Impuesto de Sociedades Legislación vigente

Several lessons can be obtained from this study. First, among the conventional approaches used to explain the growth and consolidation of social movements, an analysis based on rational choice foundations is particularly well-suited to explain the growth and endurance of the piquetero movement. The material interests of the members of the

piquetero social movement and the importance of the relationship between the piquetero

movement and some of the Argentine institutional arrangements -- in this case, the ruling party and the labor unions -- are most accurately reflected through this type of approach.

28

Menem’s government usually used its discretionary power to discipline confrontational unions and reward supportive ones. These strategies diminished unions’ power and enabled Menem’s government to privatize several public enterprises (Levitzky & Way, 1998).

Second, because the purposes of the piquetero social movement are mainly clientelist (i.e., to obtain material benefits for members and political autonomy for the leaders of the movement), the development of this movement has followed a different pattern from most other traditional Latin American social movements. Other scholars such as Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato (1992), Gideon Baker (2002), Judith Hellman (1992), and Sonia Alvarez & Arturo Escobar (1992) have already alerted us to the emergence and growth of this wave of “new social movements” in Latin America, which in several cases are more interested in demanding economic and social concessions from the state than from the capitalist employers.

Third, the development of the piquetero social movement is connected to the political structures of the Argentine ruling party and the rules of the Argentine federalism. For this movement, I find clear causal relationships: when the ruling party is more decentralized and divided into two competing political heads, the piquetero associations become correspondingly stronger and more consolidated. The more intense the competition is between the two main leaders, the stronger the piquetero movement becomes. This is a case in which the combination of this particular institutional arrangement with a high unemployment rate could create a distinct social movement of unemployed people like the

piquetero movement. The Argentine economic crisis, the co-optation of the unemployed as an opportunity to avoid popular dissatisfaction, the Argentine electoral rules, and the connections of Argentine labor unions with the piquetero associations also triggered this political phenomenon.

Fourth, these findings and correlations again place in question the traditional conception of civil society as the purveyor of democracy in Latin America. There has clearly

been a bias among many scholars to focus exclusively on the contributions of a mobilized civil society when it is involved in attempting to bring about or strengthen liberal democracy (Baker, 2002). However, this tendency is seriously challenged by new empirical findings. These empirical contributions have shown that civil society does not necessarily support democracy, and has in some cases pushed for alternative forms of government (Berman, 1997). As a result, one should be cautious from believing wholesale in the “myth” of a virtuous civil society that is always on the side of good governance (Salazar, 1999; Rucht, 2003).

Within the Latin American context, in Argentina, there has been a dual interaction between the piquetero social movement and the two heads of the ruling party (“caudillos”). The final result has been more clientelism, increasing conflict and disunity within the main political party in Argentina (the Peronist party), and the strengthening of the power of the “caudillos” in the Argentine polity. Venezuela offers a similar example. In this country, the present-day conflict also defies traditional assumption about the role of social movements in democratization. The 1999 Bolivarian Constitution legitimized civil society’s insertion into the political sphere through plebiscitary measures and citizen-initiated processes. However, the “institutionalization” of Venezuelan civil society did not lead to the building of a common collective interest. On the contrary, this form of “participatory democracy” - coupled with the discredit of the traditional Venezuelan political parties - has increased political conflicts and might weaken democracy (García-Guadilla, Mallén & Guillén, 2004).

Both the recent Argentine and Venezuelan experiences raise relevant questions for further discussion and research. First, civil society can be easily co-opted by state actors through the offering of subsidies and material help. Building this assumption into my

analysis, I have shown that sectors of the executive branch can easily calculate and set a small enough “allowance” per individual in order to accumulate a substantial level of political support from civil society. However, unlike the Argentine case, political leaders in most other countries prefer to grant subsidies and buy votes without the costs of supporting a distinct social movement. For example, in the absence of a division and competition within the Venezuelan ruling “party,” the executive branch prefers to grant subsidies and buy votes without supporting a distinct social movement, which could produce more political autonomy for the movement’s leaders and reinforce a potentially troublesome distinct identity.

Because the members of the target groups are usually poor or unemployed people (high marginal utility for a small “allowance”), the Argentine experience teaches us that the structure of preferences and their limited budgets of these individuals facilitates their cooptation. Second, the impact of civil society on the performance of the Latin American democracies directly depends on how civil society interacts with the political system, the design of institutions, and the incentives that institutions generate in a polity.

Finally, due to the similar economic and social conditions among the Latin American countries, I could generalize the central explanation developed in this paper for Argentina to predict the growth and endurance of this kind of social movement in other Latin American countries. After relaxing the assumption related to the division and competition within the ruling party, a distinct social movement -- with a mutually beneficial relationship with the state -- is not an outcome under this scenario. Thus, leaders might prefer to practice clientelism without supporting the growth of a social movement with greater political autonomy and a distinct identity.

In a first test, for example, this analysis could explain the recent failure of the

piqueteros to develop new networks in Uruguay. This Southern Cone country shares many of the features of the Argentine context: economic crisis, high rates of unemployment, and a relatively inflexible labor market. However, without the clear division of power into two competing parts within the ruling party, the growth of a new piquetero social movement has been unsuccessful. The piquetero leaders also tried unsuccessfully to expand the movement to other Latin American countries such as Paraguay and Bolivia. All these failed attempts also provide the necessary basis for comparison and for testing the empirical validity of this model.

Bibliography

Almeyra, Guillermo. 2004. La protesta social en la Argentina (1990-2004). Buenos Aires: Ediciones Continente.

Auyero, J. 2000. The logic of clientelism in Argentina: AnEthnographic Account.

Latin American Research Review, v35, p55.

Baker, Gideon. 2002. Civil society and democratic theory. Alternative voices. New York: Routledge Press.

Bellman, R. 1958. Some aspects of the mathematical theory of control processes. Technical Report R-313. The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.

Benton, L. 2002. Presidentes fuertes, provincias poderosas: la economía política

de la construcción de partidos en el sistema federal argentino. Política y Gobierno, Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 103-137.

Berman, S. 1997. Civil society and the collapse of the Weimar Republic. World Politics, Vol. 49, No. 3.

Birch, Melissa and Jerry Haar, eds. 2000. The Impact of Privatization in the Americas. Coral Gables: North-South Center Press.

Bleta, A. 2005. Los planes sociales no tendrán aumento hasta las elecciones. Clarín, August

28, retrieved December 10th, 2005 from

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2005/08/28/elpais/p-00301.htm

Booth, William J., Patrick James, and Hudson Meadwell, eds. 1993. Politics and rationality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Brusco, V., Nazareno, M., and S. Stokes. 2004. Vote buying in Argentina. Latin American Research Review, 39:66-88.

Calderón, F., Piscitelli, A. & Reyna, J. 1992. Social movements: actors, theories, expectations. In Arturo Escobar and Sonia Alvarez, eds. The making of social movements in Latin America. Boulder: Westview.

Calvo, E. 2005. Argentina, elecciones legislativas 2005: consolidación institucional del kirchnerismo y territorialización del voto. Revista de Ciencia Política, Vol. 25, No. 2. Carter, M. 2003. The Origins of Brazil’s Landless Rural Workers’ Movement (MST): The

Natalino Episode in Rio Grande do Sul (1981-84). A Case of Ideal Interest Mobilization. University of Oxford Centre for Brazilian Studies, Working Paper CBS-43-2003.

CEPAL. 1995. Balance Preliminar de la economía de América Latina y el Caribe. Notas sobre la economía y el desarrollo, no. 585/586, December.

Clarín. 2004. Uruguay podría expulsar a piqueteros argentinos. September 16. Retrieved October 5th, 2004 from

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2004/09/16/elpais/p-01802.htm

Cohen, J. 1985. Strategy or Identity: New Theoretical Paradigms and Contemporary Social Movements. Social Research 52:663-716

Cohen, Jean and Andrew Arato. 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Collier, David, ed. 1979. The New authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

CONSUASOR. 2006. Informe de Gobernabilidad, Ano 2, No. 17.

Cook, Keren S. and Margaret Levi, eds. 1990. The limits of rationality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cox Edwards, A. 1997. Labor market regulation in Latin America: an overview. In Sebastian Edwards and Nora Lustig, eds. Labor Markets in Latin America Combining Social Protection with Market Flexibility. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. De Luca, Miguel, Mark Jones, and María Inés Tula. 2002. Back rooms or ballot boxes?

Candidate nomination in Argentina. Comparative Political Studies, 35: 413-36. Dinerstein, A. 2001. Roadblocks in Argentina. Capital and Class, 74:1-7.

Dinerstein, A. 2003. Power or counter power? The dilemma of the Piquetero movement in Argentina post-crisis. Capital and Class, 81: 1-8.

Dominguez, Jorge and Michael Shifter, eds. 2002. Constructing Democratic Governance in Latin America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

ECLAC. 1995. Social Panorama of Latin America 1995. Santiago, Chile: ECLAC. ECLAC. 2004. Estudio Económico de América Latina y el Caribe, 2003-2004.Santiago,

Chile: ECLAC.

Edwards, Sebastian and Nora Lustig, eds. 1997. Labor Markets in Latin America

Combining Social Protection with Market Flexibility. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Escobar, A. 1992. Culture, Economics, and Politics in Latin American Social Movements Theory and Research. In Arturo Escobar and Sonia Alvarez, eds. The making of social movements in Latin America. Boulder: Westview.

Escobar, Arturo and Sonia Alvarez, eds. 1992. The making of social movements in Latin America. Boulder: Westview.

Escudé, Carlos. 2005. Los piqueteros: prebenda y extorsión en los estratos marginales de un “Estado parasitario”. Serie de Documentos de Trabajo No 287. Universidad del Cema, Argentina.

Franceschelli, I and L. Ronconi. 2005. Clientelism, workfare and the emergence of the

piqueteros in Argentina. Paper prepared for LACEA Conference, October 2005, France.

Galasso, Emanuela, and Martin Ravallion. 2003. Social protection in a crisis: Argentina’s Plan Jefes y Jefas. Policy Research Working Paper 3165. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

García-Guadilla, M., Mallén, A. and Guillén, M. 2004. The multiples faces of Venezuelan civil society: politization and its impact on democratization. Prepared for delivery at

the 2004 meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, Las Vegas, Nevada, October 7-9.

Gay, R. 1990. Community Organization and Clientelist Politics in Contemporary Brazil: A Case Study from Suburban Rio de Janeiro. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 14, no. 4:648-65.

Geddes, B. 1993. A game-theoretic model of reform in Latin American democracies. In William J. Booth, Patrick James, and Hudson Meadwell, eds. Politics and rationality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Geddes, Barbara. 1994. Politician’s Dilemma. Building the state capacity in Latin America. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Giraudy, A. 2007. The distributive politics of emergency employment programs in Argentina (1993-2002). Latin American Research Review, Vol. 42, No 2.

Giugni Marco, Doug McAdam and Charles Tilly, eds. 1999. How Social Movements Matter. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Giugni Marco, Doug McAdam, and Charles Tilly, eds. 1998. From Contention to Democracy. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield.

Hellman, J. 1992. The study of new social movements in Latin America and the

question of autonomy. In Arturo Escobar and Sonia Alvarez, eds. The making of social movements in Latin America. Boulder: Westview.

Hengstenbrg, Peter, Karl Kohut and Gunther Maihold, eds. 1999. Sociedad Civil en América Latina: Representación de Intereses y Gobernabilidad. Caracas: Editorial Nueva Sociedad.

Ibarra, Pedro, ed. 2003. Social Movements and Democracy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Jones, M. 1997. Evaluating Argentina’s Presidential Democracy: 1983-1995. In Scott

Mainwaring and Matthew S. Shugart, eds. Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jones, M. 2002. Explaining the High Level of Party Discipline in the Argentine Chamber of Deputies. In Scott Morgenstern and Benito Nacif, eds. Legislative Politics in Latin America. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.

prepared for Inter-American Development Bank Workshop on State Reform, Public Policies and Policymaking Processe, February 28-March 2, Washington, DC.

Koopmans, Ruud and Paul Statham. 1999. Ethnic and Civic Conceptions of Nationhood and the Differential Success of the Extreme Right in Germany and Italy. In Marco Giugni, Doug McAdam and Charles Tilly, eds. How Social Movements Matter. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

La Nación. 2005. Los piqueteros acompañan el pedido de equidad social. November 13. Retrieved December 10th, 2005 from

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/Archivo/nota.asp?nota_id=756022&origen=relacionadas La Nación. 2005. Los piqueteros kirchneristas presionaron frente a un Coto. November 30.

Retrieved December 5th, 2005 from

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/Archivo/nota.asp?nota_id=760770

Levitsky S. and L. Way. 1998. Between a shock and a hard place: the dynamics of labor- backed adjustment in Poland and Argentina.Comparative Politics, p171.

Levitsky, Steven. 2003. Transforming labor-based parties in Latin America: Argentine Peronism in comparative perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ljungqvist, Lars and Thomas Sargent. 2004. Recursive macroeconomic theory. Cambridge:

The MIT Press.

Lobato, Mirta Z. and Juan Suriano. 2003. La protesta social en la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Lodola, G. 2005. Protesta popular y redes clientelares en la Argentina: el reparto federal del Plan Trabajar (1996-2001). Desarrollo Económico, Vol. 44, No. 176.

Mainwaring, Scott. 1986. The Catholic Church and politics in Brazil, 1916-1985. Standford: Standford University Press.

Mainwaring, Scott and Matthew S. Shugart, eds. 1997. Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

March, J.G. and J.P. Olsen. 1984. The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78: 734-49.

Massetti, A. 2006. Piqueteros eran los de antes: sobre las transformaciones en la protesta piquetera. Lavboratorio/n line, VII, No 19.

McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of contention. New York : Cambridge University Press

McCarthy, J. & Wolfson, M. 1992. Consensus movements, conflict movements, and the state infraestructures. In Aldon Morris and Carol McClurg, eds. Frontiers in social movement theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.

McCarthy, J. & Zald, M. 1987. Resource mobilization and social movements: a partial theory. In Mayer N. Zald and John McCarthy, eds. Social movements in an

organizational society: collected essays. New Brunswick, U.S.A.: Transaction Books McGuire, M.C. 1974. Group segregation and optimal jurisdictions. Journal of Political Economy, 82: 112-182.

Mondino, G. & Montoya, S. 2000. The effects of labor market regulations on

employment decisions by firms: empirical evidence for Argentina. Research Network Working Paper R-391. Inter-American Development Bank.

Monaldi, F. 2005. The role of sub-national political authorities in the national policymaking process: a comparative perspective of Latin American cases. Paper prepared for Inter-American Development Bank Workshop on State Reform, Public Policies and Policymaking Processe, February 28-March 2, Washington, DC.

Morgenstern, Scott and Benito Nacif, eds. 2002. Legislative Politics in Latin America. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.

Moro, Tomas. 2004. Indymedia. Los piqueteros argentinos en Uruguay. Indymedia.

September 14. Retrieved October 10, 2004, from http://bolivia.indymedia.org/es/2004/09/11872.shtml

Morris, Aldon and Carol McClurg, eds. 1992. Frontiers in social movement theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Murillo, M.V. 2002. Latin America Labor. In Jorge Dominguez and Michael Shifter, eds.

Constructing Democratic Governance in Latin America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

North, Douglas. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Olson, Mancur. 1971. The logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. O’Donnell, Guillermo and Philippe Schmitter, eds. 1986. Transitions from authoritarian

rule: tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Oviedo, Luis. 2001. Una historia del movimiento piquetero. De las primeras Coordinadoras a las Asambleas Nacionales. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Rumbo, 2001.

Parodi, Carlos. 2003. La Crisis Argentina. Lima: Universidad del Pacifico Press.

Passy F. and M. Giugni. 1998. Contentious Politics in Complex Society. New Social Movements between Conflict and Cooperation. In Marco Giugni, Doug McAdam, and Charles Tilly, eds. From Contention to Democracy. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield.

Patroni, V. 2002. Structural reforms and the labour movement in Argentina. Labour, Capital and Society, 35:2.

Pessino, C. 1997. Argentina: the labor market during the economic transition. In Sebastian Edwards and Nora Lustig, eds. Labor Markets in Latin America Combining Social Protection with Market Flexibility. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Rauber, I. 2002. Piquetes y piqueteros en la Argentina de la crisis. Cerrar el paso abriendo

caminos. Rebelión, Noviembre.

Rucht, D. 2003. Social Movements Challenging Neoliberal Globalization. In Pedro Ibarra, ed. Social Movements and Democracy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Salazar, L. 1999. El Concepto de Sociedad Civil (Usos y Abusos). In Peter Hengstenbrg, Karl Kohut and Gunther Maihold, eds. Sociedad Civil en América Latina:

Representación de Intereses y Gobernabilidad. Caracas: Editorial Nueva Sociedad. Salert, Barbara. 1976. Revolutions and revolutionaries. New York : Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co.

Schneider, Cathy L. 1995. Shantytown protest in Pinochet’s Chile. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Schneider, Ivan and Rodrigo Conti. 2003. Piqueteros. Una mirada histórica. Buenos Aires:

Cooperativa Chilavert.

Sindicato Mercosul. 2004. Piqueteros argentinos quieren crear una red latinoamericana. September 12. Retrieved October 15, 2004, from http://www.sindicatomercosul.com.br/noticia02.asp?noticia=17765

Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Mark Bonchek. 1997. Analyzing politics: rationality, behavior, and institutions. New York: W.W. Norton.

Shepsle, K.A. and B.R. Weingast. 1987. The institutional foundations of committee power. American Political Science Review, 81: 85-104.

Stokes, S. 2005. Perverse accountability: a formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review, 99: 315-325.

Svampa, Maristella and Sebastián Pereyra. 2003. Entre la ruta y el barrio. La experiencia de las organizaciones piqueteras. Buenos Aires: Editorial Biblos.

Tarrow, Sydney. 1998. Power in movementsocial movements and contentious politics. New York : Cambridge University Press

Taylor, M. 1990. Cooperation and rationality: notes on the collective action problem and its solutions. In Karen Cook and Margaret Levi, eds. The limits of rationality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tommasi, M. 2002. Federalism in Argentina and the Reforms of the 1990s. Working Paper 147, Stanford Center for International Development.

Touraine, Alain. 1981. The voice and the eye. An analysis of social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weitz-Shapiro, R. 2006. Partisanship and protest. The politics of workfare distribution in Argentina. Latin American Research Review, Vol. 41, No 3.

Weyland, K. 1999. Neoliberal populism in Latin America and Eastern Europe.

Comparative Politics, 1:3-31.

Zald, Mayer N. and John McCarthy, eds. 1987. Social movements in an organizational society: collected essays. New Brunswick, U.S.A.: Transaction Books

Appendix

Table 1. Unemployment rates in Latin American countries