Challenging Neoliberalism in Latin America By Eduardo Silva Cambridge University Press. 2009. 336 pages. $89 cloth, $28.99 paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eduardo Silva's book sets out to explain the discrepancy between neoliberal expectations about “the end of history” after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the fact of widespread mobilization challenging neoliberalism in Latin America since the turn of the 21st century. Mobilization did emerge with demands for deeper, participatory democracy and economic justice. Similar to most political scientists studying Latin America, Silva sets up a highly top-down, Weberian conception of “relational power.” He focuses on what state structures are to be weakened for antineoliberal mobilization to succeed. Although there is an attempt to explore the bottom-up determinants of mobilization, in the form of “cognitive and brokerage” mechanisms to form collective power, these variables remain merely defined and described but not explained. They appear as structural functions that disrupt political power, but the author gives no clue as to how they emerge. Silva posits that economic and political exclusion resulting from neoliberal reforms became the motive or the detonator for mobilization. Movements in Latin America have been antineoliberal and pro-state interventions, but not socialist. He calls for distinguishing between structural and institutional capacities, on the one hand, and mechanisms for movements to frame and broker coalitions and alliances to form collective power, on the other. Silva focuses on Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, where mobilization went from waves of contention to the ouster of neoliberal governments. He also discusses Chile and Peru, where different structural conditions did not lead to widespread mobilization or the ouster of governments, to explain his theory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".