NUEVA SOCIEDAD NRO.

217 SEPTIEMBRE-OCTUBRE 2008

Is Social Democracy Possible in Latin
America?
KENNETH M. ROBERTS
The shift to the Left in Latin America opened an intense debate over the
possibilities of social democracy in the region. The origins of social
democracy in Western Europe was due to a series of historical and political
conditions which are not now to be found in Latin America, from an economy
based essentially on industrial production to a majority sector of organized
workers. On the other hand, the neoliberal policies applied in the region have
produced a marked heterogeneity of the labour force and a deepening of
social inequalities which make the prospects more complicated. Despite this,
the article argues that a local version of social democracy could prosper in
Latin America, above all in those countries with stable political systems and
consolidated democratic regimes, such as Uruguay, Chile and Brazil.
Kenneth M. Roberts: Ph.D., Stanford University; Professor at Cornell University.
Some of his latest books are Party System Change in Latin Americas Neoliberal Era
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, forthcoming); co-edited ith !ohn "#rdick
y Phili$ %&horn, Beyond Neoliberalism? Patterns, Responses, and New irections in Latin
America and the Caribbean (Palgrave-'ac'illan, (#eva )ork, forthcoming); eepening
emocracy? !he "odern Le#t and Social "o$ements in Chile and Per% (Stanford Univer*
sity Press, Stanford, +,,-).
Key Words: Politics, .eft, Social Democracy, /#ro$e, .atin 0merica.
Since +,,-, left-leaning governments have been elected in nine different .atin 0meri*
can co#ntries. 1his #n$recedented $olitical shift has $laced nearly to-thirds of the
regional $o$#lation #nder some sort of leftist administration, and it has shredded the
so-called 23ashington Consens#s4 for free market or neoliberal reform. 3hat lies be*
yond neoliberalism, hoever, is #ncertain, and it is a so#rce of considerable $olitical
NUEVA SOCIEDAD 217
Kenneth M. Roberts / Is Social Democracy Possible in Latin America?
contention. Some observers believe that little has changed, ass#ming that global mar*
ket forces ill narro the range of $olicy o$tions and disci$line leaders ho stray too
far from liberal norms (5akim 6778; 3eyland 6779). %thers, more omino#sly, arn of
a revival of demagogic $o$#lism and its traditional $olitical correlates:nationalism,
statism, and a#thoritarianism (Casta;eda 677<; =argas .losa 677>). Still others raise
the $ossibility of a .atin 0merican variant of social democracy emerging in the after*
math of neoliberal restr#ct#ring:an alternative that combines re$resentative democ*
racy ith a market economy and state initiatives to red#ce ine?#alities and $romote
social citi@enshi$ (.an@aro 677>)
1his essay e&$lores the $ros$ects for this latter o#tcome. At dras from the /#ro$ean
and .atin 0merican e&$eriences to identify vario#s str#ct#ral and instit#tional con*
straints on the develo$ment of contem$orary social democratic alternatives. "#t it
also tries to identify $olitical o$$ort#nities to advance toard social democratic goals,
and to e&$lain ho that reform $rocess is likely to differ from the one fo#nd histori*
cally in 3estern /#ro$e. A arg#e that by orking to red#ce ine?#alities and e&$and
social citi@enshi$ rights ithin the constraints of re$resentative democracy and mar*
ket economies, the .atin 0merican .eft is $laying on the general terrain of social
democracy. 1he conto#rs of this terrain, hoever, are markedly different from those
hich s$aned the classic cases of social democracy in northern /#ro$e, virt#ally as*
s#ring that any $ath to social democracy in .atin 0merica ill traverse a distinct
ro#te and c#lminate at a different destination.
Historical Context and the Constraints on Social Democracy in Latin
America
0re social democratic alternatives viable in .atin 0mericaB At is easy to res$ond to
this ?#estion ith the assertion that 2the conditions donCt e&ist.4 0fter all, social
democracy emerged and thrived in a $artic#lar $lace and time: northern and central
/#ro$e at the middle of the 67
th
cent#ry:#nder a s$ecific set of societal conditions.
1hose societal conditions ere not re$licated in the United State (.i$set and 'arks
6777) or .atin 0merica historically, and they ere a far cry from the conditions $re*
vailing in .atin 0merica today. As it not 2conce$t#al stretching4 (Sartori +,>7), then,
to a$$ly the term no to $olitical e&$eriments taking $lace in radically different geo*
gra$hical and historical settingsB As it not obvio#s that these $olitical e&$eriments and
NUEVA SOCIEDAD 216
Kenneth M. Roberts / Is Social Democracy Possible in Latin America?
their affiliated social and economic reforms are different from those hich defined
the social democratic model historically in /#ro$eB
1hese obDections are tr#e, b#t also somehat trite, as it is alays $ossible to identify
sing#lar $ro$erties in a com$le& social reality. Some of the most $rominent and con*
crete feat#res of /#ro$ean social democracy:s#ch as com$rehensive and #niversalis*
tic elfare states, high levels of trade #nion density, and tri$artite cor$oratist bargain*
ing:may not be f#lly re$licable elsehere. Andeed, /#ro$eans themselves vigoro#sly
debate their ongoing viability in conte&ts of changing demogra$hic str#ct#res, labor
markets, and ca$ital mobility (5#ber and Ste$hens 677+; Pierson 677+). "#t as Sartori
(+,>7) sagely s#ggested, generali@ability is a f#nction of the level of conce$t#al ab*
straction:and at a more abstract level, there is little do#bt that at least $art of the
.atin 0merican .eft is engaged in a social democratic form of $olitics. 1hat is, they
are o$erating ithin the instit#tional constraints of re$resentative democracy and the
str#ct#ral constraints of market economies to red#ce ine?#alities and $romote social
citi@enshi$. Stri$$ed to its core, the essence of social democracy is the democratic re*
form of ca$italism in the interest of social D#stice or e?#ality. 0nd s#rely, that is hat
m#ch of the .atin 0merican .eft is striving toards today.
/mbedded ithin this essential core are several im$licit, b#t nonetheless cr#cial, defi*
nitional attrib#tes that differentiate social democracy from both liberal democracy
and from the .eninist branch of the socialist tradition (ith hich it shares common
roots; see "erman 677<). Social democracy incor$orates liberal democracyCs res$ect
for individ#al rights and liberties, along ith its commitment to com$etitive elections
as a set of instit#tional r#les and $roced#res for managing $olitical $l#ralism. At adds
to liberal democracy an abiding concern ith social and economic ine?#ality, a ill*
ingness to #se $#blic a#thority to red#ce those ine?#alities, and a commitment to
forms of social citi@enshi$ that am$lify the $olitical rights of liberal democracy. An
contrast to the .eninist tradition, social democracy $#rs#es egalitarian obDectives by
means of democratic com$etition rather than a revol#tionary con?#est of state $oer.
At also aims to reform ca$italism rather than abolish it:in other ords, it does not
seek to eliminate $rivate ca$ital or the market$lace, b#t rather to s#bDect them to
forms of collective control and ta&ation so that they are acco#ntable to larger societal
needs. 1he reform of ca$italism #nder democracy also disting#ishes social democracy
from m#ch of .atin 0mericaCs $o$#list tradition, hich $#rs#ed similar redistrib#*
tive reforms, b#t often did so by concentrating $olitical a#thority in the hands of a
dominant $ersonality or $olitical movement in violation of democratic norms.
NUEVA SOCIEDAD 217
Kenneth M. Roberts / Is Social Democracy Possible in Latin America?
Clearly, a social democratic $olitical $roDect is more likely to emerge and thrive in
some conte&ts than others. Andeed, str#ct#ral and instit#tional conditions not only in*
fl#ence the prospects for social democracy, b#t also the $olitical and economic feat#res
of any social democratic $roDect that does emerge. /#ro$ean social democracy, for e&*
am$le, as heavily conditioned historically by the str#ct#ral logic of ca$italist ind#s*
triali@ation, hich concentrated large n#mbers of age laborers in strategic #rban in*
d#strial centers that ere cond#ctive to class-based collective action. An an instit#tion*
al conte&t here orkers initially lacked s#ffrage and citi@enshi$ rights, collective
str#ggles over ages and orking conditions became nat#rally linked to larger str#g*
gles for democratic $olitical rights. 5ence as born the #ni?#e set of class-based so*
cio-$olitical instit#tions:namely, mass labor #nions and labor-based socialist $arties
:that str#ct#red /#ro$ean $arty systems and $olitical com$etition for the better $art
of the 67
th
cent#ry (see "artolini 6777). 1he #nion-$arty ne&#s as central to the de*
velo$ment of cor$oratist $atterns of interest re$resentation and the tri$artite bargain*
ing arrangements that hel$ed make /#ro$ean variants of ca$italism more 2orga*
ni@ed4 than the liberal (orth 0merican variant. .ikeise, the #nion-$arty ne&#s
shifted the balance of class $oer in ays that ere cond#cive to the develo$ment of
strong elfare states: highlighted by #niversal rights to social citi@enshi$:as $art
of the democratic class com$romise beteen ca$ital and labor (Pr@eorski +,-E).
(eedless to say, str#ct#ral and instit#tional conditions in contem$orary .atin 0meri*
ca bear little resemblance to those that gave rise to social democracy in 3estern /#*
ro$e. 1hree str#ct#ral differences stand o#t. First, delayed and de$endent ind#strial*
i@ation in .atin 0merica never created a man#fact#ring sector as large and economi*
cally vital as that in most of the 3est /#ro$ean co#ntries here social democracy
thrived. Anstead, the service sector ballooned as #rbani@ation $roceeded over the
co#rse of the 67
th
cent#ry. An 677<, man#fact#ring only acco#nted for +< $ercent of the
regional GDP (C/P0. 677>H ,+), less than the fig#re for the +,>7s at the end of the era
of im$ort s#bstit#tion ind#striali@ation (ASA). Af social democracy comes to .atin
0merica, it ill not arrive as the $olitical correlate to heavy ind#striali@ation.
0 second, and closely related, str#ct#ral condition is the fragmented character of
.atin 0merican labor markets. 1he ind#strial labor force only com$rises 6+ $ercent of
the economically active $o$#lation in .atin 0merica today, com$ared to E- $ercent in
the service sectors (C/P0. 677>H 96). 'any of the latter are engaged in informal eco*
nomic activities; regionide, the $ercentage of the orkforce em$loyed in informal
sectors ranges from a lo of 87 $ercent in co#ntries like Chile and Costa Iica to near*
NUEVA SOCIEDAD 216
Kenneth M. Roberts / Is Social Democracy Possible in Latin America?
ly <7 $ercent in "olivia (Portes and 5offman 6778H E<-E,). Sim$ly $#t, the ind#strial
$roletariat cannot $rovide the sociological fo#ndation for a social democratic $roDect
in .atin 0merica. Andeed, the 2orking class4 rit large is #nlikely to form a cohesive
socio-$olitical bloc, given the diverse str#ct#ral locations and fragmented interests of
formal sector bl#e and hite collar orkers, the informal s#b-$roletariat, and a large*
ly informal class of $etty entre$rene#rs ith highly ambig#o#s class $ositions. 0 so*
cial democratic $roDect in .atin 0merica ill necessarily have a different, and more
diverse, historical s#bDect than that in 3estern /#ro$e:a coalition or bloc of s#bal*
tern gro#$s, rather than a social class.
1hird, any social democratic $roDect in .atin 0merica m#st gra$$le ith the str#c*
t#ral realities of market globali@ation. /#ro$ean social democracy thrived in small
co#ntries that ere relatively o$en to foreign trade b#t maintained significant nation*
al control over financial markets and fiscal and monetary $olicy (Jat@enstein +,-E).
1his relative a#tonomy alloed for the develo$ment of genero#s elfare states and
vigoro#s ind#strial $olicies. 1he groing international mobility of ca$ital, hoever,
limits the mane#vering s$ace of governments in develo$ing regions. 1he threat of
ca$ital o#tflos or c#rrency de$reciation hel$s to 2disci$line4 governments and nar*
ro the range of viable $olicy alternatives ('osley 6778). Governments cannot easily,
for e&am$le, increase ta&es or $ractice deficit s$ending in an attem$t to strengthen so*
cial service $rovision. Similarly, trade liberali@ation creates intense com$etitive $res*
s#res on $rod#cers, hose ability to $ay higher ta&es, ages, or benefits may be lim*
ited by the com$etition from loer-age 0sian $rod#cers.
Af these str#ct#ral conditions create formidable challenges to social democracy in
.atin 0merica, organi@ational and instit#tional factors raise additional h#rdles. Social
democracy in 3estern /#ro$e may have benefited from favorable str#ct#ral condi*
tions, b#t it as obvio#sly not a str#ct#ral inevitability. At reflected a basic shift in the
alignment of class $oer in society, and for this re-alignment to take $lace, $olitical
organi@ation as essential. .abor #nions and their closely-allied socialist $arties ere
vital intermediaries beteen the str#ct#re of ind#strial ca$italism and the $olicy o#t*
come of social democratic elfare states (5#ber and Ste$hens 677+). At as this $oliti*
cal organi@ation that $laced e?#ality and social citi@enshi$ on the democratic agenda,
contested state $oer in the electoral arena, and constr#cted the #niversal elfare
states that became synonymo#s ith social democratic $olicies.
NUEVA SOCIEDAD 217
Kenneth M. Roberts / Is Social Democracy Possible in Latin America?
%n this organi@ational front as ell, .atin 0merican societies a$$ear to be oef#lly
lacking in the $reconditions for s#ccessf#l social democracy. 1rade #nion member*
shi$ has shar$ly declined in most of the region since the end of the ASA era, and it is far
belo the levels attained in the /#ro$ean bastions of social democracy. 1he regional
average for trade #nion density in the +,,7Cs as a$$ro&imately +8 $er cent, don
from abo#t 66 $ercent at the $eak level of labor mobili@ation d#ring the ASA era, and a
far cry from the 9+ $ercent average registered in 3estern /#ro$e d#ring the heyday
of social democracy (see Ioberts, forthcoming). .abor #nions in .atin 0merica ere
historically strongest in the $#blic sector and in ind#stries $rod#cing for domestic
markets:$recisely the areas hardest hit by the debt crisis and market restr#ct#ring in
the +,-7s and +,,7s. 1hey have made little headay in organi@ing the heterogeneo#s
labor force of the ASA era; orkers in the informal sector and in e&$ort $rocessing
@ones, along ith those orking on tem$orary contracts, have $roven to be es$ecially
diffic#lt to #nioni@e. Ancreasingly, #nions re$resent a narro (and often relatively
$rivileged) slice of the formal sector orkforce, and they have largely ceased to be the
organi@ational backbone of social mobili@ation in the region. Andeed, social $rotest
against neoliberalism has often been led by ne social s#bDects, s#ch as the pi&%eteros
and the #rban $oor in 0rgentina and the indigeno#s movements in "olivia and
/c#ador.
.ikeise, the $artisan dimension of traditional social democracy is very eak in .atin
0merica. Po$#list and center-left $arties in the region that often identified historically
ith the social democratic tradition ere dee$ly affected by the colla$se of ASA in the
+,-7Cs and the s#bse?#ent s$read of neoliberal globali@ation. Several of these $arties
either colla$sed electorally (i.e., 0D in =ene@#ela, 0PI0 tem$orarily in Per#) or
transformed themselves into increasingly conservative, $ro-market governing $arties
(incl#ding the '(I in "olivia before its colla$se, the P.( in Costa Iica, and 0PI0
folloing its comeback in Per#). An other co#ntries:namely =ene@#ela, "olivia, and
/c#ador:the .eft is res#rgent, b#t it remains eakly instit#tionali@ed in the $artisan
s$here. Social and $olitical resistance to neoliberalism in these three co#ntries fo#nd
e&$ression in mass $rotest movements andKor a dominant $o$#list fig#re, b#t it is far
from clear ho social mobili@ation ill be translated into d#rable $olitical instit#tions
that re$resent the interests of s#baltern gro#$s, shift the balance of $oer in society,
and hold $#blic officials acco#ntable to their constit#ents. Andeed, given the colla$se
of traditional $arty systems in all three co#ntries and the efforts by ne leftist govern*
ments to re-fo#nd the constit#tional order, it is not clear hether social and economic
NUEVA SOCIEDAD 216
Kenneth M. Roberts / Is Social Democracy Possible in Latin America?
reforms ill $roceed in a conte&t of instit#tionali@ed $l#ralism:as ith social
democracy historically:or #nder a $lebiscitarian form of $o$#lar sovereignty.
(otably, the leftist movements that have come to $oer in =ene@#ela, "olivia, and
/c#ador are all 2ne,4 in the sense that they ere born in the $o$#lar backlash
against neoliberalism that $l#nged both democratic regimes and established $arty
systems into crisis. 0ll made regime change their to$ $riority, believing that $olitical
and instit#tional reform ere $reconditions for a meaningf#l change in the develo$*
ment model. 1he eakness of instit#tionali@ed $olitical o$$osition, the $resence of
indfall oil and gas rents, and recent e&$eriences ith intense social mobili@ation
have enco#raged the .eft in these co#ntries to think in terms of ambitio#s transforma*
tive $roDects and ne forms of $o$#lar sovereignty, rather than the incremental, care*
f#lly negotiated com$romises associated historically ith social democracy.
1hese e&$eriences are in striking contrast to those of the leftist $arties no governing
Chile, Ur#g#ay, and "ra@il. ChileCs Socialist Party (PSC5), "ra@ilCs 3orkersC Party
(P1), and Ur#g#ayCs 'rente Amplio (F0) are all relatively ell-instit#tionali@ed $arties
(or coalitions, in the Ur#g#ayan case) o$erating in democratic regimes that are among
the most consolidated in .atin 0merica, and in $arty systems that $resent them ith
serio#s $oer contenders on the center andKor right. An short, all o$erate in conte&ts
of instit#tionali@ed $l#ralism, ith checks and balances that restrain their reformist
ambitions. 0ll accessed state $oer by means of an instit#tionali@ed alternation in
$#blic office that reflected the mat#ration, rather than a crisis, of national democratic
regimes.
1hese three $arties have dee$ roots in .atin 0mericaCs socialist tradition. 0ll e&$eri*
enced the tra#ma of $olitical re$ression #nder b#rea#cratic-a#thoritarian r#le, and
they lived thro#gh the colla$se of ASA and state socialism in the Soviet bloc. 1hese e&*
$eriences e&erted a moderating effect, ind#cing leftist $arties to abandon ma&imalist
goals and embrace liberal democracy as an instit#tional s$ace to safeg#ard civil liber*
ties and manage $olitical conflict. .ikeise, these $arties tem$ered their criti?#es of
neoliberalism ith a recognition that global market integration had narroed the
range of viable alternatives. 1hey re$resent, in effect, a $ost-'ar&ist .eft that has
striking similarities to /#ro$eCs social democratic .eft, highlighted by a commitment
to the democratic reform of ca$italism in the interests of social e?#ity.
As it $ossible, then, to s$eak of a $ost-b#rea#cratic a#thoritarian road to social democ*
racy in "ra@il and the So#thern Cone, hereby a chastened, $ost-'ar&ist .eft mane#*
vers ithin ell-defined str#ct#ral and instit#tional constraints to red#ce ine?#alities
NUEVA SOCIEDAD 217
Kenneth M. Roberts / Is Social Democracy Possible in Latin America?
and e&tend social citi@enshi$ normsB Clearly, the $arallels to /#ro$ean social democ*
racy are im$erfect. .abor movements in the three co#ntries have eakened over time;
hile the F0 in Ur#g#ay retains close ties to organi@ed labor, and may be s$onsoring
a revival of the #nion movement and cor$oratist forms of re$resentation, the P1 and
the PSCh are increasingly detached from labor and $o$#lar movements. F#rthermore,
all three $arties have $roven to be ca#tio#s reformers in office, avoiding shar$ breaks
ith the neoliberal develo$ment models that they inherited. Andeed, all have ado$ted
relatively orthodo& macroeconomic $olicies, clearly ishing to avoid the market
backlash and ca$ital flight that o#ld s#rely accom$any any rela&ation of fiscal and
monetary disci$line.
(evertheless, the demise of the 3ashington Consens#s has o$ened $olitical s$ace for
$olicy e&$erimentation, and the $ost-6778 commodity e&$ort boom has rela&ed the
fiscal and foreign e&change constraints on some ty$es of $olicy initiatives. An $artic#*
lar, incremental reforms are #nderay in the social $olicy s$here:reforms that are
designed to red#ce ine?#alities, raise the income and living standards of the $oorest
sectors, and e&tend social $rotection and citi@enshi$ rights to #nder$rivileged gro#$s.
An "ra@il, the .#la government has backed aay from the P1Cs historic commitments
to str#ct#ral reform and don$layed $romises for land redistrib#tion that once
linked the $arty to the $oerf#l movement of landless orkers. 1he P1 has, hoever,
shar$ly increased the minim#m age and e&$anded the social assistance $rograms
knon as the Bolsa 'amilia that it inherited from the administration of Fernando 5en*
ri?#e Cardoso. 0s a conditional cash transfer $rogram targeted at the $oorest fami*
lies, the Bolsa does not break ith the social $olicy orientation of the neoliberal model.
Under the P1, hoever, the sco$e of the $rogram has e&$anded ra$idly, reaching an
estimated one ?#arter of "ra@ilian citi@ens by the end of .#laCs first term in office.
0nd by co#$ling targeted social assistance ith generali@ed age hikes, the .#la gov*
ernment has s#cceeded both in red#cing the $ercentage of the $o$#lation living be*
lo the $overty line and redistrib#ting income donard, hile maintaining fiscal
and monetary stability:no small achievement in light of the co#ntryCs tro#bled eco*
nomic track record (see 5#nter and Poer 677>).
Governing .eft $arties in Chile and Ur#g#ay have also co#$led macroeconomic or*
thodo&y ith social $olicy innovation. An Chile, the center-left coalition government
led by Socialist $resident Iicardo .agos ina#g#rated a ne targeted $overty assis*
tance $rogram, hich his Socialist s#ccessor, 'ichelle "achelet, has so#ght to e&tend
to ne gro#$s of beneficiaries. 'ore im$ressively, $erha$s:and more in line ith
NUEVA SOCIEDAD 216
Kenneth M. Roberts / Is Social Democracy Possible in Latin America?
social democratic norms: the .agos and "achelet administrations have taken ca#*
tio#s first ste$s toard the creation of #niversal forms of social citi@enshi$ in their
health care and social sec#rity $olicies. .agos la#nched a ne health care $lan that
$rovides #niversal g#aranteed coverage for E< illnesses, and "achelet has e&tended
the $rogram to cover an additional set of illnesses. "achelet has also $ro$osed an am*
bitio#s reform of ChileCs $rivati@ed $ension system, hich has failed to $rovide ade*
?#ate coverage for many omen and for orkers ith a history of informal or irreg#*
lar em$loyment. 1he $ro$osed reform o#ld $rovide a basic #niversal $ension for all
citi@ens in loer income categories, irregardless of their ork history, and th#s great*
ly red#ce the c#rrent ine?#alities rooted in differential labor market $artici$ation
(Pribble and 5#ber, in $rogress).
An Ur#g#ay as ell, the F0 government of 1abarL =Ms?#e@ has moved ?#ickly to de*
velo$ both targeted social assistance and more #niversal social $rotection $lans. 1he
ne government initiated a family alloance $rogram for lo income families and
$rovided s#bsidies for their e&$endit#res on food, ater, and electricity. At has also
e&$anded eligibility in the $ension system for non-contrib#tors, $rovided s#bsidies to
$rivate firms that hire #nem$loyed orkers, and increased f#nding for $#blic ed#ca*
tion. 5ealth care reforms have so#ght to im$rove the ?#ality and access to the $#blic
care system, and the government has increased ages and e&$anded collective bar*
gaining by reviving cor$oratist tri-$artite salary co#ncils. At has also e&tended collec*
tive bargaining to orkers in the $#blic sector and the r#ral economy. Des$ite s#b*
stantial $olitical o$$osition, in both Ur#g#ay and Chile the ne governments have
taken ste$s to reform ta& las and strengthen the reven#e base for their ambitio#s
ne social $rograms (Pribble and 5#ber, in $rogress).
Clearly, these meas#res remain ell short of the ambitio#s redistrib#tive $olicies and
social citi@enshi$ norms develo$ed #nder /#ro$ean social democracy. Andeed, they
do not, as yet, indicate that .atin 0merica:or even $artic#lar co#ntries ithin the re*
gion:have crafted a com$rehensive alternative to the neoliberal model of develo$*
ment. 'acroeconomic $olicymaking remains highly constrained by global market
$ress#res, and has yet to de$art significantly from neoliberal orthodo&y in the ab*
sence of indfall oil rents. %nly limited efforts have been made to revive ind#strial
$olicies, cor$oratist bargaining, and other conventional indicators of social democrat*
ic $olicymaking. 1argeted $overty relief meas#res are, at best, an e&tension of neolib*
eralismCs market-conforming social $olicies, hile more #niversal forms of social $ro*
tection are still in gestation. 1hese $olicies, and the sha$e of reform#lated elfare
states, are heavily conditioned by the social legacies of market restr#ct#ring in .atin
0merica:in $artic#lar, the challenge of incor$orating the #rban $oor and informal
NUEVA SOCIEDAD 217
Kenneth M. Roberts / Is Social Democracy Possible in Latin America?
sectors into com$rehensive social elfare $rograms, and the #nstable, fragmented
character of the orkforce #nder fle&ible labor markets that have been only minimal*
ly re-reg#lated #nder ne leftist governments.
Given these social legacies, ne leftist governments cannot dra on the $olitical
leverage of cohesive and ell-organi@ed labor blocs as a co#ntereight to the str#c*
t#ral logic of the market$lace and the str#ct#ral $oer of $rivate ca$ital. (everthe*
less, neoliberal reforms left a diverse array of social gro#$s v#lnerable to market inse*
c#rities, and in classic Polanyian fashion (Polanyi +,99), they have beg#n to mobili@e
$olitical claims for social $rotection. 1he fragmented social landsca$e of the neoliber*
al era ens#res that s#ch claims, to be effective, ill have to coalesce in com$le& and
(most likely) ten#o#s socio-$olitical coalitions.
0s this essay s#ggests, the instit#tional e&$ression of these coalitions may vary ide*
ly. 3here transitions to neoliberalism:hether com$leted or aborted:left demo*
cratic regimes in crisis and $arty systems in tatters, $o$#lar resistance s$aned ne
$o$#list or leftist movements that are reconstr#cting $olitical systems and reasserting
state controls over nat#ral reso#rce rents and other s$heres of economic activity.
3hile ne leftist governments in =ene@#ela, "olivia, and /c#ador may initiate redis*
trib#tive $olicies and ne forms of social $rotection, their non-instit#tionali@ed $oliti*
cal logic leaves them far removed from conventional social democratic models. 0lter*
natively, in Chile, "ra@il, and Ur#g#ay, here democracy is rob#st and $arty systems
intact, claims for social $rotection have been channeled thro#gh established $arty or*
gani@ations and are no being translated into innovative $olicies that have beg#n to
make a dent in the social deficits of the neoliberal model. 3hile not re$licating the
com$rehensive elfare states of /#ro$ean social democracy, they clearly re$resent a
.atin 0merican variant of the democratic reform of market o#tcomes.
(either of these traDectories means that .atin 0merica has left the neoliberal era be*
hind. 1he emerging instit#tional forms and $olicy alternatives remain too nascent,
fl#id, and $olitically contingent for bold assertions abo#t the f#t#re co#rse of devel*
o$ment. 3hat is certain, hoever, is that the era of market-based economic adD#st*
ment and technocratic consens#s:hat some characteri@ed as 2the end of $olitics4
(Colb#rn 6776):has r#n its co#rse. 0 very $olitical str#ggle to define the conto#rs of
the $ost-adD#stment era is #nderay, and variants of social democracy com$rise one
of the alternatives in $lay. 1hese variants inevitably bear the mark of .atin 0mericaCs
distinctive e&$erience in combining democracy ith market reform, and they are
NUEVA SOCIEDAD 216
Kenneth M. Roberts / Is Social Democracy Possible in Latin America?
rooted in the inherent tensions beteen democratic citi@enshi$ and social e&cl#sion.
1he $olitical f#t#re of the region ill be heavily conditioned by alternative strategies
for reconciling these tensions.
References
"artolini, Stefano. 6777. 1he Political 'obili@ation of the /#ro$ean .eft, +-<7-+,-7H the Class Cleavage.
Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.
"erman, Sheri. 677<. 1he Primacy of PoliticsH Social Democracy and the 'aking of /#ro$eCs 1entieth
Cent#ry. CambridgeH Cambridge University Press.
Casta;eda, !orge G. 677<. 2.atin 0mericaCs .eft 1#rn.4 'oreign A##airs ('ayK!#ne).
C/P0.. 677>. An%ario Estad(stico de Am)rica Latina y el Caribe. Santiago.
Colb#rn, Forest. 6776. Latin America at the End o# Politics. PrincetonH Princeton University Press.
5akim, Peter. 6778. Dis$irited Politics. *o%rnal o# emocracy +9 (6)H +7--66.
5#ber, /velyne and !ohn D. Ste$hens. 677+. e$elopment and Crisis o# the +el#are State, Parties and Poli-
cies in .lobal "ar/ets. ChicagoH University of Chicago Press.
5#nter, 3endy and 1imothy !. Poer. 677>0 1 Iearding .#laH /&ec#tive Poer, Social Policy, and the
"ra@ilian /lections of 677<.4 Latin American Politics 2 Society 9,, + (S$ring)H +-87.
Jat@enstein, Peter !. +,-E. Small States in +orld "ar/ets, 3nd%strial Policy in E%rope0 Athaca, ()H Cornell
University Press.
.an@aro, !orge. 677>. 2Gobiernos SocialdemNcratas en 0mLrica .atina,4 Re$ista Ne4os 8E9 (!#ne) .
.i$set, Seymo#r 'artin and Gary 'arks. 6777. 3t idnt 5appen 5ere, +hy Socialism 'ailed in the 6nited
States. (e )orkH 3. 3. (orton.
'osley, .ayna. 6778. .lobal Capital and National .o$ernments. CambridgeH Cambridge University Press.
Pribble, !ennifer and /velyne 5#ber. 2Social Policy and Iedistrib#tion #nder .eft Governments in
Chile and Ur#g#ay,4 in Steven .evitsky and Jenneth '. Ioberts, eds. Latin Americas 1Le#t !%rn7,
Political i$ersity and the Search #or Alternati$es, man#scri$t in $rogress.
Pierson, Pa#l, ed. 677+. !he New Politics o# the +el#are State. %&fordH %&ford University Press.
Polanyi, Jarl. +,99. !he .reat !rans#ormation, !he Political and Economic 8rigins o# 8%r !ime. "ostonH "ea*
con Press.
Portes, 0leDandro and Jelly 5offman. 6778. 2.atin 0merican Class Str#ct#resH 1heir Com$osition and
Change D#ring the (eoliberal /ra,4 Latin American Research Re$iew 8-, +H 9+--6.
Pr@eorski, 0dam. +,-E. Capitalism and Social emocracy. CambridgeH Cambridge University Press.
Ioberts, Jenneth '. Forthcoming. Party System Change in Latin Americas Neoliberal Era. CambridgeH
Cambridge University Press.
Sartori, Giovanni. +,>7. 2Conce$t 'isformation in Com$arative Politics,4 American Political Science Re-
$iew <9, 9 (December)H +788-+7E8.
=argas .losa, 0lvaro. 677>. 21he Iet#rn of the Adiot,4 'oreign Policy +<7 ('ayK!#ne)H E9-<+.
3eyland, J#rt. 6779. 21hreats to .atin 0mericaCs 'arket 'odelB4, Political Science 9%arterly ++,, 6H
6,+-8+8.

/ste artOc#lo es la versiNn original en inglLs de 2 P/s $osible #na socialdemocracia en
0mLrica .atina4, incl#ido en (U/=0 S%CA/D0D (Q 6+>, se$tiembre-oct#bre de 677-,
ASS( 76E+-8EE6, <www.nuso.org>.