The Project

National Institute of Science and Public Policies, Strategy and Development (INCT/PPED):
ELIDINIZ
INCT/PPED Coordinator

Theoretical Basis
The justification for the principal INCT/PPED objectives cannot omit a reference, however brief, to the theoretical bases which emphasize the different aspects of its research agenda. This thought brings us immediately to the first question. Why choose a theoretical view of the Varieties of Capitalism to provide an analytical reference capable of guiding ones reflection on the three great lines of research which constitute the keystone of INCT/PPED?

To answer this question, a comparison of the contrasts of the last decade of the past century to the first decade of the present century is a starting point. While the nineties constituted a decade marked by irrefutable certainties regarding the efficacy of the market in the allocation of resources and the promotion of collective well being, the first decade of the new millennium was a watershed, the core of which was an expressive revision of prototypes translated into an increase in critical thought.

In this way new historical circumstances came to create exceptional opportunities for resuming a more profitable debate regarding the development model capable of responding to the challenges of the current stage of globalization.

The tone of the international debate
Among the most significant changes can be mentioned the rupture of the consensus which in the nineties ensured the supremacy of the pro- market agenda and the minimalist vision of the role of the State.

Coming to the forefront, the third generation of interpretation of globalization, marked by the increasing questioning of conventional orthodoxy. As can be seen, generally, the critical thinking was generated by the sudden shock between intellectuals, notably economists, belonging to the academic mainstream. In this way, internationally recognized theorists, connected to the principal centers of global knowledge production, like, among others, the universities of Columbia, Cambridge and Harvard, placed in check the idea of the validity of the universal neo-liberal recipe. In synthesis, within this debate, two aspects predominated.

Firstly, the rejection of the dominant economist and determinist interpretation of the recent past, against which was proposed a contemporary vision of the multidimensional nature of the globalization process which goes beyond the economic aspects by emphasizing the political and ideological dimensions.
Secondly, increased criticism of the globalist perspective, according to which the economic-financial interdependence between countries in the international market implied the loss of centrality of the national States, coming ultimately to the eclipse of the State.

From this argument some particularly relevant points can be derived in respect of the INCT/PPED objectives
1- The implementation of reforms oriented toward the market do not lead to the announced convergence of the national agendas;
2- There is no single and unquestionable way to define the priorities of such agendas;
3- No matter how narrow are the workable margins, there is always room to find other alternatives;
4- Reversing the Margaret Thatcher hegemonic argument of the nineties, the key to success is not in searching for uniformity, but in the exercise of autonomy.

In this context, the discussion of new development strategies gains emphasis associated with alternative methods of achieving international insertion.

Reopening the debate on development
In the midst of this controversy the rupture of the economist vision of development, which is defined exclusively in terms of economic growth, can be observed. Therefore, the contribution of Armatya Sen gains attention. In his view, development should be interpreted as a process of expansion of real liberties enjoyed by the citizenry. As such, it is necessary, before everything else, to remove the principal sources of liberty deprivation, such as tyranny and poverty, the lack of economic opportunity, systematic social destitution, negligence in the provision of essential social services and economic, political and social insecurity.

The dimensions of ethics, equality and sustainability, aspects which cannot be disassociated from the new concept of development, assume prime importance. And for their achievement the transversality of public policy, allied to a high degree of State coordination, is imposed.

Finally, criticism of the assumed intrinsic inefficiency of the State gains emphasis. From this viewpoint State activism would necessarily be spendthrift and corrupt, a favorable environment for the appropriation of public assets by the private sector, fertile ground for rent-seeking practices, where the typical bureaucratic type predominates – the champion of self interest. On the opposite side, critical thinking will place in evidence the implications of neoliberal priority for the loss of efficiency in the state apparatus, in terms of debility and increasing State unpreparedness to act as a public institution. In the majority of cases a hiatus will result between the increase in the inability of the State to take decisions and introduce liberal reforms on the one hand, and the weakening of the republican dimension to defend the public interest on the other.

Varieties of Capitalism and the Reevaluation of the States role: a comparative perspective
It is in this context, marked by the clash of prototypes, that the literature on the Varieties of Capitalism reacquires centrality, particularly in reference to the discussion on the new development paths in the context of current globalized capitalism. The most recent theoretical production acknowledges the existence of various forms of capitalism, distinct institutional combinations, and the importance of state coordination to achieve the increase in growth and competitiveness of the national economies. In the case of countries in development, this is an even more relevant point because such economies cannot do without an active State in all sectors, particularly in the social area. The State needs to intervene, according to one strategy, with a long term vision, so that it will be capable of coordinating the acts of public agents, as well as the private players, for the achievement of collective goals.

Instead of thinking in terms of mutually exclusive models, as in the case of comparing the state-protectionist model versus the market model, the exporter model versus the domestic market model it seems more useful to examine the perspective of raising to the first level of analysis the distinction between productive systems within the capitalist markers. Following this emphasis the productive system speaks to the strict complementary relationship between the market, associative activities, economic micro-agents and the central aspects of the institutional marker in force.

In this sense, the State, the corporation, the market, the associations and the interested groups are an integral part of a given productive system, or, they are part of a wider institutional configuration which defines the rules, values, incentives and restrictions which regulate the performance of the different players. The literature on the varieties of capitalism provides an alternative analytical perspective to the dominating treatment in the 80s and 90s of the last century which insisted on the argument of convergence of societies included in the global capitalist system. It is possible to refute those interpretations which advocate a tendency of uniformity as a result of the assumed integrating process of capitalist globalization during the last 30 years. It refers to a research program whose core is the study, starting from a comparative perspective, of the institutional and political bases of the national differences within the capitalist system.

In syntheses, in the first decade of the XXI century, a reversal of the dominant tendencies in Latin America throughout the 1990 decade can be observed, distinguished by the emphasis on reforms oriented to the market. This reversal in favor of more independent orientation was evident in various countries of the region. The result was the evolution of different forms of capitalism, new models of state intervention, all aiming to implement alternative development strategies. These excluded the exclusive economic tenor of the past and strove for the force to go beyond mere currency stability and fiscal discipline, opening the door for the resumption of economic growth allied to greater autonomy in facing the globalization process restrictions. In such circumstances a new agenda of public policies acquired priority, including the social policies combating poverty, reducing inequalities and, more recently, defending the environment.

Research Agenda: Principal Goals
The international literature on the varieties of capitalism reached a considerable degree of depth, leading to greater consistency in the theoretical framework for the interpretation of the changes and the diversity of national experience in the context of global capitalist order. In this way, throughout the last decade, it became possible to fine tune the comparative analyses in the ambiance of the developed countries including the distinct models, from the Anglo-Saxon to the countries of Continental Europe. In the same way, the experience of Southeast Asia was extensively examined, thereby contributing to the enrichment of the types previously elaborated.

However, the same did not happen in reference to Latin America, whose recent evolution could not be properly interpreted in the light of the existing types. From this aspect, it is possible to identify a disparity between the historic development on the one hand and the analytical capacity of reflection on the other. It is possible, therefore, to diagnose the existence of a great gap in knowledge production, especially if we consider that in the context of the post-reform changes oriented to the market, the Latin American socio-economic reality had reached a high degree of complexity and internal differentiation. Such an insufficiency becomes highlighted if we take into account the recent political changes in the region, which, despite their differences, express a strong aspiration for broader forms of development, in order to overcome the historic deficits in the field of international competitiveness, social well-being, innovation and the environment.

This is the dual challenge, equally in the theoretical studies as in the empiric research field and the comparative perspective that the different research lines which integrate the National Institute of Science and Technology in Public Policy, Strategies and Development (INCT/PPED) mean to respond to. More specifically, the objective is to eliminate the observed gaps, thereby contributing to the advance of knowledge in this relatively unexplored field of formation and implementation of public policy capable of dealing with contemporary problems of the emerging nations inextricably linked to the innovative development policies compatible with the transformations in the international context. The analytical framework of the Varieties of Capitalism defines the three great research lines:
1 – State, Varieties of Capitalism and Development in Emerging Countries;
2 – Public Policies, Institutions and Technology Dynamics;
3 – Biodiversity, Natural and Cultural Resources.