The Argentine political and economic paradox
https://doi.org/10.46272/2409-3416-2022-10-3-152-168
Abstract
Unlike most Latin American nations, Argentina experienced a situation of partisan political stability in a context of consistently deteriorating macroeconomic conditions. Other countries in the region, meanwhile, have suffered profound crises and political transformations with notable stability in macroeconomic indicators. That is why the article investigates the causes of this paradox experienced by Argentina and aims to identify the causes of this institutional political stability that is maintained despite the macroeconomic disorder, the strong polarization and the deterioration of the social situation. To carry out this task, the article details the situation of the countries of the region based on the study of various economic indicators and then describes the political and economic situation in Argentina.
About the Authors
Juan Manuel Abal Medina
University of Buenos Aires; National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (IIP-CONICET)
Argentina
Argentina
Juan Manuel Abal Medina, Regular tenured professor of Comparative Political Systems
1053, Buenos Aires, Viamonte 430/444 and
Reconquista St., 694
Andrea Ariza
Institute for Political Research - National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (IIP-CONICET)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrea Ariza, PhD student
C1425FQB, Buenos Aires, Godoy Cruz St., 2290
References
1. Abal Medina, Juan Manuel. “De 1916 a la actualidad: gobiernos, modelos de desarrollo, consensos y desafíos.” In La democracia argentina en el último siglo, edited by Abal Medina, J. M. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA, 2018.
2. Abal Medina, Juan Manuel. “Peronism back in Power in Argentina: Economic Crisis and Political Stability.” Latin American Policy 11, no. 1 (2020): 148–153.
3. Abramowitz, A. I., and K. L. Saunders. “Is polarization a myth?.” The Journal of Politics 70, no. 2 (2008): 542–555.
4. Barbosa-Filho, Nelson. “De Dilma a Bolsonaro: la política económica de Brasil de 2011 a 2019.” El trimestre económico 87, no. 347 (2020): 597–634.
5. Castiglioni, Rossana. “El ocaso del ‘modelo chileno.’” Interciencia 44, no. 10 (2019): 4–14.
6. Cepaluni, Gabriel, Michael Dorsch, and Reka Branyiczki. “Political Regimes and Deaths in the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice 37, issue 1 (2020).
7. Degiustti, Danilo and Scherlis Gerardo. “Desandando caminos. Reequilibrio de fuerzas y alternancia en el sistema partidario argentino 2015-2019.” Revista Colombia Internacional, no. 103 (2020): 139–169.
8. Garrido de la Sierra, Sebastián. La reforma defiitiva ¿Por qué y cómo la reforma electoral de 1996 precipitó la caída del régimen de partido dominante encabezado por el pri. México: CIDE, 2019.
9. Ginsburg, Tom, and Mila Versteeg. “Binding the Unbound Executive: Checks and Balances in Times of Pandemic.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 19, issue 5 (2021): 1498–1535.
10. Laakso, Markku, and Rein Taagepera. “Effctive Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 12, no. 1 (1979): 3–27.
11. Lajtman, Tamara, Silvina Romano, Mónica Bruckmann et al. Bolivia y las implicaciones geopolíticas del golpe de Estado. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas; Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina: Clacso, 2021.
12. Levitsky, Steven. “Peru: The Institutionalization of Politics without Parties.” In Party Systems in Latin America. Institutionalization, Decay, and Collapse, edited by Scott Mainwaring. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
13. Lvovich, Daniel, and Jaquelina Bisquert. La cambiante memoria de la dictadura: discursos públicos, movimientos sociales y legitimidad democrática. Buenos Aires: Editorial Universidad General Sarmiento, 2008.
14. Mainwaring, Scott. Party Systems in Latin America. Institutionalization, Decay, and Collapse. New York:Cambridge University Press, 2018.
15. Mainwaring, Scott, and Anibal Pérez-Liñán. “La democracia a la deriva en América Latina.” POSTData 20, no. 2 (2015)
16. Nava, Agustín. “La protesta social en América Latina: los casos de Brasil, Argentina, Colombia y Chile (2018–2021).” Anuario Del Conflcto Social 13, e–39616 (2022).
17. Nava, Agustín, and Juan Grigera. “Pandemia y protesta social: tendencias de la conflctividad social y laboral en Argentina 2019–2020.” SciELO Preprints, 2020.
18. O’Donnell, Guillermo. Democracia, agencia y estado. Teoría con intención comparativa. Buenos Aires: Prometeo, 2010.
19. Ostiguy, Pierre. “Argentina’s double political spectrum: party system, political identities, and strategies, 1944–2007.” Kellogg Institute Working Paper, no. 361 (2009).
20. Quiroga, Virginia, and Florencia Pagliarone. “Protesta social y dinámicas de movilización en Ecuador y Chile (2019–2020).” De Prácticas y Discursos 11, (2022): 1–17.
21. Sartori, Giovanni. Partidos y sistemas de partidos. Madrid: Alianza, 1992.
22. Tanaka, Martín. “Política sin representación, estabilidad sin legitimidad sin representación la paradoja peruana.” In La incertidumbre política en América Latina, edited by Domínguez, Juan Carlos, and Alejandro Monsiváis-Carrillo. México: Instituto Mora, 2020.
23. Vommaro, Gabriel. La larga marcha de Cambiemos: la construcción silenciosa de un proyecto de poder.Argentina: Siglo XXI Editores, 2019.
24. Waisbord, Silvio. “¿Es válido atribuir la polarización política a la comunicación digital? Sobre burbujas,plataformas y polarización afectiva.” Revista SAAP 14, no. 2 (2020): 249– 279.
25. Zegada Claure, Teresa. “El escenario boliviano en 2018: estabilidad económica e incertidumbre institucional.”Revista de ciencia política (Santiago) 39, no. 2 (2019): 147–164.
Review
For citations:
Abal Medina J., Ariza A. The Argentine political and economic paradox. Cuadernos Iberoamericanos. 2022;10(3):152-168. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46272/2409-3416-2022-10-3-152-168
Views:
1152
Email the author 
