Suchergebnisse

In contexts of budget restriction and normative dependence, coordination with higher government levels is crucial for municipal governments to fulfill their administrative responsibilities. Butunder what conditions will municipal officials seek to coordinate —or not— with other jurisdictions? In answering this question, this article offers a series of theoretical reflections grounded in our research of municipal policy-making in the so called Conurbano Bonaerense. We contend that coordination cannot be taken for granted as a recurrent practice neither it can be derived from formal rules such as those that conform a federal system. We argue that the decision on whether to coordinate or not is taken under two operating assumptions: 1) municipal governments will always prefer to retain the autonomy to do and not to do; 2) the decision between coordinatingor retaining autonomy depends on a cost-benefit calculus prompted by two basic motivations: to claim credit and to avoid blame. ; En contextos de restricción presupuestaria y dependencia normativa, la coordinación con niveles superiores de gobierno constituye un factor fundamental para que los gobiernos municipales puedan asumir eficazmente sus responsabilidades administrativas. Pero, ¿bajo qué condiciones los funcionarios municipales buscarán coordinar —o no— con otras jurisdicciones? En respuesta a esa pregunta, este trabajo ofrece reflexiones teóricas inspiradas en nuestras investigaciones de los gobiernos municipales del llamado Conurbano Bonaerense. Entendemos que la coordinación no puede darse por descontada como una práctica recurrente ni puede ser derivada automáticamente de reglas formales como las que conforman un sistema federal. Argumentamos que la decisión de coordinar (o no) tiene lugar bajo dos supuestos operativos: 1) los gobiernos municipales siempre prefieren mantener la autonomía de hacer y no hacer; 2) la decisión entre coordinar o preservar la autonomía depende de un cálculo de costos y beneficios impulsado por dos motivaciones básicas: reclamar el crédito y evitar la culpa.

El objetivo de este artículo es presentar las transformaciones producidas en las políticas sociales argentinas durante el periodo del gobierno de Néstor Kirchner (2003-2007) y del primer mandato de Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (2007-2011). No haremos una enumeración de políticas y medidas de modo exhaustivo, pero la descripción y análisis permitirá mostrar, al considerar los programas y sistemas de cobertura poblacional más extendida, la corriente principal de la política social argentina durante estos años. En especial, analizaremos los cambios producidos en el sistema de seguridad social, y mostraremos que la estrategia que inicialmente pareció encaminada a simplemente restaurar la centralidad del seguro social contributivo sobre bases más amplias, innovó planteando rupturas significativas con la lógica del principio contributivo como ar- ticulador del sistema de protección social.

One revealing test for gauging the extent to which pluralist democracy has advanced in the recently (re)democratized countries of Latin America is to determine the extent to which interest groups have come to participate in policy making in formal, open, extensive, and accepted ways as they mostly do in advanced liberal democracies. In other words, is this a new era or more of the same? To provide insights into this question, using six hypotheses, this article compares social insurance reform in Argentina and Mexico, and public health reform in Colombia. It appears that the political processes through which the reforms were adopted were fairly democratic, although aspects of the old regimes in all three countries, particularly corporatist relationships, were indispensable backups. The weaknesses that were apparent, however, stem less from the old ways of doing political business and more from the immaturity of the democratic process. Plus, pressures were felt by the executive branches and their allies to show to the international community that their country was a safe place in which to invest. [Copyright John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.]

One revealing test for gauging the extent to which pluralist democracy has advanced in the recently (re)democratized countries of Latin America is to determine the extent to which interest groups have come to participate in policy making in formal, open, extensive, and accepted ways as they mostly do in advanced liberal democracies. In other words, is this a new era or more of the same? To provide insights into this question, using six hypotheses, this article compares social insurance reform in Argentina and Mexico, and public health reform in Colombia.It appears that the political processes through which the reforms were adopted were fairly democratic, although aspects of the old regimes in all three countries, particularly corporatist relationships, were indispensable backups. The weaknesses that were apparent, however, stem less from the old ways of doing political business and more from the immaturity of the democratic process. Plus, pressures were felt by the executive branches and their allies to show to the international community that their country was a safe place in which to invest. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.