Abstract
This paper analyses the institutionalization of rural social movements during the Lula government in Brazil, in light of a worsening of land reform in the period as well as continued government support of traditional rural elites, resulting in the expansion of large landholdings at the expense of family held small holdings. It questions the major theories addressing this phenomenon and its outcomes, largely centred on co-option processes and presents an alternative explanation, stemming from a series of interrelated factors until now generally not considered in the literature. It argues that these academic debates need to acknowledge the existence of a role played by identity, creativity, agency, and political opportunities of these actors, as well as their predefined meanings and strategies.
Highlights
In recent years social scientists have identified a new trend in which representatives of social movements start taking positions in official administrative state structures1
This paper has sought to advance the discussion on new ways of interactions between state and civil society, looking at the institutionalization of social movements and its effects on structural reforms such as land reform
Worsening of data on land reform in the period. It shows that the difficulties in promoting structural reforms, even when the actors are highly involved in the design and decision-making processes of policies, can result from a different series of factors generally not considered by the literature
Summary
In recent years social scientists have identified a new trend in which representatives of social movements start taking positions in official administrative state structures. The first discusses the literature on the institutionalization of social movements and co-option It identifies its limitations for understanding particular situations in which processes of deep identification between government and social movements are built to ensure not just governance and gains, and demobilization and impeding structural reforms. This interpretation sometimes obscures specific social processes that engender different logic of action groups in their interaction with state power Classic works such as Piven & Cloward (1979), analysing the power possibilities and limitations for the poor in movements of the 1930s and 1960s in the us, underline how political leaders tried to silence the protests for social change by attending to more immediate demands and giving incentives to movements’ leaders. Analysis of specific cases such as Brazil under Lula shows that difficulties and even regression in issues such as land reform can be explained by a conjunction of factors that differ from current analyses on this phenomenon
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
