TICKNER, ARLENE B. (2003) - Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies. International Studies Perspectives

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/227935622
Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations

Studies
Article in International Studies Perspectives · November 2003

DOI: 10.1111/1528-3577.404001
CITATIONS READS
84 1,125
1 author:
Arlene B. Tickner
Universidad del Rosario
55 PUBLICATIONS 877 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Doing IR Differently View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Arlene B. Tickner on 14 February 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Studies Perspectives (2003) 4, 325–350.
PEDAGOGY IN INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Hearing Latin American Voices in

International Relations Studies
ARLENE B. TICKNER
Universidad de los Andes
This article offers a general account of international relations studies

(IR) in Latin America through an examination of IR thinking in the
region, an inventory of IR theory courses in seven Latin American
countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and
Trinidad and Tobago), and an analysis of journal articles selected from
five specialized IR journals in Latin America. Although considerable
U.S. influence upon the ways in which IR is approached in Latin
America is made apparent through this narrative, the specific context in
which IR studies have evolved in the region has substantially altered the
content of U.S. IR discourse. Therefore, the article concludes with a
discussion of the possible contributions of Latin American IR to Anglo-
American perspectives in the field.
Keywords: Latin American IR, intellectual hegemony, dependency,

autonomy
One of the international relations (IR) discipline’s most notable silences refers to the
Third World. Silence is reflected in the fact that the field’s primary narratives,
which revolve around concepts such as anarchy, sovereignty, power, and the state,
are of limited relevance when applied to the Third World context (Neuman,
1998:2). The predominant stories of the discipline tend to conceal divergent voices,
while supporting the exercise of domination at the global level. Dicta such as ‘‘the
strong do what they will while the weak do what they must,’’ spoken by Thucydides
over two thousand years ago, are presented as ‘‘timeless truths’’ faithfully upheld by
predominant IR theories. In other words, the centerpiece of traditional IR doctrine
is that the exercise of power and the interaction between great powers are the
determining feature of international relations. There is an undeniable degree of
truth in this statement: the Third World’s permanent struggle for independence
and recognition within the international system to wit. Such discourse, however,
also serves to reinforce the notion that Third World countries are essentially
inconsequential for the functioning of the international system and unnecessary for
understanding global processes.
Although the authors of the so-called third debate (Lapid, 1989) have
increasingly called for the need to understand the world from the perspective of
the voiceless masses of international relations, the quintessential issue of how IR has
been approached in the countries of the Third World has yet to be examined in an
r 2003 International Studies Association.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
326 Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies
adequate fashion, even by those who take it upon themselves to speak on behalf of
marginalized groups within the discipline.
A challenge that remains to be addressed during these crucial times of
disciplinary self-reflection is the analysis of the ways in which international relations
are approached in distinct regions of the Third World. Although Anglo-American
IR is frequently presented as a universal discipline, the United States has clearly
imprinted upon the field its major characteristics (Hoffmann, 1977; Waever, 1998;
Crawford and Jarvis, 2001). Disciplinary opening necessarily entails enhanced
participation on the part of countries from other regions of the world, as well as an
increased awareness in the United States of how IR is studied elsewhere.
International relations studies in the periphery have frequently been described
in terms of their adherence to U.S. models, as well as the existence of asymmetrical
flows of knowledge between core and peripheral countries (Holsti, 1985; Richard,
2001). Nevertheless, scant research has been conducted concerning how knowl-
edge in the field of IR travels to the Third World, which theories travel and which
do not, and the ways in which knowledge itself is transformed in the process.
Latin America begs to be explored as one such area whose indigenous IR studies
have been repeatedly neglected. Historically, the region has formed part of the
United States’ sphere of influence, and has been exposed to the continuous
political, economic, cultural, and intellectual influence of the United States. United
States–Latin American relations have also exerted a central effect upon the latter’s
interactions with the rest of the world. As a result, Latin America serves as an
interesting testing-ground for explorations of patterns of intellectual exchange
between core and periphery, namely, how knowledge formulated in the United
States is assimilated as concepts and methods in the region’s approach to
international relations.
In this article I argue that a process of assimilation of imported IR knowledge
does take place at the level of teaching. The principal IR stories as told in U.S.
textbooks are uncritically accepted and retold in classrooms throughout Latin
America. It seems to be expected that IR professors have to present imported
narratives, primarily in English, although they are sorely inadequate for explaining
the circumstances of the countries of the region.
Latin America’s dependent status vis-à-vis the United States has also spurred
wariness toward those ideas produced in the United States. Dependency theory,
touted as the one authentically peripheral formula for confronting problems of
development and global insertion, was largely a reaction against the U.S.-produced
theory of development, modernization theory. Similarly, in the case of the IR
discipline itself, a growing sense of urgency regarding the political and economic
dependence of the region accounts for the emergence of international relations
studies in the 1960s and 1970s (Perina, 1985a; Tomassini, 1990; Maira, 1991;
Russell, 1992a).
The tendency to seek alternative means of analyzing Latin America’s interna-
tional situation is evident at the level of research in the region. Although dominant
U.S. discourses are present in regional analyses of international problems, they
have been appropriated and molded to the Latin American context, suggesting that
the flow of knowledge from the United States has been adjusted to fit conditions in
the region. In consequence, the study of IR in Latin America has been
characterized by the tension between incoming U.S. influences and their local
reception as ‘‘imperialism’’ that needs to be resisted and replaced by autonomous
thinking spaces.
This article offers a general account of IR studies in Latin America. Given the
paucity of knowledge about how IR is studied in the countries of the Third World,
it provides a contribution to the understanding of the specific nature of the field in
peripheral settings. To this end, I explore indigenous IR thinking, and the
theoretical frameworks that have informed both IR teaching and research in the
ARLENE B. TICKNER 327
countries of the region. I conclude by discussing the implications for Anglo-

American IR studies of hearing alternative voices in the field.
Indigenous IR Thinking in Latin America1

Dependency Perspectives: Precursors and Analytical Targets
Dependency theory was celebrated as the first genuine peripheral approach to
development and international insertion. In general terms, the diverse authors
grouped together under the dependency label seek to explain economic under-
development in the periphery as the product of the specific nature of global
capitalism, as well as examining the ways in which external dependency has molded
internal processes in ways that reinforce inequality and exclusion. This school of
thought was heavily influenced by Lenin’s theory of imperialism and the Economic
Commission on Latin America’s (ECLA) early work on development problems in
the region. The great majority of dependency writers also target modernization
theory as a particularly deficient analytical framework for understanding problems
of underdevelopment. My discussion of dependency perspectives is based upon a
representative, but hardly complete, examination of a series of authors who
advocate distinct positions or focus upon different historical moments of
dependency.2 A brief overview of modernization theory and the ECLA school
precedes this analysis to situate the emergence of dependency historically.
Modernization theory, made popular in the 1960s as the predominant U.S.
approach to development problems, seeks to explain underdevelopment and
modernization as a linear process through which different societies acquire Western
values that allow them to make the transition from traditional to modern societies.
The central hypothesis of modernization theory is that the values, institutions, and
attitudes characterizing traditional society constitute the primary causes of
underdevelopment, as well as the central obstacles to modernization in Latin
America (Valenzuela and Valenzuela, 1978). As a result, modernization theory
tends to characterize developing countries as ‘‘dual’’ societies in which traditional,
agrarian, backward regions coexist with dynamic, modern, industrial areas. The
transition to modernization occurs primarily through the acquisition of Western
values on the part of the modern political elite.
In an attempt to offer an alternative approach to development, distinct from
modernization theory, ECLA, under the direction of Raúl Prébisch, sought to
explain the underdevelopment of the region through an analysis of the effects of
the international capitalist exchange system. Consequently, ECLA-school thinking
attempts to show how the expansion of capitalism, the international division of
labor, and the insertion of the Latin American economies into the global system
produced asymmetrical relations between the large core countries and the nations
of the periphery (United Nations–Economic Commission for Latin America, 1950).
The concentration of production for export in the area of primary goods is
identified as the primary cause of the unequal terms of trade experienced by the
Latin American countries, given the inelastic demand of primary products in terms
of price and income (Fishlow, 1988:90).
As a result of its diagnosis of the causes of underdevelopment, ECLA pointed to
the need to gear production toward manufactured goods, in order to make the
region’s economies less vulnerable to shifts in the global market, which in turn
required an active state role to redirect the productive process. The elimination of
large-landholding (latifundio) interests, the creation of an enlarged internal
1
Although traditional IR establishes a sharp division between international relations and international political
economy in Latin America, as will become clear in this section, IR thinking not only borrows elements from each,
but also fails to distinguish between them.
2
For a comprehensive taxonomy of dependency thinking, see Packenham (1992).
consumption market and the incorporation of the marginalized rural population

also constituted central aspects of ECLA’s proposal (Cardoso, 1972:48). Although
these policy recommendations were widely embraced in the great majority of
countries in Latin America, the crisis of the first stages of import substitution
industrialization (ISI) in the late 1950s to 1960s led to a series of critiques
concerning the viability of the proposed development strategy. In addition to
creating a new type of dependence upon imports and foreign investment, ISI was
identified as the cause of severe sectoral imbalances, including the weakening of the
agricultural sector, reduced labor absorption capacity, fiscal crises, and inflation.
Although dependency theory clearly shares many of ECLA’s key assumptions,
mainly the unequal nature of exchange in the global economy and the consequent
bifurcation of the international system into core and periphery, many dependency
authors reject the gradualist modernization project proposed by ECLA, and instead
argue in favor of the need for radical social change.
Global Capitalist Insertion and Dependence

In their classic book, Dependencia y desarrollo en Ame´rica Latina (1969), Fernando
Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto base their analysis of underdevelopment in the
region on a core assumption shared by all dependency authors: underdevelopment
is a direct result of the expansion of the capitalist system, which links diverse
economies to the global system according to their respective productive
apparatuses (Cardoso and Faletto, 1969:23). Dependence is maintained through
this international division of labor and by the specific relations of economic and
political domination contained therein. The construction of strategic coalitions
between the ruling classes in the core and the periphery, and the semi-feudal
exploitation of marginalized zones of peripheral nations in order to nurture
urbanization and modernization in the cities, constitute just two manifestations of
this situation. According to the authors, a comprehensive understanding of
dependency entails not only an analysis of external forces but also the particular
configuration of class relations emerging within dependent countries (Cardoso and
Faletto, 1969:30). Both the external and internal, social, economic, and political
dimensions of dependency become equally important when we examine the
emergence of social formations in distinct historical periods.
The central hypothesis of the authors is that the formation of social groups as well
as the political evolution of the Latin American countries took different paths,
depending upon whether the export-oriented growth stage of the late nineteenth
century (or transition stage) was characterized by domestic control of the
productive system or foreign-controlled enclave economies (Cardoso and Faletto,
1969:55). Specifically, the two types of insertion into the global economy, which
were characterized by distinct dominant class configurations, led to diverse
possibilities in terms of the nature of the state, the structure of class domination,
the incorporation of the middle and popular classes, and respective levels and types
of national development. Capitalism acquired concrete manifestations in distinct
national contexts, depending upon the ways in which local, class, and state interests
were historically constituted and articulated.
Industrialization, Transnational Dependency, and Dependent Development

According to authors such as Theotonio dos Santos (1968, 1973), Cardoso (1972),
and Osvaldo Sunkel (1980), a markedly different stage of dependence was
inaugurated in Latin America between the 1930s and 1950s, given the shift from
primary goods production to industrialization in many countries of the region.
Transnational dependency is premised upon an international division of labor that
highlights the importance of the more industrialized Latin American economies for
international financial interests, as a source of both investment and growing

consumer markets. Santos observes that capitalist industrialization in the region
and the presence of foreign capital in fact constitute two facets of the same process
(1968:1).
Transformations in the nature of global capitalism necessarily entail changes in
relations of domination and subordination between center and periphery. Cardoso
(1972:43–44) sustains that this stage of dependency led to new forms of strategic
interaction between multinational corporations and the local bourgeoisie, and
distinct types of negotiation with the local state. The specific nature of transnational
dependency in distinct national contexts was thus determined by the relative weight
of international business and state capitalism (Santos, 1973:60).
For Cardoso (1974), associated dependent development, as opposed to what
dependency writer André Gunder Frank (1977) describes as the development of
underdevelopment, is the principal result of transnational dependency. Contrary to
popular assumptions that imperialism and dependency impede growth in the
economies of the periphery, in situations characterized by industrialization,
development is not incompatible with dependency. In other words, Cardoso
contests arguments based upon the zero-sum nature of capitalist development.
Echoing this idea, Santos (1973) argues that multinational corporate activity is
concentrated precisely in those countries exhibiting high levels of economic and
technological growth, given their greater potential for establishing monopolistic
control over the production, distribution, consumption, and capitalization aspects
of industrialization. Although constituting a motor of economic growth, indus-
trialization, and modernization, transnational capitalism also distorts the political,
economic, and social structures of the host country (Sunkel and Fuenzalida,
1980:45), given that it is circumscribed by capitalist interests in the core, as well as
dominant class interests in the core and periphery. Capitalist development in the
periphery is also highly exclusionary; while leading to higher concentrations of
wealth between rich and poor, economic dynamism is limited to small pockets of
development (Cardoso, 1972:47).
In addition to modifying the productive structure of the dependent countries in
a negative manner, Guillermo O’Donnell (1972) shows how economic moderniza-
tion and industrialization in Latin America, instead of producing conditions
favorable to democracy, became associated with the rise of political authoritarianism
in Brazil and the countries of the Southern Cone. Bureaucratic authoritarianism
was grounded in the argument that internal order was necessary to control the
rising demands of the popular classes and for development to proceed in a
successful fashion.
Dependency Perspectives and IR Thinking

Dependency became the primary conceptual lens through which problems of
underdevelopment and class conflict were viewed in many countries of Latin
America during the late 1960s and 1970s. Dependency perspectives also provided
significant cues for rethinking the region’s international relations, given their
insight on issues related to the state, national development, and sovereignty, among
others. Contrary to modernization theory, and to a lesser degree ECLA-school
thinking, which examine the state as a unit of analysis essentially insulated from the
effects of global capitalism, dependency theorists illustrate that processes of state
development are intimately related to this system (Sunkel, 1980:22). One of the
primary manifestations of dependency reveals itself at the level of the state, whose
consolidation is constrained by the changing nature of capitalism.
National development is highlighted by both the ECLA school and dependency
as constituting one of the central goals of peripheral nations. While each points to
the international division of labor as the principal obstacle for achieving this
objective, dependency writers express an acute awareness of the role of history in

determining the possibilities for and barriers to development. Dependency is not a
fixed state, but rather, is constantly changing as a result of transformations in the
modes of production characterizing distinct countries. Nevertheless, throughout all
the stages of dependency the dominant classes are shown to be fundamental to the
preservation of dependent relations with the core.
According to David L. Blaney (1996:461), ‘‘dependency theory constitutes
international society as an interweaving of two logicsFthe logic of capitalismyand
the logic of sovereignty.’’ Although the majority of the authors grouped together
under the dependency label fail to make explicit reference to the problem of
sovereignty, their treatment of the role of capitalism and imperialism in establishing
the economic and political rules of the game within the periphery allows for the
conclusion that one of the defining characteristics of dependency is precisely the
absence of sovereignty (Cardoso and Faletto, 1969; Cardoso, 1972; Santos, 1972).
In this regard, the attainment of sovereignty constitutes a precondition for
development (Blaney, 1996:466).
Notwithstanding these important contributions, on a more practical level
dependency theory failed to produce a viable solution to situations of dependence,
short of revolution, the adoption of socialist forms of production, or the acceptance
of skewed, dependent development. Cardoso and Faletto (1969:29) make this
painfully clear when they sustain that in the process of pull-and-tug between social
forces and the market characteristic of nation-building, international market forces
always constrain the possibility for autonomous decision-making and action.
The Latin American Hybrid and the Problem of Autonomy

International relations thinking in Latin America sought to overcome both the
determinism of dependency and the limited applicability of traditional IR theories
for thinking about international politics from the vantage point of the weak. The
emergence and consolidation of the field between the 1960s and 1980s responded
to the need to reduce existing levels of political, economic, and intellectual
dependence, while creating autochthonous views of IR (Lagos, 1980; Muñoz,
1980). Many authors shared the notion that Latin America needed to ‘‘create its
own scientific knowledge, extracted from its respective reality, while developing its
own theoretical and methodological instruments’’ (Perina, 1985a:12). It was
perceived that the analysis of global events from the perspective of the
predominant IR theory, realism, tended to ignore the substantive, normative
content of international relations, and as such, was of little relevance to the
international relations of the region (Tomassini, 1990:61).
A key concern expressed within the nascent field of Latin American IR was
related to the problem of regional autonomy. Not only was autonomy viewed as a
sine qua non for economic development, as highlighted by dependency
perspectives, but the concept also began to be linked to Latin American foreign
policy. Autonomy became viewed from the outside in as a mechanism for guarding
against the noxious effects of dependency on a local level, and from the inside out
as an instrument for asserting regional interests in the international system.
The literature on autonomy produced in Latin America, primarily during the
1980s, established a conceptual bridge between dependency analysis and main-
stream IR theory, particularly classical realism and, later, interdependence,3 while
transcending the pessimistic conclusions derived from these theories in terms of the
possibility for autonomous international action on the part of peripheral countries.
While dependency theory and realism are vastly different in terms of the
3
Although interdependence is admittedly not a theory, Latin American IR was strongly influenced by this early
attempt to articulate what would later become neoliberal institutionalism. See Keohane and Nye (1977).
fundamental questions posed by each, their primary assumptions concerning the

role of power in international relations (regardless of its sources), the hierarchical
nature of power relations among states (and the social classes they represent in the
case of dependency), and the absence of centralized authority capable of controlling
the exercise of power on the part of strong states are essentially the same. As a
result, both approaches offer little hope to the periphery in terms of its
international relations, other than the satisfaction of limited objectives through
dependent, strategic relations with a great power. Dependency shares with
interdependence the idea of an interconnected global system produced mainly
by the evolution of capitalism and in consequence, the importance of economic
issues for international affairs. The two theories also identify nonstate actors such as
multinational corporations as key players in the international system.
The synthesis between these theories becomes apparent in academic references
made to two authors in particular, Helio Jaguaribe and Juan Carlos Puig, by far the
two most influential figures in the analysis, dissemination, and practice of the
autonomy concept in the region. Latin American IR scholars credit both with
pioneering the ‘‘creative incorporation’’ of traditional IR principles into regional
analyses of international relations (Colacrai, 1992:36; Russell, 1992a:10; Soares de
Lima, 1992:59). This fusion of concepts from dependency theory, realism, and
interdependence constitutes a Latin American hybrid model that became
fundamental to the analysis of global issues in many countries of the region.
Jaguaribe (1979:91–93) describes the international system as a differentiated
order comprising four distinct positions, characterized by decreasing levels of
territorial integrity and self-determination: general primacy, regional primacy,
autonomy, and dependency. Although countries that exercise autonomy cannot
fully guarantee the inviolability of their national territory, they possess the capacity
to impose considerable sanctions upon eventual aggressors and enjoy sufficient
margins of self-determination to conduct internal affairs. Dependent nations, on
the other hand, although formally independent and sovereign, are constrained by
different forms of external control.
Autonomy is a function of structural conditions that Jaguaribe describes as
‘‘national viability’’ and ‘‘international permissibility’’ (1979:96–97). The first term
refers to the existence of adequate human and material resources, the capacity for
international exchange, and the degree of sociocultural cohesion within a given
country. The second concept is related to the capacity to neutralize external threats,
and depends upon both internal and external factors, including economic and
military capabilities, and the establishment of alliances with third parties. Jaguaribe
also identifies two functional requirements for the existence of autonomy in the
periphery, technical-entrepreneurial autonomy and favorable relations with the
core.
For Jaguaribe, the costs of dependency manifest themselves foremost in the
viability of the nation-state. Dependent countries are precisely those that receive
economic, technological, social, political, and cultural cues from external sources.
The absence of national autonomy in this area erodes the state’s capacity to exercise
its role in other areas as well (Jaguaribe, 1979:115–116).
In his reflections on autonomy, Juan Carlos Puig (1980, 1984) takes issue with
traditional IR theories for their futility in understanding the international relations
of the periphery. For Puig, contrary to the arguments set forth by realists such as
Morgenthau and Waltz, the international system is not characterized by anarchy,
but is rather a hierarchical regime in which three types of international
actors coexist: supreme distributors who adopt decisions, inferior distributors
who execute them, and recipients who simply obey (1980:141). Realism’s
emphasis upon military power is also said to disguise the growing favorability
of the international system toward autonomous strategies on the part of the
periphery.
According to Puig, the transition to autonomy entails four basic stages: (1)
paracolonial dependency (formal sovereign status); (2) national dependence (the
anchoring of the material benefits derived from dependency to a national project);
(3) heterodox autonomy (autonomy in nonstrategic issues in exchange for
nonconfrontational relations with the core); and (4) secessionist autonomy (the
rupture of all linkages with the core combined with acts of global defiance)
(1980:149–155). Similar to Jaguaribe’s discussion of this problem, for Puig
autonomy requires adequate degrees of national viability, a sufficient amount of
domestic resources, and an explicit commitment on the part of elite groups
regarding autonomy’s intrinsic value. Both authors share the notion that autonomy
requires the mobilization of power resources in the periphery. Regional alliances
against the core, economic and political integration, and improved negotiating
strategies constitute just three strategies highlighted by Puig and Jaguaribe for
achieving this goal.
Peripheral Realism
The end of the Cold War led to a reevaluation of the intrinsic value of peripheral
autonomy as a guide to Latin America’s international relations. Beginning in the
1990s, academic production in the region on the topic of autonomy was
nonexistent. Carlos Escudé’s (1995) formulation of peripheral realism constitutes
the only exhaustive conceptual endeavor in recent Latin American IR.4 Contrary to
the authors preceding him, Escudé maintains that the benefits of autonomy,
historically a cornerstone of the region’s foreign policies, must be weighed against
the relative costs of using it. In an attempt to derive a normative theory from
realism’s central premises, of relevance to the periphery (Argentina in particular),
Escudé discusses the merits of ‘‘peripheral realism’’ as opposed to autonomy.
According to the author, the acritical adoption in the periphery of theoretical
frameworks produced primarily in the United States has had negative con-
sequences in Latin America, to the extent that it has served the ideological purposes
of the elites in these countries. While realist theory has been used to justify
aggressive foreign policies on the part of the periphery, interdependence has led to
an overestimation of the periphery’s scope for action (Escudé, 1995:19).
Classical realism’s emphasis upon the state and the national interest defined in
terms of power, is especially problematic when applied to the periphery, given that
state-centric approaches fail to specify the subject that state actions serve, and can
legitimate specific group interests over others. Escudé describes this common
tendency to present the state-as-person, in isolation from the particular interests
represented therein, as the ‘‘anthropomorphic fallacy’’ (1995:49). In light of the
exclusionary nature of state-centric realism, particularly evident in the periphery
where the nature of the state is more conducive to elitist practices, the author
proposes the adoption of a citizen-centric realist approach more attuned to the
particularities of the Third World.
Escudé’s peripheral realism includes the following premises: (1) the concept of
the national interest should be defined in terms of economic development centered
around the well-being of the citizenry; (2) peripheral countries should eliminate
political confrontations with the core powers in those cases in which the latter’s
policies do not directly affect the material interests of the country in question; (3)
peripheral countries should avoid unproductive confrontations with great powers,
even when such confrontations do not generate immediate costs; (4) peripheral
4
Escudé does not enjoy the same regional authority as the other authors discussed in this section. However, the
fact that ‘‘peripheral realism’’ has been extremely influential in the practice and study of Argentina’s international
relations and that Escudé’s work constitutes the only recent conceptual endeavor in the field, well warrant its
discussion here.
countries should avoid ‘‘idealist’’ but costly foreign policy approaches; and (5)
peripheral countries should examine the advantages of bandwagoning with the
dominant power or a coalition of great powers (Escudé, 1995:154–156).
Latin American IR Teaching

The Evolution of IR in Latin America
Different analysts associate the consolidation of Latin American IR with changes in
the region’s international orientation in the 1970s, namely, the diversification of its
external relations and the search for autonomy vis-à-vis the United States.5 Both
created new needs in terms of the systematic analysis of Latin America’s relations
with the rest of the world (Muñoz, 1980; Tomassini, 1990; Maira, 1991). According
to Luis Maira (1991:8–10), although the new academic endeavors that began to
emerge during this ‘‘foundational period’’ were completely isolated from each
other, the research agendas that they addressed were basically similar, and included
topics such as the operation of the international system, North–South relations and
the role of the Third World, the internal nature of the core countries, economic
integration and regional cooperation, comparative foreign policy, and processes of
transnationalization and interdependence. The process of consolidation and
maturation of the discipline received a crucial impetus with the creation of the
Joint Studies Program in International Relations in Latin America (RIAL) in 1977,
an association of academic centers dedicated to the promotion of research,
teaching, and seminars on international relations. Starting in the early 1980s, RIAL
began coordinating annual reports and meetings on international relations, in
which a diverse series of topics began to be explored by academics from the region.
During this same period, the Latin American Foreign Policy Program (PROSPEL),
which comprised the same community of Latin American scholars, began to publish
an annual volume dealing with the evolution of regional foreign policies.6
A series of factors have influenced the evolution of international relations studies
in different national settings (Perina, 1985b; Russell, 1992b; Tickner, 2000):
comparative levels of development and position within the regional/international
system; political regime type; levels of domestic crisis; degree of interaction between
academic and public sectors; and duration of the colonial experience. Those
countries that experienced comparatively early development, namely, Chile,
Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina, were those in which international relations studies
evolved earlier. Historically, this group of countries has also occupied a
predominant position within the regional hierarchy. The major difference between
Brazil and the other three countries is that for many years Brazil’s ministry of
foreign relations, Itamaraty, was reluctant to foster an environment more
conducive to the consolidation of IR as an academic field, given its monopoly of
the country’s foreign relations (Soares de Lima, 1992).
Political regime type and political crisis also played a crucial role in the
development of IR in those countries subjected to authoritarian rule between the
1960s and 1980s. Although the levels of repression directed against the academic
sector in Argentina and Chile were much higher than in Brazil, in all three cases
many individuals who would have normally aspired to participate in political
activities were excluded from this realm, and often reoriented their professional
activities toward the academic sector. This process had contradictory effects in the
countries in question. International relations studies received a significant
intellectual ‘‘push’’ from authoritarianism, consisting mainly of the incorporation
of important political figures into IR activities that resulted in the creation of an
5
The first research centers dedicated to the study of global issues were created in the 1960s, in Mexico and Chile.
During the following two decades IR teaching and research programs were spread throughout the region.
6
Chilean scholars Luciano Tomassini and Heraldo Muñoz, respectively, spearheaded these initiatives.
incipient ‘‘academic community’’ in Latin American IR and the gradual consolida-

tion of the field. However, when the dictatorships in these countries came to an end,
many individuals working in the field deserted academia to participate in the public
sector, before a new generation of IR specialists had been fully trained. A large
number of IR programs were weakened as a result.
A similar situation occurred in Mexico, given the particular nature of the PRI’s
rule, and the extremely high levels of interaction that have existed between the
academic sector and foreign policy-making circles. While the massive abandonment
of the field in countries such as Chile, and to a lesser degree Argentina and Brazil, is
not apparent in the Mexican case, a steady flow of academics toward the foreign
policy establishment has been a permanent characteristic of IR studies in this country.
Throughout the region, cyclical domestic crises have tended historically to draw
attention away from international issues, with which IR studies programs have been
viewed as less important than other areas of the social sciences. Colombia and the
countries of Central America (with the exception of Costa Rica) constitute two of the
clearest examples of this situation, given the high-profile armed conflicts and
domestic violence endemic to these areas. The introduction of neoliberal reform
between the late 1980s and early 1990s, along with the ensuing internationalization
of the Latin American economies and the proliferation of regional integration
processes, may explain the growth of IR programs in the region in recent years.
The length and nature of the colonial experience may also influence the ways in
which IR is conceived and taught. In Trinidad and Tobago, the only country in the
Caribbean harboring an IR program, prolonged existence as a colony helps to
explain the comparatively ‘‘critical’’ nature of IR studies there, as attested to by the
salience of postcolonial thinking. Costa Rica seems to be another case that may
partially support this claim, to the extent that the levels of dependence
characteristic of Central America approach those of the Caribbean.
IR Theory in Seven National Contexts

This section assesses IR theory curricula in seven countries of the region:
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Trinidad and Tobago.7
In addition to providing a representative geographical sampling of the region, the
countries selected are those in which formal international studies programs (which
comprise either research or teaching) have existed for at least ten years.8 The
identification of academic institutions within the seven countries was carried out
according to the following criteria: (1) national, regional, and international
exposure, determined by the formal academic qualifications of the IR faculty,
number and type of publications and research initiatives, and participation in
international academic events; (2) the longevity of IR teaching programs (ten years
or more); and (3) the size of the IR faculty.9
7
My definition of the region is primarily geographical in nature. Admittedly, Trinidad and Tobago’s qualification
as a Latin American country is questionable in cultural terms, while in a strictly geographic sense it qualifies as part
of South America. Given that it is the only country in the Caribbean in which the study of international relations
exists at the university level, Trinidad and Tobago’s inclusion in this survey seems highly justified.
8
The only other country complying with this criteria that was excluded from the survey was Venezuela, given
that those institutions in which IR studies exist were unable to provide the required information. See Puig,
Berglund, Haluani, Guerón, and Romero (1990) for a general overview of the field in Venezuela.
9
These institutions include: Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (Departamento de Ciencia Polı́tica) and Facultad
Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, FLACSO, Argentina; Universidade de Brası́lia (Departamento de Relações
Internacionais) and Pontifı́cia Universidade Católica, PUC, Rio de Janeiro (Instituto de Relações Internacionais),
Brazil; Universidad de Chile (Instituto de Estudios Internacionales) and Universidad Católica de Chile (Instituto de
Ciencia Polı́tica), Chile; Universidad de los Andes (Centro de Estudios Internacionales) and Universidad Externado
de Colombia (Facultad de Finanzas y Relaciones Internacionales), Colombia; Universidad Nacional, Heredia
(Escuela de Relaciones Internacionales), Costa Rica; Colegio de México (Centro de Estudios Internacionales) and
Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, ITAM (Departamento de Estudios Internacionales), Mexico; University
of the West Indies (Institute of International Relations), Trinidad and Tobago. Although the Universidad Nacional
The primary source of information used for analyzing the state of IR teaching in
each country were the reading lists of IR theory course syllabi.10 To avoid
overweighing institutions with more than one course offering in IR theory, the
decision was made to include only one course per institution (general or
introductory IR theory) in the analysis, for a total of twelve course syllabi. The
course syllabi sampling includes IR theory courses at both the undergraduate (5)
and graduate (7) levels, given that all of the institutions selected, with the exception
of the Universidad de Brası́lia, offer only undergraduate or graduate degree
programs in international relations that comply with the selection criteria
established above. An interpretative form of qualitative content analysis of the IR
theory reading lists was conducted to establish a series of preliminary conclusions
regarding theoretical patterns in the teaching of IR in the region. Qualitative
content analysis is concerned with the formulation of hypotheses or the discovery of
new relationships derived from the analysis of texts (George, 1959:8–9). As a result,
qualitative analysis allows for greater margin in the interpretation of non-
quantitative data.
Each of the 407 required readings appearing in the twelve course syllabi was
coded into one of the following nine categories, and assigned an equal weight: (1)
classical state-centric tradition; (2) classical nonstate-centric tradition; (3) general
classical tradition; (4) Marxist/neo-Marxist tradition; (5) postmodern tradition; (6)
constructivist tradition; (7) Latin American hybrid; (8) foreign policy analysis; and
(9) other.11 Although many items could arguably be classified in several categories,
Autonóma de México, UNAM, complied with the selection criteria, it was excluded from the survey given that the
university was on strike during the duration of the information-gathering stage of my research.
10
Similar exercises are performed in the case of the United States by Alker and Biersteker (1984) and Robles
(1993).
11
The coding scheme that I developed took into account the relative strengths and weaknesses of other
taxonomies of international relations proposed by Alker and Biersteker (1984), Holsti (1985), and Waever (1998), as
well as the specific concerns of the countries of Latin America in terms of international political economy, and issues
of development and dependency. The research questions and assumptions reflected by the distinct categories are
fundamentally different, while the methodological, subject and area-issue emphases of diverse theories or
approaches located within a specific category may also vary.The classical tradition is concerned primarily with the
sources of order, stability and instability, and war and peace in an anarchic international system, in which anarchy is
viewed as the unavoidable product of the relations between sovereign states. The different approaches pertaining to
this tradition highlight the tensions and rivalries that this situation produces primarily between great power actors,
as well as the means of overcoming the obstacles that anarchy poses to peaceful interaction. Within the classical
tradition, two major strains can be identified: (a) a classical ‘‘state-centric’’ subtype (classical realism, neorealism,
neoliberal institutionalism); and (b) a classical ‘‘non–state-centric’’ subtype (interdependence, liberalism, integration
theory). While the theories comprising the former, with the exception of neoliberal institutionalism, look to the
balance of power between states as the primary mitigating factor of anarchy in the international system, those of the
second tend to focus upon the diverse factors that facilitate collective arrangements between state and nonstate
actors in nonsecurity issue areas.The Marxist (and neo-Marxist) tradition (imperialism, dependency theory, world-
system, critical theory) places key emphasis upon capitalism as the central defining characteristic of the international
system. Specifically, the fundamental concerns expressed by the theories adhering to this tradition derive from the
role of global capitalism in generating structures of domination or uneven development among different actors.
Contrary to the stagnant, ahistorical view of the state and the international system present in the classical tradition,
the theories adhering to the Marxist/neo-Marxist tradition seek to uncover the class or group interests that underlie
state action, while stressing the importance of processes of historical change. Although the majority of the theories
included within the Marxist/neo-Marxist tradition share with the classical tradition a series of positivist assumptions
regarding the nature and interpretation of the world, they are distinguished from classical theories by their
tendency to call into question existing global structures and relations of power.The constructivist tradition describes
international relations as social relations in which state’s (and other actor’s) identities and interests are socially
constructed (that is, the result of intersubjective understandings). The patterns of interaction that evolve on a global
level are viewed by the constructivist tradition as the product of mutually constitutive arrangements that emerge
from the relationship between agents and structures. Thus, the different types of approaches included within this
tradition seek to explain the role of institutions, rules, norms, and language in the co-constitution of international
actors (or agents) and structures.The postmodern tradition (postmodernism, poststructuralism, gender, postcoloni-
alism) questions the positivist, empirical nature of the international relations discipline, while challenging the
concepts with which IR has traditionally been approached. The theories grouped within this tradition sustain that
the generation of knowledge within the field has not been a neutral process, but rather, reflects specific interests on
the single classification assignment was based upon the central research questions
and assumptions of each text, the focus of the specific pages assigned, and the
placement of the text within the course syllabus. Following the coding of all of the
items contained in a given reading list, the information was aggregated on an
individual course basis. This procedure was repeated for each of the twelve IR
theory course syllabi. Upon completion, the results of each individual reading were
consolidated into a Latin American aggregate. A crosscheck of a random sample of
45 texts was conducted to test the replicability of both the theoretical categories and
the coding procedure.12
IR Theory Course Syllabi: International or Anglo-American?

The content analysis indicates that IR theory courses in the region overwhelmingly
favor classical approaches to the discipline. Of the 407 texts assigned on the twelve
course reading lists, 21.9 percent (89) of the items corresponded to the general
classical tradition, 31.4 percent (128) to the classical state-centric tradition, 15.2
percent (62) to the classical nonstate-centric tradition, 11.1 percent (45) to the
Marxist/neo-Marxist tradition, 9.1 percent (37) to foreign policy analysis, 5.4
percent (22) to the postmodern tradition, 1 percent (4) to both the Latin American
hybrid and constructivist traditions, and 3.9 percent (16) to the other category (see
Table 1).13 Classical interpretations of IR thus account for 68.5 percent of the texts
included in the IR theory course syllabi. This result suggests not only that the
teaching of IR theory in Latin America is fashioned largely after U.S. IR, but also,
that IR theory courses in the region fail to treat nonclassical approaches on equal
footing and fall short of being ‘‘international’’ in scope.
It has become widely accepted in IR circles that the types of international
relations theory used to analyze global issues are intimately related to the place
occupied by specific countries in the international hierarchy (Gareau, 1981).
Although my general conclusion for IR teaching in Latin America is that high levels
of imitation of U.S. IR exist, the analysis that I conducted of individual IR theory
course syllabi suggests that there may actually be some type of inverse correlation
the part of dominant actors. In turn, the postmodern tradition asserts that no foundations exist for judging between
competing truth claims. An initial evaluation of the data corresponding to both IR theory course syllabi and journal
articles reflected three additional categories that were subsequently incorporated into the coding scheme: the general
classical tradition; the Latin American hybrid; and foreign policy analysis. The general classical tradition includes all of those
works that exhibit the principal concerns and assumptions of the classical tradition, but that fail to express a clear
preference about the central actors in the international system (state or nonstate). The great majority of IR
textbooks that address the so-called ‘‘major debates’’ of the discipline, and are widely used in IR theory courses,
work between the state-centric and nonstate-centric variants of the classical tradition.The Latin American hybrid
approach draws upon distinct concepts derived from dependency theory, Morgenthauian realism, and
interdependence. According to the Latin American hybrid approach, the international system is characterized by
hierarchical relations of domination and interdependence. The state, viewed in relatively nonproblematic terms, is
highlighted as the principal actor in the international sphere, followed by other types of economic actors such as
multinational corporations. The Latin American hybrid approach sustains a nonhierarchical view of the
international agenda, as well as a multifaceted notion of power. As in the case of the classical tradition, this
approach does not challenge the fundamental structures of the international system, but rather analyzes the world
‘‘as it is.’’Foreign policy analysis (FPA) encompasses all of those theoretical approaches that analyze global events at
levels other than the international system. In the specific case of this study, the great majority of IR theory courses
included in the inventory contain some degree of foreign policy theory texts. Thus, the foreign policy analysis
category was created to reflect this situation.
12
The content analysis of both the course syllabi and the journal articles was performed in coordination with two
previously trained graduate-level research assistants and a fellow international relations professor. According to
King, Keohane, and Verba (1994:26), in qualitative research the ‘‘[y] entire reasoning process used in producing
conclusions’’ should be replicable. In the case of this study, the level of detail provided in the specification of the
classification categories and procedures, as well of the coding of each item, allows for a substantial degree of
replication of my research process.
13
A list of the bibliographical items classified, as well as their respective classification, can be consulted in Tickner
(2000:275–296).
TABLE 1. IR Theory Teaching in Twelve Latin American Institutions
Di Tella Flacso PUC- Cato´lica Externado Andes Nacional Colegio ITAM

Theoritical Tradition (Arg) (Arg) Brasilia Rio Chile (Chi) (Col) (Col) (C.R.) Me´xico (Mex) W. Indies Aggregate
Classical State-Centric 14 3 9 8 7 20 6 8 7 16 20 10 128
Classical Non–State-Centric 7 6 9 3 7 4 3 4 2 7 10 62
General Classical 4 8 8 3 23 10 6 8 5 2 5 7 89
Marxist/Neo-Marxist 2 2 4 2 5 5 6 19 45
Postmodern 3 4 3 1 4 7 22
Constructivist 1 1 1 1 4
Latin American Hybrid 1 2 1 4
Foreign Policy Analysis 3 5 3 3 8 4 1 3 7 37
Other 1 1 4 4 3 2 1 16
TOTAL 30 24 40 17 45 48 23 31 24 32 48 45 407
337
between international position and the ways in which IR theory is taught in the
countries of Latin America.
Between the more developed countries of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico,
and smaller, dependent countries such as Trinidad and Tobago and Costa Rica,
significant differences exist in the relative importance assigned to classical IR
theories. In the first group of countries, which occupy a more predominant place in
the regional (and international) system, adherence to the three subtypes of the
classical tradition in the teaching of IR theory is much more pronounced, reaching
over 80 percent in three of the institutions surveyed. In Trinidad and Tobago, and
to a lesser extent Costa Rica, the different variants of the classical tradition occupy a
comparatively reduced place within the IR theory courses offered, 37.8 percent and
58.3 percent, respectively. On the other hand, Marxist/neo-Marxist approaches to
IR are given greater attention than in other countries, occupying 42.2 percent of
the course listings in the case of Trinidad and Tobago and 20.8 percent in Costa
Rica. Postmodern and postcolonial frameworks are also highlighted in the teaching
of IR theory in Trinidad and Tobago (31.8 percent), while these approaches are
almost completely absent from other course syllabi.
Primary Texts Used to Teach IR

Because the teaching of IR in Latin America closely mirrors theoretical
developments in the United States IR mainstream, the great majority of the texts
used in Latin American IR theory courses were written by American (and British)
authors in English. The most commonly cited texts include Morgenthau’s Politics
among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (used in ten of the twelve courses),
Waltz’s Theory of International Politics (nine courses), Keohane and Nye’s Power and
Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (seven courses), Gilpin’s Political Economy
of International Relations (six courses), Hedley Bull’s The Anarchical Society (five
courses), James E. Dougherty and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff ’s Contending Theories of
International Relations (five courses), and Keohane’s International Institutions and State
Power (four courses). All but one of the texts mentioned (Bull) were translated into
Spanish as part of a book program financed by the United States Information
Agency (USIA) during the 1980s and early 1990s, with the goal of making classical
U.S. texts on IR and foreign policy available to Spanish-speaking audiences.
Other texts authored by Latin Americans rarely appear in IR theory course
syllabi, namely, dependency writings and the Latin American hybrid. Notwith-
standing the central influence exercised by dependency approaches in the social
sciences in Latin America, and in the field of IR, dependency theory occupies a
comparatively insignificant place among those texts pertaining to the Marxist/neo-
Marxist tradition. Seminal works such as Cardoso and Faletto’s Dependencia y
desarrollo are cited infrequently, suggesting that dependency theory is simply not
considered a theory of international relations by Latin American IR professors.
Authors representative of the Latin American hybrid, identified in this article as an
approach that became instrumental to the analysis of Latin America’s international
relations in the 1980s, are nearly invisible.
The tendency to exclude indigenous attempts at theorizing, at least within the
context of formal IR theory courses, suggests that predominant Latin American
conceptions of what constitutes ‘‘IR theory’’ are indeed deeply rooted in U.S.
interpretations of the discipline. Nevertheless, current debates within the U.S.
mainstream between neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism, and rationalism
and reflexivism (constructivism), are given only passing attention in the great
majority of IR theory courses examined, or ignored completely. Constructivist
approaches, in particular, exercise a negligible influence in IR teaching in Latin
America. Third debate accounts of IR, which have avowedly shaken the
foundations of mainstream IR thought, are addressed in only one-half of the IR
theory courses analyzed. This state of affairs suggests that the newer debates
emerging within U.S. IR have not ‘‘traveled’’ as effectively to the Latin American
countries as earlier theoretical discussions within the field.
Professional Training in IR
In addition to the greater availability of classical IR texts in the Spanish language,
another significant transmission belt of U.S. IR theory to Latin American
classrooms are local IR professors themselves. An important form of intellectual
influence is exercised through academic training abroad, namely, the absorption of
relevant theories and methods as defined by the host country and their replication
in the classroom in the professors’ respective country of origin.The provenance of
graduate degrees held by those IR professors at the universities under examination
indicates a relatively strong geographical concentration in the United States: 44.9
percent of the Ph.D.s held by university faculty and 38.1 percent of the M.A.s were
obtained in U.S. institutions. At the Ph.D. level, the countries that follow the U.S.
include Great Britain (14.1 percent) and France (11.5 percent). While nearly all of
the professors who teach the IR theory courses surveyed above pursued graduate
studies in the United States or Great Britain, primarily during the 1980s, many
academics listed in the general IR faculties of the twelve institutions never received
formal training in the field, and specialize in areas distinct from international
relations. This suggests that, whereas the predominant views held by Latin
American IR theory professors of what actually constitutes ‘‘IR theory’’ may have
been influenced by training abroad, a large number of individuals falls outside of
this generalization. In the specific case of IR theory, it is likely that the more recent
debates in the field, including neorealism–neoliberal institutionalism, rationalism–
reflexivism, and the third debate, given their relative newness, are frequently not
incorporated into IR theory course syllabi, unless a given professor has studied
abroad in recent years and subsequently introduced them into her or his respective
courses.
Conceptual Trends in Latin American IR Journals

Journals provide one of the most accurate pictures of the state of a given discipline
in terms of its theoretical tendencies, major concerns, and primary debates (Waever,
1998:697). To identify those theories that have historically informed Latin
American analyses of global issues, I conducted a qualitative content analysis of
articles selected from five specialized journals in the region: Contexto Internacional
(Brazil), Estudios Internacionales (Chile), Colombia Internacional (Colombia), Relaciones
Internacionales (Costa Rica), and Foro Internacional (Mexico). The criteria used to
select these journals included: (1) uninterrupted publication for ten years or more,
(2) regional and international circulation, and (3) linkage with a teaching program.
While the first two criteria were designed to identify those journals that have
historically enjoyed the greatest amount of visibility and recognition in the field, the
requirement that journals be issued by institutions with teaching programs
facilitated comparison among the theoretical approaches used in IR teaching and
research. A selection of articles was made according to their treatment of one or
more of four topics considered to be central to IR studies in the region:
international relations theory, development, integration, and security. The sample
of journal articles, which totals 180 for the five journals, constitutes a universal
sample and spans the entire period of existence of each journal (which ranges from
1960 to the present).14
14
For a complete listing of the journal articles included in the content analysis, see Tickner (2000:304–340).
The qualitative content analysis of the journal articles was performed in

coordination with two graduate-level research assistants who provided qualitative
syntheses of each article based upon: (1) the way in which the international system
is conceived, (2) the description of primary actors, (3) the definition of fundamental
and issue-specific state interests, (4) the identification of central issues on the
international agenda, and (5) the role of international institutions. This information
served as the basis for the classification procedure.15 Each article was then classified
according to its adherence to one of the theoretical traditions named in the
previous section. Finally, a crosschecking was performed on a random sample of
twenty articles. Following completion of the classification process, the results were
aggregated into three distinct periods (1960–1977; 1978–1987; 1988–1998) to
discern differences over time in the theoretical frameworks used to examine
international problems in the region (see Table 2).
Theoretical Publishing Patterns 1960–1998

Although the analysis of Latin American IR theory course syllabi suggests that the
teaching of international relations theory in the region is characterized by
intellectual dependency, the specialized journals provide a substantially different
picture of IR studies. Most significantly, rather than the use of ‘‘pure’’ theoretical
frameworks derived mechanically from predominant U.S. theories, Latin American
journal articles in the field of international relations exhibit relatively high levels of
theoretical eclecticism, characterized by the combination of bits and pieces of
distinct IR theories.
Twenty-six journal articles corresponded to the period 1960–1977. As mentioned
previously, beginning in the 1950s ECLA undertook the first methodical analysis of
the international causes of Latin American underdevelopment. The centrality of
ECLA-school thinking to the social sciences in the region is clearly reflected in the
analysis of international topics, primarily integration and development. Of the
articles classified as ‘‘other,’’ 30.8 percent, in fact, fall within this category. The onset
of dependency analysis in the late 1960s also exerted a direct effect upon the ways
in which international processes were viewed. As a result, during this period
dependency approaches, representative of 19.2 percent of the articles, became
frequent in analyses of Latin American–U.S. relations, problems of underdevelop-
ment, international insertion, and regional sovereignty. However, given its
emphasis upon the domestic manifestations of dependency, as well as the radical
solutions offered to overcome it, this school, although fundamental to Latin
American IR, never became completely dominant within the field. Rather, certain
assumptions provided by dependency were incorporated into the Latin American
hybrid, which represents 34.6 percent of the articles.
Fifty-nine articles corresponded to the period 1978–1987. During the years in
question the IR discipline in Latin America expanded region-wide, and was also
institutionalized. Not surprisingly, attempts to mold imported theories such as
realism and interdependence to local needs reached their peak during this decade.
As a result, the Latin American hybrid accounts for nearly half of the articles
15
Prior to the commencement of the article description process, I tested the coding scheme on a random sample
of ten journal articles in order to revise the theoretical categories, as well as to evaluate the guidelines provided to
the two research assistants. Each assistant then read and provided descriptions for approximately one-half of the
articles. Articles that were difficult to describe according to the indicators provided, as well as those which
incorporated diverse theoretical approaches without clearly embracing any of them, were analyzed separately by
me. Upon completing the description of the entire universe of articles, a final evaluation was conducted on a
random sample of twenty articles. A cross-reading of each of these articles was performed by me and the assistant
who had not originally read the respective article, in order to determine the reliability of the description. Cross-
reader agreement, which was present in all of the cases selected, consisted of those descriptions in which each person
identified similar aspects in the texts.
TABLE 2. Theoretical Trends in Five Latin American IR Journals, 1960–1998
Estudios Foro Relaciones Contexto Colombia

Internacionales Internacional Internacionales Internacional Internacional Aggregate
1976– 1978– 1988– 1976– 1978– 1988– 1978– 1988– 1978– 1988– 1988– 1976– 1978– 1988–
Theoritical Tradition 1977 1987 1998 1977 1987 1998 1987 1998 1987 1998 1998 1977 1987 1998
Classical State-Centric 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 4 7
Classical Non–State-Centric 7 3 1 3 1 7 8 15
General Classical 2 3 2 2 1 2 5 7
Marxist/Neo-Marxist 3 3 2 2 4 1 2 5 9 3
Postmodern 2 2 4
Constructivist 1 1
Latin American Hybrid 4 14 2 5 2 2 8 2 3 7 2 9 27 15
Foreign Policy Analysis 1 1 4 1 2 2 7
Other 4 2 5 6 2 1 1 5 13 11 10 4 36
TOTAL 11 29 17 15 8 9 18 16 5 23 29 26 59 95
341
reviewed, while 15.3 percent of the articles also continue to adhere to the
dependency school. Contrary to the previous period, in which the Latin American
hybrid consisted primarily of notions derived from dependency and Mor-
genthauian realism, interdependence theory makes its appearance in those articles
that address topics such as integration and transnationalization.
The period 1988–1998 constitutes the largest sample of journal articles, which
total 95. While 15.8 percent of the articles continue to be representative of the Latin
American hybrid, another 15.8 percent make use of non–state-centric models,
particularly, interdependence theory. Contrary to the other two periods, however,
over one-third of the IR texts written between 1988 and 1998 did not correspond
to previously established categories. Most significantly, neoliberalism accounts for
20 percent of the articles classified as ‘‘other,’’ suggesting that a new analytical
framework may be taking hold within the field. This finding is discussed at greater
length in a subsequent section.
Although the content analysis of the 180 journal articles selected provides
significant testimony as to theoretical patterns that have characterized the study of
international topics in Latin America, it does not provide explicit information
regarding the major concerns which Latin American internationalists have
traditionally expressed, nor the recurring thematic trends that can be derived
from what is written in the region’s specialized journals. The following section
addresses this issue through the identification of those common threads that unite
the five journals throughout the period under examination. Although the primary
theoretical frameworks used in the region to analyze international problems, with
the exception of dependency, have clearly been imported from the United States,
the specific problems addressed by Latin American IR differ dramatically from the
priorities of the discipline in the United States, leading to substantial modification
of the theoretical assumptions provided mainly by Morgenthauian realism and
interdependence, in order to adapt them to regional academic needs.
Development
According to Muñoz (1980), IR studies in Latin America have been primarily
oriented toward the central goal of development. The journal articles examined
between 1960 and the late 1980s, in particular those that espouse the Latin
American hybrid, confirm this hypothesis. During the 1960s, in fact, the social
sciences in Latin America exhibited increasing concern with the problem of
development. Dependency theory became the primary approach to underdevelop-
ment in the region, and was actively incorporated into most disciplines within the
social sciences, including international relations. In this manner, economic issues
affecting development, such as foreign investment, trade, and to a lesser extent,
foreign debt, are largely examined within the framework of dependency by the
articles under study, in particular between the early 1970s and the mid-1980s.
Nevertheless, autonomy constitutes another important objective of international
politics, to the extent that it serves to promote national development, while also
assuring more effective negotiating capacities, enhanced control over multinational
actors, and improved global insertion.
The Problem of Autonomy

As suggested previously, the problem of achieving autonomy as a means of
surpassing situations of dependence became central to the study of international
relations in Latin America during the 1970s. As a result, a significant percentage
(45.8 percent) of the journal articles written between the mid-1970s and the late
1980s, regardless of the specific topic that they address, share a common concern
with regional autonomy. According to Francisco Gil, the notion of power in the
realist perspective was replaced by the concept of autonomy as the principal

strategy of Latin American international politics (1989:670).
Clearly, the purposes served by autonomous international action are quite
distinct from those sought through the exercise of power. Whereas power serves to
influence other actors’ actions in accord with a particular actor’s interests
(Morgenthau, 1968:9), autonomy provides the means for acquiring greater
international negotiating capacity, defending national sovereignty, controlling the
activities of transnational actors, and upholding other interests vis-à-vis stronger
states within the international system. On a domestic level, autonomy provides a
measure of national viability, understood as the capacity of the state to exercise its
political, economic, military, and cultural functions (Jaguaribe, 1979). In con-
sequence, the overwhelming majority of the articles that were classified within the
Latin American hybrid category view autonomy as a fundamental measure of a
given country’s success or failure within the international system.
Integration and Cooperation

Latin American journal articles written between 1960 and 1998 look toward
regional integration and cooperation as a means of achieving both development
and autonomy, as well as greater Latin American participation in the global system.
The texts included in the content analysis that address the problem of integration
in the 1960s tend to use ECLA-school frameworks of analysis, and are limited to
considerations of the economic and developmental implications of such processes.
However, most of the articles written during the 1970s on this topic use the Latin
American hybrid. Viewed from this perspective, integration is seen as an effective
instrument for surpassing Latin America’s dependent position within the
international hierarchy, for positioning the region within the global system, and
for promoting greater autonomy and development.
Contrary to these earlier interpretations, the articles that address the problem of
integration in the 1990s revolve mainly around the imperative of international
insertion and the need to be competitive in an international economic system
characterized by accelerated globalization. Although the importance of develop-
ment is preserved in such discussions as a primary goal of the countries of the
region, the totality of the articles in question are silent on the topic of autonomy as a
core concept of Latin American international relations.
Centrality of the State

Between Latin American independence and the late 1980s, a strong state was
generally conceived as the basis for national identity and economic development. As
a result, the state became the principal domain of political, social, and economic
regulation in the region. On an international level, the primordial status assigned to
the state was derived mainly from the peripheral position occupied by the countries
of the region within the international hierarchy, as well as their vulnerability to
intervention from imperial powers. In addition to being the principal expression of
the ‘‘nation,’’ the state became the primary symbol of national sovereignty and
independence.
In light of the above, it is not surprising that the state has traditionally been the
principal actor emphasized by distinct analysts of international problems in Latin
America. The centrality of the state in regional interpretations of international
relations clearly facilitated the incorporation of several realist precepts into Latin
American IR. In addition to depicting the state as a unitary, rational actor, a
significant majority of the articles examined view the state as the chief interpreter
and representative of the national interest. As a result, international relations are
considered to be essentially relations between states.
Notwithstanding the assimilation of realist notions of state-centrism, the journal

articles reviewed between 1960 and the late 1980s exhibit an explicit awareness of
the subordinate position occupied by Latin America within the international
system. Although the state is presented as the primary unit on an international
level, its actions are clearly seen as being conditioned by external factors,
particularly other states, and nonstate actors. Even before the onset of
interdependence theory, which placed emphasis upon the importance of other
actors distinct from the state, the incorporation of diverse aspects of the
dependency school into Latin American IR’s theoretical lexicon led to marked
sensitivity concerning the restrictive role played by multinational corporations,
foreign private investors, and the international banking system in terms of limiting
the region’s scope of action in the international sphere.
Theoretical Eclecticism
Contrary to the case of IR theory teaching in Latin America, in which the theoretical
categories present are clearly demarcated, as well as being representative of
theoretical debates in the United States, the journal articles included in the study are
characterized by a high degree of eclecticism. Eclecticism was manifested in two ways
through the content analysis: (1) the existence of few pure theorists, combined with
the tendency to rely upon diverse theories, depending upon the exigencies of the
topic to be examined; and (2) the fusion of various categories from distinct theories
into a single analytical framework. In fact, the use of pure Morgenthauian state-
centric realism was limited to those articles that analyzed territorial/border conflicts
and other security issues affecting national sovereignty.
The handful of articles included in the sample that deal explicitly with IR theory
sustain the need for theoretical eclecticism in regional IR studies. Given the scarcity
of local theoretical frameworks, as well as the inapplicability of numerous aspects of
traditional IR, the predominant tendency has been to pick and choose useful
categories from different theories. Notwithstanding this common practice, the
menu of IR theories normally relied upon has been relatively small, and strays
dramatically from current debates in the United States. Specifically, neorealism is
completely absent from the treatment of international topics, while regime theory
and neoliberal institutionalism account for only three articles in the entire sample.
In a similar fashion, constructivism, and to a lesser extent, the diverse variants of
the third debate, have yet to be incorporated into the theoretical repertoire used to
study IR at the level of research. Arguably, both neorealism and neoliberal
institutionalism have failed to travel to Latin America for several reasons: (1) these
theories’ lack of normative content, (2) their irrelevance for peripheral contexts,
and (3) the absence of a strong quantitative analytical tradition in the region. The
reasons behind the relative lack of interest in third debate approaches and
constructivism may be related to the more recent appearance of these theories, as
well as the perception that they are of limited usefulness to Latin American IR,
given the applied nature of the field.
In addition to ECLA-school thinking, whose influence waned in the mid-1970s,
those theories that have most clearly informed the analysis of international
problems in Latin America include dependency, Morgenthauian realism, and
interdependence. The influence of dependency approaches is manifest primarily in
the interpretation of the international system present in most international
relations texts in the region. Specifically, the international system is considered to
be characterized by the existence of hierarchical relations of domination.
Dependency also highlights the weight of external determinants for domestic
economic, political, and social processes. In consequence, Latin American IR tends
to emphasize the restraints that the international system places upon both the
foreign and domestic policies of the countries of the region.
As mentioned earlier, although dependency theory and Morgenthauian realism

vary dramatically in terms of the central issues highlighted by each, they share
similar assumptions concerning the hierarchical nature of power relations between
actors within the international system and the centrality of domination and
subordination to international relations. Realism’s reification of the state, in
addition to the notion of the national interest, also became especially well suited to
the state’s protagonist role in the region.
Interdependence was readily incorporated into Latin American discussions of IR
in the late 1970s for several reasons. The nonhierarchical nature of the
international agenda stressed by interdependence, as opposed to the notion of
high and low politics central to Morgenthauian realism, became more adaptable to
the treatment of economic and social issues of greater relevance to the region’s
international affairs. Processes of increasing interdependence and transnationaliza-
tion, in turn, were viewed as potentially favorable to the interests of Latin America
(Sunkel and Tomassini, 1980). In particular, the relativization of the concept of
power, conceived in terms of multiple sources and actors, allowed for distinct
understandings of this idea, in which the scope of action of peripheral countries was
perceived to have increased. The relative optimism that interdependence provided
with regard to the international relations of weak countries possessing strategic
natural, economic, and political resources, or effective negotiating skills, coincided
in Latin America with growing concern for regional autonomy.
The relationship between interdependence and dependence as two similar
products of the transformations occurring within the global economy (transnatio-
nalization and globalization, primarily) brings the Latin American hybrid full-circle.
In this regard, authors such as Carlos Rico (1978) and José Juan de Olloqui (1988)
maintain that interdependence is a rhetorical instrument that merely disguises the
asymmetrical nature of center–periphery relations and the antagonism that
unequal relations naturally produce.
Neoliberalism and Globalization

The significant number of journal articles accounted for by neoliberal interpreta-
tions of the international political economy during the 1990s suggests that distinct
conceptual frameworks have emerged within Latin American IR to explain topics
such as globalization and regional integration. Neoliberal-based analyses are
characterized by the assumption that the region’s place in the global hierarchy is
largely determined by its ability to compete internationally and to insert itself
effectively into the global economy. Not surprisingly, market-oriented strategies, in
combination with sound monetary policies and trade liberalization, are considered
fundamental to achieve this end. The articles classified as adhering to neoliberalism
(which total 20 percent of the sample) share this model’s penchant for individual,
private initiative as opposed to the state-centric view of other predominant IR
approaches in the region, while viewing the international system in terms of
interdependence and cooperation. Although the state continues to be viewed as an
important actor on the global stage, the private sector, in addition to the
international financial community and foreign private investors, receive both
greater and more positive attention than in the past.
Aside from four articles critical of neoliberalism, discussions of globalization view
this process in optimistic, unproblematic terms. Many highlight the potential
benefits that can be derived from successful insertion into the process. Regional
integration is viewed in this light as an effective mechanism for maximizing
globalization’s full potential. In other words, current levels of polarization in the
Latin American economic and social sciences between those in favor of and against
neoliberal reform in Latin America are not reflected in IR journal treatments of this
topic. Contrary to earlier periods of IR thinking in the region, which highlighted
the need for critical analyses of international issues affecting Third World countries,
this posture is indicative of conformity within the field of international relations
with the principles underwriting the current global order.
Conclusions
This brief examination of IR thinking, teaching, and writing in Latin America
indicates that in these three settings IR exhibits distinct traits. International relations
teaching in the region, notwithstanding the minor differences identified among
some countries, largely parallels teaching patterns in the United States. However,
Latin American IR thinking and writing provide an account of the field that is
markedly different from conventional international relations perspectives. My
concluding remarks are intended to sketch out the consequences of incorporating a
distinctive ‘‘Latin American’’ voice into Anglo-American IR. In consequence, in the
paragraphs that follow I provide an initial blueprint for rethinking the field’s
primary narratives in ways more sensitive to Third World realities.
Theory/Practice
Latin American IR is exemplary of the intimate relationship between the theory
and practice of international relations. Specifically, the birth of the field and its
consequent evolution constituted both an academic endeavor and a political
commitment. Not only have IR scholars attempted to explain the workings of the
international system; rather, the creation of strategies for improving the region’s
maneuverability on a global level has also constituted an explicit goal of the field
since its inception.
Disciplinary Boundaries
Historically, the IR ‘‘discipline’’ has reaffirmed its legitimacy through the fixing of
boundaries.16 Knowledge of global realities, however, often lies beyond such
boundaries. In the case of Latin American IR, both the ‘‘inside’’ and the ‘‘outside’’
become equally important in understanding the region’s international relations.
International politics is not just about the ways in which states or other actors
interact in the world, but also deals with the domestic consequences of a given
country’s insertion into the global system. While dependency perspectives claim
that underdevelopment is primarily the result of the place that a given country
occupies within the international division of labor, authors such as Jaguaribe (1979)
and Puig (1984) point out that unfavorable insertion into global capitalist dynamics
is compounded by the asymmetrical distribution of power. In consequence, the
primary questions posed by Latin American IR have as much to do with
‘‘international’’ as ‘‘domestic’’ politics, given the high levels of interpenetration
that exist between the two spheres.
Anarchy/Hierarchy
As illustrated by Cardoso and Faletto (1969), Santos (1973), Jaguaribe (1979), Puig
(1980, 1984) and Escudé (1995), portraying the international system as anarchical is
highly controversial from a Third World perspective. Hierarchical relations of
power and authority, grounded in both global capitalism and strategic-military
strength, constrain peripheral state action in significant ways. The case could be
made for the need to recover Latin American voices on this topic, given that the
16
The topic of frontiers and boundaries is a recurring theme in current critical reflections in IR. For just two
examples see Shapiro and Alker (1996) and Rosenau (1997).
current global order has tended to accentuate the hierarchical ordering of distinct
countries in economic, political, and social terms (Blaney, 1996:460).
Autonomy
Certainly, Latin American formulations of the problem of autonomy constitute one
of the most interesting contributions of the field. Although traditional IR theories
all make reference, either explicitly or implicitly, to state autonomy, the concept is
normally associated with the domestic capacities of the state.17 According to Steven
Krasner (1999:20), autonomy constitutes a fundamental principle of what the
author defines as Westphalian sovereignty, and is described as ‘‘an institutional
arrangement for organizing political life that is based on two principles:
territoriality and the exclusion of external actors from domestic authority
structures.’’ In other words, Westphalian sovereignty, or autonomy, is essentially
equivalent to legal sovereignty (Krasner, 1999:23). In Latin America, as discussed
previously, autonomy acquired both internal and external overtones. From the
national borders inward, autonomy came to be viewed as the primary means of
securing distinct forms of nondependent development. More importantly, however,
from the national borders outward, autonomy was considered fundamental to the
practice of Latin American international relations. Rather than being rooted in
juridical notions of sovereignty, it became a markedly political concept. From a
regional perspective, autonomy came to be viewed as an instrumental tool for
safeguarding against the most noxious effects of the international system, in particular,
subordinate forms of interaction with the United States. Unsurprisingly, traditional IR
discussions of autonomy are silent on this topic, given that from a position of strength
external autonomy is at best a minor concern, if not a non-issue altogether.
State
The concept of state weakness came into vogue during the past decade in order to
redress the shortcomings of traditional IR theories for explaining the salience of
armed conflict and war in the Third World (Buzan, 1991; Jackson, 1993; Ayoob,
1995; Holsti, 1996). Those authors who examine this problem focus upon internal
factors that make peripheral states ‘‘different’’ from and ‘‘weaker’’ than core ones.
While constituting significant improvements upon predominant IR explanations of
states as like-units and black boxes, such perspectives generally fail to take into
account the explanatory power of the Latin American IR approaches discussed in
this paper for explaining peripheral state development. Both dependency and the
Latin American hybrid model identify state weakness as the historical product of
the region’s international insertion, which harnessed state-building processes to
global capitalist dynamics in ways that hampered the consolidation of the state. In
other words, ‘‘Third World states were required to graft their sovereignty on to a
productive structure historically constructed to deprive their economies of
autonomy, diversity and robustness’’ (Inayatullah, 1996:53).
In recent years, different authors have highlighted the lack of fit between
predominant IR theories and the principal problems and processes characterizing
today’s world (Holsti, 2001:77–78). Increasingly, the central questions posed by the
field’s mainstream are incapable of explaining phenomena such as the proliferation
of global regulatory mechanisms (economic, political, and cultural), the privatiza-
tion of security and violence, the decline of sovereignty and autonomy, the
deterritorialization of international processes, and the emergence of complex,
disjointed, global cultural flows of persons, technologies, capital, media images, and
ideas (Appadurai, 1996:33–43). Hearing alternative voices on these topics, in
17
Tokatlian (1996) provides an excellent discussion of the ways in which different IR theories define autonomy.
addition to satisfying recent demands for disciplinary opening, would provide the
field with a wider array of conceptual tools for understanding the multiple worlds
in which international relations inevitably take place.
References
ALKER, H., AND T. BIERSTEKER (1984) ‘‘The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a Future Archeologist
of International Savoir Faire.’’ International Studies Quarterly 28(2):121–142.
APPADURAI, A. (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
AYOOB, M. (1995) The Third World Security Predicament: State Making, Regional Conflict and the
International System. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
BLANEY, D. L. (1996) ‘‘Reconceptualizing Autonomy: The Difference Dependency Makes.’’ Review of
International Political Economy 3(3):459–497.
BUZAN, B. (1991) People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
CARDOSO, F. H. (1972) Estado y sociedad en Ame´rica Latina. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión.
CARDOSO, F. H. (1974) ‘‘As Tradições de Desenvolvimiento-Associado.’’ Estudos Cebrap 8:41–75.
CARDOSO, F. H., AND E. FALETTO (1969) Dependencia y desarrollo en Ame´rica Latina. Ensayo de interpretacioń
sociolo´gica. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores.
COLACRAI DE TREVISáN, M. (1992) ‘‘Perspectivas teóricas en la bibliografı́a de polı́tica exterior
argentina.’’ In Enfoques teo´ricos para el estudio de la polı´tica exterior. edited by R. Russell, pp. 19–51.
Buenos Aires: RIAL-GEL.
CRAWFORD, R. M. A., AND D. S. L. JARVIS, eds. (2001) International RelationsFStill an American Social
Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press.
DE OLLOQUI, J. J. (1988) ‘‘Forjando una polı́tica de no-dependencia en una relación compleja
asimétrica.’’ Foro Internacional 114:197–210.
ESCUDÉ, C. (1995) El realismo de los estados de´biles. Buenos Aires: GEL.
FISHLOW, A. (1988) ‘‘The State of Latin American Economies.’’ In Changing Perspectives in Latin
American Studies: Insights from Six Disciplines, edited by C. Mitchell, pp. 87–120. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
FRANK, A. G. (1977) ‘‘Hacia una teorı́a histórica del subdesarrollo capitalista en Asia, Africa y América
Latina.’’ In Feudalismo, capitalismo, subdesarrollo, F. Sandoval and P. Rivero, comps., pp. 195–229.
Bogotá: Editorial Latina.
GAREAU, F. H. (1981) ‘‘The Discipline International Relations: A Multi-National Perspective.’’ The
Journal of Politics 43:779–802.
GEORGE, A. L. (1959) ‘‘Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Content Analysis.’’ In Trends in
Content Analysis, edited by I. de Sola Pool, pp. 7–32. Champaign-Urbana: University of Illinois
Press.
GIL VILLEGAS, F. (1989) ‘‘El estudio de la polı́tica exterior en México: Enfoques dominantes, temas
principales y una propuesta teórica-metodológica.’’ Foro Internacional 116(April–June):662–692.
HOFFMANN, S. (1977) ‘‘An American Social Science: International Relations.’’ Daedalus 106(3):41–60.
HOLSTI, K. J. (1985) The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Boston: Allen
and Unwin.
HOLSTI, K. (1996) The State, War and the State of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HOLSTI, K. J. (2001) ‘‘Along the Road of International Theory in the Next Millennium: Four
Travelogues.’’ In International Relations: Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in
International Thought, edited by R. M. A. Crawford and D. S. L. Jarvis, pp. 73–100. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
INAYATULLAH, N. (1996) ‘‘Beyond the Sovereignty Dilemma: Quasi-States as Social Construct.’’ In State
Sovereignty as Social Construct, edited by T. J. Biersteker and C. Weber, pp. 50–81. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
JACKSON, R. H. (1993) Quasi-states: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
JAGUARIBE, H. (1979) ‘‘Autonomı́a periférica y hegemonı́a céntrica.’’ Estudios Internacionales 46(April–
June):91–130.
KEOHANE, R. O., AND J. S. NYE (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston:
Little, Brown.
KING, G., R. O. KEOHANE, AND S. VERBA (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative
Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
KRASNER, S. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
LAGOS, G. (1980) ‘‘Tendencias y perspectivas del estudio de las relaciones internacionales: Tareas para
América Latina.’’ Estudios Internacionales 50(April–June):236–251.
LAPID, Y. (1989) ‘‘The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist
Era.’’ International Studies Quarterly 33(3):235–254.
MAIRA, L. (1991) ‘‘Los estudios internacionales en América Latina: Las grandes tendencias y el marco
teórico.’’ In Los estudios sobre relaciones internacionales en Colombia y América Latina,
Documentos de Trabajo, by M. Ardila et al., Instituto de Estudios Polı́ticos y Relaciones
Internacionales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia 2(February):7–16.
MORGENTHAU, H. J. (1968) Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
MUÑOZ, H. (1980) ‘‘Los estudios internacionales en América Latina: problemas fundamentales.’’
Estudios Internacionales 51(July–September):328–344.
NEUMAN, S. G. (1998) ‘‘International Relations Theory and the Third World: An Oxymoron?’’ In
International Relations Theory and the Third World, edited by S. G. Neuman, pp. 1–30. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
O’DONNELL, G. (1972) Modernización y autoritarismo. Buenos Aires: Editorial Paidós.
PACKENHAM, R. A. (1992) The Dependency Movement: Scholarship and Politics in Development Studies.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
PERINA, R. M. (1985a) ‘‘El estudio de las relaciones internacionales en universidades de América
Latina y el Caribe.’’ In El estudio de las relaciones internacionales en Ame´rica Latina y el Caribe, R. M.
Perina, COMP., pp. 7–23. Buenos Aires: GEL.
PERINA, R. M., COMP. (1985b) El estudio de las relaciones internacionales en Ame´rica Latina y el Caribe.
Buenos Aires: GEL.
PUIG, J. C. (1980) Doctrinas internacionales y autonomıá latinoamericana. Caracas: Instituto de Altos
Estudios de América Latina, Universidad Simón Bolı́var.
PUIG, J. C. (1984) ‘‘Introducción.’’ In Ame´rica Latina: Polı´ticas exteriores comparadas, edited by Juan
Carlos Puig, pp. 24–90. Buenos Aires: GEL.
PUIG, J. C., S. BERGLUND, M. HALUANI, E. GUERóN, AND C. ROMERO (1990) ‘‘A Preliminary State of the
Art Paper on International Studies and International Relations in Venezuela.’’ Mundo Nuevo
13(2/3):340–368.
RICHARD NOSSAL, K. (2001) ‘‘Tales that Textbooks Tell: Ethnocentricity and Diversity in American
Introductions to International Relations.’’ In International Relations: Still an American Social
Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, edited by R. M. A. Crawford and D. S. L. Jarvis,
pp. 167–186. Albany: State University of New York Press.
RICO, C. F. (1978) ‘‘Las relaciones mexicano-norteamericanas y los significados de la ‘‘interdepen-
dencia’’.’’ Foro Internacional 74(October-December):256–291.
ROBLES, F. (1993) ‘‘How ‘International’ Are International Relations Syllabi?’’ PS: Political Science and
Politics 26:526–528.
ROSENAU, J. N. (1997) Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
RUSSELL, R. (1992a) ‘Introducción.’ In Enfoques teo´ricos para el estudio de la polı´tica exterior, edited by R.
Russell, pp. 7–18. Buenos Aires: RIAL-GEL.
RUSSELL, R., ED. (1992b) Enfoques teóricos para el estudio de la polı´tica exterior. Buenos Aires: RIAL-GEL.
SANTOS, T. DOS (1968) ‘‘El nuevo carácter de la dependencia.’’ Cuadernos del Centro de Estudios
Sociológicos 10:1–25.
SANTOS, T. DOS (1973) Imperialismo y empresas multinacionales. Buenos Aires: Editorial Galerna.
SHAPIRO, M. J., AND H. R. ALKER, EDS. (1996) Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial Identities.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
SOARES DE LIMA, M. R. (1992) ‘‘Enfoques analı́ticos de polı́tica exterior: el caso brasileño.’’ In Enfoques
teóricos para el estudio de la polı´tica exterior, edited by R. Russell, pp. 53–83. Buenos Aires: RIAL-
GEL.
SUNKEL, O. (1980) ‘‘El desarrollo de la teorı́a de la dependencia.’’ In Transnacionalizacioń y dependencia,
by O. Sunkel et al., pp. 13–25. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Instituto de Cooperación
Iberoamericana.
SUNKEL, O., AND E. FUENZALIDA (1980) ‘‘La transnacionalización del capitalismo y el desarrollo
nacional.’’ In Transnacionalizacioń y dependencia, by O. Sunkel et al., pp. 45–63. Madrid: Ediciones
Cultura Hispánica del Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana.
SUNKEL, O., AND L. TOMASSINI (1980) ‘‘La crisis del sistema transnacional y el cambio en las relaciones
internacionales de los paı́ses en desarrollo.’’ Estudios Internacionales 50(April-June):163–207.
TICKNER, A. B. (2000) ‘‘A State of the Art of the Study of International Relations in Latin America,’’
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Miami.
TOKATLIAN, J. G. (1996) ‘‘Pos-guerra frı́a y polı́tica exterior: De la autonomı́a relativa a la autonomı́a
ambigua.’’ Análisis Polı´tico 28(May–August):22–40.
TOMASSINI, L. (1990) ‘‘El desarrollo de los estudios internacionales en América Latina: Algunas
implicaciones con respecto a la docencia.’’ In Consideraciones sobre la enseñanza de las relaciones
internacionales a nivel de postgrado, by PNUD/CEPAL, pp. 51–74. Santiago de Chile: Proyecto de
Cooperación con los Servicios Exteriores de América Latina. August.
UNITED NATIONS, ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR LATIN AMERICA (1950) ‘‘The Economic Development of
Latin America and its Principal Problems.’’ New York: United Nations.
VALENZUELA, S., AND A. VALENZUELA (1978) ‘‘Modernization and Dependency.’’ Comparative Politics
4:535–557.
WAEVER, O. (1998) ‘‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European
Developments in IR.’’ International Organiztion 52(4):687–727.
View publication stats

TICKNER, ARLENE B. (2003) - Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies. International Studies Perspectives

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TICKNER, ARLENE B. (2003) - Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies. International Studies Perspectives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations

Article in International Studies Perspectives · November 2003

Doing IR Differently View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PEDAGOGY IN INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Hearing Latin American Voices in

This article offers a general account of international relations studies

Keywords: Latin American IR, intellectual hegemony, dependency,

countries of the region. I conclude by discussing the implications for Anglo-

Indigenous IR Thinking in Latin America1

consumption market and the incorporation of the marginalized rural population

Global Capitalist Insertion and Dependence

Industrialization, Transnational Dependency, and Dependent Development

international financial interests, as a source of both investment and growing

Dependency Perspectives and IR Thinking

objective, dependency writers express an acute awareness of the role of history in

The Latin American Hybrid and the Problem of Autonomy

fundamental questions posed by each, their primary assumptions concerning the

Latin American IR Teaching

incipient ‘‘academic community’’ in Latin American IR and the gradual consolida-

IR Theory in Seven National Contexts

IR Theory Course Syllabi: International or Anglo-American?

Di Tella Flacso PUC- Cato´lica Externado Andes Nacional Colegio ITAM

Primary Texts Used to Teach IR

Conceptual Trends in Latin American IR Journals

The qualitative content analysis of the journal articles was performed in

Theoretical Publishing Patterns 1960–1998

Estudios Foro Relaciones Contexto Colombia

The Problem of Autonomy

realist perspective was replaced by the concept of autonomy as the principal

Integration and Cooperation

Centrality of the State

Notwithstanding the assimilation of realist notions of state-centrism, the journal

As mentioned earlier, although dependency theory and Morgenthauian realism

Neoliberalism and Globalization

View publication stats

You might also like