Democracy and Social Policy in Brazil: Advancing Basic Needs, Preserving Privileged Interests

Abstract

Has democracy promoted poverty alleviation and equity-enhancing reforms in Brazil, a country of striking inequality and destitution? The effects of an open, competitive political system have not been straightforward. Factors that would seem to work toward this goal include the voting power of poor people, the progressive 1988 Constitution, the activism of social movements, and governance since 1995 by presidents affiliated with center-left and left parties. Yet these factors have been counterbalanced by the strong political influence and lobbying power of organized interests with a stake in preexisting arrangements of social protection and human capital formation. An analysis of four key federal sectors, social security, education, health care, and public assistance, illustrates the challenges for social sector reforms that go beyond raising basic living standards to enhancing socioeconomic inequality.

The Withering of the Welfare State

“…Poverty levels fell from 30.4 million in 2003 to 17 million in 2010. Moreover, it accomplished all this without upsetting the privileges of the middle and upper classes (Hunter and Sugiyama, 2009). If anything, it contributed to steady expansion overall of domestic incomes, consumption and growth in Brazil.…”

“…The World Bank (2001) pointed out that less than 1 per cent of social security spending went to the bottom decile, while 50 per cent went to the richest 10 per cent of the population. Similarly, Hunter and Sugiyama (2009) noted that the top quintile consumed 65 per cent of pensions paid out of the public system. These statistics emphasise why tackling the nature of the welfare regime is crucial to deal with inequality.…”

“…However, Cardoso did not achieve change in all the areas he set out to reform. Most importantly, from an equity point of view, he failed to get a meaningful pension reform due to the opposition of privileged interests (Hunter and Sugiyama, 2009).…”

Pathway to Redistribution: The Emerging Politics of Social Assistance Across the Global "South"

“…Following trade liberalisation, the federal government had to subsidise the social insurance system from tax revenues to the tune of about 5 percent of GDP. The Cardoso and Lula governments both tried to whittle away some of the privileges enjoyed by public and private sector workers, with only limited success (Brooks 2007;Hunter/ Sugiyama 2009). Whilst Cardoso and Lula were able to circumvent gover- (Melo 2008;Fenwick 2009), Cardoso was unable and Lula minimally able to erode the vested interests of state-level patrons in Congress with respect to social insurance.…”

Inequality and the Politics of Social Policy Implementation: Gender, Age and Chile’s 2004 Health Reforms

“…On the other hand, empirical research in advanced industrialized countries has pointed to the importance of unions in supporting welfare state expansion, which in turn reduced inequality (Kenworthy, 2004;Korpi, 1983;Stephens, 1979;Wright, 2000) and the role of unions in defending welfare states from significant erosion (Pierson, 1994). By contrast, in the Latin American context, where union-based constituencies represent a small portion of society and benefit disproportionately from existing social policies, these and other interests have often worked to defend social policy systems that reproduce inequality, be it class, gender, or race based inequalities (Ewig, 2010;Huber et al, 2006;Hunter & Sugiyama, 2009;Pribble, 2008). But similar to findings in advanced industrialized countries, private business interests in Latin America have generally not been supportive of redistributive efforts (Pribble, 2008;Teichman, 2001) and have been politically emboldened in the wake of neoliberal reforms in the region (Weyland, 2004).…”