialismo del Siglo XXI en America Latina: Características, desarrollo y desafios. Revista de Relaciones Internacionales, Estrategia y Seguridad, Vol 9, N° 1, págs. 131-154.
Makaran, G. (2013). Entre el Buen vivir y el sobrevivir, modelos de desarrollo en la Bolivia de Evo Morales. Cuadernos Americanos, Nº 145, págs. 141-156.
Mujica, N. & Rincon, S. (2010). El concepto de desarrollo: posiciones teóricas mas relevantes. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia (RVG), Año 15, Nº 50, págs. 294-320.
Quispe, G. (2016). Visiones del desarrollo endógeno desde las comunidades locales. Perspectivas, Año 19, Nº 37, págs. 95-122.
Torres, F., & Labarca, N. (2009). Construcción histórica teórica del proceso de desarrollo económico. Revista de Cienicas Sociales, V.15, Nº3, págs. 458-469.
Vázquez, A. (1988). Desarrollo local, una estrategia de creación de empleo. Ediciones Pirámide, Madrid.
Vázquez, A. (1993). Política Económica Local. Ediciones Pirámide, Madrid.
Vázquez, A. (2002). Endogenous development. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.
Vázquez, A. (2005). Las nuevas fuerzas del desarrollo. Editorial Antoni Bosch, Barcelona.
Vázquez, A. (2006). Surgimiento y transformación de clusters y milieus en los procesos de desarrollo. Revista Eure, N° XXXII, págs. 75-95.
Vázquez, A. (2007). Desarrollo Endógeno. Teorías y políticas de Desarrollo territorial. Asociación Española de Ciencia Regional, Investigaciones Regionales, Nº 11, págs. 183-210.
1. Doctora en Integración y Desarrollo Económico, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Docente Investigadora en la Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Ecuador. Email: gabithmiriam@hotmail.com
2. Doctor en Desarrollo Económico por la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Docente Investigador en la Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Ecuador. Email: vdayaviri@gmail.com