Non-durable consumption and real-estate prices in Brazil: panel-data analysis at the state level

Housing is an important component of wealth for a typical household in many countries. The objective of this paper is to investigate the effect of real-estate price variation on welfare, trying to close a gap between the welfare literature in Brazil and that in the U.S., the U.K., and other developed countries. Our first motivation relates to the fact that real estate is probably more important here than elsewhere as a proportion of wealth, which potentially makes the impact of a price change bigger here. Our second motivation relates to the fact that real-estate prices boomed in Brazil in the last five years. Prime real estate in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo have tripled in value in that period, and a smaller but generalized increase has been observed throughout the country. Third, we have also seen a recent consumption boom in Brazil in the last five years. Indeed, the recent rise of some of the poor to middle-income status is well documented not only for Brazil but for other emerging countries as well. Regarding consumption and real-estate prices in Brazil, one cannot imply causality from correlation, but one can do causal inference with an appropriate structural model and proper inference, or with a proper inference in a reduced-form setup. Our last motivation is related to the complete absence of studies of this kind in Brazil, which makes ours a pioneering study. We assemble a panel-data set for the determinants of non-durable consumption growth by Brazilian states, merging the techniques and ideas in Campbell and Cocco (2007) and in Case, Quigley and Shiller (2005). With appropriate controls, and panel-data methods, we investigate whether house-price variation has a positive effect on non-durable consumption. The results show a non-negligible significant impact of the change in the price of real estate on welfare consumption), although smaller then what Campbell and Cocco have found. Our findings support the view that the channel through which house prices affect consumption is a financial one.

International civil society actors in Genetically Modificied Organisms as a field of struggle: a neo-gramscian study in Brazil and the United Kingdom

Since the international financial and food crisis that started in 2008, strong emphasis has been made on the importance of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) (or “transgenics”) under the claim that they could contribute to increase food productivity at a global level, as the world population is predicted to reach 9.1 billion in the year 2050 and food demand is predicted to increase by as much as 50% by 2030. GMOs are now at the forefront of the debates and struggles of different actors. Within civil society actors, it is possible to observe multiple, and sometime, conflicting roles. The role of international social movements and international NGOs in the GMO field of struggle is increasingly relevant. However, while many of these international civil society actors oppose this type of technological developments (alleging, for instance, environmental, health and even social harms), others have been reportedly cooperating with multinational corporations, retailers, and the biotechnology industry to promote GMOs. In this thesis research, I focus on analysing the role of “international civil society” in the GMO field of struggle by asking: “what are the organizing strategies of international civil society actors, such as NGOs and social movements, in GMO governance as a field of struggle?” To do so, I adopt a neo-Gramscian discourse approach based on the studies of Laclau and Mouffe. This theoretical approach affirms that in a particular hegemonic regime there are contingent alliances and forces that overpass the spheres of the state and the economy, while civil society actors can be seen as a “glue” to the way hegemony functions. Civil society is then the site where hegemony is consented, reproduced, sustained, channelled, but also where counter-hegemonic and emancipatory forces can emerge. Considering the importance of civil society actors in the construction of hegemony, I also discuss some important theories around them. The research combines, on the one hand, 36 in-depth interviews with a range of key civil society actors and scientists representing the GMO field of struggle in Brazil (19) and the UK (17), and, on the other hand, direct observations of two events: Rio+20 in Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and the first March Against Monsanto in London in 2013. A brief overview of the GMO field of struggle, from its beginning and especially focusing in the 1990s when the process of hegemonic formation became clearer, serves as the basis to map who are the main actors in this field, how resource mobilization works, how political opportunities (“historical contingencies”) are discovered and exploited, which are the main discourses (“science” and “sustainability” - articulated by “biodiversity preservation”, “food security” and “ecological agriculture”) articulated among the actors to construct a collective identity in order to attract new potential allies around “GMOs” (“nodal point”), and which are the institutions and international regulations within these processes that enable hegemony to emerge in meaningful and durable hegemonic links. This mapping indicates that that the main strategies applied by the international civil society actors are influenced by two central historical contingencies in the GMO field of struggle: 1) First Multi-stakeholder Historical Contingency; and 2) “Supposed” Hegemony Stability. These two types of historical contingency in the GMO field of struggle encompass deeper hegemonic articulations and, because of that, they induce international civil society actors to rethink the way they articulate and position themselves within the field. Therefore, depending on one of those moments, they will apply one specific strategy of discourse articulation, such as: introducing a new discourse in hegemony articulation to capture the attention of the public and of institutions; endorsing new plural demands; increasing collective visibility; facilitating material articulations; sharing a common enemy identity; or spreading new ideological elements among the actors in the field of struggle.