Social Inequality and Social Policy outside the OECD

Almost all Latin American countries are still marked by extreme forms of social inequality – and to an extent, this seems to be the case regardless of national differences in the economic development model or the strength of democracy and the welfare state. Recent research highlights the fact that the heterogeneous labour markets in the region are a key source of inequality. At the same time, there is a strengthening of ‘exclusive’ social policy, which is located at the fault lines of the labour market and is constantly (re-)producing market-mediated disparities. In the last three decades, this type of social policy has even enjoyed democratic legitimacy. These dynamics challenge many of the assumptions guiding social policy and democratic theory, which often attempt to account for the specificities of the region by highlighting the purported flaws of certain policies. We suggest taking a different perspective: social policy in Latin American should not be grasped as a deficient or flawed type of social policy, but as a very successful relation of political domination. ‘Relational social analysis’ locates social policy in the ‘tension zone’ constituted by the requirements of economic reproduction, demands for democratic legitimacy and the relative autonomy of the state. From this vantage point, we will make the relation of domination in question accessible for empirical research. It seems particularly useful for this purpose to examine the recent shifts in the Latin American labour markets, which have undergone numerous reforms. We will examine which mechanisms, institutions and constellations of actors block or activate the potentials of redistribution inherent in such processes of political reform. This will enable us to explore the socio-political field of forces that has been perpetuating the social inequalities in Latin America for generations.

Higher education in the Federal Republic of Germany - devolpments and recent issues

Center of European Studies, Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York

Colombia: compromise or containment?

The design, reformulation, and final signing of Plan Colombia by the then US President, Bill Clinton, on the 13 July 2000 initiated in a new era of the US State´s involvement in supposedly sovereign-territorial issues of Colombian politics. The implementation of Plan Colombia there-on-after brought about a major realignment of political-military scales and terrains of conflict that have renewed discourses concerning the contemporary imperialist interests of key US-based but transnationally-projected social forces, leading to arguments that stress the invigorated geo-political dimension of present-day strategies of capitalist accumulation. With the election of Álvaro Uribe Vélez as Colombian President in May 2002 and his pledge to strengthen the national military campaign aganist the region´s longest-surviving insurgency guerrilla group, Las FARC-EP, as well as other guerrilla factions, combined with a new focus on establishing the State project of “Democratic Security”; the military realm of governance and attempts to ensure property security and expanding capitalist investment have attained precedence in Colombia´s national political domains. This working paper examines the interrelated nature of Plan Colombia -as a binational and indeed regional security strategy- and Uribe´s Democratic Security project as a means of showing the manner in which they have worked to pave the way for the implementation of a new “total market” regime of accumulation, based on large-scale agro-industrial investment which is accelerated through processes of accumulation via dispossession. As such, the political and social reconfigurations involved manifest the multifarious scales of governance that become intertwined in incorporating neoliberalism in specific regions of the world economy. Furthermore, the militarisation-securitisation of such policies also illustrate the explicit contradictions of neoliberalism in a peripheral context, where coercion seems to prevail, something which leads to a profound questioning of the extent to which neoliberalism can be thought of as a hegemonic politico-economic project.