Special Edition – August, 2018: Philanthropy in Latin America

Introduction to the “Philanthropy in Latin America” special edition: The reinforcement of philanthropy in Argentina and Chile

By Juan-Luis Klein

Professor of the Geography department, Member of PhiLab and CRISES

Both texts included in this edition concern the recent transformations of the philanthropic sector in South America, more specifically in Chile and Argentina, two countries which, on many different levels, share common characteristics. They are both part of the Southern Cone, which is made up of four countries: Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, and Uruguay. With Paraguay being the exception, this region, in comparison to the rest of Latin America, has a stronger economy and higher levels of development. The population is essentially urban and is concentrated in the main cities of each country, which creates remarkable inequalities in the occupation of the territory.

Between 1940 and 1960, in favor of a strong union presence and reformist governments, Argentina and Chile underwent reforms which brought along the establishment of a “Social State” and of a social protection safety net. In fact, on the economy side, the substitution of imports allowed for the development of different branches of the industrial sector. These countries followed a development model that Lipietz deems as “peripheral Fordism”.

However, since the 1970s, Argentina and Chile have gone through a similar political evolution that brought on the dissolution of this development model. Military dictatorships took the reigns of power using the same methods and implanted State terrorism regimes, that many have qualified as Fascist. These regimes sought to curb rising leftist politics and trade unions which, in Chile, even led to the election of a Socialist government in 1970. In response to the threats to the interests of foreign and domestic capital and to large landowners, posed by the political and social situation, the armed forces of both countries seized power – in 1973 in Chile, and in 1976 in Argentina – and established a climate of terror, while simultaneously initiating a process of neo-liberalization of the economy. The relations are changing between the State, the different layers of private capital (foreign and national) and the organizations representing the social sphere. In the 1980s and 1990s, democracy returned, but elected governments did not return to the reformist orientations of the past. The gains from import substitution were offset by extractivist policies favored by the IMF and social inequalities increased.

This is the scene set for the arrival of a new player, until then absent (or occult), philanthropy. As these two texts demonstrate, while it did exist in these countries in the past, it was more of either a charitable philanthropy, connected to the Catholic Church, or a foreign philanthropy, connected to American or European foundations. Reciprocity was present but organized itself at the border of politics as well as in relation to it. The “juntas de vecinos” (citizen committees) of Santiago, that existed in all working-class districts, didn’t have as an objective to help the less fortunate, even if it was done, but more to represent its residents in front of political bodies and to carry their demands with them. Thus, during the long episode of military dictatorship, the retreat of the social State, and the transition towards an individualistic culture on the one hand, and the exacerbation of inequalities on the other, the profusion of diverse forms of action that can be associated with philanthropy appeared, as Carlos La Serna’s text demonstrates.

Regarding capital and companies, philanthropic action stems from the reparation of the effects of the neoliberal model of social cohesion, necessary in attracting foreign capital and economic competition. Regarding civil society, we can see the effect of popular and solidarity-based economic practices that were developed under the military governments and which continue to expand. However, we could ask ourselves if, at this level, its reinforcement as a relatively autonomous sphere of action cannot also be explained by the distance taken by community organizations with regard to State bodies of which many social groups are wary. In 2001, the Argentinian people were demanding “Que se vayan todos” forcing the resignation of several governments. This outcry was synchronized with the decision by over 50% of Chileans not to participate in the presidential elections of 2017.

The emergence of a strong philanthropic sector that presents and asserts itself on both the social and political fronts is proof of a profound social transformation that is worth studying. It would also be interesting to see if the same type of examination can be made for countries such as Uruguay and Brazil, whose trajectories were comparable to those of Argentina and Chile.

Composition of the issue:

• Estado Del Arte De La Investigación Sobre Filantropía En Chile. Panorama De Los Últimos 20 Años, Luis Garrido, Pedro Narvarte et Mario Radrigán, membres du PhiLab, blog julio 2018

In English: State of research on Philanthropy in Chile: Summary of the past 20 years. By Luis Garrido, Pedro Narvarte and Mario Radrigán, members of PhiLab, July 2018 blog.