The London School of Economics and Political Science Department of Government The Discourse on Civil Society in Poverty Reduction Policy in the Argentina of the 1990s The neoliberal and populist political project’s struggles for hegemony Romina Miorelli Thesis submitted for the degree Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) London 2008 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. 2 Abstract This thesis looks at how the long-standing battle between liberalism and populism in Argentina manifested in the 1990s in the struggles between neoliberalism and populism to hegemonise the discourse on civil society in national poverty reduction policy. It traces how, through their struggles to remain or become hegemonic, neoliberalism and the concrete form that populism took in the country – henceforth Argentinean populism – each incorporated some of the other’s views, made the other change, and transformed. Neoliberalism and Argentinean populism are considered antagonistic political projects that struggle to become hegemonic. Each project has normative viewpoints at its core, but also includes contingent characteristics acquired in specific historical contexts. For example, the package of market-liberalisation measures and the model of inward economic development are contingent characteristics of neoliberalism and Argentinean populism respectively. Civil society is seen as both a discourse emerging from struggles to hegemonise its meaning and the arena where struggles for political hegemony take place and, thus, where hegemony and counter-hegemony are manufactured (Gramsci, 1998 [1971]: 12, 13, 15, 204). Defining a discourse on civil society is, therefore, a fundamental hegemonic operation, which entails setting limits to the possibilities of hegemonic struggles that can take place in that arena. The thesis argues that the discourse on civil society in the poverty reduction policy area in the Argentina of the 1990s was neopopulist, understood here as the articulation of neoliberal and Argentinean populist discourses on civil society. The neopopulist discourse, however, was not fixed throughout the decade. It emerged (1990-1994), turned into what this thesis characterises as technopopulism (1995-1999) and was then challenged by populist views (2000-2001). While neoliberalism predominated during the decade, the mutations of the neopopulist discourse reflected the gradual colonisation of the predominantly neoliberal discourse by populism and the attempts of neoliberalism to retain its predominance. The conclusion stresses that the centrality of technical and institutional aspects in the neoliberal logic of hegemonic construction created a crucial interstice through which the intrinsically political populist discourse could permeate the neoliberal hegemony. As dislocations in the hegemonic discourse emerged, domestic factors and actors enabled the Argentinean populist discourse on civil society to grow within the neopopulist discourse, partially colonise it, and eventually challenge it. Policy-makers and implementers, whose profiles combined technical skills with deeply embedded populist views, were crucial in this process. Additionally, changes in the neoliberal discourse of the Multilateral Development Banks during the 1990s, as well as differences between these banks and between their official positions and their staff views, were contributory factors in this colonisation. 3 Acknowledgments I owe my greatest thanks to my supervisor, Dr Francisco Panizza, for his genuine interest in my research, constructive criticisms, patience and encouragement throughout these years. I especially appreciate how he boosted my morale when necessary, by making me feel that the research was valuable and exciting. I am also grateful to my adviser, Professor George Philip, whose acute comments helped me to reconsider and improve crucial aspects of the thesis. This research was only possible thanks to the financial support of a number of organisations. The scholarships from Fundación YPF – and here I express my especial gratitude to Julia Buta – and the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) were the main sources of funding of this research. I also received financial help from the LSE, Fundación Antorcha, the Central Research Grant of the University of London – for field work expenses – and the European Council for Political Research (ECPR) – for discourse theory courses at the University of Essex. I am indebted to my director of research at for the CONICET, Floreal Forni, and to the directors of the Centro de Investigaciones Laborales (CEIL), Julio Neffa and Guillermo Neiman, for their support. I would also like to thank them for making the facilities of the CEIL available to me during my research visits to Argentina. Those who shared their offices with me also shared their views and ideas in informal but deep conversations. A big thank you goes to fellow members of the Latin American Research Seminar (LARS) at LSE. The relaxed atmosphere of the seminars invited the reflection and comfortable consideration of new ideas. While I am indebted to all the participants, I am particularly thankful to Silke Lechner, Sara Motta, Paolo Benedetti, Mercedes Hinton and Jaime Torres-Melo for their sincere involvement in the issues addressed in the thesis and their helpful support. I am particularly thankful to Megan Caine for her dedication in proof-reading and editing numerous versions of these chapters with great attention to detail, and to Emily Mulville for tidying up the interviews transcriptions. I want to address a big gracias to all those who generously gave me their time in the interviews, at times when the social and political pressures were at a peak in Argentina and some of whom worked in highly demanding environments such as the WB and IDB headquarters. I am grateful to my friends. With Julie Hearn and María Fernanda Tuozzo, I had thought-provoking and passionate discussions that in one way or another informed this thesis, over lots of cups of café con leche. More friends read and commented on early and draft versions including Verónica Giménez Beliveau, Roberta Malet-Basset, Hernán Gómez Obligado, Constanza Flores, Nicholas Donovan, Lara Manóvil. My friend Maria Eva Hadida was fantastic in getting contact details for apparently 4 impossible interviews. While these friends helped in specific moments, all of my friends were of great support throughout these years. My family was extraordinary, and my thank you to them is immeasurable. I thank my parents for their unconditional buoyancy, which remains with me even when they are geographically so far away. I am immensely grateful to all of those who helped me with child-care – especially my parents for many long periods, my cousin Cecilia for two great years, and my parents in-law. Last, but definitely not least, I am enormously thankful to my husband, whose patience proved to be infinite, whose tolerance is the sweetest I have ever known, and to my two most precious treasures – Olivia and Matteo. 5 Contents Declaration.....................................................................................................................2 Abstract..........................................................................................................................3 Ackowledgements..........................................................................................................4 Contents..........................................................................................................................6 List of Tables................................................................................................................10 Acronyms and Abbreviations.......................................................................................11 1. Introduction.........................................................................................................14 1.1. Neoliberalism and populism.................................................................. 15 1.2. The focus on poverty reduction policy and civil society................18 1.3. The MDBs, Argentinean populism and the analysis of the neopopulist discourse...............................................................................20 1.4. The thesis contribution..............................................................................24 1.5. Analytical framework: Relational Discursive Institutionalism..........27 a . A relational ontology...................................................................................27 b .Three levels of analysis and the understanding of institutions and actors..31 1.6. Thesis structure and sources....................................................................38 2. Neoliberalism, populism and civil society.................................................42 2.1. Neoliberalism and Populism: two antagonistic political projects.........................................................................................................42