Governance in South America

Handbook of South
American Governance; edited by Pía Riggirozzi and Christopher Wylde
 Preliminary version. Please cite as: Riggirozzi, Pía and Christopher Wylde (2018) ‘Governance in South America’, in Pía Riggirozzi and Christopher Wylde (eds) Handbook of South
American Governance. London: Routledge
 Introduction Governance in South America Pía Riggirozzi and Christopher Wylde Governance is a key issue of our times. Conceptually it refers to the complex ways in which human interaction takes place within and outside the space of the nation state, and how that interaction is regulated and governed (Gamble, 2014; Jessop, 2016: 50). But it is not only about interactions; governance is also about how institutions regulate those ‘social and economic, as well as political, processes by which power and influence are put into practice, outcomes are shaped and decisions made and implemented' (Cerny, 2014: 48). In practice, governance is signified by strategies pursued by state and non-state actors directed to enhancing (some aspect of) their capabilities/powers of agency. This framework lends explanatory power to understand how governance is defined and practiced in South America. Governance, as a political economic project in South America, can be associated with state capacity to deliver inclusive democracy and socio-economic equality. In fact, the dilemma of governance in South America unfolded as a perpetual tension between weak political institutions reproducing social and economic inequalities and conflicts over political recognition, rights and distribution. There are three reasons above all for a new Handbook of South American governance. The first is that regional governance in South America has been, and still is, defined by competing models and processes of economic development that have affected the institutionalisation of democracy, quality of democracy, and how countries insert in the international political economy - as individual countries and/or collectively - shaping modalities of foreign policy and regional diplomacy. Second, there is a need for a longue duree approach, to borrow Fernand Braudel’s concept, to understand the implications of competing models of development - not as a sequence of successes and failures in governance, but rather as an unfinished business where inclusive and sustained economic growth, social development, and the consolidation of social justice underpin democracy in the region. Development must be understood as an historical change process (Kothari, 2005); revealing governance in South America to be a work in progress. This Handbook looks at the historical traces that explain contemporary dilemmas of equitable and sustainable political economic governance in the region. Generally, historical analyses are far less interested in what has remained in place, that is, in continuity, or re-appearances, let alone in things falling out of fashion and fading out. But when studying what has defined governance and thus shaped its associated dilemmas the reappearance of an ‘old’ question became evident: in what sense are we witnessing something that represents a search for autonomous political and economic governance in South America? Or are we simply witnessing an update of what has always been the formula of governing and governance in the region? This takes us to the final reason why we consider this Handbook invaluable, the insightful work of all contributors here suggests that governance dilemmas of inequitable and unfulfilled political economic governance in South America are not uncommon historical features. Nonetheless, in the process of defining and seeking sovereignty, South America has pioneered regional and international norms, debates and alternative modalities of political economic governance that need to be taken more seriously in political theory and practice. This Handbook looks at these issues, offering a comprehensive overview of the history and evolution of governance as a project of political economy, and how it manifested in practice in South America since independence. As such, the Handbook explores modalities of governance at international, regional, national, and issue-based levels of policy. By so doing, the Handbook depicts practices and strategies and the complex constellation of actors influencing policy-making processes and outcomes across different and often multiple layers of governance. Contextualising the Dilemma of Governance in South America Since the late 19th Century, governance in South America was part and parcel of the difficulties of reconciling a primarily oligarchic model of liberal economics with political models of social inclusion. These tensions were often aggravated by unequal insertion of the region into the global political economy. In fact, we argue, models of governance in South America are embedded in countries and political cultures shaped not only by the recent past of profound economic and political liberalisation but also by historic legacies which may include institutional fragility, a sometimes abysmal gulf between a formal democratic order and the persistence of everyday realities of social exclusion, impoverished citizenship and practices of patrimonialism, and corruption and double-dealing; often fuelled by and in the shadow of US influence in the region. The disintegration of Spanish and Portuguese colonial administrations left the continent with weak institutional frameworks that struggled to absorb and regulate economic and political conflicts (Briceño Ruiz in this volume). What followed was a complex process of state formation shaped by the pressures of (re)constructing markets and the insertion of new economies in the logic of international trade. As Colin Lewis puts it, South American nations and their dilemmas of governance have been part and parcel of a co-foundation process where states, and the construction of a regime of rules, have been determined by the creation of market economies – and vice versa (Lewis in this volume). Furthermore, the pressures of markets, as Lewis puts it, conditioned the formation of domestic institutions and their regulatory capacity. Their evolution tended to be highly exclusionary, and at times captured by and reproducing elite politics. The problem of the oligarchic state however was that it was too weak to implement development programmes (Cannon in this volume). Nevertheless, increasing export expansion, industrialisation, and infrastructure investment enhanced South America’s insertion into the global division of labour and solidified the basis for elite-led ‘order and progress’ and ‘peace and administration’ (Lewis in this volume). Problems of unequal development, social exclusion, and representation were typically managed through political and institutional centralisation, tariffs, or the role of religion (Gargarella 2005). Political inequality, however, coexisted with increasing economic inequality. Inequality, in turn, recurrently undermined the stability of the oligarchic state. Given economic inequality, the problem of the political incorporation of the poor, urban workers as well as agricultural labourers, and a context of land concentration, the contemporary social contract could no longer be supported. South American governance as a political and economic project came under pressure. Demands for inclusion and democratisation, in a context of increasing ideological polarisation as Cannon explains in this volume, exposed the difficulties of exclusionary political systems to absorb and process conflicts that were engrained in a system of production and economic project that was in many ways the DNA of the institutional structure in the region. The difficulties of state building, social and political inclusion, mobilisation against elite politics, and an incessant search for stable and autonomous models of growth and development vis a vis the steady assertion of US global and regional hegemony defined how governance has both been ‘understood’ and ‘done’ in South America. The new millennium in South America has witnessed a series of transitions from right of centre governments to those of the left or left of centre. Some see this as evidence that the new democracies engineered in South America (and the continent more widely) in the last decades of the twentieth century are now institutionally stable (Panizza 2005, 2009, Hershberg and Rosen 2006; Grugel and Riggirozzi 2007, 2009). Governments committed to broader forms of representation, redistribution and better and more accessible public services took office in Venezuela in 1998, Brazil in 2002, 2006 and 2010, Argentina in 2003 and 2008, Uruguay in 2004, Bolivia in 2005, Ecuador in 2006 and Paraguay in 2008. The rise of the new left is an indication that the more cautious, consensual and pro-elite democracies that characterised the early stages of democratisation are over. Instead, claims are being made on behalf of South America’s ordinary people (Lomnitz 2006). The new left signified, in other words, the emergence of a new kind of politics, and a renegotiated pact between the state, society and the market (Grugel and Riggirozzi 2012; Wylde 2011; Foxley 2010). Liberal ideas about the centrality of the market for development were not simply taken ‘off the shelf’ and implemented wholesale: policies were mediated temporally by political leaders, the demands of business and investors (national and international), the strength of social movements and labour, national institutional preferences (Blyth 1997), and sometimes international financial institutions (chiefly the IMF and/or World Bank). But it is also the case that dominant economic ideas take on a life of their own and can sometimes obtain an influence that goes beyond their policy significance. In addition to underpinning policies, neoliberal ideas came to shape and set the frameworks for debate. The very idea that development depends on freeing the market itself became a ‘weapon’ that facilitated the introduction of policies that enabled marketisation and restrained collective action against market reform (Blyth 1997). A highly unusual temporal confluence in interests and convictions between business, development and finance agencies, and governing elites lent authority to the task of rolling back the state (Babb 2009). Neoliberalism served as an effective ideational critique of statist economic production and a rallying cry for those committed to freeing the economy from the grip of ‘special interests’. In this highly politicised climate, all government action that rolled back the state and incentivised the market was labeled ‘neoliberal’, making it seem almost impossibly idealist to suggest other ways of running the economy. The template for South America’s engagement with neoliberalism was the Washington Consensus (MacDonald in this volume), the name itself an indication of the extent to which neoliberalism was leveraged and supported by the political and economic authority of the US and the international financial institutions. The Washington Consensus set out to transform development and governance practices across South America via a range of policies from the privatisation of public assets to cuts in public expenditure. A leaner, more focused state was to be achieved through cutbacks in infrastructural and welfare spending and tight fiscal discipline. The tax base was broadened (so that more people paid taxes) and high rates of tax at the top were reduced or ‘streamlined’ (so that capitalists would pay less tax and would be freed to invest more in the economy). Trade liberalisation measures, including the adoption of a uniform tariff, were designed to encourage exports and foreign investment; and legal and juridical policies introduced to enhance and protect property rights, along with reform to labour market, and the introduction of foreign investment in pension provision, public utilities and natural resources. The point is not just that the role of the market was enhanced in everything from education to health and housing but that the state, though it hardly disappeared, was clouded in shame and decried as old-fashioned, rent-seeking and inefficient. The Washington Consensus was thus part of a holistic right-wing liberal mantra about the intrinsic superiority of the market over the state and it played well at a time of conservative and timid democratisation when the ‘excesses’ of the Left could be blamed for having provoked the extreme violence that engulfed much of the region in the 1960s and 1970s. There is some evidence to suggest that liberal economics did indeed limit (or at least hold up to the light) corrupt state practices. Wise (2003: 5), for example, notes than some of the Washington Consensus reforms ‘whittled away at entrenched authoritarian legacies’. But overall, the immediate political (as well as economic) impact of the Washington Consensus on South America’s nascent democracies was negative. It led to the introduction of highly concentrated, undemocratic and non-consultative procedures within government, reduced access to the state and deepened poverty, heightened social and economic exclusion and increased social tensions. One particularly difficult transition to embed was the attempted transformation of citizenship. With strong traditions of both corporatist and social movement-based forms of citizenship, it is no surprise that attempts to allocate citizenship through the market were widely resisted in South America, at times openly and through mass protest in Venezuela, Bolivia and, eventually, Argentina or through alternative forms of collective organisation as with the Landless Movement in Brazil. In the end it was the difficulty of reconciling neoliberalism with popular expectations of a new era of inclusive, democratic politics, rather than a failure of its strictly economic rationale, that has led to its unravelling. By the end of the 1990s, poverty rates averaged 40 per cent across the region as welfare was systematically squeezed and inclusion reduced to those who could pay for health, good schooling and social security. Inequality was somehow and perversely a functional feature, or an unintended consequence, of neoliberal governance (see Dayton Johnson in this volume) As the problems associated with free markets have spiraled and the authority of the idea of neoliberalism has declined, so an intellectual agenda has emerged that, in South America at least, derives from two distinct but linked threads: the different national experiences of marketisation and economic liberalisation as a development strategy and their material consequences in terms of rising poverty, inequality and social exclusion; and a widespread rejection of the mystique of neoliberalism itself. Post neoliberalism is, in short, both an attempt at articulating a fresh set of ideas about how the economy should be run bolstered by a conviction that there should be greater control over market for reasons of morality, democracy and efficacy and specific and often contingent politics that aim to correct existing architecture of governance (Wylde in this volume). The result is emerging strategies for development focus principally on a critique of unmediated marketisation (with the suggestion that the state should do a better job in terms of regulation, the provision of public goods and distribution) that is combined with a new moral tone and a concern with poverty and social exclusion. This is articulated in conjunction with what can only be called fiscal conservatism: South American governments have learned the hard way that greater policy autonomy must be paid for by independence from the international financial organisations. There is, then, a common attempt to recalibrate and rehabilitate the role of the state and public spending, but without creating ‘excessive’ expectations about the possibilities of redistribution in the short term. Stokes (2009) contends that what links post neoliberal states is a combination of more expansive public spending alongside strategies to increase national shares in international markets. The result is an ambiguous, pragmatic, fluid and at times even contradictory policy mix that varies from county to country, at odds certainly with the rigid orthodoxies of the neoliberal high period in the 1990s but quite distant also from the projects of root and branch transformation that characterized the left in South America before 1970 (Rivera-Quinoñes in this volume). Fundamentally while neoliberalism in South America was facilitated by a process of regime change without state transformation, post-neoliberalism represents the opposite: transformation of state governance under conditions of continued democracy. Post neoliberalism hinges on the need to revamp and renew what citizenship means. One source of ideas here is a belief in continental solidarity, articulated via the attempt to redraw the political map of the Americas through new regional organisations which sets out to rival the neoliberal open market regionalism of the 1990s (Riggirozzi and Tussie 2012; Riggirozzi and Tussie in this volume). The search for a regional mission, a new sense of what region building is about, denotes a rescaled debate about the construction of alternative modalities of governance through collective action. Contentious actions are contextual, invented, and importantly, historically constituted. Organised collective responses indicate the interconnections between past and present understandings of state institutions and policy practices. Contending actors are bounded by socio-economic and political institutions; they are influenced by themes, symbol and tactical innovations of group and individual actions borrowed through past practices of collective action. For Charles Tilly (1975, 2006), state-society relations can be understood through repertoires of contention, or the whole set of meanings that a group has for making diverse sets of claims on different people and groups; it’s not only about what they do when they make a claim but also what they know how to do and what society has come to expect them to do within a culturally sanctioned and historically confined set of options. As Riggirozzi and Tussie argue, contending action in regional politics has been a genuine way of reclaiming the space for the redefinition of consensuses, reworking what governance is about in a way that is at odds with the Washington Consensus and neoliberal governance. A correlation at the national level is reflected in confident assertions of citizenship and inclusive and socially responsive governance. Patterns of citizenship shape up in distinctly national ways as different institutional frames support very different kinds of collective action and allow different sorts of claims to be made. Likewise, institutional settings and regime features have significant impact on the rhythms and episodes of contentious actions, as well as on state capacity to respond, and more generally state-society relations (Tarrow 2012: 3, 124-125). Notwithstanding justice claims as central to the construction of shared social imaginaries, ordinary citizens are influenced by references to historical memories that symbolise a discrete set of categories constitutive of emancipatory politics. In other words, although experiences of marginalisation are necessary elements to transform grievances into concrete political struggles, ‘citizenship pacts’ are inevitably shaped by iterative and cumulative engagements between states and social groups who frame and carry demands within specific governance frameworks. In democratic settings, as Sidney Tarrow (2011: 6) reminds us, ordinary people in alliance with activists and influential citizens will frame their claim and pull out resources at particular historical conjunctures to exert influence to change established rules through contentious politics. Experiences of marginalisation or discrimination as well as perceptions of injustice often channel into concrete political struggles advanced by social actors or networks of actors within specific governance frameworks. From this perspective, the referential point for social action is the system of political and economic governance, and the degree to which the political establishment is open or closed to demands advanced by social actors. Following this line of argument, Grugel (2006: 214) suggests that the legitimacy of organisations is defined by the extent that governments foster and create opportunities for participation and activism of social actors within governance processes. In vibrant democracies, civil society organizations are expected to play a vital role transforming the patterns of access to, and the practices and policies of, the state. In South America despite a real and genuine engagement with democratic ideas across the continent, democracy faltered as the twentieth century progressed. Over the last two decades there has been a very important debate, and much real political action and social conflict, surrounding how to interpret citizenship; all in the context of the quite troubled relationship between the progressive regimes, their pursuit of (neo)extractivist policies, and the militant opposition of social movements - from labour to indigenous peoples - to these same policies governing ‘alternative and autonomous development’. The contribution by Rice focusing on indigenous resistance and the commodification of land through the market in Ecuador and Bolivia, and those of Nem Singh and Saguier regarding the governance of natural resources and environmental citizenship, locate this debate as central to understand contestation to neoliberalism and current governance deficits in South America. The region also has a long tradition of labour (Ozarow in this volume) and social movement (Donoso in this volume) organisations that seek redress inclusive governance within communities, with or independent from the state. New regional dynamics identified by Riggirozzi and Tussie (this volume) point to a further space for norm creation and political action and advocacy. This has generated new questions concerning what regionalism is in terms of its philosophical, legal, and institutional basis; or what roles and purposes to which the practice of regionalism gives expression to. Regional governance may be expressed as (re)newed opportunities concerning regional citizenship rights (Mondelli in this volume) and political settlements around new patterns of migration (Margheritis in this volume); or defensive reactions to economic vulnerabilities (Gomez-Mera in this volume) and trade-led minilateral responses (Garzon and Detlef in this volume). What becomes clear in South America is not the question of whether regional governance exists, it clearly does, rather it’s what kind of governance arrangements take place through social action, distinct issue areas, and with or without leadership from regional, hemispheric, or global hegemons. There are, in other words, quite different versions and practices of post neoliberalism at different levels of governance, ranging from the radical models that proclaim the need for a rectification of history and see the overthrow of neoliberalism as a part of process of national redemption - Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador - to models that put limits on the social role of the market in particular - Chile, under Michelle Bachelet, Brazil under the Workers’ Party governments, Uruguay under the Frente Amplio, and to a lesser extent Argentina under the Kirchners (Yates and Bakker 2013). These experiments were dubbed by Panizza (2005) as ‘social democratic’. These regimes are, clearly, far from being a complete repudiation of neoliberal reform in the 1980s and 1990s. There is a quite explicit acknowledgment that the market model of the 1990s requires recalibration – and that South America now has the technical knowledge and attendant state capacities to carry this adjustment out without external supervision. Renewed state activism, however, has sat alongside a strategy for growth that remains based on the export of primary commodities – and a distinctive dependency on China (Wise in this volume), taxes on exports that provide the resources for enhanced state spending on welfare and industrial growth, and a new governance dilemma of how to finance inclusive and sustainable development. As Wylde (this volume) demonstrates, post neoliberalism may have distributed the benefits of dependence better than neoliberalism - after all poverty and inequality have been the great victory of the new left project - but it is still a project of governance reflective of the ‘paradox of plenty’ (Karl 1997) rather than a strategy that genuinely transformed the old conflict between states, societies and markets. A number of core dilemmas have clearly permeated South American governance across different modes of capital accumulation. Economic, political, and civil rights have all been pursued by different actors across different spatial levels of analysis (state, regional, global) of governance. As such, a number of claims – from indigenous rights to environmental and resource governance – are not to be considered ‘new’ as such, rather as old dilemma’s being pursued by actors in new ways, in the context of changing governance structures at different levels of analysis. The next section will further expand on this understanding through an investigation of the evolution of how agents of governance have strategically navigated terrains of governance at different spatial levels of analysis. Levels and Agents of Governance The capacity to promote the realisation of collective goods for the public interest constitutes governance. This can be understood in terms of political spaces in which norm creation, political action, and political advocacy can occur. It follows from this that the interaction between people and space must be understood as a dynamic enabler of social meaning and practice. The institutional setting in which actors interact in norm creation can occur at multiple levels of spatial analysis – global, regional, national, sub-national. The complex, mutually re-constitutive dialectics concerning any analysis of governance generate a series of complex institutions and structures that are strategically navigated by a plethora of actors at multiple sites of spatial analysis. Alternatively expressed, governance concerns a set of arrangements that allow politics (or agency) to happen. In this context, understanding politics at different levels and how they are manifested in different dynamics of political action and public policy advocacy becomes paramount. This Handbook thus becomes a collection of thoughts about the roles and purposes to which the practice of governance gives expression. The arrangements that allow a particular politics to “happen” are embedded in institutional structures, driven by social relations, and manifest in public policy profiles. The practice of governance at different spatial levels unfolds in terms of inclusion. In South America this has traditionally come in the form of economic inclusion, and has been managed through the resultant tensions between states and markets. In the 1980s and 1990s – in the context of a return to democracy – distributional conflicts related to inclusive and sustainable development were defined by the imperative of the market. In the twenty-first century this inclusion has manifested more in terms of civil rights as well as social and ecological rights (Lessa and Levey, Rice, and Saguier in this volume). This has led to agents expressing forms of identity politics and new demands to include and recognise a concomitant suite of rights through alternative modalities of governance. ‘Old’ groups have found new opportunities to express their agency in order to realise specific governance desires. Working classes that used trade unions in the 20th Century to gain privileged access to the state (see Rivera-Quiñones in this volume) found themselves fractured in the wake of neoliberal reform and sought additional channels to express their agency in the form of social movements (see Donoso and Ozarow in this volume). Furthermore, these agents have found multiple institutional sites to express their agency, giving them greater opportunities for ‘play-making’ (Riggirozzi and Tussie, 2012; Riggirozzi, 2015). For example, (very) old ideals concerning a Pan-Americanism have manifested in one form through regional citizenship rights and attendant migration patterns (see Margheritis in this volume), that Mercosur is working towards in one particular institutional context (see Mondelli in this volume) Whilst governance at the state level remains a core concern, access to sites of regional governance and, to a lesser extent, global governance (see Burges in this volume, and Nemina for the specific case of the IMF or Alonso on the World Bank) have led away from an analysis of globalisation as a monolithic, absolutely constraining phenomenon to one that understands its limits, but also the not insignificant ‘room for manoeuvre’ present in different ‘political economies of the possible’ (Santiso, 2006). Governance in South America has traditionally related to tensions between states and markets, located at multiple sites of spatial analysis. The central dilemma in South American governance has traditionally related to issues concerned with how states make markets, and markets make states - and how states and markets accommodate and respond to social demands for governance. This Handbook suggests that whilst states and markets remain important, the nature of social contestation has proliferated and therefore we invited the contributors to look at: How justice claims became central to the demands of specific social groups; How these governance frameworks, from state-society pacts to regional institutions, are important because they foreground particular issues as central problems and privilege particular forms of political practice; and Iterative and cumulative processes leading to the emerging of identity politics and episodes of contentious actions South America has historically been a laboratory for the realisation of, and resistance to, a hegemonic capitalist model of development and governance. There is a vast literature examining South America's political economy in the 20th Century that focuses on the liberal trading order and associated Fordist international production regime as well the intellectual tradition associated with dependency critiques of governance as ‘dependent development’ (e.g. Dos Santos, 1970; Frank, 1966; Cardoso and Faletto, 1979; Rivera-Quinoñes in this volume). In the 1990s, a growing literature stressing governance defined the terms of debate and practice, turning attention to institutional determinants of efficiency and how authority is exercised vis a vis the markets (Kaufmann et al. 2000). Building on these ideas, several cross-national empirical studies have found a positive relationship between the quality of institutions, governance structures, and economic growth (Knack, 2003). But the crises that erupted in much of the region with the onset of the twenty-first century were due to more than South America’s embrace of the Washington Consensus in the 1980s and 1990s; in a very real way, they were the latest episodes in a drama that has been played out since the 1930s over the state and the direction of the region’s political economy. In light of this, (South American) scholars recognise that governance is more than getting the institution, and politics, right and that post-neoliberal modes of resistance are currently reworking the terms of governance across the region (Grugel and Riggirozzi, 2012; Panizza, 2009). What these approaches share is an understanding that development policy, or wider concerns of models of political economy, emerge from complex interactions and interdependencies between interlinked and overlapping levels of governance. This Handbook associates itself with this rich tradition in the literature examining the history of and political economic dynamics defining governance as a debate and in practice in contemporary South America. The chapters in the Handbook offer thematic and issue-based in depth analysis, exploring the terms of governance as defined by governing arrangements, modalities of engagement of states and non-state actors, and dilemmas of governing in a globalised world. The Structure of the Book This volume provides a comprehensive overview of the history and evolution of governance as a project of political economy and practice, combining attention to different ‘levels of analysis’ whilst paying attention to how governance has been played out in South America since independence. As such, the Handbook explores modalities of governance at international, regional, national, and issue-based levels of policy. This is so as to depict practices and strategies and the complex constellation of actors influencing policy-making processes and outcomes across different and often multiple layers of governance. The framework for this approach is set in Part I, which analyses the challenges of state building and state-market relationships in historical perspective. South America has a rich experience of state (non)intervention, and tracing the evolution of the role of the state in South America from colonial times to present day offers the opportunity to examine the history of state governance in South America. Conventionally, states are seen as the managers – indeed sometimes the cause – of crisis. Moreover, despite globalisation, and vacuous claims of the ‘end of the state’ (Ohmae, 1995), steering the national development project is one of the key tasks all states, - at least rhetorically, assume. Whatever the real limitations on policy making, both external and internal, managing the national economy while responding to the pressures of global markets remains a priority within the discourses of states. Chapters in Part I analyse the role of the state in economic governance exploring processes of institutional reform, democratisation, adjustment choices and capacities and choices of states from postcolonial times to the more recent search for post-neoliberal governance. Part II examines processes of regional formation and the place of South America in regional and global governance. The operation of states and institutions should not be understood only in the national context. The internationalisation of trade, the growth of social and political inter-connectedness, and the expansion of global forms of knowledge all limit the extent to which national policies are determined exclusively by local or national actors. This is of course particularly so for states in the developing world. And it is even more the case in South America where relationship between international, multilateral, regional, and often Washington-based organisations, and states has considerably affected models of political economic governance in the region. Chapters in Part II identify these processes and explore power relations defining governance in Inter-American relations. Case studies are offered to illustrate the specific dynamics of international institutions in the governance of security, trade, development and finance, as well recent cycles of disillusionment with the strictures of Washington-led governance in the region and contestation led by new Leftists projects of governance seeking to challenge and rework how governance is conceptualised and practiced in those same areas. Part III focuses on actors, seeking to complete the levels of analysis approach of the book through looking at the agency of various sub-state institutions. From labour unions to ‘new’ social movementsthere are many important non-governmental actors present ‘below’ the state that have influenced, and continue to influence, the nature of governance in South America. The state, like the Roman God Janus, must simultaneously face outward towards supra-national governance – and all the different pressures that this entails – and inwards towards their own polities and modalities of sub-national governance; mediating not only the often-conflicting pressures between different global regimes or socio-economic sections of society, but also between these two levels themselves. The demands of domestic trade unions are not often the same as the demands of international capital – and it is the job of the state to mediate these interests. The autonomy (either relative, absolute, or embedded) of the state to do so in South America has shifted over time. As the volume seeks to trace the lineage of these pressures, chapters in Part IV seek to complete this task through systematic analysis of those actors that operate at the domestic societal level and the changing nature of their influence on governance issues over time. Part IV concentrates on long-standing thematic debates, distilled down from the discussions of previous sections. Chapters in this section look at how governance unfolded and is perceived in key issue areas that are representative of old and often unresolved problems, as well as defining new challenges, of governance in South America. Particular attention is given to models and nature of governance in relation to policies that affect communities of ordinary people, shedding light on the working of governance on the ground. The Handbook closes with a critical reflection about the complexities of governing in South America and the changing coordinates defining contemporary governance as a political and economic model structuring the relationships between state, societies and markets in the region. Governance as practice continues to grapple with old dilemmas across the continent. How it can best be analysed and understood is as a constellation of different interests that are reformulating the terms of governance on the basis of demands for more inclusive, responsive, and autonomous models of political economy. Bibliography Babb, S. (2009) Behind the Development Banks: Washington Policy, World Politics and the Wealth of Nations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Blyth M. (1997) ‘Any more bright ideas? The ideational turn of comparative political economy’ Comparative Politics 29(2): 229–250 Cardosso, F.H. and Falletto, E. (1979) Dependency and Development in Latin America, (Santa Barbara: University of California Press) Cerny, P. (2014), ‘Neoliberalism: Alive and Well?’, International Studies Review, 16 (4): 645–6. Cox, R.W. and Sinclair, T. (eds.) (1996) Approaches to World Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Douglas, I.R. (2000) 'Globalisation and the Retreat of the State', in B.K. Gills (ed.), Globalization and the Politics of Resistance, 110-131, (Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan). Dos Santos, T. (1970) 'The Structure of Dependence', The American Economic Review, 60(2): 231-236. Foucault, M., (2008[2004]), The birth of Biopolitics. Lectures at the College de France, 1978‐79. (Hampshire: PalgravemacMillan). Frank, A. (1966) 'The Development of Underdevelopment', Monthly Review, 18(7): 17-31. Foxley A. (2010) Markets vs States: Post crisis Economics in Latin America. Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment. Available at http://carnegieendowment.org/files/market_versus_state.pdf [accessed 15 February 2017] Gamble, A. (2014) ‘Ideologies of Governance’ in A. Payne and N. Phillips (eds.) The Handbook of the International Political Economy of Governance (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar). Gargarella, R. (2005) El carácter igualitario del republicanismo. Isegoría, (33), 175-189. Grugel, J. (2006) ‘Regionalist governance and transnational collective action in Latin America’, Economy and Society, 35(2): 209-31. Grugel, J. and Riggirozzi, P. (2007) ‘The return of the state in Argentina’, International Affairs, 83(1), 87-107. Grugel, J. and Riggirozzi, P. (2009) ‘The End of the Embrace? Neoliberalism and Alternatives to Neoliberalism in Latin America’, in Grugel and Riggirozzi (eds.) Governance After Neoliberalism in Latin America, 1-24, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Grugel and Riggirozzi, (2012) ‘Post-neoliberalism in Latin America: Rebuilding and Reclaiming the State after Crisis’, Development and Change, 43(1): 1-21. Hershberg, E., & Rosen, F. (eds.). (2006). Latin America after neoliberalism: turning the tide in the 21st century? (New York: New Press) Jessop, B. (2016) The State: Past, Present, and Future, (London: Polity). Karl, T. L. (1997). The paradox of plenty: Oil booms and petro-states (Vol. 26), (California: Univ of California Press). Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Zoido-Lobaton, P. (2000), Governance Matters: From Measurement to Action, Finance and Development, 37(2): 10. Knack, S. (ed.) (2003) Democracy, Governance and Growth, (Arbor: The University of Michigan Press). Kothari, (2005) ‘A radical history of development studies: individuals, institutions and ideologies’, in Kothari, U. (ed.) A Radical History of Development Studies, (London: Zed Books). Lomnitz, C. (2006). Latin America’s Rebellion: Will the new left set a new agenda?, Boston Review, 31(5), 7-10. Murphy, C. (2002) 'Global Governance: Poorly done, and poorly understood', International Affairs, 76(4): 789-804. Ohmae, K. (1995) The End of the Nation State, (New York: Simon and Schuster). Panizza, F. (2005) ‘Unarmed Utopia Revisited: The Resurgence of Left of Centre Politics in Latin America’, Political Studies, 53(4): 716–734. Panizza, F. (2009) Contemporary Latin America, (London: Zed). Phillips, N. and Payne, A. (2014) Handbook of the International Political Economy of Governance (London: Edward Elgar). Riggirozzi, P. (2015). Regionalism, Activism, and Rights: New Opportunities for Health Diplomacy in South America. Review of International Studies, 41(2), 407–428. Riggirozzi, P. and Tussie, D. (2012) The Rise of Post-Hegemonic Regionalism: The Case of Latin America, (New York: Springer). Santiso, J. (2006) The political economy of the possible: Beyond good revolutionaries and free marketeers, (Cambridge: MIT Press). Stokes, S. (2009) ‘Globalisation and the Left in Latin America’. Online paper. http://www.yale.edu/macmillanreport/resources/Stokes_GlobalizationLeft.pdf (accessed 1 February 2016). Tarrow, S (2011) Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tarrow, S (2012) Strangers at the Gates: Movements and States in Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tilly, C. (1975) The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Tilly, Charles (2006) Regimes and Repertoires.Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press Weiss, L. (2003) States in the Global Economy: Bringing Domestic Institutions Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Wylde, C. (2011) ‘State, Society, and Markets in Argentina: The Political Economy of Neodesarrollismo under Nestor Kirchner, 2003-2007, Bulletin of Latin American Research, 30(4), 436-452. Yates, J.S. and Bakker, K. (2014) 'Debating the post-neoliberal turn in Latin America', Progress in Human Geography, 38(1), 62-90. 21