THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF

LATIN
AMERICAN
SOCIAL
MOVEMENTS
Edited by
FEDERICO M. ROSSI
 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2023

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress

ISBN 978–​0–​19–​087036–​2

DOI: 10.1093/​oxfordhb/​9780190870362.001.0001

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2

Printed by Marquis, Canada

 Chapter 14

So cial Moveme nts a nd

Capitalist Mode l s of
Devel opm ent i n L at i n
Am eri c a

Federico M. Rossi

Introduction

In order to understand social movements and capitalist dynamics in Latin America it is

necessary to analyze the specific paths of capitalism in the region. The capitalist experi-
ence on which mainstream North Atlantic social movement literature is implicitly built
is far from representative of the rest of the world, where most social conflicts happen.
Indeed, most social movement struggles around the world—​including those in Latin
America—​are directly or indirectly related to an economic issue (labor rights, land re-
form, redistribution, social policies, disincorporation, etc.), with movements’ claims
generally including calls for alternative politico-​economic models of development and
for social justice broadly conceived.
The goal of this chapter is to analyze social movement dynamics across the capitalist
models of development that predominated in Latin America from independence from
colonial rule until the early twenty-​first century. The analysis is done through the lens of
political economy of social movements, understood as the substantive and theoretical
recoupling of political and economic spheres in the relational study of social movements
and capitalist dynamics. If we avoid an economically determinist approach and the
North Atlantic narrative is decentered, a political economy of social movements reveals
multiple struggles for the expansion of the socio-​political arena and resistance to this
expansion with plutocratic retrenchment periods that contract the socio-​political arena.
230   Federico M. Rossi

Capitalism and Social Movement

Studies in Latin America

In Latin America, the construction of social movement studies did not disregard cap-
italism as mainstream North Atlantic approaches did (Hetland and Goodwin 2013).
As such, bringing back capitalism was never needed in Latin America, and the litera-
ture could develop more refined theorizations about the economic dimensions of so-
cial movement dynamics. In addition, beyond mainstream social movement studies,
the focus on the political economy of social conflicts is certainly far from new.
Modernization, dependentista, dependency theory, feminist, Marxist, Polanyian, and
New Social Movements perspectives have all contributed to our understanding of how
capitalism is related to class struggles, intersectional struggles, the construction of a
collective popular actor, societal resistance, and post-​materialist claims, among other
topics (Cardoso and Faletto 1970; Eckstein 1989; Escobar and Álvarez 1992; Germani
1962; Quijano 1976; Silva 2009; Johnson and Sempol, Garretón and Selamé, Webber in
this volume, among others). However, none of these complex approaches have devel-
oped systematic analyses of how movements and capitalism interact.
In fact, in Latin America there has been always consideration of the embeddedness
of politics and economics, with scholars generally producing studies in the political
economy of contention that—​except for orthodox Marxism—​have not dogmatically
followed any specific school of thought but rather promoted a syncretical combination
of approaches driven by concrete historical events. This means not that a unified ap-
proach exists or even that there has been any explicit basic agreement but rather that, as
Somma (2020: 5) identified, a political economy of social movements “emphasizes how
political actors craft economic institutions that create grievances, which in turn foster
protests” without taking a structuralist class-​based approach. However, it was not until
the 1980s that a social movement scholarship in Latin America could develop as such
beyond the functionalist study of labor-​based actors.
Political economy in Latin America, as elsewhere, has been predominantly focused
on distributive conflicts and thus has mainly emphasized labor-​based organizations,
such as urban and rural unions (for instance, Collier and Collier 1991; Etchemendy 2011;
Welch 1999). These parallel tracks of political economy of labor and social movement
studies have only recently begun to converge. In Latin America, this was a result of the
double transition to democracy and neoliberalism that led to an acceleration of neo-​
pluralist transformations of social life (Oxhorn 1998; Oxhorn in this volume). Only re-
cently has social movement literature gone from a lack of studies on labor movements
that were left to class-​based studies to move beyond a worker-​centric analysis of the po-
litical economy of social conflicts.
Recent research on social movements in Latin America has recognized the crucial
role of economic conditions (e.g., neoliberalism, commodity prices) and the signifi-
cance of socioeconomic demands (e.g., reincorporation, social justice) (Almeida 2019;
 Social Movements and Capitalist Models of Development    231

Roberts 2008; Rossi 2017; Simmons 2016, among others). In some of this scholarship
there is already a gradual transformation from the study of mobilizations by “workers”
and “peasants” to a general notion of “popular sectors,” implying a move from a func-
tionalist understanding of the mobilized actor to viewing it as a question that requires an
empirical study (Rossi 2021). This is a crucial theoretical shift that has allowed elements
of a political economy of social movements to begin to be developed.
I identify three broad stages in the gradual emergence of a political economy of social
movements in Latin America. The first stage is linked to the debt crisis and democrati-
zation, which predominate a moral economy of protest (Walton 1989), class-​based anal-
ysis (Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens 1992), New Social Movements (Calderón
1986; Garretón 2002), and dependency theory (Eckstein 1989). Neoliberalism and
austerity/​state reforms policies characterize the second stage, marked by autonomist
perspectives (Dinerstein 2003), ethnographers (Auyero 2002; Quirós 2006), protest
wave studies (Almeida 2008; Bellinger and Arce 2011), and Durkheimian studies (an-
omie) (Svampa 2000). The third stage corresponds to the second wave of incorpora-
tion, focusing on comparative politics (Rice 2012; Roberts 2008), world system theory
(Almeida 2014; Wickham-​Crowley and Eckstein 2015), and Polanyian studies (Silva
2009). This period saw a more explicit political economy of social movements and pro-
test and a superseding of the limiting class-​based analysis and its functionalist notion of
grievance construction and mobilization.
Despite impressive advancements in this area, answers to how social movements are
influenced by changes in capitalism, and how movements change capitalist dynamics,
remain tentative. If we aim at a political economy of social movements, this can only be
achieved through the theoretical and empirical recoupling of the political and economic
spheres in social movements dynamics. With this goal in mind, in the rest of this chapter
I analyze transformations in the capitalist models of development and social movement
dynamics according to the Latin American experience.

Capitalist Models of Development in

Latin America

The variety of models of development implemented in Latin America is conducive to the

introduction of a comparative historical analysis of paths of capitalism. Central America
has relied on a raw-​export model with a short period of light industrialization. The
economies of Bolivia, Ecuador, and Paraguay have been always rentier, extractivist, and
commodity-​based (mainly oil, crops, and mining), as have Peru and Venezuela, which
also went through light industrialization. For their part, Brazil and Mexico were early
adopters of import substitution industrialization (ISI) and pursued an industry-​based
model with some liberalization. Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Uruguay migrated
from agro-​export to ISI and later to market-​driven development (Ocampo and Ros 2011).
232   Federico M. Rossi

The central social movement dynamic for each model of development is the conten-
tious construction of the “social question” and the struggles of movements for the ex-
pansion of the socio-​political arena. This struggle is linked to the pattern of inequality
(modified, reinforced, or inherited), the degree of commodification of social relations,
and the type of societal stratification produced by each model of development. How
the “social question” is expressed and articulated is linked to who the main mobilized
actors are and what interest intermediation arrangements are associated with each
model of development to legitimate the mobilized actors. These interest intermediation
arrangements are an institutional result of the “social question” in the quest to pacify the
disruption produced by the organized victims of a model of development (Rossi 2017:
11–​13).
Even though contention takes various forms, in political economy terms, each model
of development is linked to a dominant form of oppositional collective action (Almeida
2019: 157–​58). When protests organize into movements, this collective action is also
linked to revolutionary and reformist proposals for the transformation of the path of
development. Moreover, coalitions (and winners and losers) are co-​constitutive of the
models of development, and the political responses of the losers (or victims) of each
model are important to understand the paths within and across models. These conten-
tious responses are sustained on inherited infrastructure from previous models of de-
velopment (Almeida 2014), constituting material and symbolic resources for building a
stock of legacies and prefigure alternatives that (dis)favor certain strategies (Rossi 2017).
I will focus on the struggle for dignity (social rights) and freedom (civic rights) that
characterized the history of Latin American social movements. In this meso-​level anal-
ysis of capitalist models of development and social movements, I will briefly explore two
crucial questions: What explains the emergence of the quests for dignity and freedom
along parallel tracks, with the former mostly pursued by popular-​based movements and
the latter mainly by elite-​based ones? And, how did these become integrated into a poli-
tics of multi-​sectoral coalitions?

Agro-​Monoculture and Raw Material Export Model

(1850s–​1930s)
Latin America achieved political independence with an inherited model of develop-
ment that was not planned by local elites and was an expansion of early globalization
under Britain hegemon. The agro-​monoculture and raw material export model was
connected to a period of rapid growth in Latin America. The organization of politics and
economics were conflated in elite-​based agreements of oligarchic family networks that
controlled portions of territory. This created a pattern of inequality that excluded from
the socio-​political arena all of the rest of society.
In this period social movements strove for socio-​political incorporation and the end
of oligarchic regimes. The history of Latin America is to a great degree defined by two
waves of incorporation (for the first, see Collier and Collier 1991; and for the second,
see Rossi 2015, 2017): “Incorporation waves represent major and prolonged historical
 Social Movements and Capitalist Models of Development    233

processes of struggle among socioeconomic and political groups for the expansion or
reduction of the socio-​political arena” (Rossi 2017: 9).
The 1850s to the 1880s was the formative period for urban labor movements in the
most dynamic ports, such as Buenos Aires and Valparaíso (Romero and Sábato 1992).
With the migration of ideas and people from Europe also came a class-​based identity
(Godio 1987), while in less globalized regions peasants and indigenous protests emerged
to resist commodification of their lands and workforce. From the 1880s to the 1930s the
emergent “social question” was associated with crisis in the liberal model of develop-
ment. The financial crisis of 1866 damaged the cohesion of some oligarchic regimes and
opened the door to destabilization of this model of development. Oligarchic politics was
further eroded with increasingly violent local pressure from the bourgeoisie for polit-
ical liberalization with male universal suffrage in the Southern Cone, and international
British pressure for the abolition of slavery in Brazil (granted in 1888).
The Mexican (1910) and Russian (1917) revolutions stimulated the formation of so-
cialist, communist, syndicalist, and anarchist organizations among subaltern groups
(Suriano 2001). This period of innovation, one of several in organizational practices,
saw the creation of cooperatives and self-​help associations by mostly urban immigrants.
And in rural areas new and preexisting communal organizations, such as éjidos and
ayllus, sat uneasily alongside latifundios. This period was also characterized by a dual
tendency in mobilization dynamics, with labor-​based movements decoupled from elite-​
based student movements due to the oligarchic nature of universities and suffragist
movements being dominated by white elite women (see Ewig and Friedman, Donoso in
this volume). Meanwhile, despite shared claims for the expansion of the socio-​political
arena, popular movements and elite-​based movements were not coordinating their
campaigns. In addition, apart from isolated efforts and some theoretical engagements,
urban and rural struggles were detached, and peasants and indigenous communities
were mutually wary (see Welch, Rice in this volume).
The collapse of the stock market in 1929 and the Great Depression sent agro-​export
monoculture models of development into a state of crisis. This new cyclical crisis of
capitalism expanded and radicalized the struggles that were already underway. From
the 1930s, communists were increasingly assuming union leadership roles with a domi-
nant strategy—​encouraged by the Soviet Union—​that involved forming popular fronts:
antifascist coalitions serving to coordinate multiple actors (Tamarin 1985). For these
reasons, state elites responded to the “social question” with a gradual institutionaliza-
tion of social policies on housing, health, and education coupled with advanced repres-
sive tactics, steadily transforming the model of development (Collier and Collier 1991:
93–​94).

State-​led Development (1930s–​1970s)

State-​led development was a result of experimentation due to the collapse of raw ma-
terial prices, while commodity exporters were still powerful political and economic
actors. There was a shift into protectionism and a macro policy centered on balance
234   Federico M. Rossi

of payments management, industrialization as the engine of growth, and strong state

intervention. Through trial and error, these policies and others progressively led to a
mixed economic model sustained on economic planning that, decades later, was
conceptualized by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
(ECLAC).
With the decline of Britain and the closure of global markets, the driver of develop-
ment came to be the domestic market, with two main currents. Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
Colombia, and Mexico moved into ISI, while Peru, Venezuela, and Central America
opted for light industrialization and a development strategy based on raw-​commodity
export. In this way, the core of the previous model was modified, and, with tariff protec-
tion and nationalizations, agriculture was primarily defined as provider of cheap food
for the cities. The 1940s saw a period of renewed growth and the United States replacing
Britain as the new hegemon. This led to change in the types of trade agreements as well
as the political organization of struggles.
Rapid industrialization, unplanned urbanization, and population growth (through
immigration and increasing birthrates) all had their effect on popular politics in the re-
gion. There was a gradual shift from an urban labor minority in a mostly rural society to-
ward a massive portion of society being urban and proletarian. The previously relatively
homogeneous working class with a distinctive identity expanded to make up a large pro-
portion of all Latin American societies that became less stratified. This new majority lost
homogeneity as it spread across more diverse occupations, working environments, and
formal and informal jobs to constitute the so-​called popular sectors of society, with so-
cial relations increasingly commodified. Like the narrower working class from which it
evolved, this broadened segment occupied a subaltern position in society. Therefore, the
popular sectors, despite their differences, shared a common societal experience (and set
of grievances) that transcended the strictly functional definition of their lives as that of
workers (Rossi 2021).
From the 1930s to the 1950s, stabilization of state-​led development was reached
through a first wave of incorporation of the popular sectors into the socio-​political
arena through trade unions in a mostly corporatist fashion. Generally concurrent with
the full democratization of society with women’s suffrage, this first wave of incorpora-
tion produced a massive expansion of the socio-​political arena across Latin America.
Beyond the specificities of each national process, it is important to bear in mind that
waves of incorporation should not be equated with the constitution of a more equal so-
ciety or the creation of a welfare state but rather with the reshaping of the socio-​political
arena by redefining and expanding the number of legitimate political actors. In Brazil,
this incorporation occurred under the Estado Novo government of Getúlio Vargas
(1930–​1945), who demobilized labor while introducing corporatist arrangements into
the country’s weak and divided labor movement without producing an improvement in
welfare. In Argentina, during the first two governments of Juan Domingo Perón (1946–​
1952, 1952–​1955), incorporation was also corporatist, but with the purpose of mobilizing
labor within a combative movement, achieving massive and fast improvement in wel-
fare (Collier and Collier 1991).
 Social Movements and Capitalist Models of Development    235

The first wave of incorporation saw the development of neo-​corporatist interest inter-
mediation arrangements. This type of incorporation is what explains the reduction in
the number of relevant popular movements during this period. This is because, “In con-
trast to the pattern of interest politics based on autonomous, competing groups and to
the total suppression of groups, in the case of corporatism the state encourages the for-
mation of a limited number of officially recognized, non-​competing, state-​supervised
groups” (Collier and Collier 1979: 968). For instance, peasants and the indigenous were
treated indistinguishably in functional terms as “rural workers” (Yashar 2005). This
disconnected corporatist unions from territorialized popular movements of informal
workers in a pattern of inequality in segmented welfare states. This pattern favored
formal urban workers in coalition with national industrialists until the unfolding of a
series of coups aimed at stopping the process of incorporation (O’Donnell 1978).
The dual track of elite-​based movements versus popular movements that had
characterized the political economy of movements since independence changed in the
1960s. The enfranchisement of women from the 1940s with universal suffrage perma-
nently redefined women’s movements (Ewig and Friedman in this volume). The expan-
sion of basic education and the de-​eliticization of the universities led to the emergence
of massive student movements in the 1960s (Donoso in this volume). Labor movements
reemerged in a more contentious form and expanded beyond corporatist unions
(Ramírez and Stoessel in this volume). In this period, a growing interconnectedness be-
tween grassroots unionism and the broader struggles of urban and student movements
demanding socioeconomic wellbeing and redemocratization produced the first size-
able articulation of the quests for dignity and freedom. In this sense, the first massive
coalitions were of student movements and grassroots unions with revolutionary hopes
in the 1960s–​1970s.
The revolutions in Bolivia (1952), Cuba (1959), Chile (1970), and Nicaragua (1978)
produced a perception of accelerated historical time to transcend capitalism. The up-
surge in insurgency was a result of restrictive corporatist arrangements, the persecu-
tion of generally moderate movement leaders, and military dictatorships intervening
in and reorganizing unions (Rossi, 2021). These factors created a social space for labor
movements to fill beyond the narrow confines of unionism and encouraged the rise of a
younger generation inspired by revolutionary ideals (Oikonomakis in this volume). This
was also a period of increased territorialization of labor movements; that is, collective
action became part of daily life in the popular sectors beyond the factory (Rossi 2019).
Some countries entered spirals of violence while others saw land reforms, popular
urban planning, territorialized grassroots organization, vanguardist insurgency, and
intensive strategic debates among movements, unions, and guerrillas. In Chile, labor’s
insurgency was embraced more strongly, in combination with the efforts of Salvador
Allende’s (1970–​1973) democratic revolutionary path to socialism. However, this insur-
gency was hampered by the acceleration of local conflicts, inflation, and the 1973 coup
and mass executions that decimated all social movements (Zapata 1976).
Meanwhile, in most countries, corporatist unionism pushed distributive conflicts into
an inflationary dynamic, deteriorating the coalition with national industrialists. And,
236   Federico M. Rossi

as agriculture and mining kept their socioeconomic centrality, traditional landowners

could develop coalitions with some sectors of the military, dissatisfied industrialists,
and the Catholic Church. These reactive coalitions favored even more repressive coups
and disincorporation processes to demobilize and atomize the increasingly revolu-
tionary multi-​sectoral coalitions and stop distributive conflicts. Subsequent legisla-
tion decentralized and depoliticized these burgeoning popular interest arrangements
(Etchemendy 2011).

Market-​led Development (1970s–​2000s)

Market-​led development was theoretically and ideologically formulated in the Austrian
and Chicago Schools and applied in Latin America several decades later. While so-
cial movements in the previous model faced a process of trial and error that was not
clearly justified, in this new model the cultural battle against economic orthodoxy was
part of the struggle. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) played
an important role in the diffusion of the reform agenda and in the imposition of the
policy conditionalities. Market integration and debt repayment became the main
priorities along with privatization, spending cuts, and administrative and fiscal decen-
tralization. This gave the impression of a fully external imposition, compared to the
previous model of development, which had emerged as a response from within to ex-
ternal changes. There was a return to some elements of the nineteenth-​century model,
now conceptualized as development driven by comparative advantages. This meant a
reprimarization of the economies and partial liberalization of the labor market to re-
duce social benefits and the organizational power of first-​wave incorporation actors
with limited social spending targeted to informal laborers and those otherwise excluded
(those not aided by the segmented welfare states). These reforms were applied in three
rounds, corresponding with the 1970s (Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay), 1980s (Brazil,
Peru, and most countries), and 1990s (consolidation in all countries). Each round of
reforms was accompanied by a wave of protests fighting against their consequences.
The authoritarian wave of the 1970s–​1980s initiated the massive disincorporation
of the popular sectors from the socio-​political arena as citizens as well as laborers.
Persecutions of active sectors of the labor movement and the left (sometimes even with
the support of corporatist union leadership) quickly and violently demobilized all so-
cial movements (Brockett in this volume). Clandestine resistance networks emerged
to confront the military dictators or juntas throughout the territory, mostly using
grassroots-​style strategies (Rossi and della Porta 2019). Strikes were another crucial
form of resistance against authoritarian regimes. In Brazil, for instance, a wave of strikes
(1974–​1979) was followed by a cycle of protest (1978–​1982), mainly mobilized by urban
movements (Sandoval 1998).
Four models for liberalizing ISI economies were applied in Latin America
(Etchemendy 2011). The type of previous economic regime along with the degree of
power held by the prior ISI actors (for labor: corporatist unions) produced different
 Social Movements and Capitalist Models of Development    237

policy processes, winners, and compensatory measures for the losers. In each model,
unions played a different role and underwent a different degree of recommodification
of labor relations promoted by the neoliberalization of the economy. In Brazil and
Chile, weak unions were either partially compensated (in the former case) or repressed
(in the latter). In Argentina and Mexico, however, their strong unions were offered
market-​share compensation. Regardless, across the four countries, the corporatist pop-
ular interest arrangements that had dominated the ISI economies were transformed
into a neo-​pluralist model that changed the previous political cleavages (Oxhorn 1998;
Roberts 2008). These differences modified the antagonists and types of conflict that so-
cial movements faced, as well as the coalitions that could be organized.
Disincorporation weakened the functionalist organization of social conflicts (Rossi
2017). This favored the multiplication in the social movement field of holistic and ter-
ritorially segmented conflicts and actors, modifying the network format of social
movements and the resolution of incorporation struggles beyond neo-​corporatist dis-
tributive tensions and negotiations. Decentralization and fragmentation created several
particularistic claims, posing difficulties for coordination (Calderón 1986). Debilitation
of class-​based action, however, allowed for the activation of other forms of resistance
(Rice 2012; Ramírez and Stoessel in this volume), such as identity-​and ethnic-​based
movements (see Ewig and Friedman, Dixon and Caldwell, Díez, Fontana, Rice in this
volume).
The territorialization of the popular sectors increased as corporatist arrangements
were debilitated or dissolved (Rossi 2019). At the same time, the social structure of Latin
America changed with the visible growth in income inequality and labor informality
(Portes and Hoffmann 2003). As a result, the experiences of (and conditions faced by)
families in the poor neighborhoods and shantytowns took on an unprecedented cen-
trality in the definition of poor people’s political strategies (Merklen 2005). The func-
tionalist logics of welfare provision changed: as formal male labor opportunities
decreased, so did the centrality of patriarchal family structures. In some cases, these dy-
namics favored the emergence of women as providers and as crucial grassroots actors
in many movements. Strategically, the new unionism adapted to this novel context by
emulating territorial movements in their organizational and protest practices—​what is
called “social movement unionism” (Rossi 2021).
The 1982 Mexican debt crisis put an end to the post-​World War II period of economic
growth in Latin America, casting doubt on the ISI model of development and increasing
the political influence of neoliberal reformers. From 1983 to 1989 a wave of anti-​austerity
protests against the IMF spread across Latin America. “Austerity led to popular unrest in
the times and places that combined economic hardship, external adjustment demands,
hyperurbanization, and local traditions of political mobilization” (Walton and Seddon
1994: 99). This unprecedented wave of protest was mainly located in cities in a coalition
of the urban poor, public-​sector unions, and students. The 1989 Caracazo was the most
massive social explosion in this wave. The main consequence of this protest wave was
not the end of neoliberal reforms but the acceleration of democratization in most of
South America (Walton and Seddon 1994).
238   Federico M. Rossi

Market reforms conflated with liberal democratization in a double transition

throughout the 1980s until 1991 changing the opportunities for resistance and organi-
zation. The weakening of labor and the annihilation of grassroots organizations and
guerrillas had a dual effect. On the one hand, a vacuum of popular leadership was
created that took at least a decade to rebuild. On the other hand, a plurality of social
movements thus emerged that questioned the previous repertoire of strategies to dif-
ferent degrees (Roberts 1998). Disincorporation was not equally demobilizing every-
where, though. Chile’s double transition to democracy and neoliberalism disbanded
the popular sectors and detached society from politics until the emergence of massive
student movements in 2011 (Donoso in this volume), while in Argentina, Bolivia, and
Uruguay popular movements could reorganize, allying and competing with corporatist
unionism from the late 1980s.
Even though labor movements played a significant role in the democratization of
Latin America (Drake 1996), the declining power of organized labor meant “that labor
recaptured its freedom to organize, negotiate, participate, and vote, but within the limits
of an economy dedicated to the private sector and a political system dedicated to sta-
bility” (Drake 2007: 162). As a result, the double transition allowed for the reemergence
of protest and popular organization while at the same time weakening organized labor,
causing trade unions to lose their privileged role in articulating and representing pop-
ular sector interests (Collier and Handlin 2009; Oxhorn 1998). These transformations
produced an even greater variety of groups and demands and placed popular
movements at the forefront of the resistance to neoliberalism and the struggle for rein-
corporation (Roberts 2008; Rossi 2017). Since the 1990s, multi-​sectoral coalitions be-
came a common strategy, with a multiplicity of movements emerging and developing
all sorts of campaigns. The growth of identity-​based movements such as Afro-​Latin
American movements (Dixon and Caldwell in this volume) and LGBTQI+​movements
were favored by these transformations (Díez in this volume). Meanwhile, some elite-​
based movements metamorphosed into social movements, think tanks, and NGOs,
which favored the expansion of policy-​based claims such as health and consumers rights
(Rich 2019; Rhodes in this volume). In this period, the main multi-​sectoral coalitions
unified the victims of neoliberalism (Silva 2009).
In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and, with it, an alternative to capitalism and lib-
eral democracy. This was a shock for most of the left and many labor movements, which
experienced a deep crisis (Carr and Ellner 1993). In addition, because of the trauma
produced by the 1970s dictatorships, the stock of legacies of labor and left-​wing actors
was redefined to encompass both freedom and dignity (Ollier 2009; Roberts 1998).
Thus, the experience in the aftermath of the first incorporation process—​with coups
and exclusion—​connected both struggles in the quest for socio-​political reincorpora-
tion as citizens (freedom) and wage-​earners (dignity).
During this period, the repertoire of strategies expanded with several explorations
to consolidate the quest for freedom with dignity. Pickets, assemblies, and factory
occupations spread across Argentina in a domino effect of social explosions (Rossi
2005); anti-​sweatshop advocacy coalitions in Central America and Mexico became
 Social Movements and Capitalist Models of Development    239

quite important in the questioning of the modification of industrial practices as a re-

sult of trade agreements, mainly with the United States (Nolan García 2013); and the
cooperation of elites through specialized NGOs with popular movements increasingly
professionalized claims with judicialization strategies that reformulated the role of the
judiciary in democratic politics (Ruibal in this volume).
In the exploration of new state–​society dynamics, at least two relevant prefigurative
strategies emerged. In the attempt to bridge individuals and local governments, partici-
patory institutional mechanisms started in Porto Alegre and spread throughout the re-
gion (Annunciata and Goldfrank in this volume). In a quest for autonomous projects to
redefine the relationship with the state, in Chiapas a model of revolution emerged that
does not have total societal transformation as its aim (Oikonomakis in this volume).
The destabilization stage of the model of development was initiated when a new “so-
cial question” emerged as the victims of neoliberalism organized in their quest to be
part of (capitalist) society. With the population’s recovery of its civic rights during the
1980s, the main objective of the reincorporation struggles during the 1990s–​2000s was
to reconnect the lives of the popular sectors—​as wage-​earners entitled to dignity—​with
the socio-​political arena. In Argentina, the struggle for reincorporation was sustained
through the coordinated efforts of unions and the piquetero movement in a purely urban
process. In Brazil, urban and rural unions and landless peasant movements fought to
reincorporate the popular sectors using a mix of urban and rural strategies. Having
gradually achieved recognition, legitimation, and partial reincorporation in the socio-​
political arena, popular movements finally generated the conditions for a second wave
of incorporation from the 2000s (Rossi 2017).

Mixed Development (2000s–​)

The growing organization of social movements pushing for the expansion of the socio-​
political arena, along with a new cyclical crisis of capitalism (in this case, the 1997 crisis
in Southeast Asia) provoked—​once more—​a pragmatic policy response to stabilize
capitalist dynamics. Initially, Latin American governments expanded repression and
social policies as a response—​within a neoliberal frame—​to the new “social question”
of disincorporation. Later, a few of them slowly started to apply pragmatic counter-​
cyclical policies with the aim of macroeconomic stabilization without affecting the on-
going process of trade liberalization and open regionalism. Scholars have characterized
this pragmatism, which I call here mixed development, as neo-​structuralism, post-​
neoliberalism, or neo-​developmentalism (Leiva 2008; Rossi and Silva 2018; Ruckert,
McDonald, and Prolix 2017).
This is still an ongoing (and disputed) process that aims at the reconstruction of
twentieth-​century state–​business alliances to go beyond raw material production in
an industrialization drive based on research and developmentalism. However, in most
cases, the transition to a new model has been sustained on neo-​extractivism (mainly
mining, soy, oil, and gas). In any case, neo-​extractivism is not a model of development
240   Federico M. Rossi

as there are huge differences between extractivism under conservative neoliberal

governments and left-​wing post-​neoliberal ones. In the latter, extractivism is part of a
pragmatic approach to development in neo-​structuralist terms, including in most cases
resource nationalism, while in the former it is part of a general reprimarization of the
economy (Ellner 2021). In all cases, the prices of commodities were the main source
of dollars to finance the new “social question” as well as being the cause of multiple
territorialized environmental protests (Arce 2014; Ellner 2021; Lapegna 2016).
The elections in Venezuela that brought Hugo Chávez to power (1999–​2007, 2007–​
2013) accelerated the reshaping of the socio-​political arena in South America. In
Argentina, left-​wing Peronists won the 2003 elections after the Argentinazo—​the mas-
sive national revolt of 2001. That same year in Brazil, the Partido dos Trabalhadores came
to power after a protracted struggle. Later, Bolivia and Ecuador continued the trend
after huge indigenous and peasant mobilizations. During this period, social movements
and unions secured relatively important positions in government. When partial rein-
corporation was achieved in some countries, the socio-​political arena expanded with
institutional transformations, innovation in social policies, and the consolidation of
many movements that transcended functionalist-​based organizational principles (for a
detailed analysis: Rossi 2017; Silva and Rossi 2018).
The second wave of incorporation that precipitated these political changes was—​like
the first—​a regional process that involved several countries, each at a different pace and
intensity. Common characteristics included recognizing the claims of poor people’s
movements, as well as reformulating rules (formal or informal) and regulations that
govern their participation in politics and their connection with the policy process (Rossi
2017: xi). In most countries, union density declined from the first incorporation period,
even if the state’s regulatory approach partially reversed the deregulatory liberalization
policies of the 1970s–​1990s (Collier 2018). As a whole, the second wave of incorporation
led to a change in interest intermediation arrangements: from the corporatist pattern
of relations based on a functionalist logic to a territorially based approach centered on
the multidimensional experience of being poor or impoverished (Collier and Handlin
2009; Rossi 2017: 13–​15).
What Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, and Venezuela shared was the creation of a
policy domain for territorialized reincorporation movements. The pattern of inequality
associated with the mixed model of development is the segmentation of informal
and formal labor in policies directed at individuals more than at social organizations.
In most cases, the unit is the family (in heteronormative terms), with the woman as a
mother as the main beneficiary of a territorially defined locus of needs. The stratifica-
tion of society is territorial, reinforcing the social ghettos in geographic areas that are
dissociated from each other and from the rest of society in social policies that are ho-
listically applied to specific sites, but in parallel tracks rather than universalizing terms
(Rossi 2017).
On the movement side, the second incorporation process was built using a predom-
inant repertoire of strategies that transcended contentious politics. In Argentina, this
happened within a mostly trade unionist strategy in combination with other strategies
 Social Movements and Capitalist Models of Development    241

from left-​wing traditions (Rossi 2017: ch. 2). This period of economic bonanza and
growth led to a lessening of inequality and to a push for redistributive polices (Lustig
et al. 2012). These policies were resisted by what Mangonnet and Murillo (2020) called
“protests of abundance” because of their contentious opposition to redistribution by
those economically better positioned. The case they study in Argentina is that of the
2008 protests against taxation of agricultural commodity exports in a context of price
booms for raw materials, which—​as I argue—​posed serious obstacles to the second
incorporation process (Rossi 2017: 226–​32). Protests of abundance can be considered
as the opposite of anti-​austerity protests. The development of a moral economy of
protests of abundance could be explored to shed light on the perceptions of grievances
and how they are articulated as a contentious response from the winners of a model of
development.
The 2000s and the 2010s were a period of exploration of alternative models of de-
velopment. Venezuela promoted a new democratic path to socialism in what was
called Socialism of the 21st Century, which was faced with an international boy-
cott resembling that imposed on Allende, major obstacles in its ability to maintain
a democratic path after radicalization spiraled between government and opposition
following the death of Chávez in 2013, and the impossibility of diversifying a ren-
tier economy based on oil production (Ellner 2018; García-​Guadilla 2018; Hellinger
2018). In Bolivia and Ecuador, a different model aiming to surpass market-​led devel-
opment has been promoted under the name of Buen Vivir/​Vivir Bien (Acosta and
Martínez 2009). In both its variants, Buen Vivir/​Vivir Bien means development as
composed of an ecological post-​development critique sustained on an Andean indig-
enous cosmovision of human welfare that remains within nature’s limits—​as opposed
to the submission of nature to human plans—​integrated with a neo-​Marxist critique
of modern capitalism (Beling et al. 2021). This proposal has been incorporated into
the constitutions of Bolivia and Ecuador, and its application has been contradictory
within the policies of each country. These and other proposals were helped by the
World Social Forum as a space that strengthened multi-​sectoral coordination and the
discussion of alternatives to the market-​led model of development (von Bülow in this
volume).
Meanwhile, the main hegemonic project of the United States in the continent since
the double transition was the promotion of free trade agreements and the total liber-
alization of markets, provoking an unprecedented response of resistance to this plan
(Burridge and Markoff in this volume). In the 2000s, unions developed a continental
coalition with social movements, the Hemispheric Social Alliance, to resist the Free
Trade Area of the Americas and other neoliberal projects that would have reduced labor,
social, and environmental rights (Spalding 2014; von Bülow 2010; von Bülow in this
volume). In parallel was China’s rapid emergence as a potential new hegemon in com-
petition with the United States, offering a novel multilateral scenario for Latin America
(Stallings 2020).
The second Great Depression of 2008 prevented many governments from adopting
more inclusionary policies because of the abrupt reduction in commodity prices.
242   Federico M. Rossi

Coalitions of conservative, neoliberal, military, and religious groups (mainly Catholic

and evangelical) took advantage of this weakening of the governing elites to recover
power. In most countries, this new major crisis of capitalism led to increased mo-
bilization, taking two forms: on one hand, popular-​based actors organizing to avoid
another disincorporation, and on the other, the emergence of right-​wing protests
resisting incorporation policies (Ferrero, Natalucci, and Tatagiba 2019; Pereyra, Gold
and Gattoni, Payne in this volume). In the aftermath of second incorporation, center-​
right coalitions took power in an attempt to reformulate or stop the ongoing process
like it happened during first incorporation. In Argentina and Ecuador this took place
through democratic means and in Brazil and Bolivia as a result of massive protests
and civic–​military coup d’états. Venezuela, for its part, spiraled into a multifaceted
state of crisis.
From a long-​term historical perspective, this conservative return to power could be
also seen as a plutocratic parenthesis in a process of pendular change in the model of
development. As with the first wave of incorporation, the second wave happened over
several decades, with as after-​effects the rise of novel institutions and the legitimation
of actors that expanded the socio-​political arena beyond governments and regimes.
In 2020, Bolivia’s authoritarian government failed and the Movimiento al Socialismo
returned to power in a redemocratized country. A year earlier, in Argentina, left-​wing
Peronists won the national elections, and piqueteros and human rights movements
returned to the governing coalition. In the case of Chile, it has started to consolidate a
new “social question” almost two decades after the rest of South America did. The 2019
social explosion in Chile resembled the Caracazo and the Argentinazo, characterized by
riots, anti-​elitism, and the demand for multidimensional societal change. Chile’s delay
in initiating the second incorporation can be attributed to the intensity of neoliberal
reforms and of the repression of popular organization. The degree of societal transfor-
mation produced by Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship has only been disputed by a new
generation of Chileans (Donoso and von Bülow 2017; Posner 2008). It could be argued
that the more violently neoliberal reforms were applied, the greater the barriers to the
constitution of a “social question” and, with it, to the legitimation of actors mobilizing
the claim for reincorporation.
The COVID-​19 pandemic in early 2020 provoked the collapse of the world economy
with devastating consequences for all Latin Americans. Social mobilization was ab-
ruptly cut off by the total disruption of life with the accentuation of social uncer-
tainty through multiple crises triggered by the pandemic. Several countries were
in the midst of rising mobilization dynamics when the pandemic hit, and measures
restricting movement and assembly affected these processes. The politicization of tem-
poral inequality among segments of society and the dispute between the temporality of
continuity and of transformation in the quest for repossessing a future (Faure 2020) ac-
celerated historical time, thus enhancing polarization in pre-​pandemic Latin America.
In this context, social movements had to look for alternative ways of developing
strategies that could respond to the new and changing reality and the prefiguration of a
 Social Movements and Capitalist Models of Development    243

post-​pandemic model of development for Latin America (Abers, Rossi, and von Bülow
2021). Political responses to the pandemic may reinforce a mixed model or destabilize
it definitively.

Conclusion

The role of social movements in changing or stabilizing capitalism is a crucial and

underdeveloped topic in social movement studies. The political economy of social
movements is not defined by any single path if it is decentered from its North Atlantic
mainstream narrative, which “viewed social movements developing in a relatively
linear pattern with the expansion of nation-​states, parliamentary democracies, urbani-
zation, industrialization” (Almeida 2019: 147). Within the multiple paths of capitalism,
analyzing the relationship between models of development and social movement dy-
namics may be an avenue for the initiation of a systematic political economy of so-
cial movements. The struggle of social movements against/​for and in/​within capitalism
is always incomplete and only partially achieved, with periods of acceleration where
some practices are suddenly reformulated, and of steady and (sometimes) micro-
scopic sedimentations of contradictory practices. The outcomes are correlations of
contending forces that achieve temporary models of development with clear winners
and losers, and majorities that get mixed results. Social movements are co-​constitutive
of these dynamics and are constituted by them as much as they operate with and
within them.
In this chapter, I have explored this co-​constitution of social movements and models
of development as a general trend in Latin America. Fine-​grained comparative histor-
ical studies are still needed to identify the dynamics within each capitalist path. The re-
gion does not feature a lineal development of capitalism but rather a combination of
waves, cycles, and pendulums together with a huge portion of rhapsodic rhythms that
responded chiefly to (weakly planned) elites’ reactions to collective disruption. The
interests of economic elites often conflict with one another and with those of political
elites; these conflicts and the contention (sometimes violent) that they produce may
create opportunities for social movements.
In the struggles for dignity (social rights) and freedom (civic rights) explored here,
until the aftermath of the first wave of incorporation, these efforts ran along two par-
allel tracks: one mobilized by popular-​based movements and the other by elite-​based
movements. In the 1960s–​1970s, this situation changed as a result of the transformations
produced by the expansion of the socio-​political arena. In this period were introduced
multi-​sectoral coalitions that brought together certain actors and agendas. In the 1980s–​
2010s, after the tragic experience of losing social and civic rights simultaneously, most
struggles for reincorporation showed the intertwining of the quests for dignity and
freedom in multi-​sectoral coalitions.
244   Federico M. Rossi

Acknowledgements

I thank John Markoff, Jessica Rich, Amr Adly, Paul Almeida, and Jeff Goodwin for their
comments to different versions of this chapter.

References
Abers, Rebecca Neaera, Federico M. Rossi, and Marisa von Bülow (2021), “State–​Society
Relations in Uncertain Times: Social Movement Strategies, Ideational Contestation
and the Pandemic in Brazil and Argentina,” International Political Science Review 42(3),
333–​49.
Acosta, Alberto and Esperanza Martínez (eds.) (2009), El buen vivir: Una vía para el desarrollo
(Quito: Abya-​Yala).
Almeida, Paul (2008), Waves of Protest: Popular Struggle in El Salvador, 1925–​ 2005
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
Almeida, Paul (2014), Mobilizing Democracy: Globalization and Citizen Protest (Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press).
Almeida, Paul (2019), Social Movements: The Structure of Collective Mobilization (Oakland:
University of California Press).
Arce, Moisés (2014), Resource Extraction and Protest in Peru (Pittsburgh, PA: University of
Pittsburgh Press).
Auyero, Javier (2002), La protesta. Retratos de la beligerancia popular en la Argentina
democrática (Buenos Aires: CCRR–​UBA).
Beling, Adrián E., Ana Patricia Cubillo-​Guevara, Julien Vanhulst, and Antonio Luis Hidalgo-​
Capitán (2021), “Buen vivir (Good Living): A ‘Glocal’ Genealogy of a Latin American Utopia
for the World,” Latin American Perspectives 48(3), 17–​34.
Bellinger, Paul T. and Moisés Arce (2011), “Protest and Democracy in Latin America’s Market
Era,” Political Research Quarterly 64(3), 688–​704.
Calderón, Fernando (ed.), (1986), Los movimientos sociales ante la crisis (Buenos Aires:
UNU–​CLACSO–​IISUNAM).
Cardoso, Fernando Henrique and Enzo Falletto (1970), Dependência e desenvolvimento na
América Latina (Rio de Janeiro: Zahar).
Carr, Barry and Steve Ellner (eds.) (1993), The Latin American Left: From the Fall of Allende to
the Perestroika (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
Collier, Ruth Berins (2018), “Labor Unions in Latin America: Incorporation and
Reincorporation under the New Left,” in Eduardo Silva and Federico M. Rossi (eds.),
Reshaping the Political Arena in Latin America, 115–​28 (Pittsburgh, PA: University of
Pittsburgh Press).
Collier, Ruth Berins and David Collier (1979), “Inducements versus Constraints:
Disaggregating ‘Corporatism’,” American Political Science Review 73(4), 967–​86.
Collier, Ruth Berins and David Collier (1991), Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures,
the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press).
 Social Movements and Capitalist Models of Development    245

Collier, Ruth Berins and Samuel Handlin (eds.) (2009), Reorganizing Popular Politics:
Participation and the New Interest Regime in Latin America (University Park: Penn State
University Press).
Dinerstein, Ana C. (2003), “Power or Counter Power?: The Dilemma of the Piquetero
Movement in Argentina Post-​crisis,” Capital & Class 27(3), 1–​8.
Donoso, Sofia and Marisa von Bülow (eds.) (2017), Social Movements in Chile: Organization,
Trajectories & Political Consequences (New York: Palgrave-​Macmillan).
Drake, Paul W. (1996), Labor Movements and Dictatorship: The Southern Cone in Comparative
Perspective (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press).
Drake, Paul W. (2007), “Organized Labor’s Global Problems and Local Responses,”
International Labor and Working-​Class History 72(1), 161–​63.
Eckstein, Susan (ed.) (1989), Power and Popular Protest: Latin American Social Movements
(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press).
Ellner, Steve (2018), “Conflicting Currents within the Pro-​Chávez Labor Movement and the
Dynamics of Decision Making,” in Eduardo Silva and Federico M. Rossi (eds.), Reshaping
the Political Arena in Latin America, 157–​78 (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press).
Ellner, Steve (2021), “Introduction: Rethinking Latin American Extractivism,” in Steve Ellner
(ed.), Latin American Extractivism: Dependency, Resource Nationalism, and Resistance in
Broad Perspective, 1–​28 (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).
Escobar, Arturo and Sonia Álvarez (eds.) (1992), The Making of Social Movements in Latin
America: Identity, Strategy, and Democracy (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
Etchemendy, Sebastián (2011), Models of Economic Liberalization: Business, Workers, and
Compensation in Latin America, Spain, and Portugal (New York: Cambridge University
Press).
Faure, Antoine (2020), “¿Se politizó el tiempo? Ensayo sobre las batallas cronopolíticas del
octubre chileno,” Universum (Talca) 35(1), 46–​73.
Ferrero, Juan Pablo, Ana Natalucci, and Luciana Tatagiba (eds.) (2019), Socio-​Political
Dynamics within the Crisis of the Left: Argentina and Brazil (Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield).
García-​ Guadilla, María Pilar (2018), “The Incorporation of Popular Sectors and Social
Movements in Venezuelan Twenty-​First-​Century Socialism,” in Eduardo Silva and Federico
M. Rossi (eds.), Reshaping the Political Arena in Latin American, 60–​77 (Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press).
Garretón, Manuel Antonio (2002), “La transformación de la acción colectiva en América
Latina,” Revista de la CEPAL 76, 7–​24.
Germani, Gino (1962), Política y sociedad en una época de transición (Buenos Aires: Paidós).
Godio, Julio (1987), Historia del movimiento obrero latinoamericano: Anarquistas y socialistas,
1850–​1918, Vol .1 (Caracas: Nueva Sociedad).
Hellinger, Daniel (2018), “The Second Wave of Incorporation and Political Parties in the
Venezuelan Petrostate,” in Eduardo Silva and Federico M. Rossi (eds.), Reshaping the
Political Arena in Latin America, 251–​74 (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press).
Hetland, Gabriel and Jeff Goodwin (2013), “The Strange Disappearance of Capitalism from
Social Movement Studies,” in Colin Barker, Laurence Cox, John Krinsky, and Alf Gunvald
Nilsen (eds.), Marxism and Social Movements, 83–​102 (Chicago: Haymarket).
Lapegna, Pablo (2016), Soybeans and Power: Genetically Modified Crops, Environmental
Politics, and Social Movements in Argentina (New York: Oxford University Press).
246   Federico M. Rossi

Leiva, Fernando Ignacio (2008), “Toward a Critique of Latin American Neostructuralism,”

Latin American Politics and Society 50(4), 1–​25.
Lustig, Nora, George Gray-​Molina, Sean Higgins, Miguel Jaramillo, Wilson Jiménez, Verónica
Paz, Claudiney Pereira, Carola Pessino, John Scott, and Ernesto Yañez (2012), The Impact of
Taxes and Social Spending on Inequality and Poverty in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico,
and Peru: A Synthesis of Results, CEQ Working Paper 3 (New Orleans: Tulane University).
Mangonnet, Jorge and María Victoria Murillo (2020), “Protests of Abundance: Distributive
Conflict Over Agricultural Rents During the Commodities Boom in Argentina, 2003–​2013,”
Comparative Political Studies 53(8), 1223–​58.
Merklen, Denis (2005), Pobres Ciudadanos. Las clases populares en la era democrática
(Argentina, 1983–​2003) (Buenos Aires: Gorla).
Nolan García, Kimberly A. (2013), “Network Dynamics and Local Labor Rights Movements in
Puebla, Mexico,” in Eduardo Silva (ed.), Transnational Activism and National Movements in
Latin America: Bridging the Divide, 106–​40 (New York: Routledge).
Ocampo, José Antonio and Jaime Ros (2011), “Shifting Paradigms in Latin America’s Economic
Development,” in José Antonio Ocampo and Jaime Ros (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Latin
American Economics, 3–​25 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
O’Donnell, Guillermo (1978), “State and Alliances in Argentina, 1956–​ 1976,” Journal of
Development Studies 15(1), 3–​33.
Ollier, María Matilde (2009), De la revolución a la democracia: cambios privados, públicos y
políticos de la izquierda argentina (Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI).
Oxhorn, Philip (1998), “Is the Century of Corporatism Over? Neoliberalism and the Rise
of Neopluralism,” in Philip Oxhorn and Graciela Ducatenzeiler (eds.), What Kind of
Democracy? What Kind of Market? Latin America in the Age of Neoliberalism, 195–​217
(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press).
Portes, Alejandro and Kelly Hoffmann (2003), “Latin American Class Structures: Their Composition
and Change during the Neoliberal Era,” Latin American Research Review 38(1), 41–​82.
Posner, Paul W. (2008), State, Market, and Democracy in Chile: The Constraint of Popular
Participation (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
Quijano, Aníbal (1976), Clase obrera en América Latina (San José: Editorial Universitaria
Centroamericana).
Quirós, Julieta (2006), Cruzando la Sarmiento: Una etnografía sobre piqueteros en la trama so-
cial sur del Gran Buenos Aires (Buenos Aires: Antropofagia-​IDES).
Rice, Roberta (2012), The New Politics of Protest: Indigenous Mobilization in Latin America’s
Neoliberal Era (Tucson: University of Arizona Press).
Rich, Jessica A.J. (2019), State-​Sponsored Activism: Bureaucrats and Social Movements in
Democratic Brazil (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Roberts, Kenneth M. (1998), Deepening Democracy? The Modern Left and Social Movements in
Chile and Peru (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).
Roberts, Kenneth M. (2008), “The Mobilization of Opposition to Economic Liberalization,”
Annual Review of Political Science 11(1), 327–​49.
Romero, Luis Alberto and Hilda Sábato (1992), Los trabajadores de Buenos Aires: la experiencia
del mercado, 1850–​1880 (Buenos Aires: Sudamericana).
Rossi, Federico M. (2005), “Aparición, auge y declinación de un movimiento social: las
asambleas vecinales y populares de Buenos Aires, 2001–​2003,” European Review of Latin
American and Caribbean Studies 78 (April), 67–​88.
 Social Movements and Capitalist Models of Development    247

Rossi, Federico M. (2015), “The Second Wave of Incorporation in Latin America: A

Conceptualization of the Quest for Inclusion Applied to Argentina,” Latin American Politics
and Society 57(1), 1–​28.
Rossi, Federico M. (2017), The Poor’s Struggle for Political Incorporation: The Piquetero
Movement in Argentina (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Rossi, Federico M. (2019), “Conceptualising and Tracing the Increased Territorialisation of
Politics: Insights from Argentina,” Third World Quarterly 40(4), 815–​37.
Rossi, Federico M. (2021), “Labor Movements in Latin America,” in Xóchitl Bada and Liliana
Rivera Sánchez (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Sociology of Latin America, 325–​38 (Oxford:
Oxford University Press).
Rossi, Federico M. and Donatella della Porta (2019), “Social Movements and Contention
in Democratization Processes,” in Christian W. Haerpfer, Patrick Bernhagen, Christian
Welzel, and Ronald F. Inglehart (eds.), Democratization, 182–​94 (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Rossi, Federico M. and Eduardo Silva (2018), “Reshaping the Political Arena in Latin America,”
in Eduardo Silva and Federico M. Rossi (eds.), Reshaping the Political Arena in Latin
America, 3–​20 (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press).
Ruckert, Arne, Laura Macdonald, and Kristina R. Proulx (2017), “Post-​Neoliberalism in Latin
America: A Conceptual Review,” Third World Quarterly 38(7), 1583–​602.
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John D. Stephens (1992), Capitalist
Development and Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Sandoval, Salvador A. M. (1998), “Social Movements and Democratization: The case of Brazil
and the Latin Countries,” in Marco Giugni, Doug McAdam, and Charles Tilly (eds.), From
Contention to Democracy, 169–​201 (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield).
Silva, Eduardo (2009), Challenging Neoliberalism in Latin America (New York: Cambridge
University Press).
Silva, Eduardo and Federico M. Rossi (eds.) (2018), Reshaping the Political Arena in Latin
America: From Resisting Neoliberalism to the Second Incorporation (Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press).
Simmons, Erica (2016), Meaningful Resistance: Market Reforms and the Roots of Social Protest
in Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Somma, Nicolás M. (2020), “Social Movements in Latin America: Mapping the Literature,” in
Xóchitl Bada and Liliana Rivera Sánchez (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of
Latin America, 303–​24 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Spalding, Rose (2014), Contesting Trade in Central America: Market Reform and Resistance
(Austin: University of Texas Press).
Stallings, Barbara (2020), Dependency in the Twenty-​First Century? The Political Economy of
China-​Latin America Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Suriano, Juan (2001), Anarquistas: Cultura y política libertaria en Buenos Aires, 1890–​1910
(Buenos Aires: Manantial).
Svampa, Maristella (ed.), (2000), Desde abajo: La transformación de las identidades sociales
(Buenos Aires: Biblos).
Tamarin, David (1985), The Argentine Labor Movement, 1930–​1945: A Study in the Origins of
Peronism (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press).
von Bülow, Marisa (2010), Building Transnational Networks: Civil Society and the Politics of
Trade in the Americas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
248   Federico M. Rossi

Walton, John (1989), “Debt, Protest, and the State in Latin America,” in Susan Eckstein (ed.),
Power and Popular Protest: Latin American Social Movements, 299–​328 (Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press).
Walton, John and Jonathan Shefner (1994), “Latin America: Popular Protest and the State,”
in John Walton and David Seddon (eds.), Free Markets & Food Riots: The Politics of Global
Adjustment, 97–​134 (Oxford: Blackwell).
Welch, Cliff (1999), The Seed Was Planted: The São Paulo Roots of Brazil’s Rural Labor
Movement, 1924–​1964 (University Park: Penn State University Press).
Wickham-​Crowley, Timothy and Susan Eckstein (2015), “‘There and Back Again’: Latin
American Social Movements and Reasserting the Powers of Structural Theories,” in Paul
Almeida and Allen Cordero Ulate (eds.), Handbook of Social Movements across Latin
America, 25–​42 (New York: Springer).
Yashar, Deborah (2005), Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous
Movements and the Postliberal Challenge (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Zapata S., Francisco (1976), “The Chilean Labor Movement under Salvador Allende: 1970–​
1973,” Latin American Perspectives 3(1), 85–​97.