international capital could move from country to country in search of the lowest wage

rates, and minimal labor benefits. This circumstance of trade liberalization was a direct

negative impact of globalization on workers, who were subjected to disadvantageous

working conditions (Carr and Chen 2001).

 As a result, the direct effect of the structural adjustments was a change in the Latin

American industry. Capital goods, technology, design, and other manufactured goods lost

importance, and the production of commodities (especially by maquiladora industries),

and the processing of natural resources gained importance (Katz 2000). Despite the fact

that authors like Sunkel (2001) think that in the era of globalization "the primary sectors -

agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining-are losing importance, while the secondary

sectors industry- and the tertiary sectors services- expand more than proportionally

and become increasingly important", in Latin America a "re-primarization" of the

economy is happening (Lysiak 2002). This means that natural resources are still playing

an important role in the economy of these countries. The premise of the new trend for

Latin America is to use its comparative advantages: natural resources and a low-cost and

abundant labor force. A study done by CEPAL in nine Latin American Countries,

including Mexico, Brazil and Chile, the main economies of the region, concluded that the

volume of primary products exported between 1985 and 1995 tripled, and except for

Mexico, all these countries were shifting to an intensive specialization on natural

resource exploitation. (Schaper 1999)

 Chile, one of the most successful countries in Latin America in applying the neo-

liberal agenda and competing in the global economy, exemplifies the conversion of the

region's economy. "Two decades of trade liberalization and economic reform have