Varieties of Neoliberalism in Brazil (2003–2019)

• Date: 01 January 2020
• Published date: 01 January 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0094582X19881968
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X19881968

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 230, Vol. 47 No. 1, January 2020, 9–27

DOI: 10.1177/0094582X19881968

© 2019 Latin American Perspectives

9

Varieties of Neoliberalism in Brazil (2003–2019)

by

Alfredo Saad-Filho

The main feature of capital accumulation in Brazil during the administrations led by

Luís Inácio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’

Party—PT) was the continuity of neoliberalism of two varieties: inclusive (2003–2006)

and developmental (2006–2013). The PT’s attachment to neoliberalism was mitigated

by the party’s (shifting) commitment to (mild) developmental outcomes, redistribution of

income (at the margin), social inclusion (within narrow limits), and democratization of

the state (bounded by the 1988 Constitution). Achievements in these areas were further

constrained by the inability or unwillingness of the PT to confront the institutionalization

of neoliberalism in the fields of economics, politics, ideology, the media, and class relations.

The political crisis unfolding in Brazil since 2013 and the imposition of authoritarian

neoliberalism after Rousseff’s impeachment can be examined from the perspective of the

contradictions in the dominant varieties of neoliberalism under the PT and the limitations

of the party’s political ambitions.

A principal característica da acumulação de capital no Brasil durante os governos

ûiderados por Luís Inácio Lula da Silva e Dilma Rousseff do Partido dos Trabalhadores

(PT) foi a continuidade do neoliberalismo de duas variedades: inclusiva (2003–2006) e

desenvolvimentista (2006–2013). O apego do PT ao neoliberalismo foi mitigado pelo

compromisso (inconstante) do partido com resultados de desenvolvimento (moderados),

redistribuição de renda (na margem), inclusão social (dentro de limites estreitos) e

democratização do estado (limitado pela Constituição de 1988). As realizações nessas

áreas foram ainda mais limitadas pela incapacidade ou falta de vontade do PT em enfren-

tar a institucionalização do neoliberalismo nos campos da economia, política, ideologia,

mídia e relações de classe. A crise política que se desenrola no Brasil desde 2013 e a

imposição do neoliberalismo autoritário após o impeachment de Dilma podem ser exam-

inadas sob a perspectiva das contradições nas variedades dominantes de neoliberalismo

sob o PT e as limitações das ambições políticas do partido.

Keywords: Brazil, Democracy, Dilma Rousseff, Lula, Neoliberalism, Workers’ Party

On August 31, 2016, a judicial-parliamentary coup removed the fourth dem-

ocratically elected federal administration led by the Brazilian Partido dos

Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party—PT).1 This article examines the achievements,

limitations, and collapse of the administrations led by Presidents Luís Inácio

Alfredo Saad-Filho is a professor of political economy and international development at King’s

College London. He is grateful to Ana Paula Colombi, Aylin Topal, Ben Fine, Bruno Höfig, Daniela

Prates, Juan Grigera, Lena Lavinas, Lucas Bertholdi-Saad, Luiz Fernando de Paula, Marco Boffo,

Maria de Lourdes Mollo, Pedro Loureiro and the referees of Latin American Perspectives for their

helpful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimers apply.

881968LAPXXX10.1177/0094582X19881968Latin American PerspectivesSaad-Filho / Neoliberalism in Brazil

research-article2019

10 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

Lula da Silva (2003–2006, 2007–2010) and Dilma Rousseff (2011–2014, 2015–

2016) from the point of view of the tensions and contradictions in the dominant

system of accumulation in Brazil: neoliberalism. This system of accumulation

had two varieties during the PT’s period in office, inclusive neoliberalism

(2003–2006) and developmental neoliberalism (2006–2013) (the years 2013–16 are

undefined, because economic policy became incoherent and output and

employment collapsed). They were followed by authoritarian neoliberalism after

Rousseff’s impeachment.

Identification of the system of accumulation and its varieties is a complex

exercise for three reasons: (1) Systems of accumulation are determined by the

(historically specific) form of production of the material conditions of social

reproduction and, at a more concrete level, by the constraints imposed by the

balance of payments, labor, finance, institutions, and the political system,

which are managed by economic, industrial, and social policies. These overlap-

ping, shifting, and potentially contradictory determinations can make it diffi-

cult to identify the system of accumulation and its varieties. (2) The PT

governments had to rely on unwieldy and unstable political alliances that lim-

ited the scope for coherent policy making. (3) The social base of support for the

PT changed during its period in office, revealing the development of important

contradictions in its program and the implementation of that program.

Despite these limitations, examination of the social relations and patterns of

accumulation, political representation, and policy making between 2003 and

2016 and in the subsequent period suggests that the main (systemic) feature of

this period is the continuity of neoliberalism.2 This is demonstrated by the endur-

ing grip of the macroeconomic “policy tripod” during the PT administrations

and beyond. The tripod was introduced in 1999 by the (unquestionably) neo-

liberal administration led by Fernando Henrique Cardoso of the Partido da

Social Democracia Brasileira (Brazilian Social Democratic Party—PSDB), tradi-

tionally the PT’s main rival. The tripod enforced typically neoliberal policies:

inflation targeting and the operational independence of the Central Bank, float-

ing exchange rates with largely unregulated international flows of capital, and

contractionary monetary and fiscal policies buttressed by the Fiscal

Responsibility Law of May 2000.3

Although the PT administrations implemented the tripod with increasing

flexibility, these neoliberal policies and institutions, grounded in law, heavily

constrained the formulation, implementation, and monitoring of economic

policy. In addition, the ideological hegemony of neoliberalism ensured that the

tripod itself was rarely the subject of debate in the media or in Congress; dis-

senting voices were systematically marginalized. In this way, the PT govern-

ments accepted that their industrial, financial, wage, and welfare policies

would be bounded by the reproduction of neoliberalism, which limited the

potential gains in redistribution, output, and employment. Finally, the PT nei-

ther sought nor achieved significant changes in the patterns of ownership or

control of property, finance, production, technology, employment, or interna-

tional integration. Consequently, the PT administrations were neoliberal both

in that they were passively constrained by global neoliberalism and in that they

actively supported its reproduction domestically.

Neoliberalism is both historically specific and inherently variegated (see

Brenner, Peck, and Theodore, 2010; Fine and Saad-Filho, 2017). The specificity