Exploring the origins of polarizing populism: Insights from the Peronist struggle over rights

Much of the literature on populism, including that on Peronism in Argentina, focuses on the us/them, good versus evil, nature of populist rhetoric as instrumental in polarizing society and eroding democracy. This work challenges this perspective by placing an analysis of Peron’s speeches (from 1943 to 1955) within the pre-existing historical context of division between urban elites and poor rural masses. The work argues that Peronist rhetoric, while shaped by this context, nevertheless developed its core populist features over time. Initially, Peronist discourse displayed conciliatory and inclusive features. It is only from 1949 that a Manichean discourse emerges, the consequence of an interactive process in which both Peronism and anti-Peronism become radicalized, each side responding to rhetoric and actions taken by opponents. Contestation comes to center on the issue of political versus social rights. These findings suggest that the widespread focus on populist rhetorical features as instrumental in creating political polarization may obfuscate more complex underlying processes. Resumen: Explorando los orígenes del populismo polarizador: Ideas sobre la lucha peronista por los derechosGran parte de la bibliografía sobre el populismo, incluida la relativa al peronismo en Argentina, se centra en la naturaleza del nosotros/ellos, el bien contra el mal, de la retórica populista como instrumento polarizador de la sociedad y erosionador de la democracia. Este trabajo desafía esta perspectiva al situar un análisis de los discursos de Perón (de 1943 a 1955) dentro del contexto histórico preexistente de división entre las élites urbanas y las masas rurales pobres. El trabajo argumenta que la retórica peronista, aunque moldeada por este contexto, desarrolló sin embargo sus rasgos populistas fundamentales a lo largo del tiempo. Inicialmente, el discurso peronista mostraba rasgos conciliadores e inclusivos. Sólo a partir de 1949 surge un discurso maniqueo, consecuencia de un proceso interactivo en el que tanto el peronismo como el antiperonismo se radicalizan, respondiendo cada bando a la retórica y a las acciones de los oponentes. La contestación llega a centrarse en la cuestión de los derechos políticos frente a los sociales. Estos hallazgos sugieren que el enfoque generalizado en las características retóricas de las listas populares como instrumento para crear la polarización política puede ofuscar procesos subyacentes más complejos.

The neoliberal turn in latin america: the cycle of ideas and the search for an alternative

The role of ideas has been neglected, in comparison with the role of interests and institutions, in the literature on neoliberal reform in Latin America. While ideas were not the primary cause of neoliberal reform, their development, articulation, and dissemination are a significant part of the story of the rise and fall of the “Washington Consensus.” The neoliberalism of the 1980s and 1990s lost credibility and capacity to provide politically feasible policy guidelines because it was based on an elitist, exclusionary pact among small groups of experts and elites representing the interests of transnational capital. Only by understanding the origins and limitations of the ideas behind neoliberal reform can a new, more inclusive economic model for Latin America be created

The theory and practice of building developmental states in the Global South

Reviewing decades of thinking regarding the role of the state in economic development, we argue for the continued relevance of the concept of the ‘developmental state’. With reference to Argentina, Brazil, Ethiopia, Rwanda and China, we contend that new developmental states are evidence of a move beyond the historical experience of East Asian development. Further, we argue for the applicability of the developmental state framework to key questions of governance, institution building, industrial policy and the extractive industries, as well as to a wide variety of cases of successful and failed state-led development in the early twenty-first century