La política hacia las inversiones extranjeras del gobierno de Néstor Kirchner: tras los rasgos de un populismo atemperado

Abstract

El colapso de Argentina a fines de 2001 supuso el fracaso del proceso de reestructuración económica encauzado bajo los lineamientos del relato neoliberal. En ruptura discursiva con las políticas identificadas como responsables de aquella debacle, el gobierno de Néstor Kirchner (2003 se propuso desandar el camino de liberalización trazado conforme los imperativos del "Consenso de Washington". Los elementos de cambio y/o ruptura tuvieron en la política respecto a las inversiones extranjeras uno de sus exponentes más alusivos. A partir de desarrollos conceptuales propios de la sociología política, el presente trabajo analiza la política respecto a las inversiones extranjeras durante la administración Kirchner. Tras la consideración del juego pendular de integración/exclusión de las inversiones extranjeras, identifica en la política bajo estudio rasgos de populismo atemperado.

Populism and the Erosion of Horizontal Accountability in Latin America

“…Hence, de facto the PJ developed into a dominant party in the Argentine party system (Levitsky and Murillo, 2008: 22–23). This also explains why the populist discourse of Kirchner was mainly directed against the economic elite and not against established parties or the democratic system as such (Fernández Alonso, 2010). Hence, the political opportunity structure explains why Kirchner did not need to change the rules of the democratic game and take an authoritarian turn, although he might have had the means to do it.…”

Post-Neoliberalism and External Financial Liberalization: Comparing Left-Wing and Right-Wing Populism

“…At the level of political institutions, the stated goal of Kirchnerism was to restore the legitimacy of the state as an arbiter of social relations after the massive protests that toppled the De La Rua government in December 2001 (Frente para la Victoria 2003; Riggirozzi 2009b). In this regard, as part of the effort to obtain the support from the unemployed workers' movement and the trade unions that led the demonstrations, the FpV defended the reform of judiciary power, the strengthening of political participation, the recovery of wages and the revision of amnesty laws which exempted those involved in crimes against humanity during the military dictatorship (Alonso 2010; Cantamutto 2016; Longa 2017).…”

“…In line with left-wing populism, the FpV focused its criticism on crisis-prone neoliberal policies that favoured the interests of domestic economic elites and foreign investors such as the privatization of state-owned companies, labour market deregulation, abrupt external financial liberalization and the maintenance of an overvalued currency (Alonso 2010; Aytaç and Onis 2014; Onis 2006). Against this background, Kirchnerism pledged to champion the interests of poor people by guaranteeing the right to work and expanding social protection (Longa 2017; Muños and Retamozo 2008).…”

“…In terms of coalition-building, the rhetoric underlying this policy reorientation contributed to keeping the unity of all subordinate socioeconomic strata against the harmful elite interests that allegedly opposed inclusionary policies (Wylde 2014). Initially, this polarizing rhetoric targeted economic elites and IMF staff due to their participation in the liberalizing reforms (Alonso 2010; Riggirozzi 2009a), but it was adapted according to the conjuncture, eventually directed at financial market operators who resisted external debt renegotiation, foreign investors who managed privatized public utilities, primary exporters who opposed further taxation, the middle classes who preferred to save in foreign currency, and domestic capitalists who attempted to move funds abroad (Lapegna 2017; Vanoli 2018; Wylde 2016).…”

Untitled

“…Luego de los largos años neoliberales y sus profundas consecuencias, la llegada del kirchnerismo al poder fue concebida como un giro de la política hacia la centro-izquierda (Schuttenberg, 2013). En este sentido, las gestiones de Cristina Fernández han sido asociadas fundamentalmente con principios como la justicia social, la defensa de los menos aventajados y la representación política; o en otras palabras, se ha identificado a estos gobiernos con lógicas populistas (Cordero Fernández, 2016;Fernández Alonso, 2010;Garcia Sigman, 2013;Garzón Rogé, 2009;Muñoz & Retamozo, 2008;Palermo, 2011). En este contexto, la libertad parecía ser un tópico distante en los discursos de Fernández.…”