Diese in den 1950er und 1960er Jahren in Lateinamerika entwickelten Theorien unterschieden sich in ihrer Konzeption von Raum und Macht ganz wesentlich vom dualistischen Paradigma (Novy 2002: Kap. 2).
““Latin America” ceased to be a geographical term and became an historical reality as a result of the break in the traditional pattern of the international division of labour, the problems created by the belated process of industrialisation, and the evolution of its relations with the United States which, in becoming a hegemonic world power, drew up a special code for the region involving more direct and open control, while at the same time requiring increased co-operation among countries in the area” (Furtado 1976: 3).
Die lateinamerikanischen StrukturalistInnen verstanden die Entwicklung der Peripherie als eine Produktion von Raum, die vor dem Hintergrund von sich wandelnden Machtverhältnissen verstanden werden muss.
“The Third World is seen not as a static system subject to universal, invariable, and repetitive rules, but as a product of an evolutionary process in which the structural characteristics of the economy and society are in constant flux and in which there is no assurance that adjustments to disequilibrium conditions will be automatic or equilibrating” (Dietz, Street 1987: 11). |
