Post-neoliberalism in Latin America: a conceptual review

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.

Keywords:

• Post-neoliberalism
• conceptual review
• social policy
• Latin America

Acknowledgements

We thank the reviewers for their excellent comments.

Notes

1. Not all Latin American countries experienced this upsurge of popular protest against neoliberalisation. As noted by Kenneth Roberts, “Mobilisation of Opposition”, the turn to the left was the result of popular mobilisation against neoliberalism and the breakdown of the dominant party system in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, while in other countries like Chile, Uruguay and Brazil, the shift to the left could be seen more accurately as the result of the maturation of the democratic system and a normal pendular swing away from incumbent regimes rather than a broad popular movement favouring a fundamental shift in public policies. Moreover, in some countries, like Mexico, a shift to the left never materialised despite widespread popular protest and the emergence of a leftist alternative. See also Silva, Challenging Neoliberalism in Latin America.

2. Macdonald and Ruckert, Post-Neoliberalism in the Americas.

3. Webber, “Bolivia’s Reconstituted Neoliberalism.”

4. Bakker, “Neoliberal versus Postneoliberal Water.”

5. Brand, Sekler, and Melber, Postneoliberalism – A Beginning Debate. 51.

6. Rovira Kaltwasser, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America?”

7. Marston, “Autonomy in a Post-Neoliberal Era,” 247; see also Macdonald and Ruckert, Post-Neoliberalism in the Americas.

8. A limitation of this methodology is that only English-language articles were identified. Future research should include literature in French, Spanish and Portuguese at a minimum.

9. Harvey, Short History of Neoliberalism, 2.

10. Springer, “Postneoliberalism?”

11. Brand, Sekler, and Melber, Postneoliberalism – A Beginning Debate, 109.

12. Novo, “Managing Diversity in Postneoliberal Ecuador.”

13. Assies, “Land Tenure in Bolivia”; Castaneda, “Latin America’s Left Turn”; Walsh, “Affirmative Action(ing)s and Postneoliberal Movement.”

14. Cannon and Hume, “Central America, Civil Society”; de Freitas, Marston, and Bakker, “Not-Quite-Neoliberal Natures”; Fernandes and Arantes, “Rethinking Integration in Latin America”; Tsloaki, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America?”

15. Simon-kumar, “Analytics of ‘Gendering.’”

16. Akcali, Yanik, and Hung, “Inter-Asian (Post-)Neoliberalism?”

17. de Freitas, Marston, and Bakker, “Not-Quite-Neoliberal Natures.”

18. Kennemore and Weeks, “Twenty-First Century Socialism?”

19. Bebbington and Bebbington, “Andean Avatar.”

20. Marston, “Autonomy in a Post-Neoliberal Era.”

21. Springer, “Postneoliberalism?”

22. Brand, Sekler, and Melber, Postneoliberalism – A Beginning Debate.

23. de Freitas, Marston, and Bakker, “Not-Quite-Neoliberal Natures.”

24. Katz, “Dualities of Latin America.”

25. Gallegos, “Political Change, State Autonomy; Mejido Costoya, “Politics of Trade”; Rovira Kaltwasser, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America?”; Veltmeyer, “Natural Resource Dynamics.”

26. Marston, “Autonomy in a Post-Neoliberal Era.”

27. Mejido Costoya, “Politics of Trade,” 90.

28. Merino Acuña, “What Is ‘Post.’”

29. Gallegos, “Political Change, State Autonomy.”

30. Arsel, “Between ‘Marx and Markets’?”

31. Bebbington and Bebbington, “Andean Avatar.”

32. Kennemore and Weeks, “Twenty-First Century Socialism?”

33. Merino Acuña, “What Is ‘Post.’”

34. Veltmeyer, “Natural Resource Dynamics.”

35. Yates and Bakker, “Debating the ‘Post-Neoliberal Turn.’”

36. Bebbington and Bebbington, “Andean Avatar”; de Freitas, Marston, and Bakker, “Not-Quite-Neoliberal Natures”; Kennemore and Weeks, “Twenty-First Century Socialism?”

37. Riggirozzi, “Social Policy.”

38. Bebbington and Bebbington, “Andean Avatar”; Riggirozzi, “Social Policy.”

39. Riggirozzi, “Social Policy,” 11.

40. Gallegos, “Political Change, State Autonomy”; Holst, “Colonial Histories and Decolonial Dreams.”

41. Cisneros and Christel, “Democracy Deficit.”

42. Dello Buono, “Collapsing Ideological Supports of Neoliberalism,” 21.

43. Katz, “Dualities of Latin America.”

44. This agreement would have extended the policies of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (including increased privatisation and deregulation), eliminating or reducing the trade barriers among all of the countries in the Americas (except Cuba).

45. Dello Buono, “Collapsing Ideological Supports of Neoliberalism.”

46. Riggirozzi and Tussie, Rise of Post-Hegemonic Regionalism, 12.

47. Malamud, “Leader without Followers?”

48. Riggirozzi and Tussie, Rise of Post-Hegemonic Regionalism.

49. Peck, Theodore, and Brenner, “Postneoliberalism and Its Malcontents.”

50. Mejido Costoya, “Politics of Trade,” 82, 85.

51. Ibid.

52. Grugel and Riggirozzi, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America”; Veltmeyer, “Natural Resource Dynamics.”

53. Burges, “Building a Global Southern Coalition.”

54. Merino Acuña, “What Is ‘Post.’”

55. Grugel and Riggirozzi, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America”; Riggirozzi, “Social Policy.”

56. Gallegos, “Political Change, State Autonomy.”

57. Grugel and Riggirozzi, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America.”

58. Luna and Rovira Kaltwasser, Resilience of the Latin American Right.

59. Burchardt and Dietz, “(Neo-)extractivism – A New Challenge,” 474.

60. Grugel and Riggirozzi, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America,” 195.

61. Tsloaki, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America?”

62. Clark, “Food Sovereignty, Post-Neoliberalism.”

63. Kennemore and Weeks, “Twenty-First Century Socialism?”; Riggirozzi, “Social Policy.”

64. Assies, “Land Tenure in Bolivia.”

65. Gallegos, “Political Change, State Autonomy,” 11.

66. Radcliffe, “Development for a Postneoliberal Era?”

67. Clark, “Food Sovereignty, Post-Neoliberalism,” 184.

68. Kennemore and Weeks, “Twenty-First Century Socialism?”

69. Gallegos, “Political Change, State Autonomy”; Grugel and Riggirozzi, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America”; Riggirozzi, “Social Policy.”

70. Grugel and Riggirozzi, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America.”

71. Ettlinger and Hartmann, “Post/neo/liberalism in Relational Perspective.”

72. Dahlstrom, “Education in a Post-Neoliberal Era,” 167.

73. Lavinas, “Twenty-first Century Welfare”.

74. Lind, “‘Revolution with a Woman’s Face’?”

75. Ibid.

76. Ibid.

77. Friedman, “Gender, Sexuality,” 415.

78. Kampwirth, Latin America’s New Left, 34–6.

79. Radcliffe, “Development for a Postneoliberal Era?”

80. Grugel and Riggirozzi, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America.”

81. Simon-Kumar, “Analytics of ‘Gendering.’” 452.

82. Riggirozzi, “Social Policy.”

83. Merino Acuña, “What Is ‘Post.’”

84. Grugel and Riggirozzi, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America.”

85. Errejon and Guijarro, “Post-Neoliberalism’s Difficult Hegemonic Consolidation.”

86. Merino Acuña, “What Is ‘Post’”; Radcliffe, “Development for a Postneoliberal Era?”

87. Kennemore and Weeks, “Twenty-First Century Socialism?,” 268.

88. Walsh, “Affirmative Action(ing)s and Postneoliberal Movement.”

89. Etlinger and Hartmann, “Post/neo/liberalism in Relational Perspective,” 39.

90. Grugel and Riggirozzi, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America,” 7.

91. Merino Acuña, “What Is ‘Post.’”

92. Tsloaki, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America?”

93. See, for example, Weyland, “Threat from the Populist Left”; Hawkins, “Responding to Radical Populism”; de la Torre and Ortiz Lemos, “Populist Polarisation and the Slow Death.”

94. Ettlinger and Hartmann, “Post/neo/liberalism in Relational Perspective”; Marston, “Autonomy in a Post-neoliberal Era.”

95. Grugel and Riggirozzi, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America,” 14.

96. Bebbington and Bebbington, “Andean Avatar”; Holst, “Colonial Histories and Decolonial Dreams”; Veltmeyer, “Natural Resource Dynamics of Postneoliberalism.”

97. Cisneros and Christel, “Democracy Deficit,” 124.

98. Martson, “Autonomy in a Post-neoliberal Era.”

99. Holst, “Colonial Histories and Decolonial Dreams.”

100. Arsel, “Between ‘Marx and Markets’?”

101. Bebbington and Bebbington, “Andean Avatar.”

102. Gallegos, “Political Change, State Autonomy,” 12.

103. Kennemore and Weeks, “Twenty-First Century Socialism?”

104. Ettlinger and Hartmann, “Post/neo/liberalism in Relational Perspective.”

105. Arsel, “Between ‘Marx and Markets’?”

106. Merino Acuña, “What Is ‘Post.’”

107. Cannon and Hume, “Central America, Civil Society,” 1043.

108. Ibid.

109. Kennemore and Weeks, “Twenty-First Century Socialism?”

110. Cockburn, “Neoliberal Governance, Developmental Regimes.”

111. Rovira Kaltwasser, “Towards Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America?”

112. Anria, “Social Movements, Party Organisation.”

113. de Freitas, Marston, and Bakker, “Not-Quite-Neoliberal Natures”; Ettlinger and Hartmann, “Post/neo/liberalism in Relational Perspective”; Grugel and Riggirozzi, “Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America”; Kennemore and Weeks, “Twenty-First Century Socialism?”; Laing, “Beyond the Zeitgeist”; Merino Acuña, “What Is ‘Post.’”

114. Bebbington and Bebbington, “Andean Avatar.”

115. Note that most observers would not include Peru in the post-neoliberal category, since although Ollanta Humala (2011–2016) campaigned on the left, his policies were largely in line with neo-liberalism.

116. Novo, “Managing Diversity in Postneoliberal Ecuador.”

117. Ettlinger and Hartmann, “Post/neo/liberalism in Relational Perspective.”

118. de Freitas, Marston, and Bakker, “Not-Quite-Neoliberal Natures.”

119. Ibid.; Laing, “Beyond the Zeitgeist.”

120. de Freitas, Marston, and Bakker, “Not-Quite-Neoliberal Natures”; Marston, “Autonomy in a Post-Neoliberal Era.”

121. Holst, “Colonial Histories and Decolonial Dreams”; Novo, “Managing Diversity in Postneoliberal Ecuador.”

122. Ettlinger and Hartmann, “Post/neo/liberalism in Relational Perspective”; Kennemore and Weeks, “Twenty-First Century Socialism?”; Merino Acuña, “What Is ‘Post.’”

123. Jessop, “Putting Neoliberalism in Its Time.”

124. Ibid., 63.

125. Peck, Theodore, and Brenner, “Postneoliberalism and Its Malcontents”; Rovira Kaltwasser, “Towards Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America?”; Springer, “Postneoliberalism?”

126. Arsel, “Between ‘Marx and Markets’”; Bebbington and Bebbington, “Andean Avatar”; Kennemore and Weeks, “Twenty-First Century Socialism?”; Marston, “Autonomy in a Post-Neoliberal Era”; Webber, “Bolivia’s Reconstituted Neoliberalism.”

127. Rovira Kaltwasser, “Towards Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America?”

128. Laing, “Beyond the Zeitgeist,” 1053.

129. Katz, “Dualities of Latin America,” 10.

130. Merino Acuña, “What Is ‘Post.’”

131. Springer, “Postneoliberalism?”

132. Ibid., 6.

133. Veltmeyer, “Natural Resource Dynamics of Postneoliberalism.”

134. Singh, “China and the Evolving Geo-Economics.”

135. Kennemore and Weeks, “Twenty-First Century Socialism?,” 267.