The Transformation of Social Governance in the Neoliberal Era
Author | : Mikael Wigell |
Publisher | : |
Total Pages | : 0 |
Release | : 2014 |
ISBN-10 | : OCLC:1376476003 |
ISBN-13 | : |
Rating | : 4/5 (03 Downloads) |
Book excerpt: In response to the crisis of the welfare state model in the 1980s, governments in Latin America began restructuring social policy to emphasize poverty alleviation and targeted social programs specifically designed to promote the increased participation of the poor and other private actors in social welfare. This paper looks at the effects on state-society relations of this redefinition of social welfare policy. It shows how the adoption of the new social policy model in 1990s led to divergent effects on state-popular sector relations in Argentina and Chile. The research is based on extensive semi-structured interviews with policymakers in both countries. The context for the new social policy approach was the neoliberal transformation that effectively dismantled old forms of corporatist links between the state and the popular sectors. Stripped from corporatist mechanisms for channeling demands, securing control and mobilizing support, the governing elites in Argentina and Chile adopted the new social policy approach as a way to build new links to the popular sectors. In contrast with some of the expectations in literature, however, the institutional outcome has neither been uniform, nor has it resulted in a more pluralist mode of social governance. In Argentina, the outcome has been a neopopulist mode of social governance in which social funds are often captured by local politicians for clientelist machinations. In Chile, on the other hand, the outcome has been a technocratic mode of social governance, in which especially the most vulnerable sectors of society have found it increasingly difficult to participate and compete for social projects funding on the highly technical terms defined by state technocrats. The explanation for this diverging outcome is to be found in regime institutions. First of all, the centralist-unitary regime structure in Chile gives technocrats within the central state welfare bureaucracy strong control over the policymaking process. In contrast, Argentina's decentralized-federal regime structure provides provincial governors with strong control over the policymaking process. Secondly, strong institutions of horizontal accountability in Chile, prevents politicians from capturing social funds. In Argentina, weak institutions of horizontal accountability coupled with strong institutions of vertical accountability give politicians compelling incentives to divert social funds for populist and clientelist purposes. As such, the study shows how social governance is highly contingent on political regime structure.