The third wave of studies on clientelism in Latin America: a critical reading

Q3 Social Sciences
Marta Mendes da Rocha
{"title":"The third wave of studies on clientelism in Latin America: a critical reading","authors":"Marta Mendes da Rocha","doi":"10.1590/3811023/2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article presents a critical reading of the third wave of studies on clientelism in Latin America produced in Political Science since the 2000s. Through a dialogue with the most influential authors and works on the issue, the objective is to show that despite significant advances, this literature still faces difficulties in defining clientelism. The central argument is that these difficulties are due to the adoption of universal and rigid assumptions about politicians’ and voters’ behavior and the strong normative tone of the analyses, almost always grounded on premises of how democracy should work and how clientelism displaces this ideal. To demonstrate this argument, the concept of clientelism was broken down into four central aspects: the object of the exchanges, the participants, the method used, and the temporality. The analysis of these dimensions is articulated with the literature on concept formation, especially the criteria of differentiation, depth, internal coherence, and theoretical utility. The article concludes by proposing ways to overcome the highlighted problems, among them the re-evaluation of the premises that inform the analysis, the valorization of description, and the investment in multi-method research designs.","PeriodicalId":35414,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Ciencias Sociais","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Ciencias Sociais","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/3811023/2023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The article presents a critical reading of the third wave of studies on clientelism in Latin America produced in Political Science since the 2000s. Through a dialogue with the most influential authors and works on the issue, the objective is to show that despite significant advances, this literature still faces difficulties in defining clientelism. The central argument is that these difficulties are due to the adoption of universal and rigid assumptions about politicians’ and voters’ behavior and the strong normative tone of the analyses, almost always grounded on premises of how democracy should work and how clientelism displaces this ideal. To demonstrate this argument, the concept of clientelism was broken down into four central aspects: the object of the exchanges, the participants, the method used, and the temporality. The analysis of these dimensions is articulated with the literature on concept formation, especially the criteria of differentiation, depth, internal coherence, and theoretical utility. The article concludes by proposing ways to overcome the highlighted problems, among them the re-evaluation of the premises that inform the analysis, the valorization of description, and the investment in multi-method research designs.
拉丁美洲庇护主义研究的第三波浪潮:批判性解读
本文对2000年代以来在政治科学领域产生的关于拉丁美洲庇护主义的第三波研究进行了批判性解读。通过与这个问题上最有影响力的作者和作品的对话,我们的目标是表明,尽管取得了重大进展,但这些文献在定义庇护主义方面仍然面临困难。核心论点是,这些困难是由于采用了关于政治家和选民行为的普遍和严格的假设,以及分析的强烈规范基调,几乎总是基于民主应该如何运作以及裙带主义如何取代这种理想的前提。为了证明这一观点,我们将裙带主义的概念分解为四个核心方面:交换的对象、参与者、使用的方法和时间性。对这些维度的分析与概念形成的文献,特别是区分、深度、内部一致性和理论效用的标准相结合。文章最后提出了克服突出问题的方法,其中包括重新评估为分析提供信息的前提,评价描述的价值,以及投资于多方法研究设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Revista Brasileira de Ciencias Sociais
Revista Brasileira de Ciencias Sociais Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
52 weeks
期刊介绍: Editada por primeira vez em 1986, nove anos depois da fundação da Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Ciências Sociais (Anpocs), a Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais (RBCS) consolidou-se ou longo dos anos como um dos periódicos mais importantes de veiculação da produção científica de ponta nas três grandes áreas das ciências sociais (antropologia, sociologia e ciência política). É um periódico multidisciplinar no campo das ciências humanas que segue uma definição estrita de multidisciplinaridade, privilegiando contribuições substantivas em seu campo. Ocasionalmente, acolhe artigos oriundos de outras áreas, quando claramente dedicados a travar interlocução com a produção de conhecimento nas ciências sociais. Publicada ininterruptamente durante todos esses anos, nasceu e desenvolveu seu perfil editorial ao longo do tempo como periódico da Anpocs. A partir do número 90, publicado em fevereiro de 2016, passou a circular apenas em formato digital. Os artigos da revista se encontram disponíveis, em acesso aberto, tanto no SciELO quanto na página institucional da Anpocs, no canal Publicações, bem como em algumas redes acadêmicas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信