|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
173906
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Recent analyses of development and extractivism in Latin America discuss how neoliberal and post-neoliberal strategies under the political economy of resource extraction define the developmental trajectory of national regimes. As most accounts privilege the analysis of structural and historical conditions over everyday practices of state actors, this paper contributes to the discussion by explaining how extractivism and neoliberalism are shaped, reproduced and defended in governmental spaces, defining in this way the development path. On the basis of ethnography of the Peruvian state, in-depth interviews and an analysis of economic, environmental and pro-indigenous policies during 2000–2017, this paper analyses how under the development model of extractivism, governing elites deploy neoliberal or post-neoliberal development strategies and development tools while advancing contradictory development discourses. In this context, states are cynical because, despite progressive regulations and political discourses, everyday actions of governing elites reinforce institutional and ideological constraints on the effectiveness of rights. The promises of pro-indigenous and environmental social reforms are limited from their very formulation because the practices and imaginaries of governing elites are embedded in extractive structures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
158919
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
What happens to the politics of welfare in the Global South when neoliberal values are questioned? How is welfare re-imagined and re-enacted when governments seek to introduce progressive change? Latin America provides an illustration and a valuable entry point to debates about ‘interruptions’ of neoliberalism and the changing nature of social policy. Drawing on examples of disability policies in Ecuador and care provision in Uruguay, we argue that there is a ‘rights turn’ in welfare provision under the left that reflects a recognition that previous welfare models left too many people out, ethically and politically, as well as efforts to embed welfare more centrally in new patterns of respect for socio-economic and identity-based human rights. Given Latin America’s recent contestation of neoliberal development as well as its history of sometimes dramatic welfare shifts, the emergence of rights-based social provision is significant not just for the region but also in relation to global struggles for more equitable governance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
154074
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The concept of post-neoliberalism has emerged in response to the electoral victories of new left governments across Latin America starting in the late 1990s. Since then, it has been widely employed to understand the policy response of new left governments to the neoliberal Washington Consensus. However, there is no clear consensus on the utility of the concept and little effort has been made to systematically analyse policy and institutional trends amongst countries pursuing post-neoliberal strategies, including attention to variation in approaches to policy and underlying tensions and contradictions of post-neoliberal policy development. We performed a critical literature review of post-neoliberalism and, based on this review, argue that the concept remains useful, but only if we understand it as a tendency to break with neoliberal policy prescriptions leading to a variety of distinct post-neoliberalisms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
159395
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Reviewing decades of thinking regarding the role of the state in economic development, we argue for the continued relevance of the concept of the ‘developmental state’. With reference to Argentina, Brazil, Ethiopia, Rwanda and China, we contend that new developmental states are evidence of a move beyond the historical experience of East Asian development. Further, we argue for the applicability of the developmental state framework to key questions of governance, institution building, industrial policy and the extractive industries, as well as to a wide variety of cases of successful and failed state-led development in the early twenty-first century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|