Search results

Chile emerged from military rule in the 1990s as a leader of free market economic reform and democratic stability, and other countries now look to it for lessons in policy design, sequencing, and timing. Explanations for economic change in Chile generally focus on strong authoritarianism under General Augusto Pinochet and the insulation of policymakers from the influence of social groups, especially business and landowners. In this book Eduardo Silva argues that such a view underplays the role of entrepreneurs and landowners in Chile's neoliberal transformation and, hence, their potential effect on economic reform elsewhere. He shows how shifting coalitions of businesspeople and landowners with varying power resources influenced policy formulation and affected policy outcomes. He then examines the consequences of coalitional shifts for Chile's transition to democracy, arguing that the absence of a multiclass opposition that included captialists facilitated a political transition based on the authoritarian constitution of 1980 and inhibited its alternative. This situation helped to define the current style of consensual politics that, with respect to the question of social equity, has deepened a neoliberal model of welfare statism, rather than advanced a social democratic one.

This volume addresses a significant gap in the literature on transnational collective action by building on approaches that stress the multi-level characteristics of transnational relations. Edited by noted Latin American politics scholar Eduardo Silva, the contributions focus on four distinct themes to which the empirical chapters contribute: Building a Transnational Relations Approach to Multi-Level Interaction; Transnational Relations and Left Governments; North-South and South-South Linkages; and The ""Normalization"" of Labor.

1. Inconvenient Fact of Anti-Neoliberal Mass Mobilization -- 2. Contentious Politics, Contemporary Market Society, and Power -- 3. Argument: Explaining Episodes of Anti-Neoliberal Contention in Latin America -- 4. Argentina -- 5. Bolivia -- 6. Ecuador -- 7. Venezuela -- 8. Peru and Chile -- 9. Conclusion.

We think of social movements as forces for change, which frequently passes through policy and institutional reform. Yet just how they affect change all is frequently not addressed. This paper tackles the question in the context of the Chilean environmental movement's effects on environmental governance and energy policy reforms. Building on work in political sociology it argues that Chilean environmental movement organizations had direct, indirect, and mediated effects on different phases of the policy process. It argues further that a political economy approach to environmental policymaking explains the politics by which they had such effects. Resumen: Mega-proyectos, política contenciosa y cambio político e institucional: Chile, 1994-2017Pensamos en los movimientos sociales como fuerzas para el cambio, que con frecuencia pasan por reformas políticas e institucionales. Sin embargo, a menudo no se aborda cómo afectan al cambio. Este documento aborda la cuestión en el contexto de los efectos del movimiento ambiental chileno en la gobernanza ambiental y las reformas de la política energética. Sobre la base del trabajo en sociología política, argumenta que las organizaciones chilenas del movimiento ecologista tuvieron efectos directos, indirectos y mediados en diferentes fases del proceso político. Argumenta además que un enfoque de economía política en la formulación de políticas ambientales explica la política por la cual tuvieron tales efectos. Palabras clave: movimientos sociales, mega-proyectos, política contenciosa, cambio político, Chile.

Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela are cases in which, despite of the collapse of party systems, the fragmentation of popular sectors, and the dismantling of corporatism that resulted from neoliberal reforms, a new mode of incorporation nonetheless emerged. This article argues that left government responses to the demands of heterogeneous, mobilized, popular sectors shaped a new incorporation in the political arena. In it governments deal differentially with the proliferation of politically significant popular sectors and subaltern social groups. This segmented popular interest intermediation is explained by the interaction of three broad conditions: the configuration of popular sector forces and their linkages to left parties when they took office after the crisis of neoliberalism, the ideational frames of said parties' leadership, and the dynamics of opposition and support for the regime's project. The new incorporation establishes a new normal in the relationship of popular sectors to politics in democratic regimes.

The capacity of Latin American social groups to mobilize has excited the imagination of students of the region since the birth of Latin American studies itself. Alongside the cultural turn, many social movement organizations continue to engage directly with politics. Aspirational goals notwithstanding, in order to improve conditions they devote much of their energy to influencing policy. Although scholars have begun to address the policy impact of Latin American social movements, we have limited systematized understanding of the conditions and mechanisms by which social movement protest affects policy outcomes. This essay argues that a policy process approach offers a useful first cut into more systematic analysis of social movements, protest, and their policy consequences in Latin America. Resumen: Movimientos Sociales, Protesta y Políticas de Gobierno La capacidad de movilización social que evidencia América Latina ha captado el imaginario de investigadores desde los albores de los estudios latinoamericanos. A pesar del giro cultural sobre el tema, muchos movimientos sociales siguen entablando la política de forma directa. Amén de sus metas aspiracionales, en pos de mejorar sus condiciones dedican una cantidad apreciable de sus esfuerzos a influenciar políticas de gobierno. Si bien es cierto que una cantidad no menospreciable de investigadores consideran esos impactos aún hace falta conocimiento sistematizado sobre las condiciones y los mecanismos a través de los cuales la protesta social afecta las políticas del estado. Este ensayo argumenta que enfoques centrados en los procesos de la política pública ofrecen una buena entrada al análisis más sistemático sobre los movimientos sociales, protesta, y sus consecuencias para políticas de gobierno.

Después de las movilizaciones masivas del 2000 al 2005 que llevaron a Evo Morales y su partido a la presidencia se esperaba una incorporación positiva de los sectores populares, campesinos e indígenas a la arena política. Este artículo analiza por qué en su segundo gobierno (2010-2014) esa expectativa cedió paso a una creciente conflictividad con importantes movimientos sociales que lo llevaron al poder. Argumenta que la priorización de políticas de Estado generó fuertes tensiones en la amplia y heterogénea coalición social surgida de las luchas antineoliberales. ; The mass mobilizations of the early 2000s that helped bring Evo Morales and his party to power raised expectations for the (re)incorporation of popular sectors, peasants, and indigenous peoples in the political arena. This article analyzes why in his second government (2010-2014) this expectation gave way to deepening conflict with movements that had helped him win the presidency. It argues that the inevitable setting of policy priorities generated strong tensions in the government's heterogeneous social coalition forged during antineoliberal mobilization.

The mass mobilizations of the early 2000s that helped bring Evo Morales and his party to power raised expectations for the (re)incorporation of popular sectors, peasants, and indigenous peoples in the political arena. This article analyzes why in his second government (2010-2014) this expectation gave way to deepening conflict with movements that had helped him win the presidency. It argues that the inevitable setting of policy priorities generated strong tensions in the government's heterogeneous social coalition forged during anti-neoliberal mobilization. ; Después de las movilizaciones masivas del 2000 al 2005 que llevaron a Evo Morales y su partido a la presidencia se esperaba una incorporación positiva de los sectores populares, campesinos e indígenas a la arena política. Este artículo analiza por qué en su segundo gobierno (2010-2014) esa expectativa cedió paso a una creciente conflictividad con importantes movimientos sociales que lo llevaron al poder. Argumenta que la priorización de políticas de Estado generó fuertes tensiones en la amplia y heterogénea coalición social surgida de las luchas antineoliberales.