Buchanan 2008

Buchanan, Paul G. 2008. "Preauthoritarian Institutions and Postauthoritarian Outcomes: Labor Politics in Chile and Uruguay". Latin American Politics and Society. 50 (1): 59-89. 

•  Introduction
• argument (59): In Chile and Uruguay (countries with long democratic histories interrupted by authoritarian regimes):
• pre-authoritarian labor market institutions had a significant impact on post-authoritarian union fortunes
• this is true regardless of any authoritarian reforms and the ideological inclinations of post-authoritarian governments
• other explanations are incomplete
• authoritarian legacies, historical strength of unions, and post-authoritarian labor-party linkages are important
• corporatism is too party/politics focused
• the idea doesn't recognize the deep patterns of state control built into labor codes (61)
• moreover, it doesn't recognize the significance of the state in daily, humdrum operations of unions
• labor movement strength is directly shaped by the labor code and the day-to-day workings of unions, which  in turn are shaped by deeper patterns in labor law
• Institutional History and the Course of Labor Politics
• Whatever institutions existed before authoritarianism played a role once the dictators left (61)
• the core of the interest intermediation regime in a state is interest group administration (i.e. labor ministry) (62)
• that state is the overarching regulatory apparatus that frames interaction between interest groups
• pluralist system allows autonomy
• corporatist system goes for efficiency over freedom of association
•  state-corporatism more specifically gives the state control legal over which interest groups have bargaining status (63)
• A Note on Case Selection
• Uruguay (64)
• pluralist labor relations system
• class-based unionism
• strong party ties that dominate the labor movement, with union leaders having a lot of control in the party ()
• Uruguayan unions have historically had more independence from party hierarchies, as well as minimal state intervention
• this made it more difficult to dictator to dismantle the labor movement BECAUSE HE HAD NO LEGAL /INSTITUTIONAL BASIS to do so.
• Chile
• historically strong union-party ties, but workers organized into parties first, unions second
• argument: Chile is an anomalous case of state-corporatist labor administration existing under democratic rule (65)
• decentralizing influence of labor law
• state has a lot of power over unions
• parties have control of unions
• THEREFORE the pre-authoritarian structuring of union interests in Chile facilitated rather than impeded the dismantling of the union movement by the dictatorship
•  Pre-authoriarian Political Insertion
• Chilean unions were subordinated on the shopfloor by communist and socialist parties (66)
• meant that unions got political power, but also were totally reliant on parties
• Left in Chile consolidated its hold over labor in the 1940s and 1950s (67)
• Uruguay
• unions were initially incorporated as an autonomous interests group
• gave them and independent streak
• they also formed a number of labor-based parties
• before the FA, unions would vote Marxist union leaders on shopfloor, but for mainstream parties in elections (68)
• this meant that he parties competed over labor votes, which meant that an extensive welfare state and state employment was created
• Meant that:
• in Chile, working-class representation was channelled mostly through political parties then down to unions (69)
• while in Uruguay it was mostly through unions and up to parties
• Authoritarian Labor Regimes
• Pinochet was able to use the 1931 Labor Code to outlaw the biggest labor confederation and all Left parties (70)
• Uruguayan dictator instituted new law in 1981 that outlawed strikes and shop-level unions (71)
•  Uruguayan workers simply ignored the law, informally forced managment to accede to their demands
• military junta could never get enough traction or legitimacy in labor realm to control labor relations
• Transitional Context
• Chilean transition was controlled (72)
• left parties and unions still outlawed
• in 1985 Chilean political parties displaced unionists in the No campaign (73)
• the Chilean opposition movement highlighted political opposition (74)
• decided not to change economic model because they wanted to woo businessmen (74)
• In Uruguay the transition was rapid, and was mostly hammered out between political elites (73)
• initially labor and the Left were not allowed into negotiations, but then when formal negotiations started in 1984 they were invited to join (74)
• contrary to Chilean case, business could not win any demands in teh negotiation, and the old labor code was put back in place...preauthoritarian labor politics was essentially reinstated intact for the foundational election (74-75)
• Return of Elected Rule
• Chile
• "concertación" of business and labor interests was the banner of the opposition (75)
• there was a resurgence of  union affiliation and mobilization in the months leading up to and following the elections
• in practice, despite "labor law reform" there was no change in business-labor relations (75-76)
• inability to influence Concertación governments eventually led to split in labor (76)
• state maintained large, expansive powers over registration, strike regulation, and financial review of unions (77)
• union membership has dropped, as has collective bargaining coverage and the real wage (from 1980s levels to late 1990s levels) (78)
• business is allowed to coordinate nationally, but unions are increasingly unable to do so
• Uruguay
• reverted to 1967 Constitution (75)
• return to 1968 labor relations system
• there was a resurgence of  union affiliation and mobilization in the months leading up to and following the elections
• early governments tried to enact price ceilings, and then regulate strikes (79-80)...both of which were met with massive strikes that resulted in workers getting better welfare spending from government (79)
•  entry into Mercosur was devastating to manufacturing, unions (80)
• manufacturers and unions banded together to try and stay afloat: wage restraint for job security
• most of the cost of this adjustment was shifted toward the unorganized (80-81)
• with the rise of the FA unions started looking toward changing national development strategies (81)
• Conclusion
• one important explanation: Pinochet repressed unions more forecefully (81)
• BUT he was able to do so because of the powers granted him by the labor code (82)
• strength of union movement was essentially also defined by historical, pre-authoritarian legal/political structures (82)
• "institutional divergence in state approaches to post-authoritarian labor relations resulted from organizational dissimilarities inherited from the pre-authoritarian era" (83)
• testable hypothesis:  regardless of party in power or nature of union-party ties or the strength of unions, market oriented reform is more likely to succeed in countries where state corporatist labor administration is well entrenched
• my take:  makes sense in Mexico, half-works for Argentina, though it and Brazil are a puzzle
• under conditions of state corporatism the tail (labor unions) can wag the dog (e.g. Argentina, Mexico, Chile)...BUT in Uruguay there is no dog to start wagging on his own! (85)

Middlebrook 1995

Middlebrook (1995)

1. Chapter 1: Mass Politics and Regime formation
   1. On the concept of Post-revolutionary Authoritarian rule
      1. Features:
         1. Prominence of mas actors
            1. May be mobilized less and less over time
            2. Still important base of control for government
         2. Political ideals from revolutionary era
            1. Something referencing social change
            2. Rule is legitimated by invoking these symbols/ideologies
            3. Cannot be empty promises, must deliver the goods as well
         3. Dual importance of state and hegemonic party
            1. Party mobilizes social base
            2. Party can serve to cement social alliances
            3. Party can serve as method through which social allies can gain access to state apparatus
   2. Framework for studying mass politics in authoritarian regimes
      1. Limitations on mass mobilization
         1. Can happen through public apathy, legal restrictions, channeling mobilization through the party.
      2. Limits on sociopolitical pluralism
      3. Limits on Demand articulation
         1. Restrictions creates situation in which groups must negotiate, compromise, or modify their goals
   3. (28) “ The party [PRI (and its predecessors)] has been the principal channel through which leaders of lower class organizations achieve upward political mobility”
      1. BUT: the party never developed autonomous means of limiting its constituents’ political actions, it relied on state power for those controls.
      2. THUS: organized labor enjoyed relative autonomy in the party framework (though certainly not in the state regime)
   4. Central Argument: to understand the bases of elite control over and general character of mass politics, must understand both state and societal controls over the labor movement
      1. State = labor law, etc.
      2. Societal = labor unions’ reliance on state subsidies
         1. Economic structure that influenced patterns of unionization and CB power
         2. Organizational form of the labor movement
         3. Political ideas that influence policy preferences and political response strategies
2. Chapter 2: State Structures and political Control
   1. (42) “On the one hand, expanded state administrative capacity gradually increased governing elites’ ability to control developments in the labor sector. On the other hand, legal recognition of basic labor rights and inclusion of worker representatives in come administrative structures strengthened organized labor by providing important symbolic and material benefits to both unions and individual workers.”
   2. (51-2) 1931 Ley Federal del Trabajo institutionalized activist role of government in protection f workers at a time when the unions weren’t strong enough to protect themselves (the CROM had fallen out of power soon before 1930)
      1. Leads to creation of Secretary of Labor (STPS, Secretaria del Trabajo y Previsión Social), as well as the CTM
   3. JCA’s preserves the distinction between federal and local jurisdictions (60)
   4. Labor seat on JCA’s help unions expand their organizations (61-62)
   5. Reconocimiento, official recognition/registration of unions, improves power of unions compared to employers, but also gives state power over unions (65)
   6. State has some ability to meddle in union internal affairs (elections, etc.) but not much. Also, requirements do not safeguard union democracy.
   7. Strikes must be registered, only occur after arbitration proceedings have concluded (69)
3. Chapter 3 – The challenge of mass participation and the origins of Mexico’s state subsidized labor movement
   1. Before the revolution, labor movements were dispersed, and in small enterprises, who had little bargaining power
   2. Morones, while founding the CROM
      1. marginalized the anarchosyndicalists, and
      2. decided they need to ally with the government to have any power
   3. CROM never made inroads in industries with strong unions, like railroad workers and electrical workers
   4. Relations between the CROM and Obregon quickly soured, were eventually charged with assassination of Obregon!
   5. CTM founded by CROM dissidents and under Cardenas’ hope to unite labor movement to support him, CROM remains relatively pro-Calles
   6. Even while he supported the CTM, Cardenas worked against the CTM
      1. He helped found the FSTSE to keep government workers out of the hands of the CTM
      2. He kept peasants out of the CTM
   7. Cardenas’s PRM first to officially tie labor to an official political party (1938), SECTORS
   8. SME leaves CTM in 1939 after CTM supports presidential candidate Camacho
   9. Subsidies to labor movement
      1. Legal
         1. Exclusion clauses
         2. Separation clauses
      2. Financial
         1. CTM had trouble collecting dues, but stayed solvent
         2. Middlebrook hints at direct monetary subsidies
      3. Political
         1. Preferential access to electoral lists of PRM/PRI and administrative positions
            1. Leverage for union
            2. Personal benefit
         2. No reelection meant constant demand for new and loyal candidates
         3. CTM dominated these positions
         4. Chair in the Chamber of Deputies was most available, some Senate seats, practically no governorships (too important to PRI power structure to give away as spoils)
   10. (106) “The consolidation of the post-revolutionary social pact occurred, then, not with CTM membership in the governing party but with the political triumph of progovernment labor leaders in the aftermath of a major labor crisis in the late 1940s” (emphasis added by me!)
4. Chapter 4: Turning Point the 1947-51 Labor Crisis
   1. Case study on railroad workers
   2. RR, like other protected sectors, autonomous, strong, politically minded
   3. During labor crisis (post-WWII) government supports more pragmatic leadership, alternative/radical paths slowly squelched
   4. Once these unions are turned toward pragmatic (non-radical) ends
      1. CTM dominant, BUT:
      2. Begins period of truly institutionalized social pact
         1. Previously pact had rested on shoulders of President and specific union confederations
   5. Labor movement united under CT in 1966, but only a façade under which fragmentation persists
   6. Social pact:
      1. Unions (leaders) can’t survive without political support
      2. Unions become effective tools of worker control for political leaders
   7. Also, CROC formed in 1952 by Aleman government, “to unite disparate labor groups in an organization that was simultaneously…
      1. …Loyal to the government (it was affiliated with the PRI), and…
      2. …Hostile to the CTM.” (page 250)
      3. United some conservative groups (like the CPN, Confederación Proletaria Nacional) and the CUT (formerly lefty under RR workers leaders)
5. Chapter 5: State Structures, Political Control, and Labor Participation: an Assessment
   1. STRIKES: “…postrevolutionary governments generally maintained strong control over stieks in federal-jurisdiction economic activities, regardless of changes in the political character of different presidential administrations.” (171)
   2. LABOR UNION REGISTRATION: Political influence/action can influence rates of labor union registration, but generally no variables explained differences in time to register, meaning there was NO effect due to
      1. presidential administration
      2. difference in confederation
   3. WORKER DEMAND RESOLUTION:
      1. Includes an in-depth case of RR workers union
      2. Some presidential effect, but also surprising anti-worker effect for Cardenas
6. Chapter 6: Labor Politics and ISI
   1. ISI good and bad
      1. Development, work, but
      2. Balance of payment problems
      3. Inflation problems
      4. Result: people have jobs, but their wages are falling!
   2. CTM often spoke radically, acted pragmatically when ISI stumbled and inflation rose
   3. Section on democracy in Mexican automobile sector
      1. Neither presidential policy nor strength of state labor federations adequately explains democratization (229)
      2. Car mfg. undergoing changes, less paternal relations, just-in-time0ish style prxn, and modern assembly line
      3. Workers viewed democratization seen as a way to gain better bargaining power, as their leaders were initially unable to cope with their new demands
      4. Workplace differences (especially with delegado system) important to explaining variation across auto plants (236)
      5. Democratic unions generally better at gaining control of production, bad at increasing wages, struck more often
7. Chapter 7: Labor Politics under Economic Stress in the 1980s
   1. Failure of ISI
      1. Economic difficulties, interest rates, defaults
      2. Less government spending
      3. Inflation!!!
   2. Organized Labor’s Response
      1. Unions never thought they were adequately compensated for sacrifices during 1976-7 crisis
      2. De la Madrid agrees to price controls in 1983, then immediately breaks his deal
      3. NO strike petitions approved
      4. CROC and CROM used to harass CTM
      5. 1984 CTM threatens general strike, but steps back and agrees to negotiate on de la Madrid’s terms, CT makes demands but never gains anything real
      6. WORKERS LOSE
      7. “The CTM’s historical reluctance to pursue more aggressive collective action in support of workers’ interests is one of the most noteworthy aspects of state-labor relations in Mexico.” (265)
   3. What explains unions’ actions?
      1. Usual suspects
         1. Crisis weakened bargaining power
            1. CTM had heterogeneous members
            2. None/few in strategic industries
         2. Government control over strikes and union recognition
         3. CTM had more deputies in Congress, maybe thought they’d recoup losses later?
      2. New ideas
         1. Internal weakness of CTM, others
         2. Leaders’ (Velazquez’s) political beleifs
            1. (Weakish)
            2. Leaders’ fear that a true mobilization would be a breeding ground for union democracy, undermine their old control over unions
   4. Industrial restructuring in automobile industry
      1. Automakers open new plants, get CTM unions, undermine democratic unions
      2. CTM unions give management much more leeway on production methods, democratic unions able to fight back a bit
      3. Volkswagen at Puebla
         1. Leaders capitulate a bit in secret agreement
         2. Midlevel and rank and file revolt
         3. Union turmoil allows VW (thanks to JFCA decision) to fire everyone, rehire who they want, keep pliable union
      4. Flexible contracts more important than low wages to managers! (286)
   5. Privatization of state-owned firms crushed official unions ability to use political influence to win economic demands
   6. State-subsidized labor organizations lost their ability to win concessions, but maintained their significance as instruments of political control of workers.
8. CONCLUSION
   1. Union/party alliance
      1. Benefitted labor because resulted in subsidies
      2. Benefitted party because party had no other means of controlling mass base
   2. CTM resisted democratic opening: why?! Central question of the chapter
   3. Over time unions had experienced a cumulative weakening after presidents defined and redefined the alliance
   4. Unions weakest point ever in 1980s/90s, and business gains better foothold with government
   5. BUT labor still important for getting out the vote
      1. This control, however, became less reliable (see 1988 prez election)
   6. “Because post-revoutionary authoritarian regimes generally develop distinctive ideologies that give workers a special place in postrevolutionary society…labor has a stronger interest in preserving elements of the status quo…” (317)
      1. Long-term democratization may be a good thing, BUT
      2. Short term democratization may pose significant costs to labor unions
   7. As jobs move north in Mexico, they further weaken unions by
      1. Dispersing labor
      2. Gets far away from political center of country
      3. Move closer to anti-union areas of the country.
   8. Labor leaders also suck at times, protection contracts
   9. Political parties are an important place where labor can get power, but
      1. Have the taint of old style PRI relationships
      2. PRD, rest of left have focused on electoral competitions, not alliances with unions (325-6)
   10. Finally, labor law needs to change, bad!

Levitsky and Way 2002

Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan Way. 2002. "The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism". Journal of Democracy. 13 (2): 51-65.

• During 1990s, many countries combined democratic rules with authoritarian governance (51)
• Analyses frequently treated hybrid regimes as in the middle of transitioning, when in fact many of them had stopped and were stable in the nexus between authoritarianism and democracy (51-52)
• “In competitive authoritarian regimes, formal democratic institutions are widely viewed as the principal means of obtaining and exercising political authority.” (52)
• “Incumbents violate those rules so often and to such an extent, however, that the regime fails to meet conventional minimum standards for democracy.”
• Modern democratic regimes meet four criteria (53)
• executives and legislatures are chosen through open, free, fair elections
• virtually all adults are allowed to vote
• political rights and civil liberties are protected
• elected authorities possess the rel authority to govern, are not puppets of the military, Church, etc
• in competitive authoritarianism these rules are violated enough to make the playing field biased in favor of incumbents
• more likely to use bribery, cooptation, and subtle forms of persecution
• even though democratic institutions may be flawed, incumbents have to take them seriously (54)
• Four arenas of democratic contestation: elections, legislature, judiciary, the media
• electoral process is usually bitterly fought (55)
• could be characterized by large abuses of power, biased media coverage
• BUT ELECTIONS MUST HAPPEN
• and they are generally free of massive fraud
• incumbents may attempt to, or successfully manipulate election results, this can also result in regime-ending scandal
• legislature tends to be relatively weak, but can be focal points for opposition activity (55-56)
• circumventing or shutting down the legislature can be s=costly to a regime (56)
• legislature can allow opposition groups to meet, join up, oppose regime in concertation
• judicial arena
• regimes can attempt to control judiciary through impeachments, etc.
• but judicial independence will allow some maverick judges an opening
• courts can protect media and opposition figures from state persecution (57)
• the media
• journalists often emerge as important opposition leaders, despite being threatened and/or attacked by regime
• independent media can be a watchdog
• executives in competitive authoritarian regimes often seek to suppress independent media through subtle mechanisms, like selective allocation of state advertising, bribery, and manipulation of taxes (58)
• but any attempt to repress media can be costly
• constant tension: repression could be costly, but incumbents can lose power if challenges go undealt with (59)
• SUCCESSION IS NOT DEMOCRATIZATION
• removal of a regime creates opportunity for democratization, but can also allow others to simply step in and take over authoritarian system
• Linkages to the west seem to make retrenchment of authoritarian retrenchment difficult (6)
• MY CRITIQUE: includes Mexico as an example of democratization, so not a fine-grained look at which countries actually have really democratized
• Paths to competitive authoritarianism
• decay of an authoritarian regime
• collapse of authoritarian regime, but weak civil society cannot get to full democratization
• decay of democracy (61)
• longstanding crises create situation that allow for executive to take control, but not entirely sweep away old system
• Since fall of USSR, however, there is now little legitimacy for authoritarian regimes...peripheral states expected to adopt democratic institutions in order to keep up good relationship with funding governments in the West (61-62)
• MY CRITIQUE: Terrorism and security precautions now becoming the new, hip excuse for US to support authoritarian regimes