Latin American capitalism: economic and social policy in transition

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Acknowledgements

The papers for this special issue were presented to a conference entitled Social Policy, Economic Development and Income Inequality: Latin America in Comparative Perspective, which took place in London on 31 May and 1 June 2007 with funding from the British Academy. We thank participants at the conference, as well as Andrew Schrank, for their contributions.

Notes

1. The elite share of income in Latin America remains the highest in the world: while in the advanced industrialized countries the income share of the top decile fluctuates between 20 and 30 per cent, in Latin America it ranges from a low 34 per cent in Uruguay to 47.2 per cent in Bolivia, with Colombia, Brazil, Chile and Paraguay very close behind.

2. The varieties of capitalism and welfare regime literatures have different origins and different objectives, with the first concentrating on production systems and the second on social policy and welfare provision. The two approaches also have some analytical differences regarding the role of firms and trade unions in the explanation of capitalist varieties in OECD countries [see, for example, the debate between Korpi (2006) and Iversen & Soskice (2007)]. For our current discussion of Latin American capitalism, however, the similarities – including their attention to diversity within capitalism, the weakness of liberal models and the interlocking of social policy, economic development and the labour market – are more relevant and allow us to consider them together.

3. We borrow some of these arguments from private correspondence with Andrew Schrank.

4. As Perraton's contribution to this special issue shows, significant change has actually taken place all over the world, resulting in more hybrid varieties even in developed countries. Yet there is some evidence that the policy and institutional changes in Latin America tend to be larger than in more developed parts of the world.

5. The state is obviously not the only variable absent from the HME model that can explain diversity between countries. In their comparison of Argentina and Brazil, Lewis and Lloyd-Sherlock's article in this issue highlights the importance of the economic structure (e.g. the size of the rural sector) and political regimes (e.g. absence or presence of democracy) in explaining the diverse development of social insurance. Focusing on the behaviour of firms, Schrank (forthcoming) highlights the importance of the agricultural legacy (i.e. global exposure of agricultural production and property relations in the rural sector) in explaining diversity within and between countries in comparative advantages and technological learning.