El empresariado local goza de un capital económico, influencia política y prestigio socialimpensados en Chile tres décadas atrás. A comienzos del régimen de Pinochet (1973-1990), losempresarios eran un sector desarticulado, debilitado por el embate del Estado y de los actoressindicales, y traumatizado por las expropiaciones y el alzamiento de la Unidad Popular de Allende(1970 – 1973). Tras la revolución neoliberal del régimen militar, los empresarios se consolidaroncomo un grupo cohesionado, organizado tras poderosas asociaciones gremiales, y con un proyectoideológico común. Su actual riqueza y visibilidad responden no sólo a la bonanza económica delas últimas décadas, sino también a la forma que tomó el capitalismo chileno, en que empresasy empresarios gozan de un lugar protagónico. La reafirmación del modelo neoliberal durante losgobiernos de la Concertación (1990-2010) facilitó el florecimiento de este sector, reafirmando suposición dominante. La elección del empresario Sebastián Piñera como Presidente de la Repúblicaen 2010 verificó esta tendencia. Este artículo revisa las transformaciones experimentadas porel empresariado chileno en los últimos treinta años, destacando algunos hitos en la expansióndel capitalismo chileno. Tomando como marco analítico las cuatro fuentes de poder socialque distingue Michael Mann (1986), revisa rasgos del poder económico, político, coercitivo ysimbólico que sustentan la posición privilegiada del empresariado en Chile.
Este artículo explora la conexión entre el neoliberalismo y las clases capitalistas en Argentina y Chile. En particular, investiga el legado de las reformas neoliberales para la formación de la clase capitalista, preguntando por qué los capitalistas fueron capaces de lograr una posición de hegemónica en Chile y
no en Argentina. No obstante muchos antecedentes comunes, las reformas del mercado terminaron por producir diferentes resultados y reacciones: un neoliberalismo templado en Chile que sólo recientemente ha sido impugnado, y una reacción post-neoliberal en Argentina tras la crisis de 2001. Estas trayectorias divergentes están relacionadas con el resultado de las reformas de
mercado y otros factores, incluyendo la capacidad de las clases capitalistas para restaurar poder de clase y defender al neoliberalismo. La cohesión ideológica,
la influencia política y el poder simbólico de los empresarios de Argentina y Chile son contrastados. El artículo concluye discutiendo las relaciones entre
el poder de las clases capitalistas y sus capacidades para resistir los intentos colectivistas de contrarrestar el neoliberalismo.
Media convergence and growing financial pressure on the journalistic field have triggered significant changes in newsmaking cultures across the world. This article examines the challenges of media convergence in the newsroom of Valor Econômico, the main economic newspaper in Brazil. In particular, it explores how the introduction in 2013 of Valor Pro, a real time news service oriented to the financial market, changed newsmaking practices at Valor Econômico. The introduction of Valor Pro meant that journalists from the whole newsroom had to report news simultaneously for three platforms: the real time service, the online website and the printed paper. This shift not only intensified journalists' workloads and altered the manufacture of news, but also increased financial pressure on the paper's agenda. I argue that this shift – from producing news for the public towards producing news for the market – cannot be explained solely with reference to traditional political economic factors such as ideological decisions at editorial level and the structural properties of the Brazilian media sphere. Instead, drawing on resources from cultural sociology and from science and technology studies, I provide a richer explanation that acknowledges the impact of technological innovation, the shifting nature of news values, and the agency of journalists themselves. This article elaborates on seven months of ethnographic fieldwork in Valor Econômico's newsroom in São Paulo between 2013 and 2015 and contributes to the literature on cultural sociology, media studies and science and technology studies.
This paper explores the connection between neoliberalism and the capitalist classes in Argentina and Chile. In particular, it investigates the legacies of neoliberal reform for capitalist class formation, asking why capitalists were able to achieve a hegemonic class position through reform in Chile though not in Argentina. Albeit many historical commonalities, market reforms ended up producing different outcomes and reactions: a tempered neoliberalism in Chile that have only recently been contested, and a post-neoliberal backlash in Argentina in the wake of the 2001 crisis. These divergent paths are related with the outcome of market reforms and various other factors, including the capacity of businessmen to restore political and class power. The ideological cohesion, political influence, and symbolic power of the Argentinean and Chilean business classes are contrasted. I conclude by discussing the relationships between capitalist classes' power and their capacity to resist collectivist attempts to undo marketization. ; Este artículo explora la conexión entre el neoliberalismo y las clases capitalistas en Argentina y Chile. En particular, investiga el legado de las reformas neoliberales para la formación de la clase capitalista, preguntando por qué los capitalistas fueron capaces de lograr una posición de hegemónica en Chile y no en Argentina. No obstante muchos antecedentes comunes, las reformas del mercado terminaron por producir diferentes resultados y reacciones: un neoliberalismo templado en Chile que sólo recientemente ha sido impugnado, y una reacción post-neoliberal en Argentina tras la crisis de 2001. Estas trayectorias divergentes están relacionadas con el resultado de las reformas de mercado y otros factores, incluyendo la capacidad de las clases capitalistas para restaurar poder de clase y defender al neoliberalismo. La cohesión ideológica, la influencia política y el poder simbólico de los empresarios de Argentina y Chile son contrastados. El artículo concluye discutiendo las relaciones entre el ...
El empresariado local goza de un capital económico, influencia política y prestigio socialimpensados en Chile tres décadas atrás. A comienzos del régimen de Pinochet (1973-1990), losempresarios eran un sector desarticulado, debilitado por el embate del Estado y de los actoressindicales, y traumatizado por las expropiaciones y el alzamiento de la Unidad Popular de Allende(1970 – 1973). Tras la revolución neoliberal del régimen militar, los empresarios se consolidaroncomo un grupo cohesionado, organizado tras poderosas asociaciones gremiales, y con un proyectoideológico común. Su actual riqueza y visibilidad responden no sólo a la bonanza económica delas últimas décadas, sino también a la forma que tomó el capitalismo chileno, en que empresasy empresarios gozan de un lugar protagónico. La reafirmación del modelo neoliberal durante losgobiernos de la Concertación (1990-2010) facilitó el florecimiento de este sector, reafirmando suposición dominante. La elección del empresario Sebastián Piñera como Presidente de la Repúblicaen 2010 verificó esta tendencia. Este artículo revisa las transformaciones experimentadas porel empresariado chileno en los últimos treinta años, destacando algunos hitos en la expansióndel capitalismo chileno. Tomando como marco analítico las cuatro fuentes de poder socialque distingue Michael Mann (1986), revisa rasgos del poder económico, político, coercitivo ysimbólico que sustentan la posición privilegiada del empresariado en Chile.
During the last three decades, both Argentina and Chile have experienced capitailistrevolutions 'from above', which have transformed relationships between firms, workers and the state. These transformations have common elements: similar de industrialisation patterns focused on prirnary product exports, and 'hierarchical market' relationships between capital and labour (Schneider 2009), among others. Despite these similarities, approaches to capitalism in these countries currently diverge. Neoliberalism in Chile is ingrained in the institucional setting and naturalised among business and political elites.In Argentina, by contrast, a post-neoliberal landscape emerged in the wake of the 2001crisis and the state's interventionist capacity has been restored.How does the literature on varieties of capitalism and the new theories of capitalistchange help explain these revolutions 'from above' in Argentina and Chile? It has becoargued that a 'new spirit' that promotes autonomy, self-realisation aod noo-hierarchical relations has given capitalism a fresh justification in the developed world (Boltanski & Chiapello 2005). In this view, capitalism has become an increasingly theoretical enterprise supported by its owo 'cultural circuits' (Thrift 2005), which produce theories that justify capitalism's own purposes, recastiog it as something creative aod fun. Is this oew spiritpresent in Chile and Argentina? Can it be used to explain receot transformatioos there?This thesis explores the varieties of capitalism in Argentina and Chile by asking three main guestions. First, what are the similarities and differences of capitalism in these countries? Second, why did neoliberalism meet such different fates in them? Third, what kinds of spirits have driven recent capitalist changes in these countries? And in particular, is there a new spirit of capitalism (a la Boltanski & Chiapello) that emerged with neoliberalism in Argentina and Chile since the 1980s? This research is based on material collected from 120 interviews with representatives of the 'cultural circuits of capitalism' in Santiago and Buenos Aires during 2008-2009, combined with secondary data. The main fiodings of this research suggest that beyond the common hierarchical pattern,the pro-business capitalism in Chile and the national-popular capitalism in Argentinaoperate differently. Thc cohesivc business sector in Chile enjoys a dominant positionwhereas Argentina's factious business class is on the defensive. Vertical employmentrelations in Chile differ from the more horizontal relationships in Argentina, whereunioos still play a promineot political role. Powerful cultural circuits of capitalism inChile spread neoliberal notions of success, whereas analogous circuits in .Argentina havebeen contested, losing influence and visibility. Neoliberalism was naturalised in Chile not only because it produced wealth and rising living standards, but also because thedictatorship removed the institutions that sanctioned collective action, while helping to empower the business class. Moreover, the political class maintained commitment to themarket model through the transition to democracy. In Argentina, by contrast,neoliberalism was contcsted because the reforms wrought negative economic results andthe political and business classes never fully supported it. Moreover, Argentine society resisted the de-collectivising effects of the reforms, spreading social movements and unrest. Thc counter-offensive against neoliberalism guided by the Kirchners has further de-legitimized this project. Finally, this research found that rather than a 'new spirit' of autonomy and emancipation, 'old spirits' of capitalism were revived in Argentina and Chile, such as the 'commercial spirit' of Smith, the 'entrepreneurial spirit' of Schurnpeter and the 'destructive spirit' of Polanyi. Whereas neoliberalism was contested and unleashed disenchantment in Argentina, it provided an illusion of progress in Chile.
Abstract This article examines the debates surrounding Chile's economic model after the 2019 social uprising. It does so by studying how the leading columnists in the Chilean print media discussed the country's economic model between 2019 and 2021. The social uprising shook the political stability, social order, and economic certainty that had characterized the Chilean model for thirty years. Further, the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic triggered a triple crisis—socioeconomic, political, and medical—that raised serious questions as to the market model's ability to guarantee social security. The analysis of the public debate shows how two landmarks of the Chilean model, namely, its legitimacy as a development path and the exclusive right of economists to discuss the economy, were subjected to questioning. The columnists' debate reflects a model in crisis that contrasts drastically with the optimistic narrative of Chile as a "model" country in Latin America. The 2019 social uprising also marked a critical shift in both the ways in which the economy is discussed and who is authorized to legitimately debate economic issues in the public sphere, thus constituting a break from the technocratic consensus regarding market-led policies. If the aftermath of the social uprising triggered the cultural decline of the Chilean model as a dispositive to justify market-oriented policies, the way in which the economy is publicly discussed also changed radically.
Resumo O artigo explora conflitos entre a indústria florestal, as comunidades Mapuche e o Estado chileno à luz da leitura de Polanyi sobre a expansão capitalista. Oferece análise histórico-institucional das maneiras pelas quais o Estado chileno usou a florestação para domar uma fronteira selvagem e os povos nativos que ali vivem. Argumenta que o aumento da violência nessa zona responde à crescente militarização do Estado na área e reflete o contramovimento de proteção social iniciado pelo povo Mapuche - contra uma indústria florestal de livre mercado que transformou a paisagem, limitando o acesso dos Mapuche a terras e florestas, e contra um processo de modernização liderado pelo Estado chileno que corroeu as instituições tradicionais dos Mapuche e lhes ofereceu integração em termos desiguais, como "campesinos pobres".
This article analyses the politicization of natural disasters in the media and the narratives of crisis that contribute to these dynamics. In particular, it studies media coverage of the 2017 mega-fires in Chile and the way in which this coverage was framed by pre-existing political disputes over the performance of Michelle Bachelet's government (2014–2018). It examines the print press coverage of the mega-fires, and the framing contests used to interpret the fire crisis. It pays special attention to the controversies that erupted over the foreign planes that were sent to help fight the fires: the American Supertanker and the Russian Ilyushin. We argue that press coverage of the mega-fires transformed a natural-social phenomenon into an emotionally charged political drama in which the Supertanker airplane was signified as the hero, and the Chilean government the villain. The Supertanker played a condensation symbol role. It was cast in the media as an external hero promising to control the fires that had overwhelmed local capabilities, and to overcome a government that was portrayed as inefficient and late to respond. The media functioned as an echo chamber for the cultural battle between the government and opposition. This article contributes to a cultural sociology of disasters, paying special attention to the role played by the symbolic representation of nature and socio-technical artefacts in political disputes.
Contrary to the managerial perspective that characterizes the university and its production as a profit-generating enterprise, we propose to protect the exceptional and asymmetric autonomy that, historically, has characterized the university. Traditionally, universities have allowed to be determined by the legality that governs the processes of knowledge production. Where the social, political or economic usefulness does not count as an operator which determines its outcome. Recognizing the specificity of knowledge production is a fundamental analytical requirement for its proper management. The guiding question for research policies in universities is not how to maximize the usefulness of knowledge, but how to ensure the autonomy of its production processes. ; Contra el punto de vista que caracteriza la universidad y el conocimiento que ella produce como emprendimientos generadores de utilidades, se propone defender la autonomía que ha caracterizado históricamente la investigación en la universidad. Tradicionalmente, la universidad ha sabido dejarse determinar por la legalidad que gobierna los procesos de producción de conocimiento, donde la utilidad social, política o económica no cuenta como operador determinante de sus resultados. Reconocer la especificidad de los procesos de producción de conocimiento es un requerimiento analítico básico para su gestión adecuada. La pregunta rectora para la gestión del conocimiento en la universidad no es cómo maximizar su utilidad, sino cómo asegurar la autonomía de los procesos que lo producen.
