Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Brazilian Left in the 21st Century pp 69–90Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

The Choices of the Left: The Paradox of the New Developmentalist State

  • 291 Accesses

Part of the Marx, Engels, and Marxisms book series (MAENMA)

Abstract

In confronting neoliberal models and their emphasis on state-market alliances, new developmentalism emerged as a powerful alternative and was received with enthusiasm by leftist forces in Brazil and in Latin America. Strengthening the role of the state seemed an effective route to confront the predominance of the market advocated by neoliberals, and it certainly was responsible for unquestionable advances in fighting inequalities. However, this new version of the state has been unable to redefine the old formula of a “strong, self-sufficient state” and the centralizing political practices characteristic of the “old” developmentalism. The legacy of old Marxist conceptions of the state as the main agent of social transformation has been an additional element in the Workers’ Party view of the role of the state. Thus, this chapter argues that such a strategy created a paradox within a historical milestone of the Workers’ Party: the participation of society in decision-making processes. By concentrating political power and emphasizing technocratic and restricted decision processes, the new developmental state ended up contributing to draining the potential of participatory democracy. In spite of their quantitative increase in the national level during the Workers’ Party governments, participatory institutions, which gradually developed after the 1988 Constitution, have been frequently bypassed, and social participation downgraded from its more radical and original meaning. The fading of participatory democracy, coupled with an emphasis on the traditional mechanisms of Brazilian representative democracy, chronically plagued by corruption and lack of representativeness, frustrated the hopes for inclusive and sustainable policies and for a deepening of democracy through a radically new alliance between state and society. Among the factors underlying the crisis of the left in Brazil, the failure of a reconfiguration in the role of the state as a “political conscious actor in favor of development” seems to have taken its toll, since it has not been able to effectively combine its shifts with a radical redefinition of society’s decision power.

Keywords

  • Workers’ Party
  • New developmentalism
  • Neoliberalism
  • State
  • Participatory democracy

Parts of this chapter draw on ideas and formulations presented in previous works, particularly on Dagnino (2016), Dagnino and Teixeira (2014).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For the origins of the PT , see Meneguello 1989 and Keck 1995. For analyses of later periods, see Gómez Bruera 2015, Amaral 2013, Rocha and Branford 2015, Baiocchi 2003, Singer 2012, Singer and Loureiro 2016.

  2. 2.

    Vargas became a mythical figure in the Brazilian popular imaginary, known as the “Father of the Poor”. In Dilma Rousseff’s first electoral campaign in 2010, she was presented as the “Mother of the Poor”. See http://politica.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,lula-vai-apresentar-dilma-na-tv-como-mae-dos-pobres,596194. Accessed in December 2010.

  3. 3.

    In fairness, in his 2004 book, which is not about new developmentalism but on public management reform and democracy, Bresser does discuss participatory democracy, concluding: “In historical terms, however, I think we should be more modest or more realist, and, for the time being, try to build the republican state and the republican democracy” (p. 194).

  4. 4.

    For both radical democratic and neoliberal notions of participation, see Dagnino (2004) and Dagnino et al. (2006).

  5. 5.

    An innovative but failed attempt was the consultation process on a Pluriannual Plan (PPA) to decide on national investment priorities, at the beginning of Lula’s government in 2003. Civil society discussions took place in all 27 states, involving more than 2000 organizations, and culminated in a proposed document in August 2003. Nevertheless, the PPA was extensively modified by both the Executive and Congress, resulting in a final document that ultimately privileged certain exporting industries (such as mining and agro-industry) and included various dam construction projects, which had been heavily criticized by civil society participants. “Technical decisions” on, for example, interest rates and budgetary priorities were presented as the exclusive realm of government technocrats (Dagnino and Teixeira 2014). The approval of the Forest Code and the building of the Belo Monte hydropower plant also have been clear examples of heavy protests and long and intense social mobilization in defense of sustainability, ignored by the government. Similarly, in spite of heavy protest, conflicting economic and environmental policies have led to devastating environmental consequences as in Bolivia and Ecuador.

  6. 6.

    In Ecuador, for example, the moderately radical initial establishment of the Council of Citizen Participation and Social Control, denominated as the Fifth Power, has been undermined, according to Moscos (2014), by “executive intrusions” and “hyper-presidentialism”.

References

  • Amaral, Oswaldo. 2013. As transformações na organização interna do Partido dos Trabalhadores entre 1995 e 2009. São Paulo: Alameda/Fapesp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbix, Glauco, and Scott B. Martin. (2010). Beyond Developmentalism and Market Fundamentalism in Brazil: Inclusionary State Activism without Statism. Paper presented at the Workshop on—States, Development, and Global Governance, Global Legal Studies Center and the Center for World Affairs and the Global Economy (WAGE) University of Wisconsin-Madison. March 12–13, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baiocchi, Gianpaolo. 2003. Radicals in Power: The Workers’ Party and Experiments in Urban Democracy in Brazil. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ban, Cornel. 2012. Brazil’s Liberal Neo-Developmentalism: New Paradigm or Edited Orthodoxy? Review of International Political Economy 2012 (iFirst): 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boito, Armando. 2016. A crise política do neodesenvolvimentismo e a instabilidade da democracia. Crítica Marxista 42: 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresser Pereira, Luis Carlos. 1996. Da administração pública burocrática à gerencial. Revista do Serviço Público 120 (1): 7–40.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Democracy and Public Management Reform: Building the Republican State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. A construção política do Estado. Textos para discussão da Escola de Economia de São Paulo 273: 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Do antigo ao novo desenvolvimentismo na América Latina. In Desenvolvimento e crise. Ensaios em comemoração aos 80 anos de Maria da Conceição Tavares, ed. Luiz Carlos Delorme Prado, 27–66. Rio de Janeiro: Contraponto Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro, Ricardo de Medeiros. 2012. Velhos e novos desenvolvimentismos. Economia e Sociedade 21: 748–779.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dagnino, Evelina. 1986. State and Ideology: Nationalism in Brazil, 1930–1945. PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Department of Political Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. Culture, Citizenship and Democracy: Changing Discourses and Practices of the Latin American Left. In Cultures of Politics/Politics of Cultures, ed. Sonia Alvarez, Evelina Dagnino, and Arturo Escobar, 33–63. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002. Sociedad civil, espacios públicos y construcción democrática en Brasil: límites y possibilidades. In Sociedad civil, espacios públicos y democratización: Brasil, 369–396. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Sociedade civil, participação e cidadania: de que estamos falando? In Políticas de ciudadanía y sociedad civil en tiempos de globalización, ed. Daniel Mato, 95–110. Caracas: FaCES, Universidad Central de Venezuela.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Meanings and Challenges of Representativeness in Brazilian Civil Society. In Representation and Effectiveness in Latin American Democracies: Congress, Judiciary and Civil Society, ed. Moira B. MacKinnon and Ludovico Feoli, 209–225. London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. State–Society Relations and the Dilemmas of the New Developmentalist State. IDS Bulletin 47 (2A): 157–168.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dagnino, Evelina, and Ana Claudia Chaves Teixeira. 2014. The Participation of Civil Society in the Lula’s Government. Journal of Politics in Latin America 6 (3): 39–66.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dagnino, Evelina, Alberto Olvera, and Aldo Panfichi, eds. 2006. La disputa por la construcción democrática en América Latina. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dulci, Luis. 2010. Interview. Teoria e Debate, 89, July/August 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiori, José Luís. 2012. O ‘desenvolvimentismo de esquerda’. Valor Econômico, February, 29. http://www.valor.com.br/opiniao/2547676/o-desenvolvimentismo-de-esquerda. Accessed 13 Dec 2017.

  • Gallegos, Franklin Ramires. 2008. Democracia friccionada, ascenso ciudadano y posneoliberalismo en Ecuador. In La nueva política en América Latina. Rupturas y continuidades, ed. Carlos Moreira, Diego Raus, and Juan C. Gómez Leyton, 171–196. Montevideo: Flacso-Uruguay/Universidad Nacional de Lanús/Universidad Arcis/Ediciones Trilce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garretón, Manuel Anotonio, Marcelo Cavarozzi, Peter S. Cleaves, Gary Gereffi, and Jonathan Hartlyn. 2003. Latin America in the 21st Century: Toward a New Sociopolitical Matrix. Miami: North-South Center Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genro, Tarso. 1995. Reforma do Estado e democratização do poder local. Poder local, participação popular e construção da cidadania. Revista do Fórum Nacional de Participação Popular 1: 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996. O novo espaço público, Folha de S. Paulo, June 9th.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1999. Interview in Poder Local, Participação Popular, Construção da Cidadania, 19–27. São Paulo: Instituto Pólis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfrank, B. 2016. Participatory Democracy and Latin America’s Multiple Lefts: Comparative Perspectives’. Paper prepared for RELAM 1st International Conference, ‘What’s Left? The Left Turn in Latin America, 15 Years Later, Montreal, 24–27 March 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez Bruera, Hernán. 2015. Lula, El Partido de Los Trabajadores y el Dilema de Gobernabilidad en Brasil. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevia, Felipe de la Jara. 2006. Participación ciudadana institucionalizada: análisis de los marcos legales de la participación en América Latina. In La disputa por la construcción democrática en América Latina, ed. Evelina Dagnino, Alberto Olvera, and Aldo Panfichi, 367–398. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

    Google Scholar 

  • INESC and PÓLIS. 2011. Instituto de Estudos Socioeconômicos and Instituto de Estudos, Formação e Assessoria em Políticas Sociais. Arquitetura da participação no Brasil: avanços e desafios, Brasília, São Paulo: Relatório de Pesquisa, online: www.inesc.org.br. Accessed 10 May 2012.

  • Isunza, Ernesto, and Adrian Gurza Lavalle. 2012. Arquitetura da participação e controles democráticos no Brasil e no México. Novos Estudos 92: 105–121.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Keck, Margaret. 1995. The Workers’ Party and Democratization in Brazil. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechner, Norbert. 1984. La conflictiva y nunca acabada construcción del orden deseado. Santiago: FLACSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990. Los patios interiores de la democracia: subjetividad y política. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meneguello, Raquel. 1989. PT: A Formação de Um Partido (1979–1982). Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moraes, Lecio, and Alfredo Saad-Filho. 2012. Neo-Developmentalism and the Challenges of Economic Policy-Making under Dilma Rousseff. Critical Sociology 38 (6): 789–798.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Moscos, Andrés Martínez. 2014. A New Concept of the Separation of Powers. The Fifth Power: Transparency and Citizen Participation: A New Proposal of New Latin American Constitutionalism – the Case of Ecuador. Paper presented to the conference on Ethics, Transparency and Integrity: Good Government and Democracy, University of Innsbruck, 3–5 July 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pires, Roberto. 2011. Efetividade das instituições participativas no Brasil: Estratégias de avaliação. Brasília: IPEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • PT Partido dos Trabalhadores. 1999. O Programa da Revolução Democrática. São Paulo: Partido dos Trabalhadores/Fundação Perseu Abramo, online.

    Google Scholar 

  • Presidency of the Republic. 2014. Decreto 8243. www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/. Accessed 29 Oct 2016.

  • Reis, Elisa. 1988. O Estado nacional como ideologia: o caso brasileiro. Estudos Históricos 1 (2): 187–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, Jan, and Sue Branford. 2015. Brazil Under the Workers’ Party: From Euphoria to Despair. London: Latin America Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sankey, Kyla, and Ronaldo Munck. 2016. Rethinking Development in Latin America: The Search for Alternative Paths in the Twenty-first Century. Journal of Developing Societies 32 (4): 334–361.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Secretaria-Geral da Presidência. 2010. Democracia Participativa: nova relação do Estado com a sociedade 2003–2010 (Participatory Democracy: A New Relation of the State with Society 2003–2010). Brasília: Secretaria-Geral da Presidência – SGP. https://issuu.com/secretariageralpr/docs/democraciaparticipativa_web. Accessed 16 Nov 2017.

  • Sicsú, João, Luis Fernando de Paula, and Renaut Michel. 2007. Por que novo-desenvolvimentismo? Revista de Economia Política 27 (4): 507–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva, Fabio de Sá, Felix Garcia Lopez, and Roberto Pires, eds. 2010. Estado, Instituições e Democracia: Democracia (State, Institutions and Democracy: Democracy). Vol. 2. Brasília: IPEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, André. 2009. Raízes sociais e ideológicas do lulismo. Novos Estudos CEBRAP, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Os sentidos do lulismo: reforma gradual e pact conservator. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Cutucando onças com varas curtas – o ensaio desenvolvimentista no primeiro mandato de Dilma Rousseff (2011–2014). Novos Estudos Cebrap 102: 43–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, André, and Isabel Loureiro, eds. 2016. As contradições do lulismo: a que ponto chegamos? São Paulo: Boitempo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souza Santos, Boaventura. 1999. A Reinvenção Solidária e Participativa do Estado. Coimbra: Centro de Estudos Sociais.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Decision Time in Brazil. https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Decision-time-in-Brazil-20140919-0025.html. Accessed 10 June 2016.

  • Szwako, José. 2012. Aprendendo com os conflitos: tendências e riscos nas dinâmicas conselhistas. Pólis 52: 91–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatagiba, Luciana. 2017. Os protestos e a crise brasileira. Um inventário inicial das direitas em movimento (2011-2016). Sinais Sociais 11 (33): 71–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira, Ana Cláudia Chaves. 2013. Para além do voto: uma narrativa sobre a democracia participativa no Brasil (1975–2010). http://www.bibliotecadigital.unicamp.br/document/?code=000910954&fd=y. Accessed 8 Dec 2017.

  • Ten Theses on new developmentalism. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 32 (2), 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werneck Vianna, Luis. 2012. Interview. Instituto Humanitas Unisinos http://www.ihuonline.unisinos.br/artigo/4421-luiz-werneck-vianna-7. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Political Science Department, State University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil

    Evelina Dagnino

Authors
  1. Evelina Dagnino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evelina Dagnino .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sociology Department, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil

    Prof. Vladimir Puzone

  2. Political Science Institute, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil

    Prof. Luis Felipe Miguel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dagnino, E. (2019). The Choices of the Left: The Paradox of the New Developmentalist State. In: Puzone, V., Miguel, L. (eds) The Brazilian Left in the 21st Century. Marx, Engels, and Marxisms. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03288-3_4

Download citation

Search

Navigation