Comparison in social sciences and public policy analysis in Latin America and the Caribbean

Seminar 1919

Chair: CLACSO
Coordination: Juan Bautista Lucca and José Francisco Puello-Socarrás (FI/ESAP, Colombia)
Home: 24 / 06 / 2019 | Registration: 04/02/2019 al 21/06/2019

Teaching team: Juan Bautista Lucca, José Francisco Puello-Socarrás, Carlos Wladimir Gómez Cárdenas and María Angélica Gunturiz Rodríguez

Workload: 12 weeks – 90 hours.

Payment methods
If you have a link with a CLACSO Associated Center:

Paying in one payment: USD 95 (includes issuance and shipping costs of the digital certificate).

If you have a link with a Network or Institution Associated with CLACSO:

Paying in one payment: USD 140 (includes issuance and shipping costs of the digital certificate).

If you do NOT have a link with a CLACSO Associated Center:

Paying in one payment BEFORE 14/06/2019: USD 150 (includes issuance and shipping costs of the digital certificate).
Paying in one payment: USD 190 (includes issuance and shipping costs of the digital certificate).

Course presentation:

The first part of this seminar introduces the debate on comparison and its methods from an interdisciplinary perspective, drawing on contributions from various social science disciplines, such as history, political science, and sociology. The first six modules present the strategies and challenges inherent in the comparative approach, emphasizing Latin American and Caribbean realities. They also introduce an epistemological critique of knowledge production in the region, particularly through the comparative method. This part of the program concludes with a presentation on the specific role of comparison in the analysis of public policies in our countries.

The second part addresses comparison as a fundamental tool in the analysis of social change processes, emphasizing the challenges surrounding development in Latin American and Caribbean countries. It examines public policies related to state reform and organization, problematizing new mechanisms in public policy production. Subsequently, it addresses the challenges of development and its social dimension through an analysis of social policy systems in the region. Finally, it reviews emerging discourses on development from a comparative perspective.

Contents:

What comparison is (and what it is not). Analysis, method(s) and research logics from a critical interpretation.
Interstices of the development of comparative sensitivity in the social sciences in Latin America.
Tools and strategies for comparison in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The challenge of comparing public policies.
Causal mechanisms and dynamic perspective of institutional change as tools for comparison in public policies.
Governance and governance from a comparative perspective: Assessment and critical perspectives in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Transformations of the State in the reconfiguration of relations with the Government, Society and the Market in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Welfare regimes and social policy horizons in Latin America. Comparative approaches.
Neoliberalism(s), Anti-neoliberalism(s) and Post-neoliberalism(s). A comparative approach.
Post-Neoliberalisms of Good Living: Alternative and Native Public Policies?

General Bibliography of the Seminar

Sartori, G. 2002. “Where is political science going?”, Politics and Government, Vol. XI, No. 2, Second semester of 2002, pp. 349-354.

Raveca, P. 2010. “The politics of Political Science. An essay of disciplinary introspection from Latin America today”, Latin America. Journal of the Doctorate in Social and Political Processes in Latin America (Santiago de Chile: ARCIS University) No. 9, pp. 173-210.

Puello-Socarrás, JF. 2011. “Conventionalisms and epistemological subversions”. Crítica Contemporánea. Revista de Teoría Política (Montevideo: Universidad de la República) No. 1, pp. 198-226.

BELTRÁN VILLEGAS, Miguel Ángel. (2014). “Comparative analysis: some Latin American contributions in the second half of the 20th century”. Mexican Journal of Political and Social Sciences, 59 (221), 145-174.

GIORDANO, Verónica (2011) “A plea in favor of a comparative historical sociology of Latin America”, in Work and Society, No. 17, University of Santiago del Estero, pp. 41-48.

LUCCA, Juan Bautista and PINILLOS, Cintia (2015). “The agenda of comparative politics in Latin America”. El@tina. Electronic Journal of Latin American Studies, 14(53), 1-15.

RAGIN, Charles (2007) “The construction of social research”. Siglo del Hombre – Universidad de los Andes: Bogotá. Pp.177-211

DELLA PORTA, Donatella (2013). “Comparative analysis: case-based research versus variable-based research”. In Approaches and methodologies of the social sciences. AKAL Publishing House. Madrid. Pp. 211-237.

LUCCA, Juan Bautista (2019). “Concepts in comparative Latin American politics”. Espiral Estudios sobre Estado y Sociedad, 2019, 26(74), 9-48. ISSN: 2594-021X.

LUCCA, Juan Bautista and PINILLOS, Cintia (2015) “Theoretical-methodological decisions in the construction of comparative studies in light of Ibero-American phenomena”. Working Papers #25. Institute of Ibero-America. University of Salamanca.

BULCOURF, Pablo and Nelson CARDOZO (2008): “Why compare public policies?”, in Comparative Politics - Working Paper #3. Argentina.

GARCIA MONTERO, Mercedes (2017) “Public policies and their analysis”, in Course of Political Science, Marti i Puig, S.; Solis Delgadillo, JM; Sanchez, F. (eds.). Mexico City: Senate of the Republic of Mexico. Pp. 577-616.

GUNTURIZ, Angélica; José Francisco PUELLO-SOCARRÁS; Carlos GÓMEZ CÁRDENAS and Juan B. LUCCA (2018) “The comparative method and the study of social policies in Latin America and the Caribbean”. Latin American Journal of Social Science Methodology (ISSN 1853-7863) Volume 8 Number 2.

Gómez, A. (2015). Recent approaches to the analysis of institutional change: The distributional theory of gradual change. Politics and government, 22(2), 391-415.

González, F. (2016). Social mechanisms and their relationship with the micro-macro distinction. Cinta moebio 55: 16-28.

Saavedra-Echeverry, S. (2016). Analysis of institutional development from the historical institutional approach. Papel Político, 21(1), 81-100.

Mayorga, F., & Córdova, E. (2007). Governability and governance in Latin America. Governability and Governance In: Latin America-Working Paper NCCR North-South IP8, Geneva, 18-20.

Vidal-Beneyto, J. (2013). The words of empire, governability and governance.

Olivo Pérez, M. Á., Alaníz Hernández, C., & Reyes García, L. (2011). Critique of the concepts of governability and governance: a discussion with reference to school councils for social participation in Mexico. Mexican Journal of Educational Research, 16(50), 775-799.

Jiménez, C., Puello-Socarrás, JF, Corredor, AR, & Ibáñez, MR (2017). THE COMMON: POLITICAL ALTERNATIVES FROM DIVERSITY. CDPAZ-PLANETAPAZ, Bogotá, 2017.

OSTROM, E. 1994. “Reflections on the Commons”. The governance of the commons. The evolution of collective action institutions, pp. 35-75.

HARVEY, D. 2013. “The creation of urban commons”. Rebel Cities. From the right to the city to the urban revolution. Madrid: Akal, pp. 107-136.

Del Valle, Alejandro H (2009). Welfare regimes in Latin America. AMÉRIKA Magazine, 2, 28.

Mirza, Christian Adel (2014). Provisional conclusions. In: (Re)Construction of the matrices of well-being in Latin America: the dilemmas of the Latin American left. CLACSO, Buenos Aires.

Sojo, A. (2017) Disputes over social protection in Latin America: from reductionism to greater heterodoxy. In Social protection in Latin America: inequality on trial. ECLAC Books, No. 143. Santiago: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Puello-Socarrás, JF 2015. “Neoliberalism, Anti-neoliberalism and New Neoliberalism. South American Economic-Political Episodes and Trajectories (1973-2015)” in: Puello-Socarrás et al. (coord. Luis Rojas Villagra) Neoliberalism in Latin America. Crisis, Trends and Alternatives. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, pp. 19-42.

Puello-Socarrás, JF 2013. 'Eight theses on neoliberalism (1973-2013)', in H. Ramírez (ed.), O neoliberalismo sul-americano em key transnacional: raizamento, apogeu e crise, 13-57. São Leopoldo: Oikos - Unisinos.

Puello-Socarrás, JF. 2015. DEVELOPMENT. Paleontology (political) of an (neoliberal) idea. Critical Studies of Development. Vol. V, No. 8, pp. 47-81.

Medina, J. 2011. About Suma Qamaña in: Farah, I. & Vasapollo, L. Living well: a non-capitalist paradigm? La Paz: CIDES-UMSA, pp. 39-64.

Dávalos, P. 2008. 'Reflections on Sumak Kawsay (Good Living) and development theories' and 'Sumak Kawsay (“Good Living”) and the censures of development', in AL Hidalgo-Capitán, A. Guillén García and N. Deleg Guazha (eds.), Sumak Kawsay Yuyay. Anthology of Ecuadorian indigenous thought on Sumak Kawsay, pp. 133-151. Huelva and Cuenca: University of Huelva.

Ascarrunz, B. 2011. "Living Well as the meaning and orientation of public policies", in: Farah, I. & Vasapollo, L. Living well: non-capitalist paradigm? La Paz: CIDES-UMSA, pp. 423-437.

FAQ

What do I need to take a CLACSO virtual seminar?

The basic requirements for taking a seminar are:

Availability of at least 4 hours per week to dedicate to the seminar course.
Internet access.
Reasonable handling of communication and computer tools.
Language proficiency in the language in which the course will be taught. The official languages are Spanish and Portuguese.

What is the length of a CLACSO virtual seminar? What is the total number of hours?

The seminars last 12 weeks, plus the completion of a final project. A total of 90 hours of dedication will be credited.

What is the work modality and dynamics?

A course consists of twelve classes, each accompanied by required readings, supplementary readings, discussion forums, and learning activities proposed by the teaching team, as well as partial submissions and a final project. The course is delivered online and asynchronously. Some instructors may propose synchronous activities. In these cases, the time and date will be agreed upon in advance between the teaching team and the students to ensure everyone's participation. To pass the seminar, students must participate in at least 80% of the discussion forums and activities proposed by the instructors, complete all scheduled partial submissions, and pass the final project.