Federico M. Rossi’s The Poor’s Struggle for Political Incorporation: The Piquetero Movement in Argentina is an ambitious, creative, and significant piece of scholarship, particularly because of its theoretical and empirical contributions. Theoretically, Rossi makes a number of important interventions. He argues that the development of the Piquetero movement should be understood in light of the seminal 1991 work by the Colliers on state–society relations in Latin America, Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. Whereas the Colliers sought to analyze the dynamics concerning how labor movements across the region affected different countries’ political institutions in the first half of the twentieth century, Rossi singles out Argentina to analyze the effects of neoliberal structural reform or what he calls “disincorporation.” Enter the Piqueteros: the Argentine movement of unemployed workers named after their signature tactic, the roadblock or picket (el piquete). Rossi details the effects of their struggle on public policy, and more importantly, on the workers’ reincorporation into political society after experiencing the aftermath of economic reform. In addition to the attention given to Argentina, the last chapter applies some of the work’s insights to the study of contentious politics in Brazil and Bolivia.
In his work, Rossi improves some central concepts in social movement theory. Of note is Charles Tilly’s notion of repertoires of contention, which Rossi expands in his theorization of “repertoire of strategies” and “stock of legacies.” In deploying these concepts, Rossi attempts to incorporate how past lessons and organizational involvement affect social movement decision-making processes. Specifically concerning the “repertoire of strategy,” Rossi highlights how social movements engage not only in public displays of contention but also in not-so-public informal negotiations with elites to achieve their goals. His attention to conceptual development marks an advance in social movement studies in seriously building history into the study of contentious politics.
Another valuable theoretical intervention is Rossi’s distinction between horizontal and vertical opportunity structures. Here, he joins the many scholars of contentious politics who recognize the contributions of Sidney Tarrow, Charles Tilly, and Doug McAdam concerning the importance of external, non-movement incentives, yet who also see the need for corrections to their approach. Without dismissing the notion of political opportunity, Rossi notes that scholars of contention need to pay attention to divisions among elites at different levels in a polity. For instance, concerning horizontal opportunities, he focuses on elites who wield the same relative institutional power within a particular policy area. Vertical opportunities differ, even though the policy area may be the same, but division may exist between actors who occupy different positions within a state’s institutional hierarchy. For example, at various times in the book, we see how different Piquetero social movement organizations (SMOs) mobilized successfully with mayors instead of governors or presidents concerning unemployment policy. This theoretical innovation will help scholars who study contention, especially in federal systems.
The book also is an achievement for empirical reasons. Having lived in Argentina during some of the main contentious moments in 2002 and 2004 that were mentioned in the book, I found the discussion gripping. What was so fascinating was the degree of detail Rossi spends on each Piquetero SMO. Rossi details the historical development and challenges of each Piquetero organization, which initially numbered 16 (p. 23). Yet, as he notes later in the book, some of these groups splintered off from one another as others demobilized. It is no wonder that the appendix of the book is a flow chart of the many Piquetero organizations’ trajectories. At various points in the book, we find tables with clear summaries of differences among the Piqueteros, for instance, concerning electoral strategy (p. 185) and how to confront government (p. 203). Stylistically, such signposts help the reader remember “who’s who” in the movement.
Rossi’s research also places the Piquetero movement into discussions concerning the nature of left-wing politics during the period that has become known as the “Pink Tide.” Usually marked with the 1999 election of the late president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, the 2000s and 2010s were marked by a left-wing political shift throughout the region. Complementing Castañeda’s attempt to demarcate “good” and “bad” leftist governments and Sader’s generalization that what unifies the region’s leftist turn was a general sense of anti-neoliberalism, Rossi likewise provides a way to understand the historical period through his focus on neoliberal disincorporation and then the subsequent social movement-led efforts at reincorporation. At a historical moment when it appears that the “Pink Tide” has ebbed, Rossi’s book offers perspective to think about the impact of leftist movements and parties over the last 20 years.
Rossi’s study also raises many provocative questions about the Piqueteros specifically and social movement theory broadly. The Piqueteros’ extreme fragmentation is especially intriguing for at least two reasons. First, there is the ideological separation among the different SMOs. This division is rooted in twentieth-century Marxist debates, for instance, between Maoists, Leninists, Guevarists, and Trotskyists. Such rivalries raise some questions concerning identity. Given that identity is central to a social movement, it appears that the Piquetero movement lacks one that can be considered either stable or singular. What instead unifies them is a tactic: the roadblock. This is not so much a critique as an honest question: What is the role of identity within the movement? To follow up, can we really define a movement simply by its use of a tactic? Should we also call the demonstrators in the 2000s who blocked roads in Bolivia “Piqueteros” because of their use of the roadblock?
This point on identity also led to me wonder about the size of the many SMOs. How many regular members know the difference between a Guevarist and a Leninist? This made me curious about how many “piqueteros” there are—not in terms of organizations but of actual participating members. Is fragmentation more of an issue between movement entrepreneurs than with the movement’s base?
Rossi’s work raises two other questions: one concerning territory and the other with respect to co-optation. Territory is central to his argument, given that Rossi believes the Piquetero movement is indicative of a new form of social movement that is rooted in a sense of territorial control. Early in the book, he claims that, as opposed to past labor movements, movements that emerged in the aftermath of neoliberal restructuring “dispute the physical control of space, be it a municipality, province, or portion of land” (p. 13). Territory itself, accordingly, becomes a new “political cleavage.” This is quite a provocative claim, especially because the literature on revolutions also notes the centrality of territorial control. Yet, as Rossi’s argument unfolds, I did not see such territorial disputes presented. Rather, although territory is important, its control is not. The various Piquetero SMOs, as Rossi documents, fought over the distribution of unemployment benefits. Yet, in these conflicts, control was sought over decision-making practices and resources within a particular policy domain, not over who has authority in a certain space. If territorial struggles were present, then we would expect to find Piquetero groups adopting a kind of paramilitary style of organization. Yet, they do not. If territorial control were central to the movement, then the Piqueteros would have made a serious, real attempt to take power as the 2001–2002 crisis was at its worst. However, and as Rossi notes, the Piqueteros at this crucial moment in Argentine history were absent because of their fear of repression (p. 165). The book documents how the governments of Néstor and then Cristina Kirchner brought activists into certain policy-making circles while also distributing benefits. This appears more like an effort to build a governing coalition to remain in power than a territorial dispute for control.
The other remaining question is, Were the Piqueteros co-opted by the Kirchners’ governments? Early on in the book, the reader is told that the trajectory of the Piquetero movement cannot be explained through co-optation (p. 24). At a few points, however, Rossi notes how some movement leaders were co-opted into the governing coalition and then their respective SMOs demobilized (pp. 204, 211). Still, the problem seems larger. Basically, after reading the book, it seems to me that the Piquetero movement was led by the government, serving its interests after 2001, rather than the other way around. Whether it was the strategic aim of the Duhalde and then the Kirchner governments to divide the movement, creating in- and out-groups (p. 178) or selectively placing a few movement leaders into decision-making positions in government but always subordinate to non-Piquetero officials (pp. 201–202), it appears that the movement as a whole was made to serve certain political interests. That the movement was divided intentionally and then became further splintered seems a standard “divide and conquer” strategy used by elites to keep oppressed people oppressed. Moreover, many of the accomplishments that Rossi takes as resulting from Piquetero mobilization (pp. 238–41), including reducing unemployment or reindustrialization, could be seen as resulting instead from governmental initiatives (such as ending the convertibility plan). The other, potentially more clear-cut achievements of the movement, such as placing leaders into government or creating the largest unemployment subsidy program in Latin America, could be read alternatively as governmental initiatives designed specifically to demobilize disgruntled social actors.
If this is in any way correct, I wonder whether Rossi’s understanding of reincorporation is simply a new form of co-optation. If his study is intended to speak to movements outside Argentina, then were developments in Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, and other countries where the Left took power the same? This leads me to my final question: If the Piqueteros are in fact a paradigmatic case of mobilization in the aftermath of neoliberal restructuring, then is the “Pink Tide” simply a story of how marginalized groups were drawn into governing coalitions that did little to change dominant economic and political dynamics throughout the region?
