2015
DOI: 10.11144/javeriana.papo20-1.dpel
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Democracia, participación y espacio local en Chile

Abstract: La desconfianza ciudadana con la política y elmalestar con la democracia ha llevado a los sistemas políticos a explorar nuevos mecanismose instancias de participación que aminoren el protagonismo de las elites tradicionales en el proceso de toma de decisiones. Como casi todos los países de América Latina, Chileha desarrollado un proceso de reformas políticas que han tenido, entre otros elementos, el reforzamiento de los poderes locales como uno de sus ejes centrales, a su vez, articulado con innovaciones en el… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
4

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
3
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…However, it is perhaps Hassel (2009) who goes furthest in this respect, by classifying ESCs (and other NSDIs) according to categories of corporatism. On the contrary, most studies focus on specific experiences, discussing the conditions that led to the creation of the ESCs (Börzel, 2010;Börzel & Buzogány, 2010;Carneiro & Gambi, 2018;Çiçek & Öçal, 2019), explaining their limitations (Çelik, 2020;Cho, 2019;Kim & Van Der Westhuizen, 2017;Patschiki, 2016) and strengths (Fashoyin, 2009;Han et al, 2010;Regan, 2010), evaluating their degree of effectiveness (Santos & Gugliano, 2015), the conditions for their strengthening (Grosse, 2010;Hassel, 2009;Spasova & Tomini, 2013), the challenges they face in a globalised world (Guardiancich & Ghellab, 2020) and their relationship with sub-national ESCs (Inzunza-Canales, 2018;Pressacco & Rivera, 2015;Ramírez-Sáiz, 2013;Santos, 2016).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, it is perhaps Hassel (2009) who goes furthest in this respect, by classifying ESCs (and other NSDIs) according to categories of corporatism. On the contrary, most studies focus on specific experiences, discussing the conditions that led to the creation of the ESCs (Börzel, 2010;Börzel & Buzogány, 2010;Carneiro & Gambi, 2018;Çiçek & Öçal, 2019), explaining their limitations (Çelik, 2020;Cho, 2019;Kim & Van Der Westhuizen, 2017;Patschiki, 2016) and strengths (Fashoyin, 2009;Han et al, 2010;Regan, 2010), evaluating their degree of effectiveness (Santos & Gugliano, 2015), the conditions for their strengthening (Grosse, 2010;Hassel, 2009;Spasova & Tomini, 2013), the challenges they face in a globalised world (Guardiancich & Ghellab, 2020) and their relationship with sub-national ESCs (Inzunza-Canales, 2018;Pressacco & Rivera, 2015;Ramírez-Sáiz, 2013;Santos, 2016).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The administrative organization of the three countries remains highly centralized despite of their efforts for power distribution [44][45][46]. While Ecuador has been more reluctant, Chile and Peru have enthusiastically embraced neoliberalism (since the 1990s in the case of Peru and since the 1980s in the case of Chile).…”
Section: Politics and Economymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite prior attempts of decentralization (e.g., in 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2011), the central government remains highly concentrated [66,67]. This is mainly due to two factors: the lack of financial autonomy (regional/ local governments financially depend on the central administration) and the lack of administrative autonomy (due to a rigid organization) [63].…”
Section: General Background On Chilementioning
confidence: 99%