This paper aims at discussing the validity of criticism raised by New Institutional Economics against ECLA (or Cepal) explanation of Latin America economic underdevelopment. We shall argue that the cepalista approach neither neglects the institutional dimension of the economic development nor is limited to provide reasoning for the adoption of economic policies that would reinforce the ineffectiveness of the institutional matrix of those countries. While demonstrating that such criticism is misplaced, we shall also emphasize the viability of a common research agenda between ECLA school and economic institutionalism.
Economic Council for Latin America (ECLA); New Institutional Economics (NIE); Institutionalism; Structuralism; Dependence theory