Autor/es
Descripción
ver mas
Colaborador
Carmona, Rodrigo
Serafinoff, Valeria
Materias
Idioma
spa
Extent
295 p.
Derechos
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.0 Genérica (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Formato
application/pdf
Identificador
Cobertura
ARG
2003-2015
Abstract
Development prospects for the manufacturing sector in Argentina are conditioned by two processes: the primarization of the economy and production that takes place at the regional level, and the decline of developmental and industrialist ideologies. In the Argentine context, this phenomenon is evident in the economic predominance of multinational actors and in the strengthening of liberal political-partisan alternatives that manage to veto those projects and agendas likely to implement sustainable industrialization policies.
This thesis addresses the nature of state-business relationship on industrial policy between 2003 and 2015, enquiring about its focus on import substitution and income redistribution. The main objective is to analyze the political, institutional and socioeconomic features of the recent industrialization process. The research approach to industrial policy is systemic insofar as it assesses four policy fields’ interventions that have a significant impact on business’ regulations and performance: domestic trade policy, foreign trade policy, scientific-technological policy and industrial policy itself. It focuses on two case studies in the industrial sector - the metallurgical sector and the food sector. Together, they represent more than 50% of the industrial added value and each of them plays a leading role in the configuration of forces and alliances fighting to define alternative projects for the industry in a context of "hegemonic draw”.
The research falls within the scope of three major debates: that of alternative models of “late” industrial development in economies with unbalanced productive structures, approached from the perspective of CEPAL structuralism and dependency theories; the analysis of the capabilities and autonomy of the state according to different intervention paradigms, building on contributions from historical and sociological neo-institutionalism; and debates on the political action of industrial business, consensus and dissent building around industrialization, taking into consideration neomarxist theoretical contributions.
The thesis covers a research gap by offering a socio-political and socioeconomic approach to analyze the industrialization process, focusing on how policies and management were articulated, and how the interventions produced favorable or oppositional alignments that determined the course of the political project tested in recent Argentina.
The thesis states that the import substitution project was re-valued by kirchnerist peronism after decades of weakening of industrialization ideas. The government temporally achieved support among small and medium domestic business on the basis of promoting production and employment; it also disciplined the agro-exporting fraction of capital in pursuit of distributional objectives towards salaried employees. It found greater limitations in setting agreement with other players – big national and multinational industrialists- in changing structural patterns of dependency in technological and financial capital. The weakness of the Kirchner’s program was, however, the decoupling between the political time, which had its apogee of consensus among industrialists in 2007, the institutional time in terms of the maturity of planning embodied in the Strategic Plan towards 2010, and the economic time of the government program, whose critical juncture was the emergence of the external restriction in 2011. This context led the government, in its last administration, to attempt to lead the industrialization program without industrialists, stressing the political sustainability of the project.
This thesis addresses the nature of state-business relationship on industrial policy between 2003 and 2015, enquiring about its focus on import substitution and income redistribution. The main objective is to analyze the political, institutional and socioeconomic features of the recent industrialization process. The research approach to industrial policy is systemic insofar as it assesses four policy fields’ interventions that have a significant impact on business’ regulations and performance: domestic trade policy, foreign trade policy, scientific-technological policy and industrial policy itself. It focuses on two case studies in the industrial sector - the metallurgical sector and the food sector. Together, they represent more than 50% of the industrial added value and each of them plays a leading role in the configuration of forces and alliances fighting to define alternative projects for the industry in a context of "hegemonic draw”.
The research falls within the scope of three major debates: that of alternative models of “late” industrial development in economies with unbalanced productive structures, approached from the perspective of CEPAL structuralism and dependency theories; the analysis of the capabilities and autonomy of the state according to different intervention paradigms, building on contributions from historical and sociological neo-institutionalism; and debates on the political action of industrial business, consensus and dissent building around industrialization, taking into consideration neomarxist theoretical contributions.
The thesis covers a research gap by offering a socio-political and socioeconomic approach to analyze the industrialization process, focusing on how policies and management were articulated, and how the interventions produced favorable or oppositional alignments that determined the course of the political project tested in recent Argentina.
The thesis states that the import substitution project was re-valued by kirchnerist peronism after decades of weakening of industrialization ideas. The government temporally achieved support among small and medium domestic business on the basis of promoting production and employment; it also disciplined the agro-exporting fraction of capital in pursuit of distributional objectives towards salaried employees. It found greater limitations in setting agreement with other players – big national and multinational industrialists- in changing structural patterns of dependency in technological and financial capital. The weakness of the Kirchner’s program was, however, the decoupling between the political time, which had its apogee of consensus among industrialists in 2007, the institutional time in terms of the maturity of planning embodied in the Strategic Plan towards 2010, and the economic time of the government program, whose critical juncture was the emergence of the external restriction in 2011. This context led the government, in its last administration, to attempt to lead the industrialization program without industrialists, stressing the political sustainability of the project.
Título obtenido
Doctora de la Universidad de Buenos Aires en Ciencias Sociales
Institución otorgante
Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales