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.

For decades autonomy has been utilised as a concept in various social sciences, like sociology, political science, law and philosophy. Certain concepts of autonomy have always reflected the needs of the respective disciplines that made use of the term, but also ever infringed on the interpretation of autonomy in other disciplines. Most notably, conceptualisations of international and constitutional law have found their way into bordering sciences, like political science. The result: a legal positivist view prevailing in the conceptualisations of autonomy within political and administrative sciences. As this working paper points out, this perspective does not do justice to the complex phenomenon autonomy is or may be in social and political reality. Hence, the paper argues for a differentiated concept of autonomy, splitting it into autonomy claims, actors, process, rights and powers, regimes, and their institutions. The empirical world suggests a salience of formally and informally lived types of autonomy, especially in Latin America, due to the region’s indigenous population often living outside of, or within the limited reach of the state. Therefore, the paper aims to incorporate the dimension of informality – lacking in previous legal positivist approaches. Autonomy regimes could be entrenched in international, constitutional, or secondary law, or they could be tolerated by the state or seized by autonomy claimants by force. From a theoretical or conceptual perspective, the dimension of (in)formality facilitates the incorporation of autonomy into the discussion on governance and government, mostly on the local or regional level. Thus, the paper establishes autonomy regimes as a concept located at the verges of (self-)government and (self-)governance.

Civil society organizations only started to be considered a sector in the 1970s in the United States. Amitai Etzioni pioneered the use of the expression third sector, which became common in academic and political literature. However, in the United States, the non-profit sector concept gradually became more robust and was spread internationally based on the studies conducted by Lester Salomon and associated researchers. The theory built on the concept of the non-profit sector is strongly related to the North American cultural context, marked by the tradition of philanthropy and volunteerism, but with little importance given to associative and cooperative organizations. The non-profit sector is implicitly or explicitly conceived as part of the private sphere. In contrast, theoretical currents such as liberal communitarianism, the theories of cooperation, common goods, social capital, European social economy, and the Latin American solidarity economy highlight the primacy of cooperation in solving collective problems. These theories underpin the associative approach of the third sector and link it to the community, not to the market. This paper argues that the associative approach is more appropriate for international studies on the third sector and the relevance of self-organization. The third sector, i.e., the set of organizations created and maintained by civil society, is the inheritor of the millennial associative tradition, including both entities whose values are compatible with the common good and those with particularistic values, authoritarian and contrary to human rights. The third sector is not entirely virtuous, but it is a vital sector for solving great human problems.

Kein Abstract verfügbar

The aim of this paper is to illuminate the interdependent relation and connectivity between state and regime known as the state-regime-nexus. To conceptualize the reciprocal institutional relation between state and regime and to deepen the understanding of the state-regime-nexus, I focus on law and legal order as one mutual linkage between state and regime in both democratic and autocratic regimes. To do so, this conceptual paper addresses two points that are part of the same topic: the relation between state, regime and law and different variants of legal order in democratic and autocratic regimes. This creates a theoretical basis to gain more conceptual and analytical clarity in the complex realm of the state-regime-nexus.