Between clientelism and universalism: The political dynamics behind social policy change in Argentina and Venezuela

During the last 15 years, Latin American governments have significantly expanded social expenditure as well as the scope of social policies directed towards the poor. The cases of Argentina and Venezuela stand out in the region for the magnitude of resources devoted to these policies. In both countries alike, the socially marginalized groups that constitute the main target of the new social policies have become a substantial base of support for the current governments. Nevertheless, the organizational characteristics of these policies in Argentina and Venezuela differ considerably. Whereas Argentina seems to be gradually moving towards more universalistic provisions, a largely “clientelistic” system of social assistance is consolidating in Venezuela. How can these differences be explained?

The present paper analyzes the political dynamics, social alliances, power balances and institutional structures which underlie the recent development of social policy in Argentina and Venezuela. Resorting to the concepts of “critical juncture” and “power resources”, the paper argues that the social policy implemented during the last decade was profoundly shaped by the type of relation that the emerging governments and the socially marginalized groups established during the reconfiguration of the political regime since the late 1990s.

The analysis focuses on the differences in the organizational resources and the level of autonomy acquired by the marginalized groups through the emergence of social movements, the position that these groups assumed in the governing political parties since their coming to power at the turn of the century, the institutional structures and political legacies that channeled the contradictory relation between marginalized groups and national governments, and the differences regarding the aspirations of the national governments to gain the support from the middle sectors which tend to be critical of clientelistic social policies.