Coalition Politics, Underlying Ideas, and Emerging Discourses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
5th International Conference on Public Policy Barcelona, 2021 T02P09 / Advancing Research on Policy Dismantling Systemic policy dismantling in Brazil under Bolsonaro: Coalition politics, underlying ideas, and emerging discourses Carolina Milhorance1 Abstract: Despite increasing accounts of policy dismantling and discontinuation processes, most case studies examined in literature followed concealed and omitted forms of dismantling. This contrasts with the systemic dismantling unfolding in Brazil since the beginning of the Bolsonaro administration in 2018. Drawing on a review of the literature on the Brazilian case, this study identifies the origins and mechanisms of policy change common to different sectors. A particular emphasis is placed on rural development, land, social protection, environment, and protection of indigenous peoples. The limitations in the dismantling literature are highlighted, particularly regarding the unclear theoretical premises of change. The study argues that the role of ideas and discourses, and the politics of coalition building, are often overlooked in dismantling studies. It shows that the dismantling for some policy fields may be traced from the early 2010s, as the means of policy implementation change; however, a more active interest in reviewing the goals of public policies is observed in the late 2000s. This reflected the renewed articulation of conservative coalitions tied together by populist rhetoric. Keywords: Policy dismantling; Brazil; policy change; far-right populism 1 Researcher at the Center for International Development and Agricultural Research (CIRAD), Environments and Societies Department, Art-Dev Research Unit. - Montpellier, France. Email: [email protected], Publications: www.researchgate.net/profile/Carolina-Milhorance; https://twitter.com/MilhoranceCarol. 1 1. Introduction Policy dismantling and rupture processes have traditionally been addressed in policy studies. Welfare-state retrenchment and the weakening of social policies are common subJects for institutionalist scholars (Pierson, 1994). Recent studies have analyzed the regression of democratic institutions in Europe and the United States (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). A comprehensive framework for analyzing the mechanisms, causes, and outputs of policy dismantling was provided by Bauer et al. (2012). These authors argued that the distribution of the costs and benefits of dismantling define the strategies and stages of this process. Consequently, most case studies examined with this framework followed concealed and omitted forms of dismantling. This contrasts with the process currently unfolding in Brazil. Since mid-2010, the country has been regressed in terms of several public policies; however, this process featured a compelling and systemic approach since the beginning of the far-right Bolsonaro administration in 2018. Several internationally renowned policies in distinct fields, such as food and nutritional security, poverty reduction, territorial development, and deforestation control, have been targeted (Milhorance, 2018; Sabourin, Grisa, et al., 2020; Sabourin & Grisa, 2018). Although some dismantling stages partially originate from initially obscured choices and reduction in public spending during the tenure of Workers’ Party President Rousseff, it has now become a fundamental government strategy. This major change in national politics has been followed by an increasing interest by scholars and analysts, and there is growing literature in the field (Barcelos, 2020; Barbosa et al., 2021; Fernandes et al., 2017; Granemann, 2016; Macambira, 2020; Sabourin, Craviotti, et al., 2020; Sabourin, Grisa, et al., 2020). However, most studies focus on specific sectors and fail to address the dismantling process from a systemic lens and to place it in the context of a major political shift. Drawing on a review of the emerging literature on the Brazilian case, this study proposes a first attempt to identify some of the mechanisms common to different sectors and provide a broader view of the current dismantling process. This is part of an ongoing effort to understand the consequences and breadth of changes observed in Brazil since the arrival of far-right political groups for the presidency. The limits of addressing these 2 macro-processes in a single study are acknowledged, and a particular emphasis is placed on interrelated policy fields such as rural development, land, social protection, environment, and protection of indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that several traditional policies for education, culture, human rights, and security have been also weakened. This study builds on the understanding of dismantling as a category of policy change. Thus, it highlights some of the limitations in the dismantling literature, particularly regarding the unclear theoretical premises of change. Key elements such as institutional settings and state bureaucracy are captured (Bauer & Becker, 2020) and analyzed herein for the Brazilian case. However, by drawing upon policy process theories, the study argues that the role of ideas and discourses, and the politics of coalition building, are often overlooked in dismantling studies. The prominence of far-right populist discourses in bringing together distinct coalitions under a broader government alliance is also explored, along with the importance of the discourses in disclosing the initiatives which Bauer et al. (2012) expect to be undertaken through hidden strategies. The mechanisms of the resilience of Brazilian policies are addressed by delineating these emerging trends. 2. Contributions and limitations of the dismantling analytical framework Until the early 2010s, policy scholars considered that dismantling and rupture processes lacked a systematic research agenda (Bauer et al., 2012; Jordan et al., 2013). These authors emphasized the criticality of analyzing the process and the extent of dismantling, rather than focusing on the occurrence or non-occurrence of it. This research gap was first addressed by Bauer et al. (2012) who developed a comprehensive framework for analyzing policy dismantling mechanisms, causes, and outputs. The factors leading to policy change through dismantling were divided into three types: i) external factors and prevailing macro conditions, such as the stability of the financial system, technological change, spread of certain ideas of reform, and unforeseen elections; ii) situational factors, which are primarily background issues; and iii) institutional constraints and opportunities, particularly those related to opportunity structures comprising the features of the political system (the polity). Moreover, 3 depending on the specific combination of factors affecting the preferences of political actors and their capability to pursue policy dismantling, hidden or disclosed strategies can be chosen (Bauer et al., 2012). This study mainly contributes toward highlighting the stages of dismantling and governments’ strategies to abandon certain policies, including strategies that remain hidden from political attention, which is often the case for EU-led policies (Bauer et al., 2012; Pollex & Lenschow, 2020). An additional contribution is the in-depth analysis of the institutional settings preventing dismantling, particularly the weight of institutional constraints and veto players confronting policymakers. The politicians’ need to seek consent from institutional, partisanal, or other societal actors makes the dismantling process costlier. Therefore, the institutional—even constitutional—context influences not only the mode but also the concrete target of policy dismantling. For instance, the features of the United States (US) polity—legalism, based on distributed power and several checks and balances—has historically contributed to constrain dismantling and prevent “unilateral strategies.” This includes the role of state bureaucracy, which shows how political leaders—even populist leaders such as Donald Trump—are faced with an established administrative order characterized by embedded bureaucracies, institutional legacies, and path dependencies that constrain the available administrative choices (Bauer et al., 2012; Bauer & Becker, 2020). Another series of studies focused on the policy outputs of dismantling by addressing changes in the configurations of policy instruments that may influence policy impacts (Knill et al., 2009). Barnett, Wellstead, and Howlett (2020) drew on the US subnational biofuel policy to highlight the mechanisms of dismantling by removing or adding policy instruments to a particular policy regime or portfolio to reduce or obliterate its effects. These authors examined the internal contradictions in instruments’ portfolios that can cause incoherence and inconsistency between the instruments. These studies indirectly address an important element of policy change analysis: defining the real obJect of change. In other words, prior to analyzing the strategies and causes of dismantling, it is important to identify the policy components undergoing change, such as the issues in question, structure and content of the policy agenda, content of the policy program, or the outcomes of implementation (Capano, 2009). Both policy goals and implementation 4 means are usually addressed in dismantling literature; however, the distinction among the policy components that undergo change is rarely stated. This concern is addressed in this study by distinguishing among the policy goals, tools, and impacts of change, as proposed by Howlett