In the book "Labor Control and the Postwar Growth Model in Latin America," Ian Roxborough argues that the economic model known as import substitution industrialization (ISI) was employed amongst the Latin American countries after World War II as a compromise to meet the ever growing social and political demands within those countries. During this time period, there existed two main opposing forces, 1) the reactionary agrarian and mining elites that had majority of the political control for decades and 2) the mobilizing labor forces that demanded political reform. As these two forces engaged in this political struggle, Latin American policy makers were also seeking outside capital from the United States further causing the implementation of the ISI model to be more conservative.
Many elites, having a desire to maintain their land and power, not lost in the war, did not support the rise of the radical labor unions and therefore, kept the national economy from taking the radical socialist path as had happened in some countries in Asia and Europe. Another driving influence that led to the emergence of the conservative version of ISI within Latin America was the desire for foreign capital. In order to best attract the potential investments from the United States, profitable "investment climates " needed to be created." This meant that the rising labor and other radical leftist forces needed to be suppressed. This suppression by the governments involved the toughening of their stance against strikes and in general, a major onslaught against the Communist party.
Roxborough is correct when he suggests that Latin American countries shifted towards a conservative version of ISI to appeal to foreign investors. Furthermore, this same pattern of countries changing their political and economic policies to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) can be readily seen throughout history and is not unique to Latin America.