Universalism and anti-poverty-policy: A question of power and dominance?

Weinmann, Nico

The concept of basic universalism claims to break with traditional exclusionary modes of Latin American social policy that reserve social benefits to employees in the formal economy (truncated welfare-regime). Debates in social sciences about these new policies predominantly focus on efficiency and, considering anti-poverty-policies, on Conditional Cash Transfer-Programmes (CCTs). However, they disregard primary income distribution through labour markets and their regulation. Departing from this lack of research, we focus on political regulation of labour markets in Uruguay and Brazil, which we discuss in the context of anti-poverty-policies.

Formal employment was extended under both governments of the Frente Amplio in Uruguay and Lula in Brazil. Implementation of CCT-Programmes in Uruguay was accompanied by a reintroduction of Consejos de Salarios and a general increase of their coverage. Brazil saw an increase of minimum wages as well as the introduction of social and labour policies which extended the formalisation of labour relations. Nevertheless, both governments could not realise central reform proposals. Taking this failure as a point of departure, we want to detect barriers and veto points in reform processes which prevent and oppose changes towards universalism.

Our contribution differs from the majority of current studies in taking those social power relations into consideration that continue to facilitate the containment of disadvantaged societal groups’ interests in Latin America. It is those power relations which stabilise an unequal status quo and which impede the realisation of universalism in social policies.

Following a “relational analysis of society” based on German sociologists Claus Offe, we therefore propose to understand recent reform programmes as focal points of power and dominance relations. Thus, we will consider whether current reform processes express universalising tendencies in regard to political and social rights or whether they must be interpreted as mere charity whose purpose is to legitimise existing power relations.

153.3 Universalism and anti-poverty-policy: A question of power and dominance?