@article{Kestler2023,
  author    = {Kestler, Thomas},
  title     = {Exploring the Relationship Between Social Movement Organizations and the State in Latin America},
  series = {Politics and Governance},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Politics and Governance},
  number    = {2},
  issn      = {2183-2463},
  doi       = {10.17645/pag.v11i2.6383},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-321152},
  pages     = {346-356},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Under conditions of weak statehood, societal actors are supposed to assume functions usually attributed to the state. Social self-organization is expected to emerge when the state leaves important social problems unattended. Should social self-organization, therefore, be regarded as a reaction to state weakness and as compensation for state failure in the provision of basic services? Does society organize itself on its own in areas where the state is absent or ineffective? By the example of two Latin American social movements, this article aims to show that social self-organization—at least on a larger scale—is not independent of the state, but rather a result of a dynamic interaction with the state. The two examples this article explores are the middle-class Venezuelan neighborhood movement and the Argentine piquetero movement of unemployed workers. Both movements emerged as reactions to the state's failure and retreat from essential social functions and both developed into extensive and influential social actors. For that reason, they can be regarded as crucial cases for observing the patterns and conditions of social self-organization and autonomous collective action within the specific Latin American context. Despite their different backgrounds and social bases, the two cases reveal remarkable similarities. They show that the emergence and development of self-organized social groups cannot be conceived simply as a reaction to state weakness, but rather should be viewed as a dynamic interaction with the state.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KestlerLuccaKrause2016,
  author    = {Kestler, Thomas and Lucca, Juan Bautista and Krause, Silvana},
  title     = {'Break-In Parties' and Changing Patterns of Democracy in Latin America},
  series = {Brazilian Political Science Review},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Brazilian Political Science Review},
  number    = {1},
  doi       = {10.1590/1981-38212016000100004},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-171333},
  pages     = {e0004},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Although Lijphart's typology of consensus and majoritarian democracy can be regarded as the most widely used tool to classify democratic regimes, it has been rarely applied to Latin America so far. We try to fill this gap by adapting Lijphart's typological framework to the Latin American context in the following way. In contrast to previous studies, we treat the type of democracy as an independent variable and include informal factors such as clientelism or informal employment in our assessment of democratic patterns. On this basis, we aim to answer the following questions. First, how did the patterns of democracy evolve in Latin America over the two decades between 1990 and 2010 and what kind of differences can be observed in the region? Second, what are the institutional determinants of the observed changes? We focus on the emergence of new parties because of their strong impact on the first dimension of Lijphart's typology. From our observations we draw the following tentative conclusions: If strong new parties established themselves in the party system but failed to gain the presidency, they pushed the system towards consensualism. Conversely, new parties that gained the presidency produced more majoritarian traits.},
  language  = {en}
}