自華盛頓共識以降，拉美國家落實新自由主義政策與結構調整，卻無力解決根深蒂固的貧窮與社會不均問題。進入後華盛頓共識時代，懸而未解的發展難題催促拉美國家繼續尋求替代發展的道路，並促成二十一世紀前十八年南美洲興起一波反新自由主義的左派政權，又稱「粉紅色浪潮」。這波趨勢的共同性在於:都試圖解決獨尊市場經濟遺留的社會不公與貧窮問題，並尋求一個兼顧經濟成長與更合理社會分配的替代發展方案。

事實上，拉美替代發展方案經常是「價值理性」取向的，政治領袖又深具個人領袖魅力，配合一個較弱的國家能力，以及回應政治衝突衍生的不斷調整策略，造成發展理念到政策落實之間產生斷層，以致於經常成效不彰，而被批評是嘩眾取寵。然而，拉美替代方案在試圖形塑一個新的發展觀點及建構一個新的社會契約上，仍深具啟發性，無法全盤否定其貢獻。特別是它們挑戰了新自由主義模式假設「自由民主」與「市場經濟」作為政治與經濟治理的理念型，事實上為尋求替代性政治與經濟制度創造了可能性。

基於此，本文目的在探究秘魯的「包容性成長」、委內瑞拉的「玻利瓦革命」與「二十一世紀社會主義」，以及厄瓜多的「美好生活社會主義」三種替代發展方案對於發展的核心思考與治理之異同。研究發現，它們雖導向分歧論述與實踐，但共同點在於:反新自由主義的發展邏輯與政經議程，強調「發展」應回歸到對於「人類進步」價值的重視。在治理策略上，除找回「國家」在經濟與社會的角色之外，同時強調以「賦權」來強化人民政治與經濟能力，並凸顯以「參與式民主」和「經濟民主化」兩個替代性政經制度，來修正「自由民主」與「市場經濟」衍生的不公與貧窮。

In the post-Washington Consensus era, the pending social inequality and poverty have pushed South American New Left governments to seek “alternative developments” in the dawn of the 21st century, which is the so-called “Pink tide.” These governments’ motive is to seek an alternative development plan to address the social injustice and poverty left by market economy under the neoliberal model.

In fact, the common feature of this alternative development trend is characterized by a strong “normative orientation.” However, due to some political leaders usually having strong charismatic personalities, coupled with a weak state capacity and their constantly adapting strategies in response to political conflicts, results in a huge gap between development ideas and their policy praxis. Therefore, these leaders’ alternatives have been criticized as “political rhetoric”.

However, this paper argues that Latin American alternative developments could still be constructive in shaping new development perspectives and new social contracts by proposing alternative political and economic institutions to correct the ideal type of neoliberal governance, i.e. “liberal democracy” and “market economy.”

This paper examines the development discourses, political and economic agenda, as well as their corresponding governance institutions among Peru, Venezuela and Ecuador. This research concludes that these three cases show their alternative projects as conveying diverse development perspectives; however, their common ground is to promote “participatory democracy” and “economic democratization” as citizen’s empowerment strategy to meet human development, despite the fact they are also different in degree and forms of praxis.