Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-03T00:24:17.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Politics of Popular Coalitions: Unions and Territorial Social Movements in Post-Neoliberal Latin America (2000–15)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2019

Sebastián Etchemendy
Sebastián Etchemendy*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and International Studies, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Argentina
*
*Corresponding author. Email: setchemendy@utdt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At a general level of neoliberal repudiation or expansion of social policies, most post-neoliberal Latin American governments in the 2000s have exhibited similarities. However, coalitions with popular actors have displayed a lot of variation. In order to compare popular-sector coalitions the article constructs a framework with two central dimensions: electoral and organisational/interest; in post-import substitution industrialisation (ISI) Latin America the latter is composed of both unions and territorial social movements (TSMs). It contends that the region witnessed four types of popular coalitions: electoral (Ecuador and Chile), TSM-based (i.e. made up of informal sector-based organisations, Venezuela and Bolivia), dual (i.e. composed of both unions and TSMs, Argentina and Brazil) and union/party-based (Uruguay). The study argues that government–union coalitions are largely accounted for by the relative size of the formal economy, and by the institutional legacies of labour based-parties. Coalitions with informal sector-based organisations are rooted in the political activation of these TSMs during the anti-neoliberal struggles of the 1990s and early 2000s.

Spanish abstract

Spanish abstract

A un nivel general de repudio a la ideología neoliberal o de expansión de políticas sociales, la mayoría de los gobiernos pos-neoliberales en la Latinoamérica en el siglo XXI han sido similares. Sin embargo, las coaliciones con actores populares mostraron una gran diversidad. El artículo construye un marco analítico para comparar las coaliciones con sectores populares tomando dos dimensiones centrales: por un lado la arena electoral, y por el otro el espacio organizativo o de intereses, que en la Latinoamérica posterior a la industrialización por sustitución de importaciones se compone tanto de sindicatos como de movimientos sociales territoriales (TSMs en inglés). El artículo propone que la región fue testigo de cuatro tipos de coaliciones populares: electoral (Ecuador y Chile), basadas en TSMs (es decir de organizaciones del sector informal: Venezuela y Bolivia), dual (aquellas formadas tanto por sindicatos como por movimientos sociales: Argentina y Brasil), y basadas en sindicatos/partidos (Uruguay). El estudio argumenta que las coaliciones de gobierno con sindicatos se explican principalmente por el tamaño relativo de la economía formal y por los legados institucionales de los partidos de base laboral. Las coaliciones con las organizaciones del sector informal, en cambio, tienen su origen en la activación política de estos TSMs durante las luchas anti-neoliberales de fines de los años 1990 y principios de los 2000.

Portuguese abstract

Portuguese abstract

Em um nível geral, no que diz respeito à repudiação da ideologia neoliberal ou à expansão de políticas sociais, a maioria dos governos pós-neoliberais latino-americanos no século XXI tem sido similares. No entanto, alianças com figuras populares apresentaram uma grã variação. Este artigo constrói um quadro analítico que compara alianças do setor popular em duas dimensões: nas esferas eleitorais e organizacionais/de interesse, a qual na América Latina pós-ISI (Industrialização de Substituição de Importação) é composta tanto por sindicatos quanto por movimentos território-sociais (TSMs do inglês). Argumento que a região foi testemunha de quatro tipos de alianças populares: eleitoral (Equador e Chile), baseada em TSMs (ou seja, em organizações do setor informal: Venezuela e Bolívia), dupla (as formadas tanto por sindicatos quanto por movimentos sociais: Argentina e Brasil), e baseadas em sindicatos/partidos (Uruguai). O estudo argumenta que alianças sindicais-governamentais são em grande parte explicadas pelo tamanho relativo da economia formal, e pelos legados institucionais de partidos trabalhistas. Alianças com organizações do setor informal, pelo contrário, eram baseadas na ativação política destes TSMs durante os conflitos anti-neoliberais dos fins dos anos 1990 e princípios dos 2000.

Keywords

Latin Americapopular sectorssocial movementslabourpolitical economyAmérica Latinapolíticas del sector popularmovimientos socialestrabajadoreseconomía políticaAmérica Latinapolítica do setor popularmovimentos sociaistrabalhadoreseconomía política
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 157 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Página 12 (Buenos Aires), 15 Aug. 2015, available at https://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-279397-2015-08-15.html, last access 20 Aug. 2019.

2 Grugel, Jean and Riggirozzi, Pía, ‘Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America: Rebuilding and Reclaiming the State after Crisis’, Development and Change, 43: 1 (2012), p. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grugel, Jean and Riggirozzi, Pia, ‘Neoliberal Disruption and Neoliberalism's Afterlife in Latin America: What is Left of Post-Neoliberalism?’, Critical Social Policy, 38: 3 (2018), pp. 547–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Following Ruth Collier and Samuel Handlin I consider ‘popular actors’ to be formal and informal wage-earners, as well as self-employed individuals in the lower strata, generally also part of the informal sector. I use the concepts ‘popular sectors’ and ‘working class’ interchangeably: Collier, Ruth B. and Handlin, Samuel, ‘Introduction’, in Collier, Ruth B. and Handlin, Samuel, Reorganizing Popular Politics (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009), pp. 3–31Google Scholar.

4 Levitsky, Steven and Roberts, Kenneth M. (eds.), The Resurgence of the Latin American Left (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; de la Torre, Carlos, ‘In the Name of the People: Democratization, Popular Organizations, and Populism in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador’, European Review of Latin America and Caribbean Studies, 95 (2013), pp. 27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weyland, Kurt, Madrid, Raúl L. and Hunter, Wendy (eds.), Leftist Governments in Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cameron, Maxwell A. and Hershberg, Eric, Latin America's Left Turns (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2010)Google Scholar; Handlin, Samuel, State Crisis in Fragile Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Silva, Eduardo, ‘Reorganizing Popular Sector Incorporation: Propositions from Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela’, Politics and Society, 45: 1 (2016), pp. 91–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Silva, Eduardo and Rossi, Federico M. (eds.), Reshaping the Political Arena in Latin America (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Velador, Octavio Humberto Moreno and Ibarra, Carlos Alberto Figueroa, ‘La construcción de poder popular en los gobiernos nacional-populares latinoamericanos’, Tla-Melaua. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 8: 37 (2015), pp. 70–92Google Scholar.

6 In the social science literature, formal-sector (generally unionised) workers are frequently referred to as ‘insiders’, and unemployed and informal workers as ‘outsiders’.

7 Grugel and Riggirozzi, ‘Neoliberal Disruption’; Grugel and Riggirozzi, ‘Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America’.

8 Ibid., p. 5.

9 Ibid., p. 6.

10 Levitsky and Roberts (eds.), The Resurgence of the Latin American Left; de la Torre, ‘In the Name of the People’; Lanzaro, Jorge, ‘La socialdemocracia criolla’, Nueva Sociedad, 217 (2008), pp. 40–58Google Scholar; Handlin, State Crisis in Fragile Democracies.

11 Flores-Macías, Gustavo A., After Neoliberalism? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kurt Weyland, ‘The Left: Destroyer or Savior of the Market Model?’, in Levitsky and Roberts (eds.), The Resurgence of the Latin American Left, pp. 71–92; Lanzaro, ‘La socialdemocracia criolla’.

12 Carlos Freytes, ‘The Cerrado is not the Pampas: Explaining Tax and Regulatory Policies on Agricultural Exports in Argentina and Brazil (2003–2013)’, Ph. D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 2015; María Victoria Murillo, Virginia Oliveros and Milan Vaishnav, ‘Economic Constraints and Presidential Agency’, in Levitsky and Roberts (eds.), The Resurgence of the Latin American Left, pp. 52–70.

13 Pribble, Jennifer, Welfare and Party Politics in Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Handlin, Samuel, ‘Social Protection and the Politicization of Class Cleavages during Latin America's Left Turn’, Comparative Political Studies, 46: 12 (2012), pp. 1582–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Huber, Evelyne and Stephens, John D., Democracy and the Left (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Niedzwiecki, Sara, ‘The Effect of Unions and Organized Civil Society on Social Policy: Pensions and Health Reforms in Argentina and Brazil, 1988–2008’, Latin American Politics and Society, 56: 4 (2014), pp. 22–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Garay, Candelaria, Social Policy Expansion in Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Goldfrank, Benjamin, Deepening Local Democracy in Latin America. (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Goldfrank, Benjamin and Schrank, Andrew, ‘Municipal Neoliberalism and Municipal Socialism: Urban Political Economy in Latin America’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33: 2 (2009), pp. 443–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Collier and Handlin (eds.), Reorganizing Popular Politics.

17 Silva, ‘Reorganizing Popular Sector Incorporation’; Rossi, Federico M., The Poor's Struggle for Political Incorporation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Silva and Rossi (eds.), Reshaping the Political Arena in Latin America; Moreno and Figueroa, ‘La construcción de poder popular’.

18 Silva, ‘Reorganizing Popular Sector Incorporation’, p. 92.

19 Collier, Ruth Berins and Collier, David, Shaping the Political Arena (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

20 Murillo, Maria Victoria, Labor Unions, Partisan Coalitions, and Market Reforms in Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Etchemendy, Sebastián, Models of Economic Liberalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Gibson, Edward, Class and Conservative Parties (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996)Google Scholar. See also Luna, Juan Pablo, Segmented Representation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Berger, Suzanne (ed.), Organizing Interests in Western Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

23 Collier and Handlin (eds.), Reorganizing Popular Politics.

24 Weyland, ‘The Left: Destroyer or Savior of the Market Model?’

25 Lanzaro, ‘La socialdemocracia criolla’.

26 Roberts, Kenneth M., Changing Course in Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

27 Handlin, State Crisis in Fragile Democracies.

28 Garretón, Manuel and Garretón, Roberto, ‘La democracia incompleta en Chile’, Revista de Ciencia Política, 30: 1 (2010), pp. 115–48Google Scholar; Roberts, Kenneth M., ‘(Re)Politicizing Inequalities: Movements, Parties, and Social Citizenship in Chile’, Journal of Politics in Latin America, 8: 3 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Ibid., p. 126.

30 For this period see the excellent analysis in Peralta, Pablo Ospina, ‘Historia de un desencuentro: Rafael Correa y los movimientos sociales en el Ecuador (2007–2008)’, in Hoetmer, R. (ed.), Repensar la política desde América Latina (Lima: Fondo Editorial Universidad de San Marcos, 2009), pp. 195–218Google Scholar.

31 Becker, Marc, ‘The Stormy Relations between Rafael Correa and Social Movements in Ecuador’, Latin American Perspectives, 40: 3 (2013), p. 44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Jorge León Trujillo and Susan Spronk, ‘Socialism without Workers? Trade Unions and the New Left in Bolivia and Ecuador’, in Silva and Rossi (eds.), Reshaping the Political Arena in Latin America, p. 151.

33 de la Torre, Carlos, ‘El tecnopopulismo de Rafael Correa’, Latin American Research Review, 48: 1 (2013), pp. 24–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Ibid., p. 28.

35 Ruth B. Collier and Samuel Handlin, ‘General Patterns and Emerging Differences’, in Collier and Handlin (eds.), Reorganizing Popular Politics, pp. 318–22.

36 María Pilar García-Guadilla, ‘The Incorporation of Popular Sectors and Social Movements in Venezuelan Twenty-First-Century Socialism’, in Silva and Rossi (eds.), Reshaping the Political Arena in Latin America, p. 65.

37 Handlin, State Crisis in Fragile Democracies, p. 145.

38 Ellner, Steve, ‘Venezuela's Social-Based Democratic Model: Innovations and Limitations’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 43: 3 (2011), p. 447CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ellner, Steve, Rethinking Venezuelan Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2008), pp. 126–7Google Scholar.

39 García-Guadilla, ‘The Incorporation of Popular Sectors’, p. 61.

40 Lazar, Sian, El Alto, Rebel City: Self and Citizenship in Andean Bolivia (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

41 In this study I consider rural unions and coca growers that constituted the MAS more a social movement than a traditional labour organisation of wage-earners in a firm, as most peasants are in fact informal and/or self-employed workers.

42 See Marcelo Mangini, ‘La historia de la excepcionalidad: La emergencia del movimiento cocalero y la llegada del MAS-IPSP al poder’, BA Thesis, Torcuato Di Tella University, 2007; do Alto, Hervé, ‘Un partido campesino en el poder’, Nueva Sociedad, 234 (2011), pp. 95–111Google Scholar.

43 See Mayorga, Fernando, ‘Movimientos sociales y participación política en Bolivia’, in Cheresky, Isidoro (ed.), Ciudadanía y legitimidad democrática en América Latina (Buenos Aires: Prometeo, 2011), pp. 19–41Google Scholar; Zuazo, Moira, ‘¿Los movimientos sociales en el poder?’, Nueva Sociedad, 227 (2010), pp. 129–30Google Scholar; Anria, Santiago, ‘Social Movements, Party Organization, and Populism. Insights from the Bolivian MAS’, Latin American Politics and Society, 55: 3 (2013), pp. 19–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Trujillo and Spronk, ‘Socialism without Workers?’, p. 140.

45 Roberts, Kenneth M., ‘Populism, Political Conflict, and Grass-Roots Organization in Latin America’, Comparative Politics, 38: 2 (2006), p. 142CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Anria, Santiago and Niedzwiecki, Sara, ‘Social Movements and Social Policy: The Bolivian Renta Dignidad’, Studies in Comparative International Development, 51: 3 (2016), pp. 321–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 In Argentina unions control workers’ health insurance plans, the ‘Obras Sociales’. Union-linked officials were appointed as head of the state office that regulates the system and channels subsidies to unions.

48 Etchemendy, Sebastián and Collier, Ruth Berins, ‘Down but Not Out: Union Resurgence and Segmented Neocorporatism in Argentina (2003–2007)’, Politics and Society, 35: 3 (2007), pp. 363–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Garay, Social Policy Expansion in Latin America; Rossi, The Poor's Struggle for Political Incorporation.

50 On the dynamics between the Argentine ministerial bureaucracy and the allied social movements see the excellent work of Perelmiter, Luisina, Burocracia plebeya (Buenos Aires: UNSAM Edita, 2016), esp. ch. 6Google Scholar.

51 Bruera, Hernán F. Gómez, ‘Securing Social Governability: Part-Movement Relations in Lula's Brazil’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 47: 3 (2015), pp. 567–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Andrés Schipani, ‘Whither the Working Class? The Left and Labor Incorporation under Neoliberalism’, paper presented at the REPAL annual meeting, Bogotá, Colombia, 2018.

53 Gómez Bruera, ‘Securing Social Governability’, p. 587. PRONAF's funding went from Reais$ 2.4 in 2002 to R$ 10 billion in 2007: see Branford, Sue, ‘Working with Governments: The MST's Experience with the Cardoso and Lula Adminstrations’, in Carter, Miguel (ed.), Challenging Social Inequality (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015), pp. 331–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Ibid.

55 Gómez Bruera, ‘Securing Social Governability’, p. 508.

56 Branford, ‘Working with Governments’.

57 Schipani, ‘Whither the Working Class?’

58 Levitsky and Roberts (eds.), The Resurgence of the Latin American Left; Luna, Segmented Representation, p. 249; Betancur, Verónica Pérez, Rodríguez, Rafael Piñeiro and Rosenblatt, Fernando, ‘Efficacy and the Reproduction of Political Activism: Evidence from the Broad Front in Uruguay’, Comparative Political Studies, 52: 6 (2019)Google Scholar.

59 Álvarez-Rivadulla, María José, Squatters and the Politics of Marginality in Uruguay (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Levitsky, Steven, Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Luna, Segmented Representation, p. 234.

61 Levitsky and Roberts (eds.), The Resurgence of the Latin American Left, pp. 12–13.

62 Sebastián Etchemendy, ‘The Rise of Segmented Neo-Corporatism in South America: Wage Coordination in Argentina and Uruguay (2005–2015)’, Comparative Political Studies, published online 28 Feb. 2019, available at https://journals.sagepub.com/action/doSearch?AllField=Etchemendy&SeriesKey=cpsa, last access 2 July 2019.

63 Schipani, ‘Whither the Working Class?’.

64 Etchemendy, Models of Economic Liberalization.

65 Almeida, Paul D., ‘Defensive Mobilization: Popular Movements against Economic Adjustment Policies in Latin America’, Latin American Perspectives, 34: 3 (2007), p. 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Ibid., p. 133.

67 Ibid., p. 129.

68 Silva, Eduardo, Challenging Neoliberalism in Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Garay, Social Policy Expansion in Latin America.

70 Svampa, Maristella and Pereyra, Sebastián, Entre la ruta y el barrio. La experiencia de las organizaciones piqueteras (Buenos Aires: Biblos, 2003)Google Scholar; Garay, Candelaria, ‘Social Policy and Collective Action: Unemployed Workers, Community Associations, and Protest in Argentina’, Politics and Society, 35: 2 (2007), pp. 301–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rossi, The Poor's Struggle for Political Incorporation.

71 Silva, Challenging Neoliberalism, p. 221.

72 Margarita Lopez-Maya, ‘Venezuela después del Caracazo: Formas de protesta en un contexto desinstitucionalizado’, Kellogg Institute Working Paper no. 287 (2005), p. 98, available at https://kellogg.nd.edu/sites/default/files/old_files/documents/287_0.pdf, last access 2 July 2019.

73 Ciccariello-Maher, George, We Created Chávez (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Fernandes, Sujatha, Who Can Stop the Drums? Urban Social Movements in Chávez's Venezuela (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Stefanoni, Pablo and do Alto, Hervé, La revolución de Evo Morales: De la coca al palacio (Buenos Aires: Capital Intelectual, 2006), p. 9Google Scholar; Zuazo, ‘¿Los movimientos sociales en el poder?’, p. 125; Anria, ‘Social Movements, Party Organization, and Populism’, p. 27.

75 Madrid, Raúl L., The Rise of Ethnic Politics in Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Anria, ‘Social Movements, Party Organization, and Populism’, p. 32.

77 Ondetti, Gabriel, ‘Repression, Opportunity, and Protest: Explaining the Takeoff of Brazil's Landless Movement’, Latin American Politics and Society, 48: 2 (2006), p. 62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carter, Miguel, ‘The Landless Rural Workers Movement and Democracy in Brazil’, Latin American Research Review, 45 (2010), pp. 194–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Ibid., p. 205.

79 Yashar, Deborah J., Contesting Citizenship in Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Van Cott, Donna Lee, From Movements to Parties in Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 Bowen, James D., ‘Multicultural Market Democracy: Elites and Indigenous Movements in Contemporary Ecuador’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 43: 3 (2011), pp. 451–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 Van Cott, From Movements to Parties in Latin America, pp. 125–6.

82 Ibid., p. 136.

83 Gallegos, Franklin Ramírez, ‘Desencuentros, convergencias, politización (y viceversa). El gobierno ecuatoriano y los movimientos sociales’, Nueva Sociedad, 227 (2010), p. 87Google Scholar. See also Ospina Peralta, ‘Historia de un desencuentro’.

84 Ramírez Gallegos, ‘Desencuentros, convergencias, politización’, p. 88; Madrid, The Rise of Ethnic Politics in Latin America, pp.103–4.

85 In words of the leader of a rival organisation, people were dissatisfied with CONAIE's ‘ethnocentrism’ (i.e. incapacity to reach urban sectors) and ‘alliance with neoliberal parties’ (quoted in Van Cott, From Movements to Parties in Latin America, p. 138).

86 See Patricia Hipsher, ‘Political Processes and the Demobilization of the Shantytown Dwellers’ Movement in Redemocratizing Chile’, Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, 1994; Schneider, Cathy Lisa, Shantytown Protest in Pinochet's Chile (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1995)Google Scholar, among others.

87 Kurtz, Marcus J., Free Market Democracy and the Chilean and Mexican Countryside (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Álvarez-Rivadulla, Squatters and the Politics of Marginality in Uruguay.

89 The MPP, the most radical faction of the FA, was made up of former guerrilla members of the Tupamaros. One of its leaders, Jorge Zabalza, was particularly active in the squatter movement (ibid., pp. 141–2).

90 Ibid., pp. 13, 39, 140–4.

91 Rueda, David, Social Democracy Inside Out (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thelen, Kathleen, Varieties of Liberalization and the New Politics of Social Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 Levitsky and Roberts (eds.), The Resurgence of the Latin American Left; Hunter, Wendy, The Transformation of the Workers’ Party in Brazil, 1989–2009 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 Garay, Social Policy Expansion in Latin America; Etchemendy and Collier, ‘Down but Not Out’.