Unexpected social policy expansion and progressive tax reforms initiated by right-wing governments in Latin America highlight the need for further theory development on the politics of redistribution. We focus on electoral competition for low-income voters in conjunction with the power of organized actors—both business and social movements. We argue that electoral competition motivates redistribution under left-wing and right-wing incumbents alike although such initiatives are more modest when conservatives dominate and business is well organized. Social mobilization drives more substantial redistribution by counterbalancing business power and focusing incumbents on securing social peace and surviving in office. By characterizing distinctive features of social-policy politics and tax-policy politics and theorizing linkages between the two realms, we contribute to broader debates on the relative influence of voters versus organized interests in policymaking. We apply our theory to explain “least-likely” cases of redistributive policies under conservative governments in Mexico (2000-2012) and Chile (2010-2014).
AnriaS.NiedzwieckiS. (2016). Social movements and social policy: The Bolivian Renta Dignidad. Studies in Comparative International Development, 51, 308-327.
2.
AnsellB.SamuelsD. (2014). Inequality and democratization: An elite-competition approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BartelsL. (2008). Unequal democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
BeramendiP.HausermanS.KitscheltH.KriesiH. (2015). The Politics of advanced capitalism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BennettA. (2015). Disciplining our conjectures: Systematizing process tracing with Bayesian analysis. In BennettA.CheckelJ. (Eds.), Process tracing in the social sciences: From metaphor to analytic tool (pp. 276-298). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BirdsallN.GrahamC.PettinatoS. (2000, August). Stuck in the tunnel: Is globalization muddling the middle class? (Brookings Institute, Center of Social and Economic Dynamics Working Paper No. 14). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
CulpepperP. (2011). Quiet politics and business power. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
13.
DelamazaG. (2010). La disputa por la participación en la democracia elitista chilena. Latin American Research Review, 45, 274-297.
14.
DonosoS. (2013). Dynamics of change in Chile: Explaining the emergence of the 2006 pingüino movement. Journal of Latin American Studies, 45, 1-29.
15.
ElizondoC. (2014). Progresividad y eficacia del gasto público en México: precondición para una política recaudatoria efectiva. Washington, DC: Latin American Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
16.
EwigC. (2016). Reform and electoral competition: Convergence toward equity in Latin American health sectors. Comparative Political Studies, 49, 184-218.
17.
FairfieldT. (2013). Going where the money is: Strategies for taxing economic elites in unequal democracies. World Development, 47, 42-57.
18.
FairfieldT. (2015a). Private wealth and public revenue in Latin America: Business power and tax politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
FairfieldT. (2015b). Structural power in comparative political economy: Perspectives from policy formulation in Latin America. Business and Politics, 17, 411-442.
20.
FairfieldT.CharmanA. E. (2017). Explicit Bayesian analysis for process tracing: Guidelines, opportunities, and caveats. Political Analysis ISSN 1047–1987.
21.
FairfieldT.Jorratt de LuisM.(2015). Top income shares, business profits, and effective tax rates in contemporary Chile. Review of Income and Wealth, 62, S120-S144.
22.
GarayC. (2007). Social policy and collective action: Unemployed workers, community associations, and protest in Argentina:Politics & Society. 35, 301-328.
23.
GarayC. (2016). Social policy expansion in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
24.
GibsonE. (1996). Class and conservative parties: Argentina in comparative perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
25.
GibsonE. (1997). The populist road to market reform: Policy and electoral coalitions in Mexico and in Argentina. World Politics, 49, 339-360.
26.
GoñiE.LópezH.ServénL. (2011). Fiscal redistribution and income inequality in Latin America. World Development, 39, 1558-1569.
27.
GraetzM.ShapiroI. (2005). Death by a thousand cuts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
HackerJ.PiersonP. (2002). Business power and social policy: Employers and the formation of the American welfare state. Politics & Society, 30, 277-325.
HaggardS.KaufmanR. (2008). Development, democracy, and welfare states: Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
HaggardS.KaufmanR.LongJ. (2013). Income, occupation, and preferences for redistribution in the developing world. Studies in Comparative International Development, 48, 113-140.
32.
HallP. (2014, March).How growth regimes evolve in the developed democracies. Presented at 21st International Conference of Europeanists, Washington, DC.
33.
HuberE.StephensJ. D. (2012). Democracy and the left: Social policy and inequality in Latin America. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
34.
HumphreysM.JacobsA. (2015). Mixing methods: A Bayesian approach. American Political Science Review, 109, 653-673.
35.
KaufmanR.Segura-UbiergoA. (2001). Globalization, domestic politics, and social spending in Latin America. World Politics, 53, 553-587.
36.
KorpiW. (2006). Power resources and employer-centered approaches in explanations of welfare states and varieties of capitalism: Protagonists, consenters, and antagonists. World Politics, 58, 168-206.
37.
LevitskyS.RobertsK. (2011). Latin America’s “left turn”: A framework for analysis. In LevitskyS.RobertsK. (Eds.), The resurgence of the Latin American left (pp. 1-28). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
38.
LiebermanE.McClendonG. (2013). The ethnicity-policy preference link in sub-Saharan Africa. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 574-602.
39.
LujambioA. (2001). Democratization through federalism? The national action party strategy, 1939-1995. In MiddlebrookK. (Ed.), Party politics and the struggle for democracy in Mexico (pp. 47-64). San Diego, CA: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.
40.
LunaJ. P. (2014). Segmented representation: Political party strategies in unequal democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
41.
LunaJ. P.AltmanD. (2011). Uprooted but stable: Chilean parties and the concept of party system institutionalization. Latin American Politics and Society, 53(2), 1-28.
42.
LupuN.PontussonJ. (2011). The structure of inequality and the politics of redistribution. American Political Science Review, 105, 316-336.
MaresI. (2003). The politics of social risk: Business and welfare state development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
45.
MartinC. J.SwankD. (2012). The political construction of business interests. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
46.
McGuireJ. (2010). Wealth, health and democracy in East Asia and Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Ministry of Education. (2015). Serie Evidencias, 31. Santiago, Chile: MINEDUC.
48.
OrtizM. (2006). El seguro popular: Una crónica de la democracia. Mexico, DF: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
49.
PiñeraS. (2010). Programa de gobierno para el cambio, el futuro, y la esperanza. Santiago de Chile, Chile: Coalición por el Cambio.
50.
PribbleJ. (2013). Welfare and party politics in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
51.
RomeroV. (2015). The political economy of progressive tax reforms in Mexico. In MahonJ.BergmanM.ArnsonC. (Eds.), Progressive tax reform and equality in Latin America (pp. 161-188). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center.
52.
SchamisH. (1999). Distributional coalitions and the politics of economic reform in Latin America. World Politics, 51, 236-268.
53.
SchneiderB. (2004). Business politics and the state in twentieth-century Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
54.
SchneiderB. (2013). Hierarchical capitalism in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
55.
Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público. (2011). El impuesto empresarial a tasa única. Mexico, DF: Author.
56.
SwensonP. (1991). Capitalists against markets. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
57.
TeichmanJ. (2002). “Private Sector Power and Market Reform: Exploring the Domestic Origins of Argentina’s Meltdown and Mexico’s Policy Failures,” Third World Quarterly, 23(3), 491-512.
58.
ThachilT. (2014). Elite parties, poor voters: How social services win votes in India. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
59.
TrumbullG. (2012). Strength in numbers: The political power of weak interests. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60.
Unda-GutierrezM. (2015, May). The battle for a superficial reform: Congressional approval process for Mexico’s 2013 tax reform. Presented at the Latin American Studies Association Conference, Puerto Rico.
61.
Van EveraS. (1997). Guide to methods for students of political science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
62.
WeylandK. (1996). Democracy without equity: Failures of reform in Brazil. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
