Understanding Social Roots of Neo-Developmentalism in Argentina in the Twenty-First Century

Abstract

After the last dictatorship (1976–1983), Argentina went from what is known as a “double transition” to a procedural democracy and an open economy. This process had tensions due to the promises of social inclusion and the growing weight of neoliberal policies. During the 1990s, Argentina represented a good example of globalization from the periphery. Yet, this experience ended in a social and economic disaster, which occurred in 2001. The solution to this dilemma was structured around new economic policies that shaped neo-developmentalism. In the Latin American region, Argentina joined the so-called “pink tide” of popular or progressive governments. Indeed, after the social explosion, the economy reacted, and the State took a more active role in promoting inclusion, which led to a relatively successful development process for almost a decade.

There are several interpretations of this phenomenon. First, those that minimize the action capacity of a periphery country in a global framework, becoming trapped in global or regional trends with minor variations in national aspects. Second, other interpretations emphasize the action capacity of social organizations, which would have conditioned the continuity of neoliberalism as well as arranged its replacement. Finally, some readings give preponderance to State policies, especially those of national governments, whose ideological bias would explain both the merits and the failures. Many of the interpretations combine various forms of these three arguments.

This chapter aimed to offer a different explanation, focused on social conflict, to analyze the development process of Argentina in the twenty-first century. Regarding the first interpretation, we showed the relevance of political action in the national space. With respect to the second one, we emphasized the ability of social organizations to veto policies, as well as to propose alternatives, but in relation to disputes with the ruling classes. The internal rupture of the power bloc during the 2001 crisis was key to understanding the program applied since 2002, where the demands of the popular classes were included in a subordinate way. As for the third reading, we proposed a view that recognizes the significance of public policies to define the mode of development of a country, but we showed the structural limits in which these changes are expressed. This proposal combines different approaches to political economy, where analyses of political processes converge, acknowledging the importance of social classes to understand the mode of development.