Working Papers #101 - 110
Click Working Paper title to download (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader).
Please note, not all papers are available for download at this time.
Democratic Transition and Breakdown in Europe, 1870-1939:
A Test of the Moore Thesis
John D. Stephens
Working Paper #101 - November 1987
John D. Stephens is Associate Professor of Political Science and Sociology at Northwestern University. He is the author of The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism (Illinois 1979, 1986) and co-author of Democratic Socialism in Jamaica (Princeton, 1986).
Earlier versions of this paper were delivered at the meetings of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, August 1987, and at seminars at Northwestern and the Universities of California-Santa Barbara, Chicago, and Notre Dame. The author would like to thank participants in those seminars for comments, in particular, James Cronin, Roger Friedland, Jack Goldstone, Guillermo O'Donnell, Timothy Power, Charles Ragin, Arthur Stinchcombe, and Samuel Valenzuela. Comments by Valerie Bunce, Peter Evans, Daniel Garst, and Evelyne Huber Stephens on earlier drafts also improved the work. The paper was completed during the fall semester of 1987 while Professor Stephens was a faculty fellow at the Kellogg Institute, University of Notre Dame, and he would like to thank the Institute for its support.
A revised version appears as a chapter in Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John D. Stephens, Capitalist Development and Democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992).
Abstract
Barrington Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy is widely regarded as a contemporary classic, yet there have been few attempts to evaluate the validity of his argument on a large number of comparable cases. This article makes such an attempt on the universe of Western European cases which experienced some period of democratic rule between 1870 and 1939. It seeks (1) to explain what structural and historical features distinguish the breakdown cases from those countries which remained democratic, and (2) to trace the process of class coalition formation in the transition to democracy and the subsequent breakdown with these structural and historical features as a background. It argues that Moore's thesis does fit with some modification. All four breakdown cases were characterized by an authoritarian coalition of labor-repressive landlords, the state, and a politically dependent bourgeoisie. These groups did, in some way or another, come together to end democratic rule in the twenties and thirties. Moreover, in every case, large landholders did retain significant power into the modern era, which Moore argues is crucial for the path to dictatorship. In contrast, this was true in none of the democratic survivors. This difference can, in turn, be traced to the difference in landholding patterns in the previous century. However, in contrast to Moore's characterization of the conservative authoritarian path, the ruling coalition in the breakdown cases other than the German did not play the modernizing role that it played in the German case.
Resumen
Los orígenes sociales de la Dictadura y la Democracia de Barrington Moore está ampliamente considerado como un clásico contemporáneo, y sin embargo ha habido muy pocos intentos de evaluar la validez de sus argumentos aplicándolos a un gran número de casos comparables. Este artículo realiza tal intento en el universo de casos europeo-occidentales, los cuales experimentaron cierto período de gobierno democrático entre 1870 y 1939. Se pretende (1) explicar qué características estructurales e históricas distinguen los casos de paises en que se da un fracaso de aquéllos que continúan siendo democráticos, y (2) trazar el proceso de formación de coaliciones de clases en la transición a la democracia y el fracaso subsiguiente, partiendo de estas características estructurales e históricas como base. Se arguye que la tesis de Moore es correcta, aunque con ciertas modificaciones. Los cuatro casos de fracaso se caracterizaron por una coalición autoritaria entre el estado, una burguesía políticamente dependiente, y terratenientes cuya relación con su campesinado era pre-capitalista. Estos grupos, de una manera u otra, en los años '20 y '30, convergieron en acabar con el gobierno democrático. Además, en cada caso, los grandes terratenientes retuvieron un poder significativo en la era moderna, lo cual según Moore es crucial en el camino hacia la dictadura. En cambio, no ocurre así en ninguno de los casos de los paises que sobrevivieron como democracias. Esta diferencia, a su vez, puede remontarse a modalidades distintas de propiedad de la tierra durante el siglo pasado. Sin embargo, sólo en el caso alemán la coalición autoritaria-conservadora jugó el rol modernizante que Moore le atribuye; en los otros casos de quiebra de la democracia, ésto no sucedió.
(37 pages)
Kenneth P. Jameson
Working Paper #102 - December 1987
Kenneth P. Jameson is a fellow of the Kellogg Institute and Professor of Economics at the University of Notre Dame. His publications include "Mexican Economic Policy and Multinational Investment" and "Latin American Structuralism: A Methodological Perspective."
The author wishes to thank his colleagues in the Notre Dame Economic Development Workshop and René Cortázar for their valuable comments, though they bear no responsibility for remaining problems.
Abstract
Efforts to understand the international financial turmoil undermining Latin American development have not succeeded in linking international financial changes with the domestic financial systems of the Latin American countries. The starting point of the paper is the role in Latin America of "dollarization," the increased use of dollars in the domestic economies and its attendant detrimental effects on economic policy. The paper claims that the international financial system operates as a "dollar bloc," analogous to the earlier sterling bloc and the contemporary franc bloc. However, the benefits of such blocs, which placed certain obligations on the center country, are not present under current arrangements.
Resumen
Los esfuerzos para entender el desorden del sistema financiero internacional que socava el desarrollo de América Latina no han tenido éxito en relacionar los cambios financieros internacionales con los sistemas financieros internos de América Latina. El punto de partida del artículo es el papel de la "dolarización" en América Latina, el creciente uso de dólares en las economías domésticas y sus consecuentes efectos perjudiciales en la política económica. El artículo argumenta que el sistema financiero internacional opera como un "bloque del dólar," análago al anterior bloque de la libra esterlina y al contemporáneo bloque del franco. Sin embargo, los beneficios de tales bloques, los cuales fijaron ciertas obligaciones al país central, no existen bajo los actuales acuerdos.
(25 pages)
Manuel Antonio Garretón
Working Paper #103 - February 1988
Manuel Antonio Garretón is Visiting Professor of Sociology and a departmental fellow of the Kellogg Institute at the University of Notre Dame. His recent publications include Reconstruir la Política: Transición y consolidación democrática en Chile (Editorial Andante), and he has updated and revised the translation of his book The Chilean Political Process (El proceso político chileno, FLACSO 1983).
He completed his contribution on Chilean political parties for a book on political parties under authoritarian regimes and transitions to democracy, which he coedited with Marcelo Cavarozzi: Muerte y Resurrección los Partidos en el Autoritarismo y las transiciones del cono Sur (FLACSO: 1989).
This paper was prepared at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO) in Santiago, Chile, and completed during the author's stay as Visiting Professor at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales and the Centre d'Analyse et d'Intervention Sociologiques, Paris, in winter of 1987. The author wishes to thank Federico Joannon for his bibliographical assistance.
The paper was translated by Philip Oxhorn and Susan Eckstein, and was published in Power and Popular Protest: Latin American Social Movements, Susan Eckstein, ed. (University of California Press, updated expanded edition, 2001).
Abstract
This paper attempts an analysis of the popular mobilizations in Chile from the perspective of the problem of transition from a military regime to democracy. It begins with some general reflections on the role of social mobilizations under military regimes, distinguishing among various regime phases and types of mobilizations, and goes on to outline changing state/societal relations in Chile in the pre-1973 period to provide the historical context for an extended discussion of popular protest in Chile under the military regime. In this next section the author describes the mobilizations of the 1973-1983 decade and the cycle of protests and strikes after 1983, and gives an analysis of the principal sectors involved. The concluding section presents some interpretative hypotheses about the paradoxical role of mobilizations: their fundamental importance in reconstituting civil society and transforming dictatorial regimes, and their limits with respect to bringing about an end to dictatorship and the restoration of full democracy.
Resumen
Este trabajo intenta un análisis de las movilizaciones populares en Chile, desde la perspectiva del problema de transición de régimen militar a la democracia. En la primera parte se desarrollan algunas consideraciones analíticas sobre el papel de las movilizaciones sociales en los regímenes militares, distinguiendo diversas fases y diversos tipos de movilizaciones. El autor destaca las relaciones estatales-sociales cambiantes en Chile durante el período anterior a 1973, proporcionando un contexto histórico para una discusión extensa de las protestas populares bajo el régimen militar. En la próxima parte se analizan las movilizaciones en el decenio 1973-1983, el ciclo de protestas y paros después de 1983 y las movilizaciones de los sectores principales. En la última parte se intentan algunas hipótesis interpretativas respecto de la paradoja de las movilizaciones, que juegan un rol fundamental en la recomposición de la sociedad y en la transformación de la dictadura, pero tienen límites respecto de provocar su término.
(20 pages)
J. Samuel Valenzuela
Working Paper #104-June 1988
J. Samuel Valenzuela is a senior fellow of the Kellogg Institute. Before coming to Notre Dame, he taught at Yale and Harvard Universities. His research interests lie in comparative labor movements and social and political change. He is the author of Democratización vía reforma: La expansión del sufragio en Chile (IDES, 1985), and coeditor and author of Military Rule in Chile: Dictatorships and Oppositions (Johns Hopkins, 1986) and Chile: Politics and Society (Transaction Books, 1976). His numerous articles have appeared in English, Spanish, Italian, and French publications.
This paper was prepared for a conference on labor movements in transitions to democracy at the Kellogg Institute, University of Notre Dame. The author would like to thank the National Endowment for the Humanities, Mr. Arthur F. O'Neil, and IDRC for the grants that made that conference possible. He also wishes to express his appreciation to Alessandro Pizzorno for contributing to his understanding of this topic during discussions in 1982, and to Guillermo O'Donnell, John Stephens, Evelyne Stephens, Juan Rial, René Cortázar, Antonio Kandir, Robert Fishman, Rosario Espinal, and an anonymous reviewer for Comparative Politics for their comments on earlier versions of this paper.
Abstract
This paper presents a general framework to analyze the relationships between labor movements and redemocratizations. This relationship has two components: the influence of labor movements on the overall process of political change, and the effect of the latter on the internal reorganization of the labor movements themselves. Although virtually all labor movements respond to situations of breakdown of authoritarian regimes and possible transitions to democracy by increasing their mobilization in strikes and demonstrations and by restructuring their organizations and links to parties, there is considerable variation in the degree to which these changes occur, and in their ultimate political and internal organizational effects. After discussing the relationship between labor and redemocratizations in general terms, the paper presents a series of dimensions which should be heuristically useful to help account for the variations.
Resumen
Este artículo presenta un marco general para analizar la relación entre movimientos obreros y procesos de redemocratización. Esta relación tiene dos aspectos: el impacto de los movimientos obreros sobre el curso del cambio político en general, y los efectos de éste sobre la reorganización de los propios movimientos laborales. Aunque prácticamente todos los movimientos obreros aumentan las huelgas y manifestaciones y reestructuran sus organizaciones y sus vínculos partidarios al producirse una quiebra del régimen autoritario y una posible transición a la democracia, hay bastante variación tanto en la intensidad de dichas movilizaciones como en sus efectos políticos y organizacionales internos. Después de discutir la relación entre movimientos laborales y redemocratizaciones en términos generales, el artículo presenta una serie de dimensiones analíticas que debieran ser de utilidad heurística para tratar de explicar las variaciones.
(34 pages)
Solon L. Barraclough and Michael F. Scott
Working Paper # 105 - January 1988
Solon L. Barraclough worked on agrarian reform and agrarian policy for the United nations Food and Agriculture Organization from 1959 to 1977. During this time he directed the Interamerican Committee for Agricultural Development studies on land tenure and development in nine Latin American countries. He was the director of agrarian reform research and training programs in Chile and Mexico, and is the author of Agrarian Structure in Latin America. Barraclough was the Director of the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development until he retired in 1984, since when he has continued to work as a consultant. In the spring semester of 1987 he was an invited fellow at the Kellogg Institute.
Michael F. Scott is a consultant, author, and photographer concerned with international development issues and has traveled widely in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Among other organizations he has worked for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the Mexican government, and Oxfam America, where he was the Overseas Director for nine years. Scott has been particularly concerned with agrarian issues in Latin America and the Caribbean over the course of the last twenty years. He is the author of No Free Lunch: Food and Revolution in Cuba Today, as well as other papers and articles regarding food and development issues.
* The main title is a phrase from Father Andrés Girón, a Guatemalan parish priest, who leads the National Association of Campesinos for Land, an organization made up of 75,000 landless Guatemalan peasants. Father Girón is a fearless advocate of agrarian reform (OSGUA Newsletter, No. 4, Feb. 1987).
This enterprise is indebted to many individuals and several institutions, none of whom share the authors' responsibility for the writing, but all of whom contributed in diverse ways to whatever virtues it may have. Thanks go to Oxfam America, who commissioned an earlier version of this work as part of a Central America program assessment and who helped support the subsequent transformation of the document, and in particular to Katherine Fix, John Hammock, Sandy Isaacs, Rolando López, Jethro Pettit, Bob Snow, and Lee Warren. Elsewhere thanks are also due to John Cavanagh, Saul Landau, Jorge Sol, Jacquelynn Craw, Ariane van Buren, Jim Tucker, Medea Benjamin, Kevin Danaher, Peter Marchetti, Peter Utting, Cynthia Hewitt de Alcantara, and Enrique Oteiza, among others. Special thanks to the Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame and in particular to Caroline Domingo for her excellent editorial work and to David Ruccio and Alexander Wilde. We are most indebted to the many Central Americans who shared with us their understanding, their grief, and their hope for peace and justice.
Abstract
Central America's profound political and military convulsion is largely the result of a boom and currently severely bust agro-export economy built upon an outmoded social order. Focusing upon food security issues and their implications for the poor majority, this report analyzes major factors contributing to the current crisis within and beyond this small sub-region of Latin America. The major emphasis is upon Nicaragua and El Salvador, but the the authors also discuss conditions in neighboring Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Panama. Socioeconomic structures and government strategies are critically assessed in the context of growing food insecurity, and particular attention is given to agrarian reform experiences. Since the United States is the determining outside actor, U.S. policies and interests are analyzed in depth as obstacles and potential opportunities for broad-based popular development and food security.
Resumen
La profunda convulsión política y militar de América Central se debe en gran parte al crecimiento repentino y al severo fracaso actual de una economía dependiente de la agroexportación y a la vez basada en un orden social anticuado. Enfocando en la seguridad alimentaria y sus implicaciones para la población pobre mayoritaria, este informe analiza los principales factores que contribuyen a la crisis actual de esta pequeña sub-región de Latinoamérica. El énfasis principal se pone en Nicaragua y El Salvador, pero los autores también tratan las condiciones en países vecinos, es decir Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica y Panamá. Las estructuras socioeconómicas y las estrategias del gobierno son evaluadas de manera crítica en el contexto de la creciente inseguridad alimentaria, y se pone particular atención a las experiencias de reforma agraria. Puesto que los Estados Unidos es el actor externo determinante, las políticas y los intereses estadosunidenses son analizados a fondo como obstáculos y oportunidades para el desarrollo democrático.
(52 pages)
Tasks and Methods in Development Ethics
Denis Goulet
Working Paper #106 - February 1988
Denis Goulet is O'Neill Professor in Education for Justice, the Department of Economics, and a fellow of the Kellogg Institute, University of Notre Dame. He holds master's degrees in Philosophy (1956) and Social Planning (1960), and a doctorate in Political Science from the University of São Paulo (1963). He is the author of numerous books and professional articles, including Etica do Desenvolvimento, The Cruel Choice, and Mexico: Development Strategies for the Future.
His book, Incentives: The Key to Equitable Development, appears with New Horizons Press (New York: 1989).
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the First International Conference on Ethics and Development, University of Costa Rica, June 1987.
Abstract
Growth paradigms of development are now widely criticized as anti-developmental because they bring benefits to few while keeping the masses poor, and destroy valuable cultures. Some critics repudiate development altogether. Most international institutions and national planning agencies still follow old models, however, although they modify them under the rubric of "structural adjustment." Yet a new model is in gestation, which raises basic value questions about the good life, the just society, and the right stance toward nature. Modern conditions, characterized by large scale, complex interdependencies among all social systems, and the extreme rapidity of change, render ancient answers to these normative questions obsolete. The ancient answers were framed in static environments marked by slow change, high degrees of isolation of one system from another, and small scale. Clearly, what is now needed to create a modern development ethic is critical dialogue between ancient wisdoms and modern sciences. In the past, ethics has not successfully answered normative questions posed by economics. A new approach is needed: an ethic as "means of the means," that is, a strategy in which ethics formulates its norms from within the constraints faced by those who wield economic policy instruments. Ethics is to lay bare value gains and losses attendant upon diverse policy choices, and establish criteria for determining which value sacrifices an affected population will tolerate. Four areas of ethical discourse are analyzed to show where ethics may engage politics, economics, and other technological rationalities to forge working strategies for problem-solving. The tasks of ethics are to devise value strategies in development, and to keep hope alive in a world where rational calculations of probable developmental success would lead to despair.
Resumen
Los paradigmas de crecimiento en la teoría del desarrollo son ahora ampliamente criticados como anti-desarrollistas a causa de conllevar beneficios a unos pocos mientras dejan a las masas probres, y destruyen culturas valiosas. Algunos críticos repudian totalmente el desarrollo. La mayoria de las instituciones internacionales y de las agencias de planeación nacional todavía siguen viejos modelos, aunque sin embargo los han modificado etiquetándolos como "ajuste estructural." Con todo, un nuevo modelo está en gestación, cuestionando los valores básicos acerca de la calidad de la vida, la sociedad justa y la postura apropiada respecto la naturaleza. Dándose condiciones modernas, las viejas soluciones ya no sirven, son obsoletas a tales cuestiones normativas, de ahí la necesidad de una ética moderna del desarrollo y por lo tanto la necesidad de un diálogo entre viejas sabidurias y ciencias modernas. En el pasado, la ética no ha sabido responder a cuestiones normativas planteadas por la economía. Se requiere un nuevo enfoque: una ética como "medio de los medios," esto es, como estrategia para entrar dentro de los límites y dinamismos propios a los instrumentos de política económica. La ética deberá encargarse en poner de manifiesto ganancias y pérdidas de valores derivadas de cada opción política escogida, y establecer los critérios para determinar qué sacrificios de dichos valores tolerará una población afectada. Se analizan cuatro campos de discurso ético para mostrar dónde la ética podría tomar parte en política, economía y otras racionalidades tecnológicas para forjar estrategias de trabajo en la solución de problemas. Las tareas de la ética son idear estrategias de valor en la teoría del desarrollo, y mantener la esperanza viva en un mundo dónde los cálculos racionales de un probable éxito en el desarrollo llevarían a la desesperanza.
(29 pages)
Political Parties and Democratization in Brazil and the Southern Cone
-A Review Essay-
Scott Mainwaring
Working Paper #107 - May 1988
Scott Mainwaring is Assistant Professor of Government and member of the Kellogg Institute at the University of Notre Dame. He is the author of The Catholic Church and Politics in Brazil, 1916-1985 (Stanford University Press, 1986), as well as many articles on the Catholic Church, social movements, and transitions to democracy in Latin America. He wishes to acknowledge the helpful suggestions of Caroline Domingo, Kenneth Erickson, Margaret Keck, Karen Remmer, Juan Rial, Timothy Scully, Ezra Suleiman, Samuel Valenzuela, and Alexander Wilde.
This paper was published in the October 1988 issue of Comparative Politics, Volume 21, No. 1.
Abstract
This paper reviews some recent analyses of political parties in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, noting that, for the first time ever, a substantial corpus of important works on this subject has emerged. The central theme is that parties have historically related to the state and civil society in markedly different ways in these four countries. Parties have been fundamental political actors in Chile and Uruguay, but have been less important in Argentina and Brazil. Because parties have not always been central actors in the Latin American political process, many accounts of politics in the region assumed that differences between parties and party systems were relatively unimportant. This paper argues, to the contrary, that parties and party systems are of fundamental importance in understanding the political processes of the four countries in question. The differences in the nature and function of parties help explain different patterns of authoritarian rule, as well as differences in the transitions to democracy and the dilemmas and opportunities facing the new democratic governments in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay.
Resumen
Este trabajo reseña análisis recientes de los partidos políticos en Brasil, Argentina, Chile y Uruguay, señalando que, por primera vez, ha emergido un corpus sustancial de obras importantes sobre este tema. Su tema central indica que los partidos se han relacionado con el estado y la sociedad civil en formas marcadamente diferentes en estos cuatro países. Los partidos han sido actores políticos fundamentales en Chile y Uruguay, pero han tenido menos importancia en Argentina y Brasil. Como los partidos no han sido siempre actores centrales en el proceso político latinoamericano, muchos estudios sobre éste han asumido que las diferencias entre los partidos y los sistemas de partidos son relativamente poco importantes. Este ensayo argumenta, sin embargo, que los partidos y sus sistemas son de una importancia fundamental para entender los procesos políticos de los cuatro países en cuestión. Las diferencias en la naturaleza y función de los partidos ayudan a explicar las características diferentes de los regímenes autoritarios, las diferencias en las transiciones hacia la democracia, y los dilemas y oportunidades que confrontan los nuevos gobiernos democráticos en Argentina, Brasil y Uruguay.
(42 pages)
Benedict J. Clements and Kwan S. Kim
Working Paper #108-March 1988
Benedict J. Clements is Assistant Professor of Economics at Providence College, Providence, Rhode Island. Among his research interests are stabilization policy in Latin America and the impact of trade and development strategies on poverty and income distribution.
Kwan S. Kim is Professor of Economics and faculty fellow of the Kellogg Institute at the University of Notre Dame. He has served as an economic consultant for governments of developing countries and for international agencies. He has published extensively in the areas of trade and development, and planning and industrialization, with a special interest in East Africa, East Asia and, recently, Mexico. He is editor of Papers on the Political Economy of Tanzania and Debt and Development in Latin America, and his writings include Política industrial y desarrollo en Corea del Sur (Mexico City: NAFINSA and UNIDO, 1985).
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial and institutional support of the Zahm Travel Fund, the Kellogg Institute, and the Instituto Brasileiro de Pesquisas Sociais in Rio de Janeiro. Thanks are also due to Helson C. Braga for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. These organizations, institutions, and individuals are not, of course, responsible for any errors or omissions in the text.
Abstract
This paper uses a modified input-output model simulation to examine the effects of alternative trade strategies on income distribution in Brazil. The strategies under consideration are export expansion, import substitution, and expansion of the nontradable sector. The main results show that export expansion does produce a more equal income distribution than the alternative strategies, but only slightly more so. In particular, the income generated through production of industrial goods exports-the fastest growing segment of Brazilian exports-is not much more equally distributed than that generated by other strategies.
Resumen
Este trabajo emplea una simulación de modelo de insumo/producto para examinar los efectos de estrategias alternativas del comercio exterior sobre la distribución de ingresos en Brasil. Las estrategias puestas a consideración son: la expansión de exportaciones, sustitución de importaciones y la expansión del sector no comerciable. Los resultados principales muestran que la expansión de exportaciones produce una distribución de ingresos más equitativa que las estrategias alternativas, pero solo ligeramente. En particular, el ingreso generado mediante la producción de productos industriales de exportación-el segmento de exportaciones brasileñas de más rápido crecimiento-no es mucho más equitativamente distribuido que aquellos generados por medio de otras estrategias.
(21 pages)
Capitalists, Technocrats, and Politicians: Economic Policy-Making and Democracy in the Central Andes
Catherine M. Conaghan
Working Paper #109 - May 1988
Catherine M. Conaghan is a Queen's National Scholar and Assistant Professor in the Political Studies Department of Queen's University at Kingston, Canada. She received her Ph.D. from Yale University in 1983 and served as a faculty fellow at the Kellogg Institute in 1986. She is the author of Restructuring Domination: Industrialists and the State in Ecuador (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1988).
This essay is a summary of current findings from a comparative study of private sector associations and economic policy-making in Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador undertaken by the author in collaboration with James Malloy (University of Pittsburgh) and Luis Abugattas (Universidad del Pacífico, Lima). The author gratefully acknowledges the comments made on an earlier version by Frances Hagopian, Ernest Bartell, Guillermo O'Donnell, and Caroline Domingo.
Abstract
This paper examines the interactions among business interests groups, political parties, and government economic teams in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru since their return to civilian rule. The central argument is that business interest groups favored the transition to democracy in order to reestablish their influence over macroeconomic policy-making. Yet, the push for economic orthodoxy in the 1980s has resulted in a "sealing off" of government economic teams from the pressures of domestic groups, including the business community. Thus capitalist classes continue to experience a crisis of representation even under democratic regimes.
Resumen
Este ensayo examina las interacciones entre las asociaciones empresariales, los partidos políticos y los equipos económicos de los gobiernos de Bolivia, Perú y Ecuador desde sus respectivos retornos a regímenes democráticos. El argumento principal es que los grupos empresariales favorecieron la transición a la democracia con el fin de reestablecer su influencia sobre el diseño de la política macro-económica. Sin embargo, la tendencia a la ortodoxia económica en la década de los ochenta ha dado como resultado el que los equipos económicos de los gobiernos se cierren a las presiones de los grupos de interés, incluyendo a las asociaciones empresariales. Así los sectores capitalistas siguen sufriendo una crisis de representación, aún dentro de los regímenes democráticos.
(19 pages)
Leo A. Despres
Working Paper #110-September 1988
Leo A. Despres is a fellow of the Kellogg Institute and Professor of Anthropology at the University of Notre Dame. His research focuses mainly on social, economic, and political developments in Latin America and the West Indies. His major publications include Cultural Pluralism and Nationalistic Politics in British Guiana and Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural Societies. His research involves a study of urban industrialization and working-class culture in three Brazilian cities.
The data discussed in this paper were collected in the cities of Manaus (Amazonas), Juiz de Fora (Minas Gerais), and Joinville (Santa Catarina). Fieldwork in Manaus was conducted in 1984 in association with the Instituto Universitario de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro and with the support of a grant provided by the National Science Foundation. Fieldwork in Juiz de Fora and Joinville was done in 1986 under the terms of a Fulbright award made to the author and to the Centro de Estudos de Cultura Contemporânea (São Paulo) by the U.S. Council for International Exchange of Scholars and the Commisão para o Intercâmbio Educacional entre Os Estados Unidos da América e O Brasil. The author would like to thank Drs. Regis S. de Castro Andrade, Paulo J. Krischke, and other colleagues at CEDEC in São Paulo as well as colleagues at the Kellogg Institute for their helpful comments on various drafts of this paper.
Abstract
Economists as well as anthropologists have seriously questioned the empirical validity of the dual economy paradigm. Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming that while formal and informal sector enterprises may be differentiated in terms of their capitalization, organization, labor processes, market penetration, and the like, it is generally the case that these differentiated enterprises are structurally articulated within a centralized political economy. Accordingly, three macrotheories have been offered to explain the structural articulation of formal and informal sector developments. One theory, that of modernization, suggests that informal sector developments are a temporary by-product of migratory flows of unskilled labor that have been set in motion by rapid urban industrialization. The other two theories, both Marxist or neo-Marxist in conception, consider informal sector developments to be primarily the result of economizing production strategies. According to one of these theories, firms in the formal sector seek to depress wages by maintaining a reserve of surplus labor and, thus, they force into the informal sector large numbers of unemployed or underemployed workers. In the alternative view, firms in the formal sector seek to lower costs or free up capital by contracting out to the informal sector high risk or marginal processes. While one or more of these macrotheories may assume some degree of general validity in reference to the organization of global or national economies, none of them proved to be particularly illuminating with respect to the case studies discussed here, drawn from urban economies in three different regions of Brazil-specifically Manaus in Amazonas, Juiz de Fora in Minas Gerais, and Joinville in Santa Catarina.
Resumen
Economistas e antropólogos têm questionado muito seriamente a validade empírica do paradígma da economia dualista. Realmente, existem provas avassaladoras de que enquanto as empresas dos setores formais e informais podem ser diferenciadas em têrmos de sua capitalização, organização, processos de trabalho, penetração no mercado, lucratividade, acumulação de capital, etc., o fato é que estas empresas diferenciadas estão estruturalmente articuladas dentro de uma economia políticamente centralizada. Assim sendo, três macroteorias tem sido propostas para explicar a articulação estrutural dos desenvolvimentos dos setores formal e informal. Uma delas, a da modernização, sugere que os desenvolvimentos do setor informal são o resultado temporário de fluxos de migração de trabalho não especializado que foi posto em movimento por um rápido processo de industrialização urbana. As outras duas teorias, a marxista e a de concepção neo-marxista, consideram os desenvolvimentos do setor informal como sendo o resultado primário de estratégias econômicas de produção. De um lado, firmas do setor formal buscam reduzir os salários pela manutenção de uma reserva de mão-de-obra e, assim, elas forçam para o setor informal um grande número de trabalhadores não-empregados ou sub-empregados. Ou, alternativamente, firmas no setor formal buscam baixar os custos ou liberar capital pela contratação no setor informal com altos riscos e processos marginais. Se uma ou mais destas macroteorias pode ter algum gráu de validade em referência a organização de economias globais ou nacionais, nenhuma delas é particularmente clara no que diz respeito aos estudos de caso derivados de economias urbanas de três diferentes regiões do Brasil, especificamente: Manaus no Amazonas; Juiz de Fora em Minas Gerais; e Joinville em Santa Catarina.
(25 pages)
|
