The industries that developed high technology stood out, but the neoliberal mentality in policymakers emerged with force and threatened the potential for state investment. There was an increase in income inequality, and growing poverty and many countries declared a moratorium on foreign debt, such as Mexico, Argentina and Brazil.
But the paradigm has changed. The economic conjuncture in the world after the 2008 crisis has been defining a new reality of the international capitalist system. The second decade of the 21st century brought back the great national policies of industrial development. The fall in the growth rate of international trade after the crisis and the generalized decrease in the rate of profit of industrial activities added to the speed with which Chinese capital has launched itself to the purchase of companies in other countries has led to a resurgence of economic policies of a nationalist nature, at least in the sense of sophistication of the complex and the defense of national companies.
So, we can delimit two phases of the techno-economic paradigm: the phase from 1980 until 2008 and the phase from 2008 onwards. In both phases of the production-technological system, the role of states is important, as they influence the technological development of each country in the face of the technological frontier.
In the first stage, the paradigm is marked by watertight structures. In this phase, the protagonism of foreign direct capital in national policies is key to understanding the technological and economic paradigm. In this way, the global production chains were commanded by the large corporations or network companies (CHESNAIS, 1995), which had their headquarters in their countries but were active in other national markets. So, there was the predominance of the multidomestic strategy (PORTER, 1986) of production that had little intersectionality.
The phase of the tight paradigm is marked by numerous changes, which are related to the third industrial revolution. That period of technological transformation was already very mature in the 1980s in developed countries, because of the advance of technologies such as robotics, genetics, information technology, telecommunications, electronics, etc. The point is that the technological absorption between developed countries and the rest of the world is very uneven. And this can be explained, among other factors, by political-institutional elements. The change from the Keynesian consensus to the neo-liberal offensive is key to understanding the economic and technological imbalance, causing increased poverty in regions such as Latin America.