Globalisation and technology have influenced every part of human life, in almost every country in the world from the economy to socialisation and communication. We use technology in our day-to-day life, from cooking and speak with relatives/ friends in another part of the globe and so for that keep people in touch. Moreover, in this context, I decided to explore how is the technology been working in Latin America countries, to see if they are developed and been coped with other developed countries because, without technology, today’s society would struggle with the daily bases mundane of things. The internet has revolutionised the way the organisation communicates, shops and trades. The internet has become a necessity in developed countries. However, some States have adopted this new technology faster than others have. This essay looks at the evolution of technology, and the possible reasons why it has can be behind when compared to other countries economy, welfare states as well as other reasons. Globalization of technology in Latin America Latin America it is composed by 20 countries which they are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, Uruguay and Venezuela. (marcelonamura). The debate over the state and the market has traditionally been an axis of political polarisation in Latin America. The ideological discussion tends to opt a priori for one or other of these principles as establishing the exclusive and excluding rationality of social organisation. In recent times, this view has given way to a more pragmatic approach, which reviews on a case-by-case basis the extent to which market liberalisation is possible and to what degree state intervention is necessary, (Beverley, Aronna, & Oviedo, 1995). This wisdom is most welcome, though it proves to be insufficient. A muddling-through strategy can succeed in the short run, but it is risky economically and politically. On the one hand, a cyclical approach, which dispels all reference to a “development model”, makes it difficult to establish the stable and consistent rules of the game demanded by a market economy. On the other hand, this de-dialogising of the debate can deplete representative democracy by supporting governments that carry out programs that are manifestly contradictory to their electoral promises. Consequently, it seems convenient not to be satisfied with the acquired pragmatism. To prevent the state or the market from be fetishized, in the form of superior rationality, a brief historical review becomes opportune. It allows visualising not only the continued coe>