Snails, Southern Hake and sustainability: Neoliberalism and natural resource exports in Chile

Rachel A. Schurman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

47 Scopus citations

Abstract

This examination of the recent history of the fishing sector in Chile shows that in this sector, which has played an important role in Chile's export success, short-term growth was achieved at the cost of long-term sustainability, with negative implications for those involved in the industry. This case raises the more general issue of the importance of regulatory frameworks in the promotion of natural resource exports. "Neoliberal" policy frameworks, which generally assume that self-regulating markets produce better results than explicit efforts to modify market results, have been increasingly adopted by developing countries. Analyses of the implications of these policy frameworks for the long-term sustainability of growth based upon natural resource exports have not grown along with the popularity of the policies themselves. This article is an effort to redress the imbalance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1695-1709
Number of pages15
JournalWorld Development
Volume24
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1996

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
*The author wishes to thank Michael Goldman, Peter Evans, Michael Burawoy, Raka Ray and two anonymous World Development reviewers for their insightful comments, and Nancy Barahona, Albert0 Reyes, Leonardo Sasso, and Hector Vera for their help in the field. Thanks goes also to Albert0 Palloni and Bradford Barham for advice along the way, and to Brian Folk for research assistance. This research was generously supported by the US-Chile Fulbright Program, and by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, through the University of Wisconsin. Final revision accepted: May 29,1996.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Snails, Southern Hake and sustainability: Neoliberalism and natural resource exports in Chile'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this