Search results

Abstract:Ha-Joon Chang, in his article 'Institutions and Economic Development: Theory, Policy, and History', provides a description and critique of the mainstream view of institutions and development. It applies well to Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s. However, the effort to introduce these Anglo-American institutional structures (Global Standard Institutions; GSIs) in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in uneven and unstable economic performance, not development. As a result, the relationship among institutions, development and economic policy in Latin America today has generally moved far beyond this 'mainstream'. The institutions to insure macro stability have generally been preserved, and some countries do follow GSI prescriptions. However in most countries, especially in South America, the effort to find the right mix of institutions for development has moved far beyond this mainstream. The result has been innovative initiatives to address more fundamental development issues such as inequality, property rights and international economic institutions. This process is likely to continue, facilitated by the currently robust democratic political systems that grew out of the earlier turmoil.

The indigenous movement in Ecuador has been among the most successful new social movements in Latin America since the late 1980s. Its success may be attributed to its formulation and persistent advocacy of an alternative to the changing manifestations of the capitalist order-the "plurinational state." This position has organized and motivated the movement for the past 20 years, in the course of which it has gained access to the center of economic policy for a time and more recently has operated with greater autonomy. The struggle for plurinationalism remains at the core of the indigenous movement's approach to the current progressive government of President Rafael Correa and provides a distinctly anticapitalist alternative. Though the new constitution embodies elements of the movement's program, there remain fundamental areas of disagreement on the meaning and realization of the plurinational state. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

The indigenous movement in Ecuador has been among the most successful new social movements in Latin America since the late 1980s. Its success may be attributed to its formulation and persistent advocacy of an alternative to the changing manifestations of the capitalist order—the "plurinational state." This position has organized and motivated the movement for the past 20 years, in the course of which it has gained access to the center of economic policy for a time and more recently has operated with greater autonomy. The struggle for plurinationalism remains at the core of the indigenous movement's approach to the current progressive government of President Rafael Correa and provides a distinctly anticapitalist alternative. Though the new constitution embodies elements of the movement's program, there remain fundamental areas of disagreement on the meaning and realization of the plurinational state.

AbstractCurrent debates around US immigration policy are playing out against a backdrop that has changed significantly in the past 20 years: immigrants have increasingly gravitated towards "new destinations"; a large and growing portion of immigrants are undocumented; and the federal vacuum in responding to the promise and problems of these new immigration trends has devolved policy to the states. As a result, we have seen innovation on the state level as policymakers seek to accommodate, welcome or resist immigration, with varying degrees of success. In this paper, we explore the case of Utah as a new immigration destination, seeking to understand its transformation from a state with very inclusive immigrant policies as late as 1999 to one currently adopting highly restrictive immigrant policies. To explain this trajectory, we test three prominent materialist theories of public policy: instrumentalism, structuralism and strategic‐relational approaches. We draw on a decade's worth of primary data – including data on state‐level legislation, key economic indicators, public statements concerning immigration from the private business sector and the LDS Church, and the editorial content of the state's two major newspapers regarding immigration – to examine the policy explanations that grow out of interest‐based theories of the state. Whereas these theories provide robust explanations for a large and diverse array of public policies, we find that they fall short in explaining immigration policy. While conventional wisdom – and extensive scholarly research – suggests that economic interests drive policy, we find that the policies around immigrants challenge this economic reductionism, suggesting the need for more complex and ideational accounts of this important phenomenon.