This article explores the challenge of building state autonomy as a driver of development processes in peripheral economies. More specifically, it explores how to build stable and lasting political processes in economies subject to high economic volatility and external dependence. To this end, I develop the concept of Structural State Autonomy understood as a relational and situated process, immersed in global asymmetries and a product of internal dynamics that shape conflict and cooperation among local actors. I take issue with this debate by analysing the progressive fiscal reforms in Uruguay during the 2000s by studying the Tax Reform aimed at improving income distribution and the New Investment Regime that modifies capital tax exemptions. The article shows that institutionalized, stable, and broad-based dialogues between the state and society have consolidated the Structural State Autonomy in Uruguay. In effect, granting partial benefits to different groups, through articulated and non-rival negotiated agreements that include local elites, grassroots actors, and transnational capital, has allowed the implementation of successful, albeit moderate, progressive tax reforms in Uruguay.
AlamiI (2018) Money power of capital and production of ‘new state spaces’: a view from the global south. New Political Economy23(4): 512–529.
2.
AlamiIDixonADMawdsleyE (2021) State capitalism and the new global D/development regime. Antipode53(5): 1294–1318.
3.
AmaranteVColafranceschiMVigoritoA (2011) Uruguay’s Income Inequality and Political Regimes during 1981-2010 (No. 2011/94). WIDER Working Paper.
4.
AminS (1974) Accumulation and development: a theoretical model. Review of African Political Economy1(1): 9–26.
5.
AndrewsDM (1994) Capital mobility and state autonomy: toward a structural theory of international monetary relations. International Studies Quarterly38(2): 193–218.
6.
AntíaF (2019) The political dynamic of redistribution in unequal democracies: the center-left governments of Chile and Uruguay in comparative perspective. Latin American Perspectives46(1): 152–166.
7.
Arenas de MesaA (2016) Sostenibilidad fiscal y reformas tributarias en América Latina. (LC/G.2688-P). Santiago: Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe.
8.
BarreixARocaJVillelaL (2007) Fiscal policy and equity estimation of the progressivity and redistributive capacity of taxes and social public expenditure in the Andean countries. Documento de Trabajo ITD33, BID-INTAL.
9.
BértolaLuisOcampoAntonio (2012) The economic development of Latin America since independence.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–352, In press.
10.
BittencourtGReigNRodríguezC (2019) La transnacionalización de la economía uruguaya 1990-2017. Documento de Trabajo/FCS-Decon. 06/19.
11.
BogliacciniJALunaJP (2016) Deflecting my burden, hindering redistributionHow Elites Influence Tax Legislation in Latin America. WIDER Working Paper, 92.
12.
BrinksDMLevitskySMurilloMV (eds) (2020) The Politics of Institutional Weakness in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
13.
Bulmer-ThomasV (2003) The Economic History of Latin America since Independence. Cambridge University Press.
14.
BussoMMessinaJ (2020) The inequality crisis: Latin America and the Caribbean at the Crossroads. Inter-American Development Bank32(10): 2629.
15.
CampelloD (2015) The Politics of Market Discipline in Latin America: Globalization and Democracy. Cambridge University Press.
16.
CarbajalFCarrascoPCazuloP, et al. (2014) Una Evaluación Económica de los Incentivos Fiscales a la Inversión en Uruguay. Instituto de Economía. Serie Documentos de Trabajo DT 20/14.
17.
CastañedaN (2017) Business coordination and tax politics. Political Studies65(1): 122–143.
18.
CastañedaNDoyleD (2019) Progressive tax policy and informal labor in developing economies. Governance32(4): 595–618.
19.
Centro de Estudios Fiscales (CEF) (2012) Costo-Beneficio de Los Incentivos Tributarios en Uruguay. Uruguay.
20.
ClarkeS (1991) State, class struggle, and the reproduction of capitalThe State Debate. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 183–203.
21.
De PaulaLFFritzBPratesDM (2017) Keynes at the periphery: currency hierarchy and challenges for economic policy in emerging economies. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics40(2): 183–202.
22.
DonerRFSchneiderBR (2016) The middle-income trap: more politics than economics. World Politics68(4): 608–644.
23.
DosST (1970) The structure of dependence. The American Economic Review60(2): 231.
24.
D’ArcyM (2011) Why Do Citizens Assent to Pay Tax? Legitimacy, Taxation and the African State. Afrobarometer Working Paper No. 126.
25.
EvansPB (1995) Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton University Press.
26.
EvansPHellerP (2018) The State and Development. Vol. 9292565540. WIDER Working Paper.
27.
FairfieldT (2015) Structural power in comparative political economy: perspectives from policy formulation in Latin America. Business and Politics17(3): 411–441.
28.
FischerAM (2015) The end of peripheries? On the enduring relevance of structuralism for understanding contemporary global development. Development and Change46(4): 700–732.
29.
Flores-MaciasG (ed) (2019) The Political Economy of Taxation in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
30.
HaggardS (1990) Pathways from the Periphery: The Politics of Growth in the Newly Industrializing Countries. Cornell University Press.
31.
HaggardSKaufmannR (1995) The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
32.
HallerbergMScartasciniC (2017) Explaining changes in tax burdens in Latin America: do politics trump economics?European Journal of Political Economy48: 162–179.
33.
HellerPRueschemeyerDSnyderR (2009) Dependency and development in a globalized world: looking back and forward. Studies in Comparative International Development44: 287–295.
34.
KaltenbrunnerAPainceiraJP (2015) Developing countries’ changing nature of financial integration and new forms of external vulnerability: the Brazilian experience. Cambridge Journal of Economics39: 1281–1306.
35.
KaminskyGLReinhartCM (1998) Financial crises in Asia and Latin America: then and now. The American Economic Review88(2): 444–448.
36.
LevitskySRobertsKM (eds) (2011) The Resurgence of the Latin American Left. Johns Hopkins University Press.
37.
LlambíCLaensSPereraM, et al. (2009) Evaluación del Impacto de la Reforma Tributaria de 2007 Sobre la Pobreza y la Desigualdad en Uruguay. Centro de Investigaciones Económicas (CINVE).
38.
MahonJJamesE (2011) Tax reforms and income distribution in Latin AmericaThe Great Gap: Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution in Latin America, Vol. 313.
39.
MilibandR (1969). The State in Capitalist Society. Londres: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
40.
MilibandR (1983) State power and class interests. New Left Review138(1): 57–68.
41.
MosleyL (2003) Global Capital and National Governments. Cambridge University Press.
42.
NegriAFlemingJ (1984). Marx beyond marx: lessons on the grundrisse.
43.
PolanyiK (1957) Aristotle discovers the economy. In: PolanyiKArensbergCPearsonH (eds) Trade and Market in the Early Empires. Chicago: Henry Regnery, 64–94.
44.
PratesDMFritzBde PaulaLF (2020) Varieties of developmentalism: a critical assessment of the PT governments. Latin American Perspectives47(1): 45–64.
RiusA (2015) The Uruguayan tax reform of 2006: why didn’t it fail? In: MahonJEBergmanMArnsonC (eds) Progressive Tax Reform and Equality in Latin America. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 64–100.
47.
RudraN (2008) Globalization and the Race to the Bottom in Developing Countries. Cambridge Books.
48.
Sánchez-AncocheaD (2020) The Costs of Inequality in Latin America: Lessons and Warnings for the Rest of the World. Bloomsbury Publishing.
49.
SchneiderBR (2013) Hierarchical Capitalism in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
50.
Segura-UbiergoA (2007) The Political Economy of the Welfare State in Latin America: Globalization, Democracy, and Development. Cambridge University Press.
51.
SkocpolT (1989) Reconsidering the French revolution in world-historical perspective. Social Research: 53–70.
52.
SwankD (2002) Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed Welfare States. Cambridge University Press.
53.
UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2023) The State of Commodity Dependence.
54.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2014) Inversiones en Uruguay: Oportunidades y Riegos. El Futuro en Foco. Cuadernos sobre Desarrollo Humano.
55.
UruguayXXI (2018) Boom de IED en Uruguay y su impacto en las exportaciones de bienes. Documento de Trabajo N°13.
56.
Villegas PláBPeñaAM (2024) Development, democracy, and dependence in the Southern Cone: political coalitions, stabilizing mechanisms, and their hazards. Review of International Political Economy: 1–24.
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.
