A critical review of "Development and Underdevelopment in Latin America.

A Critical
Analysis of Innovative Systems Development Approaches"

Introduction This article by Diana Suarez and Analia Erbes aims to provide a critical
analysis of the National Innovation Systems (NIS) approach to understanding
developments in Latin America. Considering the in uence of the TID framework on
development policy formulation in the region, the authors try to assess the underlying
assumptions of these approaches and their impact. Speci cally, they aim to discuss
whether the concept of linear development is correct for Latin America and whether it
addresses the complexity of development processes in the region. Summary of main
arguments The authors argue that alternative TID approaches for developing countries are
based on three implicit assumptions: 1) development occurs in successive phases leading
to convergence, 2) distance from the technological frontier determines which innovations
to implement, 3) technological progress. the impact of development is independent of the
country's production structure. They criticize these assumptions for ignoring the non-
linear nature of history, context and development. Speci cally, they argue that a focus on
technology di usion rather than local development limits the growth of human capital and
endogenous knowledge. Furthermore, they argue that the structure of production directly
a ects the ability to translate technological development into welfare bene ts. Finally, they
suggest a revision of Lundvall's TID concept to better understand speci c capacity
development processes in Latin America.
Criticism and Position Although the authors make valid points about the oversimpli cation
of development models, their criticism could be strengthened by acknowledging the
contribution of alternative TID approaches. For example, the concept of catch-up
highlights the di erences between developing and developed countries. Moreover, their
position that development requires productive change does not take into account the
importance of technology di usion in some contexts. Overall, the authors are correct in
arguing that a nuanced, context-speci c analysis is needed. However, a more balanced
assessment of the limitations and advantages of existing systems would provide more
constructive criticism. Conclusion This article highlights the importance of considering
history, context, and complexity when analyzing events in Latin America. Although the TID
framework is a useful tool, development policy cannot be based on rigid linear models. As
the authors point out, there is no one-size- ts-all approach – each country faces unique
challenges that require tailored, endogenous solutions. A deeper understanding of local
capacity-building processes, as originally envisioned in Lundvall's work, remains key. This
article emphasizes that developmental theory needs to consider the reality of multiple
pathways rather than assuming that there is a single pathway.
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi