Planning for development with prospective approach in Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala y Peru

Authors

  • Álvaro Cristian Sánchez Mercado Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima, Perú

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15381/pc.v22i2.14331

Keywords:

Development Planning, Prospective, Foresight, Strategic Planning

Abstract

The current research make an exploration about some concepts linked to strategic planning of countries and comparison of the Planning Systems and their strategic development planning for Bolivia, Ecuador Guatemala and Peru.For that purpose, in the first part a systematic review of definitions was made and in the second part a systematic review of planning systems of said countries from the juridical framework that cover it up to its working methodology. Finally, as a result, it has been determined that Guatemala is the only country that has defined an upward planning system and uses the foresight working methodology from lowest levels. In addition, it has been possible to determine that all countries, except Peru, have made an explicit reassessment of the ancestral or indigenous question.
JEL Classification Codes: O21, P11, P21, P41, R58.

Author Biography

  • Álvaro Cristian Sánchez Mercado, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima, Perú
    2Ingeniero Informático, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Perú. estudios de magister en Prospectiva Estratégica para el Desarrollo Nacional, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Perú (Diciembre 2017). Especialización en Planeamiento Estratégico del Sector Público, Universidad del Pacifico, Lima, Perú. Miembro de la comisión de Prospectiva del Colegio de Ingenieros del Perú CD Lima. Colaborador de Organización Panamericana de la Salud en temas de e-Health. Ca. Los Auditores H-12, SJL, Lima 36. (51) 988662271. Correo-e: sanchez.alvaro@pucp.pe

Downloads

Published

2018-02-21

Issue

Section

Artículos

How to Cite

Planning for development with prospective approach in Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala y Peru. (2018). Pensamiento Crítico, 22(2), 73-96. https://doi.org/10.15381/pc.v22i2.14331