Argentina and Uruguay are the only democracies in Latin America (among few in the world) that have developed sustained, state-oriented national and sectoral wage bargaining between employers and unions after 2005. The article defines “segmented neo-corporatism” as a new form of centralized incomes policy in the region that applies to a substantial portion (i.e., registered workers), though not to all the labor force. Drawing on neo-corporatist theory, I explain, first, why only Argentina and Uruguay could consolidate a centralized, national wage policy in the context of the Latin American Left-Turn. Second, I test empirically the degree of state-oriented wage coordination. The study argues that monetary policy deterrence and higher levels of bargaining centralization largely explain the greater capacity of Uruguayan neo-corporatism to govern wage-setting compared with its Argentine counterpart. Finally, the article puts segmented neo-corporatism in comparative perspective in the developing world and draws some theoretical implications.
AvdagicS.RhodesM.VisserJ. (2011). Social pacts in Europe: Emergence, evolution, and institutionalization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2.
BaccaroL.HowellC. (2011). A common neoliberal trajectory: The transformation of industrial relations in advanced capitalism. Politics & Society, 39, 521-563.
3.
BaccaroL.SimoniM. (2008). Policy concertation in Europe: Understanding government choice. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 1323-1348.
4.
BogliacciniJ.FilgueiraF. (2011). Capitalismo en el cono sur de América Latina luego del final del consenso de Washington: ¿notas sin partitura? [Latin America’s Southern Cone capitalism after the end of the Washington Consensus: Notes without a script?] Revista del Clad, 51, 45-82.
5.
BogliacciniJ.QueiroloR. (2017). Uruguay 2016: mayorías parlamentarias en jaque y desafíos de revisión para Sostener el modelo [Uruguay 2016: parliamentary majorities under risk and challenges to sustain the model] Revista de Ciencia Política, 37, 589-611.
CameronD. (1984). Social democracy, corporatism, labour quiescence and the representation of economic interest in advanced capitalist society. In GoldthorpeJ. (Ed.), Order and conflict in contemporary capitalism (pp. 143-178). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
CarawayT. (2009). Labor rights in East Asia: Progress or regress?Journal of East Asian Studies, 9, 153-186.
9.
CarawayT.CookM.CrowleyS. (2015). Introduction: Labor and authoritarian legacies. In CarawayT.CookM.CrowleyS. (Eds.), Working through the past (pp. 1-24). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
10.
CardosoA.GindinJ. (2009). Industrial relations and collective bargaining: Argentina, Brazil and Mexico compared. Working Paper No 5, Industrial and Labor Relations Department, ILO, Geneva, 1-94.
11.
CarracedoF.SenatoreL. (2016). Las políticas laborales y las relaciones de trabajo durante el gobierno de José Mujica [Labor policy and labor relations under the Mujica government]. In BetancurN.BusquetsJ. (Eds.), El Decenio Progresista [The progressive decade] (pp. 17-41). Montevideo, Uruguay: Fin de Siglo.
12.
CentrángoloO.HeymannD.RamosA. (2007). Macroeconomía en recuperación: La Argentina post-crisis [Macreconomics recovering: Argentina’s post crisis]. In KosacoffB. (Ed.), Crisis, recuperación y nuevos dilemas: la economía Argentina 2002-2007 [Crisis, recovery and new dilemmas: Argentine economy 2002-2007] (pp. 27-61). Santiago, Chile: Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe.
13.
BuquetD.ChasquettiD. (2005). Elecciones Uruguay 2004: descifrando el cambio [Elections in Uruguay: Understanding change]. Revista de Ciencia Política, 25, 143-152.
14.
CollierD. (1993). Trajectory of a concept: “Corporatism” in the study of Latin American politics. In SmithP. (Ed.), Latin America in comparative perspective (pp. 135-162). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
15.
CollierD.MahoneyJ. (1996). Insights and pitfalls: Selection bias in qualitative research. World Politics, 49, 56-91.
16.
CollierR.CollierD. (1979). Inducements versus constraints: Disaggregating “corporatism.”American Political Science Review, 73, 967-986.
17.
CollierR.CollierD. (1991). Shaping the political arena: Critical junctures, the labor movement, and regime dynamics in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
CookM. (2007). The politics of labor reform in Latin America: Between flexibility and rights. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
19.
CookM.BazlerJ. (2013, April). Bringing unions back in: Labour and left governments in Latin America (ILR Working Paper 4-1). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
20.
CrowleyS. (2008, April). Does labor still matter? Eastern European labor and varieties of capitalism. Seattle, WA: National Council for Eurasian and East European Research.
21.
CrowleyS.StanojevicM. (2011). Varieties of capitalism, power resources, and historical legacies: Explaining the Slovenian exception. Politics & Society, 39, 268-295.
22.
Economic Survey of Latin America. (2013a). Economic survey of Latin America and the Caribbean: Argentina. Santiago, Chile: Author.
23.
Economic Survey of Latin America. (2013b). Economic survey of Latin America and the Caribbean: Uruguay. Santiago, Chile: Author.
24.
EtchemendyS. (2011). Models of economic liberalization: Business, workers, and compensation in Latin America, Spain, and Portugal. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
EtchemendyS. (2017, April). Neo-corporatism in South America: Wage coordination in Argentina and Uruguay (2005-2015). Paper submitted to the REPAL 4th Annual Conference, Lima, Peru.
26.
EtchemendyS.CollierR. (2007). Down but not out: Union resurgence and segmented neocorporatism in Argentina: 2003-2007. Politics & Society, 35, 363-401.
27.
FeldmannM. (2006). Emerging varieties of capitalism in transition countries: Industrial relations and wage bargaining in Estonia and Slovenia. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 829-854.
28.
FranzeseR.HallP. (2000). Institutional dimensions of coordinating wage bargaining and monetary policy. In IversenT.PontussonJ.SoskiceD. (Eds.), Unions, employers and central banks (pp. 173-204). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
GarayC. (2016). Social Policy Expansion in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
GarrettG.WayC. (2000). Public sector unions, corporatism and wage determination. In IversenT.PontussonJ.SoskiceD. (Eds.), Unions, employers and central banks (pp. 267-291). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
GarrigaA. (2016). Central bank independence in the world: A new data set. International Interactions, 42, 849-868.
32.
GerringJ. (2001). Social science methodology: A criterial framework. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
GoldenM.WallersteinM.LangeP. (1999). Postwar trade union organization and industrial relations in twelve countries. In KitscheltH.LangeP.MarksG. (Eds.), Continuity and change in contemporary capitalism (pp. 194-230). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
HallP. (1994). Central bank independence and coordinated wage bargaining: Their interaction in Germany and Europe. German Politics and Society, 31, 1-23.
35.
HallP.SoskiceD. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36.
HazansM. (2011). Informal workers across Europe: Evidence from 30 countries (Discussion Paper No. 5871). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.
37.
HuberE.StephensJ. (2012). Democracy and the left: Social policy and inequality in Latin America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38.
IversenT. (1999). Contested economic institutions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
IversenT.PontussonJ. (2000). Comparative political economy: A northern European perspective. In IversenT.PontussonJ.SoskiceD. (Eds.), Unions, employers, and central banks (pp. 1-37). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40.
KatzensteinP. (1985). Small states in world markets: Industrial policy in Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
41.
KorpiW. (2006). Power resources and employer-centered approaches in explanations of welfare states and varieties of capitalism: protagonists, consenters, and antagonists. World Politics, 58, 167-185.
42.
LanzaroJ. (1985). Sindicatos y sistema político [Unions and political system]. Montevideo, Uruguay: Fundación de Cultura Universitaria.
43.
LanzaroJ. (2011). Uruguay: A social democratic government in Latin America. In LevitskyS.RobertsK. (Eds.), The resurgence of the Latin American left (pp. 348-374). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
44.
LehmbruchG. (1977). Liberal corporatism and party government. Comparative Political Studies, 10, 91-122.
45.
LevitskyS. (2003). Transforming labor-based parties in Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
LorenzoF. (2010). La política económica del primer gobierno del Frente Amplio [The economic policy of the first broad front government]. In BustosP. (Ed.), Consenso Progresista [Progressive consensus] (pp. 145-192). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Fundación Ebert.
47.
LunaJ. P. (2007). Frente Amplio and the crafting of a social democratic alternative in Uruguay. Latin American Politics and Society, 49, 1-30.
48.
LunaJ. P. (2014). Segmented representation: Political party strategies in unequal democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
49.
MalloyJ. (Ed.). (1977). Authoritarianism and corporatism in Latin America. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
50.
MazzuchiG. (2009, November). Las Relaciones Laborales en Uruguay de 2005 a 2008 [Labor relations in Uruguay 2005-2008] (Working Paper No. 6). Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization.
51.
MolinaO.RhodesM. (2002). Corporatism: The past, present, and future of a concept. Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 305-331.
52.
MurilloV.SchrankA. (2005). With a little help from my friends: Partisan politics, transnational alliances, and labor rights in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 38, 971-999.
53.
NiedzwieckiS. (2016). Social policies, attribution of responsibility, and political alignments: A subnational analysis of Argentina and Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 49, 457-498.
54.
OstD. (2005). The defeat of solidarity: Anger and politics in postcommunist Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
55.
OstD. (2011). Illusory corporatism’ ten years later. Warsaw Forum of Economic Sociology, 2, 19-50.
56.
PérezV.PiñeiroR. (2016). Uruguay 2015: los desafíos de gobernar por izquierda cuando la economía se contrae [The challenges of governing on the left when the economy shrinks]. Revista de Ciencia Política, 36, 339-363.
57.
PriebbleJ. (2013). Welfare and party politics in Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58.
RobertsK. (2013). Changing course in Latin America: Party systems in the neoliberal era. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59.
RuedaD. (2007). Social democracy inside out: Partisanship and labor market policy in advanced industrialized democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
60.
ScharpfF. (1991). Crisis and choice in European social democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
61.
SchmitterP. (1981). Interest intermediation and regime governability in contemporary Western Europe and North America. In BergerS. (Ed.), Organizing interests in Western Europe (pp. 287-330). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
62.
SchneiderB. (2013). Hierarchical capitalism in Latin America: Business, labor, and the challenges of equitable development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
63.
SchrankA.KurtzM. (2005). Credit where credit is due: Open economy industrial policy and export diversification in Latin America and the Caribbean. Politics & Society, 33, 671-702.
64.
Schulze-ClevenT. (2017). Collective action and globalization: Building and mobilizing labour power. Journal of Industrial Relations, 59, 397-419.
65.
SilR. (2017, March). Labor’s travails in postcommunist Eastern Europe. Current History, 88-94.
66.
SkocpolT.SommersM. (1980). The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22, 174-197.
67.
SoskiceD.IversenT. (2000). The non-neutrality of monetary policy with large price or wage setters. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 265-284.
68.
StreeckW. (2006). The study of organized interests: Before “the century” and after. In CrouchC.StreeckW. (Eds.), The diversity of democracy (pp. 3-45). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
69.
SwensonP. (1991). Labor and the limits of the welfare state. Comparative Politics, 23, 379-399.
70.
ThelenK. (2014). Varieties of liberalization and the new politics of social solidarity: The politics of intraclass conflict and cross-class alliances in Sweden and West Germany. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
71.
WallersteinM.GoldenM. (2000). Postwar wage setting in the Nordic countries. In IversenT.PontussonJ.SoskiceD. (Eds.), Unions, employers, and central banks (pp. 107-137). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University 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.
