The impact of neoliberal globalization on the economy of Latin America and the Caribbean is a very controversial issue. On the one hand, some analysts argue that marketoriented reforms will eventually lead to economically sustainable growth, greater equity and a better standard of living for the population (Lustig, 1995; Sadoulet and De Janvry, 1995; Lederman et al., 2003). Nonetheless, others

argue that globalization is worsening the lives of millions of Latin Americans. The statistics show that although in the 1990s (the decade of structural adjustment programs and neoliberalization) there was moderate economic growth, the number of poor by the mid-1990s was 210 million, i.e., 50 million more than the average throughout the “lost decade” of the 1980s (CEPAL, 1997; Londoño and Szekeley, 1997). On the other hand, the modest increase in economic growth has not decreased inequity in the region, which, for most
countries, is still greater than prior to the 1980s (Birdsall and Londoño, 1997; Korzeniewicz and Smith, 2000).

More than an economic model, neoliberalism has been described as a mode of domination on a national and worldwide scale that stems from the restructuring of capitalist relations (Aguirre Rojas, 2005; Gilly, 2005). In the rural sector, the effects have been favorable for those who were already economically well off, but devastating for the most dispossessed; it has resulted in greater inequality and the continuation of poverty. These inequalities are expressed both among countries and among sectors within each country (Conroy et al., 1996; UNDP, 1999; Stiglitz, 2003). For example, the economic situation that the countries of the Caribbean are facing today, especially in the Lesser Antilles, is critical. The loss of the preferential treatment that had been accorded certain products of the Antilles by the European Union and which was designed to provide economic support to the former colonies will have a devastating impact on these Caribbean countries. The European Union, pressured by the World Trade Organization, will reduce the preferential price it pays for Caribbean sugar (Theodore, 2005).

          In contrast with the neoliberal policies, centrist and center-left governments are drawing up proposals that point to an alternative path of inter-American economic cooperation. For example, the foreign ministers of the Caribbean countries have begun to draw up trade agreements with Mercosur and support the trade initiatives proposed by Brazil, which include technical assistance and cooperation programs in agriculture. Brazil has also offered the Caribbean countries generic drugs to fight AIDS. This is an important step, as the Caribbean is the region with the highest incidence of AIDS after sub-Saharan Africa. Recently, the Petro-Caribe agreement was signed between 13 Caribbean nations and Venezuela for obtaining Venezuelan oil. In addition, regional integration initiatives have taken place such as the “Caribbean Single Market” and the second CARICOMCuba meeting (Theodore, 2005).

Some countries of LAC are also putting up resistance to the negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO). At the WTO meeting in Cancún, Mexico, in 2003, the resistance of a coalition of Third World countries, including Brazil, Argentina and Jamaica, brought about the collapse of the negotiations. The main demands of this coalition had to do with the exclusion of agriculture from free trade agreements (Narlikar and Tussie, 2004; Rosset, 2006).

Finally, in the economic context one cannot ignore the role of family remittances. The flow of money in the form of remittances has become a major source of financing for many countries of LAC. In the last 10 years the growth in remittances has surpassed the growth of private capital investment
and development assistance (Acosta et al., 2007). Although this is a trend worldwide, LAC is the region with