A time of change

(1)

A Time of Change.

A critical perspective on the policy shift

from privatization to renationalization in Bolivia.

Master thesis

Indra Römgens (0406449)

January 2011

Supervisor: dr. Angela Wigger

(2)

The idea of a “time of change” is one with deep resonance in Andean political culture and has been heard in insurgent moments since the late eighteenth century. In centuries past, community rebels as they rose up echoed the refrain “The present is a new time,” while Indian movements today speak of the present as a pachakuti, an overturning of time and space out of which a new phase in history may issue. (Hylton & Thomson, Revolutionary Horizons, 2007, p. 15)

(3)

Preface

I remember walking around in Cordoba (Argentina), coming across a street decorated with flags. A closer look told me that the flags in fact were pictures of los desaparecidos. People that had gone missing during times of dictatorship. It was just one of the many things in daily life that still reminded everyone of people who had been brave enough to stand up, to resist. That kind of bravery and the feeling of revolution is very much alive in Latin America. It makes it a fascinating continent. Another characteristic of this region is its devastating inequality. Inequality and its consequences are always very striking to me, because I cannot understand it. Why is it that together we have enough, but separately so many people are suffering and barely surviving? I always had the need to discover causes. Curing symptoms ultimately has no use, when you do not know what is making people sick. This master program has given me the possibility to try and make some new discoveries. People in this world are part of a system that generates inequality, but they have the power to achieve change. Political science, as the study of power, does not pay enough attention to the power of people. It is therefore interesting to notice and study attempts at change, in spite of the rigidness of the system. Bolivians have shown in recent years that the 21st_{century that revolutionary feelings are still very}

much alive. Without one visionary leader, a clear plan or money, they went to the streets and campaigned for their cause. They found strength in themselves, each other and their ancestors. I realize this might sound naïve or romanticized in some way, but this could be where the challenge for growing inequality in this world may lay: in the strength of people.

We verkeren ongetwijfeld in een historische fase waarbij in al die landen groepen personen zijn die het niet als een natuurlijke zaak wensen te beschouwen dat deze toestanden van ongelijkheid en onrechtvaardigheid voortduren. De strijd tegen te ‘gevestigde orde’ is een harde en gevaarlijke strijd. Hij dient gevoerd te worden tegen de woede en de aversie van de politiek en economisch machtigste groeperingen. Het is een strijd die zelfs negatieve gevolgen heeft voor het eigen welzijn en de eigen mogelijkheden, tégen het behalen van zogenaamd succes in de gevestigde maatschappij. Maar er is een innerlijke kracht die hen voortdrijft om zich in te zetten voor degenen die hun hulp nodig hebben. Voor velen wordt die kracht de reden van hun bestaan. Die strijd geeft hun leven zin. (Héctor Abad, Het Vergeten dat Ons Wacht)

In this thesis I studied a small part of that battle in Bolivia. It has led me to some unknown places, theoretically as well as empirically (sadly not in the sense of field work). To me, it was remarkable that a country so rich of natural resources, could be so poor. From that starting point, I took off through the history of this landlocked Latin American country. Natural resources, whether it was silver, tin or gas, have been important to the economy of Bolivia. Their natural wealth means more than solely their earnings, it is intertwined with their history and tradition and thus part of their

(4)

identity. I learned many things about Bolivia, and even more about critical theory. Adopting a critical theory perspective has allowed me to explore new theoretical grounds. This would not have been possible without the master program I threw myself in more than one year ago. The different courses and teachers have made it possible for me to discover intellectual boundaries, explore new subjects and most of all gain so much more knowledge than any other year of the last 25 that I have been alive. The interaction with my fellow students has been indispensable. I would like to thank all of them, because together we have reached high level discussions that raised the quality of our master courses. The innumerable coffee and lunch breaks where we continued to discuss study related material, but also had our fair share of ‘H&F-momentjes’, have been inspiring. Thank you to Tjidde and Albert for voicing realist beliefs and thus challenging me, and for reading some parts of my thesis. Thank you to Elisa for keeping me motivated when I was not and for getting my thoughts straight when they were a chaotic mess. I also want to thank my homies, who endured probably more than others my frustrations when I was stuck. You cooked for me, walked the Waalbrug with me and listened to my rants when I came home from the endless library sessions, and for all those things I am grateful. This thesis would not have turned out the way it did without my supervisor, Angela Wigger. I wanted to do something else and new, and you gave me that chance. Actually, you did more than that. You challenged me till the very end, motivated me to do better, go further. Thank you! And last but not least, I need to thank my family. For always believing that I would finish this and for the necessary encouraging words.

I hope that this thesis will offer you, the reader, a relevant question, an adequate answer, and an interesting read.

(5)

1. Introduction: Bolivia’s political struggles and natural resources in a world of

global capitalism

The end of the Cold War marked the demise of communism and simultaneously the victory of neoliberal democratic ideas on a global scale. The decennia long conflict also had an impact on theoretical debates in the international relations and in its aftermath it provoked several distinct ideas about the further course of time. Even before the Cold War ended, Bell (1960) among others (Lipset, 1960; Aron, 1955) already predicted the end of ideologies as the central determinants of political conflict. According to him, ideologies as we have known them so far, are exhausted: “for ideology, which once was a road to action, has come to be a dead end” (Bell, 1960, p. 393). Social inequality and freedom have been replaced by economic development and national power as the driving forces behind new parochial ideologies (Bell, p. 403). The end of ideology, already a very radical allegation, was followed by an even more far-reaching claim of the end of history (Fukuyama, 1989; 1992). Fukuyama argues that there exists something like a universal history of humankind that follows an evolutionary path towards liberal democracy (Fukuyama, 1992, p. 48). Liberal democracy is the end of history that all human societies will reach, because according to Fukuyama, we cannot imagine a world that is better and substantially different from our own (Fukuyama, p. 51). He based the idea of the end of history on Hegel among others and believes that liberal democracy as we know it contains no contradictions (Fukuyama, p. 139). In his words, therefore “the end of history would mean the end of wars and bloody revolutions” (Fukuyama, p. 311). Liberal democracy is very strongly based on the principles of free market and private property. The integration of a country into the global capitalist system is a major part of becoming and being a liberal democracy (Fukuyama, p. 41).

The following period – the 1990s – was indeed one of neoliberal dominance and policies, propagated, amongst others, by institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank (Jessop, 2002; Williamson, 2000). Neoliberal policies were implemented on a global scale, based on what came to be known as the ‘Washington Consensus’ – named after the city housing the World Bank, IMF and US government. The promises of Washington Consensus policies based on free market principles were not equivalent to the results many countries experienced, of which the Asian crisis in 1997 is a good example (Miller, 2008, p. 229). However, the principles of the free market, private property and other neoliberal ideas have not ceased to be dominant on a global scale (Miller, p. 209). The organization of national and global markets is still based on these neoliberal principles.

The end of the Cold War was indeed a historical turning point, however, not one marking the end of ideologies or conflict, on the contrary. Neoliberalism was never unchallenged (see for example Harvey, 2005) and the US as the main leader of the “global neoliberal campaign” is losing power. Within this context, the developments in the Latin American region are very remarkable and interesting, also from a scientific perspective. In the 1980s and 1990s, far reaching neoliberal policies inspired by the Washington Consensus were implemented in several Latin American countries (see for

(8)

example Williamson, 1990). This development was part of a larger neoliberal turn in the world; yet the vigorous strength with which these neoliberal policies were implemented set the region apart (Van Dijck, 1998; Keen & Haynes, 2009). For example, in Chile neoliberal policies were accompanied by military coups, supported by the upper classes and the US government (Harvey, 2005, p. 39). In other countries, such as Argentina, Brazil and Bolivia neoliberal reform was initiated by elected governments, often backed up by IMF and the World Bank (Margerithis & Pereira, 2007, p. 27). Since 2002, this drastic neoliberalisation process seems on the reverse. A wave of left-wing governments and a resurgence of leftist ideas have washed over Latin America (Keen & Haynes, 2009, p. XV). Several of these governments were elected for their anti-neoliberal stance, such as Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Luiz Lula da Silva in Brazil. In the literature, this political change is generally referred to as the ‘pink tide’.1_{The promises made by these governments seem to}

respond largely to the growing anti-neoliberal sentiment in Latin American societies. Even though the actual policies and measures may not differ as much from the previous neoliberal policies, these left-wing governments opposed neoliberal policies “at least in discourse, and at least initially” (Robinson, 2007, p. 4). The challenges posed to neoliberalism in the Latin American region have been covered extensively (see for example Barrett et al., 2009; Petras & Veltmeyer, 2009; Castañeda, 2006), but many writings are descriptive, addressing merely the question of how everything has happened instead of why. There is still a task for social scientists to explain anti-neoliberal policies in Latin America and this thesis will contribute to carrying out this task.

Bolivia and the ‘pink tide’

The trend of a pink tide is visible in the recent developments that have taken place in Bolivia. Bolivia is a landlocked Latin-American country that also experienced a turnaround in power relations at the beginning of this century. With the election of the leftist government in 2005 led by the first indigenous president, Evo Morales, and his Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS), the dominant neoliberal regimes of the 1980s and 1990s seemed to have come to an end. The new government was “committed to policies opposed and alternative to neoliberalism” (Geddes, 2010, p. 166). Morales’ policies are in stark contrast with measures taken during the previous period of neoliberal dominance. The quest for change of the Morales government is most visible and far-reaching in the extractive industry.2_{Policies on natural resources have been changed radically by the Morales government.}

While the privatization of state-owned companies had its heyday under the previous neoliberal

1_{The pink tide refers to the left turn that can be observed in several countries the Latin American region. It is a}

play on words, combining the expression ‘to turn the tide’ meaning to radically change the circumstances and the color pink, which expresses a more moderate change in comparison to red – the color usually used as a symbol of socialism or communism. The term ‘pink tide’ was first used by New York Times reporter Larry Rother and his example has been followed by scientists (Rother, 2005, ‘With New Chief, Uruguay Veers Left, in a Latin Pattern’).

2_{The extractive industry consists of oil, gas and mining of mineral and metal sectors. The state-owned oil and}

gas company YPFB is a crucial player in the Bolivian extraction industry, as are privatized transnational companies.

(9)

governments, Morales announced on May 1th 2006 the nationalization of the oil and gas industry. In the Supreme Decree 28701, several goals were set in order to ensure that the state is in control of all oil and gas reserves that Bolivia possesses. The national oil company YPFB became a state-owned company and even though private companies were still allowed to be part of the extractive industry, they had to negotiate new contracts with the Morales government (Martinez, 2007). Private companies are now obliged to cede more than 50 percent of their gains to the government and the YPFB (Hodges, 2007). Before 1993 the oil- and gas industry was already nationalized, but the privatization was part of the neoliberal agenda in the 1990s. The government under Sánchez de Lozada (1993 – 1997) privatized many companies in the extractive industry, encouraged foreign direct investment and fundamentally restructured state institutions (Geddes, 2010, p. 166). Nationalizing the YPFB by Morales was therefore in fact part of a process of re-nationalization. The nationalization policies Morales introduced constituted a profound change that provoked many reactions. First of all, criticism was expressed by private, often transnational, companies that are active in the extractive industry. Many companies feared greater costs and more government influence and almost all transnational companies threatened to sue the Bolivian government (CNN Money, January 11, 2006). Petrobas – Brazil’s state-owned oil company – even froze its investments ((Luoma, 2006b; Zissis, 2006). Secondly, countries as Brazil and Argentina, who are dependent on Bolivia’s natural resources, voiced their concerns (Zissis, 2006). The US also feared that the developments in Bolivia presented a danger to US interests (Zissis, 2006). A fear that was fuelled by the expulsion of the US ambassador in 2008, after Morales became convinced that the U.S. supported the opposition in such a way that it was trying to break up the country (BBC, September 11, 2008). Thirdly, besides the fierce criticism on an international level, opposition made itself visible within his own country. After announcing that government troops would be send to guard natural gas reserves and pipelines, anti-Morales demonstrators expressed their opinions publicly and sometimes violently. Protests occurred mainly in the city and province of Santa Cruz and other provinces in the east of the country where the main gas reserves are (BBC, 10 September, 2008).

These strong initial reactions to Morales’ nationalization policies show that his actions were clearly opposing the interests of certain groups. It was entirely possible therefore, that the consequences of implementing these nationalization policies might be harmful to the economy of Bolivia. Morales faced criticism on a national as well as international level from capital-owning elites and the threat of losing much needed investments. However, despite possible negative consequences he actually pushed through. In May 2006 the implementation of his nationalization policies began. Why did the Morales government, facing strong and powerful opposition, decide to initiate renationalization? What can explain that it was possible for the government, led by the first indigenous president in Latin America, to implement such rigorous measures at that time? The criticism and opposing reactions Morales encountered indicate that the policy shift formed a profound change. In this thesis an explanation will be sought in order to provide the above posed questions with adequate

(10)

answers. The profound nature of the policy change Morales carried out, is even more clear when compared to the previous years of neoliberal dominance in political and economic life in Bolivia. Privatization policies were rampant during the second half of the 1980s and the 1990s. A rigid neoliberal reform program led to the privatization of many state-owned companies (Kohl, 2004). Neoliberalism in Bolivia, related to the aforementioned global trend, was indeed dominant in the last decades of the previous century. The election of Evo Morales in 2005 as the new president of Bolivia therefore indicated a major change in power relations within the country. His nationalization policies that are central in this thesis, are part of this political and social change. The shift from privatization to renationalization is an interesting move from Morales that does not seem to fit within an international system dominated by a neoliberal discourse. Why did the Morales government implement nationalization policies that radically moved away from former privatization and its broader neoliberal context? This move clearly countered a global neoliberal trend. It was criticized within Bolivia, but received heavier critique on a broad international level. Inspite of this, Morales kept his electoral promises and initiated and carried out nationalization policies. What can explain such a radical change in policies, part of a larger political and social change? These considerations and the questions they provoke lead to the following research question:

What explains the political shift in 2006 away from the privatization policies to the renationalization measures in the extractive industry in Bolivia?

The relevance of the research question

The change in policies regarding the natural recourses of Bolivia is an interesting and scientifically relevant subject to study. The subject of natural resources in relation to changing power relations in Bolivia is very significant for two reasons. Firstly, natural resources lay at the heart of political struggle in Bolivia. History of this South American country, from the time it was conquered by Spain in the 16th_{century till the election of Morales in 2005, shows that conflicting interests within society}

have often been most visible in the struggle regarding natural resources. Natural resources thus played and still play an important role in the lives and earnings of the Bolivians. They are a cornerstone in government policies. This is endorsed by the fact that the promise to nationalize the Bolivian extractive industry and re-gain national control over hydrocarbon revenues was one of the main issues in Morales’ election campaign (Weisbrot and Sandoval, 2008, p. 1). Secondly, Bolivia is very dependent on the exploitation and earnings of its natural resources. The country is resource-rich as it has the second largest proved gas reserves in the region, after Venezuela (CIA Factbook). Moreover, it is estimated that 50 to even 70 percent of the global reserves of lithium, a mineral necessary for the production process of batteries, is located in Bolivia (One World, March 18 2010). In this respect, the following statement of a World Bank report also applies to Bolivia: “Societies and economies depend heavily on the extractive industries in the stages of exploration, extraction, refining, recycling,

(11)

transportation, and use of minerals” (World Bank, 2003, p. 1). Numerous companies that are part of the extractive industry provide the Bolivian people with employment. Moreover, the extractive industry is also very significant for the export and fiscal revenues of Bolivia. Production of gas has increased steadily since 2003 and gas exports now account for almost half of total exports, while mining exports account for 36.5 percent of total exports (IMF, Country Report 10/27). The hydrocarbon revenues alone accounted for 40.6 percent of all revenues in 2008, compared to 23.4 percent in 2005 (IMF, 2010, Country Report 10/27). The extractive industry constitutes a large part of the exports and tax revenues of Bolivia. As such, it affects in important aspects the national population and transnational companies (TNCs).

For these two reasons, any change that occurs in the field of natural resources is significant and representative for change of power relations within Bolivia. That is why the change of policies from privatization to renationalization is such a relevant and interesting change to study.

Policy change such as the change from privatization to renationalization is also scientifically relevant. Mainstream IR theories neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism and constructivism fail to provide an adequate answer to the research question. The research field has long been dominated by the neorealist paradigm. Neorealism is a problem-solving, a-historical theory. This means that it can only explain how certain things happened instead of why. Moreover, it does not take into account the historical context of certain events. Although it attributes a major role to structure, it neglects the causal power of agency and can therefore not explain change adequately. States are considered the most important agents, which leads neorealists to not take national and transnational developments into account. Constructivists, unlike neorealists, acknowledge the importance of ideas and the intersubjective aspects of relations between states. Moreover they do take into account more agents, such as international organizations. However, they deny the material aspect of reality, separating it strictly from the ideational aspects. This prevents constructivists from explaining why certain ideas and norms prevail over others at a certain point in time. Moreover, like neorealists and neoliberal institutionalists, they overlook the explanatory role of agency.

These shortcomings of mainstream IR theories are the reason for adopting a critical theory framework in this thesis. Unlike mainstream IR theories, critical theory does not accept the current world order as a given. It argues that structural change is possible and the role of agency is crucial in this respect. Critical theory is useful, because as Hoffmann (1987, p. 233) points out, “it seeks not simply to reproduce society via description, but to understand society and change it”. Moreover, critical theory attaches importance to a historical and transnational context with the social relations of production as the basis for the organization of society. These relations are the material base of the balance of power in a society and therefore of utmost importance. Robinson (2004; 2008) makes use of these and other critical theory concepts to argue that due to the globalization of production process, a transnational capital class has emerged. The role of this fairly new agent has been important in the developments in Bolivia as well, as will be shown in the empirical analysis. In order to grasp the

(12)

politics of renationalization, it would be misleading to focus solely on national agents or to study the Bolivian case in isolation from a broader global political economy context. A critical theory perspective does offer an explanatory framework that makes such thorough research of the change in policies from privatization to renationalization in Bolivia possible. It allows the researcher to capture the transnational dimension and to gain insights in the complex interlinkage of national and transnational political processes. This critical theory perspective builds a historical perspective that incorporates a theory of global capitalism, while paying attention to both structure and agency, as well as the material and ideational dimensions of society.

Thesis outline

A brief outline of this thesis comprehends the last part of the introduction. Firstly, in the next chapter that lays down all theoretical considerations, a discussion of the mainstream IR theories and their shortcomings will be presented. Neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism and constructivism will all be discussed and criticized. Following this section, is an analysis of the basic premises of critical theory, as formulated by Cox (1986). Subsequently the concepts of structure and agency, lying at the center of critical theory, are discussed, as well as the social relations of production. This leads then to a section about the globalization of the production process and to the discussion of Robinson’s theory of global capitalism. It will be argued, drawing on this compound critical theory framework, that a critical theory perspective can adequately answer the research question.

Following the theory chapter, chapter three presents firstly an epistemological discussion, focusing on the differences, once again, between mainstream theories and critical theory. It will be argued that mainstream theories are essentially anti-realist (Patomäki & Wight, 2000). Critical theory provides a solution by incorporating the ideational as well as material dimension of reality. The following sections of chapter three address the adopted methodology and operationalization of the key concepts.

The fourth – and final – chapter contains the analysis of the nationalization policies Morales implemented and its transnational and historical context. Starting by analyzing these policies thoroughly and the political effects they had, the chapter goes back in time. From Spanish colonialism and the first Bolivian revolution in 1781, through the revolution of 1952 and the neoliberal policies in the 1980s and 1990s, to the electoral victory of Morales in 2005. The social relations of production and the consequential conflicting interest are strongly related to the way natural resources have been exploited during the previous centuries. In order to gain a full understanding of the way natural resources are a central figure in political struggle today in Bolivia, it is necessary to incorporate historical developments from the 16st century on. Besides this, the incorporation of Bolivia into a global economy as well as the political and social changes on a national level are addressed. The political shift in Bolivia challenges neoliberalism and it is necessary to study it not as an isolated national processes, since the fundamental nature of neoliberalism and its challenges are transnational

(13)

(Kohl 2006, p. 306). In this chapter the anti-neoliberal actions of the Morales government are therefore analyzed as a reaction to the globalization of the production process. Studying the Bolivian case allows us to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how a developing country is trying to follow its own course in the organization of the political economy. The final chapter analyzes the opposition of the Morales government to the global capitalist trend in the field of natural resources. The role of ever expanding and growing dominance of neoliberal ideas and free-market-oriented policies in Bolivia, often imposed by international institutions such as the World Bank, are therefore extensively discussed (Rochlin 2007, p. 1328). This thesis argues that the radical turnaround in Bolivia, away from neoliberal privatization policies to renationalization, was part of a much broader political and social change in the country. The growing contestation to neoliberal policies in Bolivia needs to understood as a reaction to a broader transnationalization of production and the power relations this process produces. A range of scholars have demonstrated that transnational elites, international organizations and institutions operating on the basis of a neoliberal ideology have influenced and reinforced the dominance of neoliberal ideas and policies in Bolivia (Rochlin 2007, Lobina 2000; Kohl & Farthing, 2006; Kohl, 2004). As will be argued in this thesis, the renationalization of the hydrocarbon industry and the accompanying political power struggle react to the influence of transnational capital interests.

The conclusion presents the answer to the research question, as well as some theoretical concluding remarks. As will be proved in the empirical analysis of Bolivia, Morales’ nationalization policies were not as radical as they initially appeared. However, they did constitute a profound policy as well as political change. Morales and the MAS were successful, because they formed the instrument for the majority of the Bolivian population to express their feelings of injustice and inequality. Neoliberalism faced serious challenges through numerous popular protests, since “expectations it creates of a better life confront the reality of ongoing hardships for the majority of the population” Kohl (2006, p. 309). The MAS responded to their demands with the nationalization policies, while at the same time leaving room for negotiation with TNCs. The knowledge that TNCs possess and their financial capital and expertise is still necessary to extract Bolivia’s natural wealth. Morales, despite all the initial criticism, found a middle ground upon which nationalization policies could be build. In this way, he succeeded in consolidating his power.

(14)

2. Theoretical discussion

2.1 Mainstream IR theories and their shortcomings

In the following section the explanations for radical policy changes and the underpinning ontological assumptions of several mainstream International Relations (IR) theories will be critically discussed. This thesis does not aim at testing different theories, but to assess their usefulness for explaining the subject under investigation, namely why the government of Morales radically changed the policies regarding natural resources. Four aspects that are of importance when trying to answer the research question will stand central in the discussion of the different theoretical approaches. First, the different theoretical assumptions upon which arguments and claims about social reality are based; secondly, the

(15)

different units of analysis and the implications for what is taken into account when studying the international system; thirdly, the role of context, that is whether the object is studied in isolation from broader developments and time or whether historical context is crucial; lastly the underlying idea of humanity, what humans are capable of and the corresponding expectations. By focusing on these aspects I will to provide a structured discussion that shows clearly what the shortcomings of these theories are and in which way they would fail to explain the political shift in Bolivia.

2.1.1 Neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism

Realism as a theoretical paradigm within IR has never been without criticism. However, it has been very influential on and through numerous authors and scientists, resulting in different schools within the paradigm and a major collection of literature (see for example Waltz, 1979; Walt, 1987; Mearsheimer, 2001). Neorealism, a specific form of realism, as well as it theoretical brother, neoliberal institutionalism are not able to explain adequately why profound policy changes occur. Before further elaborating on this in greater detail, a short overview of what these theories stand for is in place. One of the most important authors of contemporary realism is Kenneth Waltz, whose’ Theory of International Politics (1979) laid the foundation for neorealism. In his theory, Waltz argues that the international system has an anarchic structure – there is not one body of governance that has authority over all agents – that defines their goals, interests and behavior. States are assumed to be the only agents of importance and their behavior and choices can be explained by the structure of the system, which can be uni-, bi- or multi-polar. In his words: “Structural theory assumes that the dominant goal of states is security, since to pursue whatever other goals they may have, they first must survive” (Waltz, 2003, p. 53). Waltz thereby means that the structure inflicted upon states creates a situation of conflict, since every state wants first and foremost to survive in the anarchic realm. Waltz’ theory has received much criticism from other scholars, also from the realist tradition, but a few elements are largely agreed upon by most neorealists: “international affairs take place in a state of anarchy, power is the fundamental feature of politics (…), the nature of international action is essentially conflictual”, and moreover, that “the centrality of realism’s hard core in the field of international relations is similar to that of rationality in the field of economics” (Schweller, 2003, p. 74-75). States want to survive and will take the rational means to achieve that and other set goals, at least, that is the expectation.

A major problem is that states however often behave in a very different way than expected by realists. Waltz himself has never been impressed by attempts to refute his theory. He accuses his critics of not thoroughly understanding what his theory claims to explain (Waltz, 2003, p. 51). He states that his theory (and all theories regarding international politics for that matter) indeed suffers from “fundamental weakness and indeterminacy” (Wohlforth, 2003, p. 251). Even if we accept that theories about social reality are always lacking, neorealism still does not offer an adequate framework for andwering the research question. Many agents and other factors are not taken into account.

(16)

The neorealist approach has a neomercantilist variant in the field of global political economy, which theorizes the “use of state intervention to acquire national advantage in the international economy” (Miller, 2008, p. 248). Neomercantilism adopts the same state-centric view as neorealism, and assumes that states will act in such a way as to gain advantages in relation to other states. States pursue utility maximization, a classic economic principle. From this point of view, the policy changes in Bolivia would need to be understood as a means to achieve utility maximization. This does not explain however, why these nationalization policies were implemented and why at that precise moment in history. Moreover, the policies itself instead of utility maximization might be a goal.

A slightly different view of world politics was provided by neoliberal institutionalists such as Axelrod and Keohane (Axelrod & Keohane, 1985) who argue unlike neorealists that despite the anarchy of the international system cooperation between states is possible and could be facilitated by international institutions. They state that: “Institutions alter the payoff structures facing agents, they may lengthen the shadow of the future, and they may enable N-person games to be broken down into games with smaller numbers of agents” (Axelrod and Keohane, 1985, p. 239). The norm of reciprocity, international regimes and the already mentioned organizations influence the strategies and decisions of states. They reduce the possible costs of cooperation, leading Axelrod and Keohane to conclude that “even within a world of independent states that are jealously guarding their sovereignty and protecting their power, room exists for new and better arrangements to achieve mutually satisfactory outcomes, in terms both of economic welfare and military security” (Axelrod and Keohane, p. 254). Although the differences compared to neorealism might be crucial and a form big step forward in theorizing about social reality, neoliberal institutionalism still endorses neorealism’s hard core assumptions for the most part. Some authors may disagree and argue that neoliberal institutionalism “misconstrues the realist analysis of international anarchy” (Grieco, 1988, p. 487), but “they are nonetheless still united in a common commitment to rationalism and materialism” (Checkel, 1998, p. 329). Like neorealists neoliberal institutionalists accept the anarchic structure of the international system as a given, consider states to be the central agents and expect that they behave as rational unitary agents whose behavior is shaped by international anarchy. These assumptions have received various criticisms from different angles, but another – perhaps more important – aspect of (neo)realism is the political philosophy that forms the foundation on which these assumptions are based. Schweller describes the realist’s world view as follows: “one that is profoundly pessimistic about the human condition, moral progress, and the capacity of human reason to create a world of peace and harmony” (Schweller, 2003, p. 75). In other words: people, and thus states, are not capable of changing the system or the structure of the system.

How would neorealism or neoliberal institutionalism explain the remarkable policy change in Bolivia? National developments are discarded when it comes to explaining developments in international relations. States are like billiard balls, what happens inside them does not affect how they act on the green carpet that is the international system. A neorealist would probably assume that

(17)

Bolivia with its sudden change in policies, is balancing against US hegemony by moving to the left on the political spectrum, accompanying Venezuela and Ecuador. Even if we would assume that Bolivia’s behavior is balancing behavior, this still does not explain why a change in politics and policy occurred and why exactly at this particular historical juncture because there are numerous aspects that are not being taken into account in the neorealist explanation. Robinson grasps the essence of the problem this causes very correctly when he states that “the issue is what we don’t see when we do see nation-states” (Robinson, 2006, p. 530, italics in original). Social and political processes are seen by neorealists as national processes that take place in an area confined by national borders. States are presumed to act as macro agents. Likewise, neoliberal institutionalism cannot add something substantive to a neorealist explanation, because it is not the goal of this thesis to explain cooperation through institutions. An analysis of costs and benefits still does not explain why events occurred on a certain moment in history. Moreover the role that institutions play in the Bolivian case and a broader Latin American trend is not accounted for within neoliberal institutionalism, since it considers institutions “to be the creation of self-interested states that at most constrain choices and strategies” (Checkel, 1998, p. 328). Following the four aspects mentioned above, it will now be argued which matters are overlooked by neorealists and neoliberal institutionalists that prevent them from offering an adequate explanation for the remarkable and profound policy change such as the one that occurred in Bolivia.

The neorealist assumptions – that the international structure is anarchic, that the goals and interests of states are defined by this structure, that states act as rational and unitary agents and the neglect of problematizing any of these assumptions at any given time – cannot provide insights into why a major shift in policies occurred in Bolivia. National political and social struggles in Bolivia can however be part of a broader transnational context and this cannot be explained by neorealists. Arguably, it is not the objective of neorealists to explain such national developments (Waltz, 1979). Certain struggles, their causes and the ideas, agents and history that accompany them transcend state borders and do not (solely) occur at government level. Neorealism is not able to grasp this transnational dimension, because by ignoring the social forces that are at work in Bolivia, it fails to see how these forces are in constant interaction with social forces on a global level. Ignorance regarding the interaction between the national and international and the existence of a transnational dimension, causes the denial of their explanatory power. Another key element that is not part of any neorealist assumption, is the role of ideas. The ideational dimension that also enhances norms and identity is deemed not important. However in the case of a radical change of power and policy such as in Bolivia, ideas might play a crucial role. The units of analysis are states, rational and unitary agents that strive to maximize utility. To consider a state as one and unitary leads to the denying of national developments. Moreover, the dominant focus on states and to a lesser extent institutions, causes ignorance regarding other agents that can play a crucial role, such as transnational corporations (TNCs), grassroots movements and trade unions. Taken together, this also leads neorealists to consider the national interest of a state as an exogenous factor, independent from existing differences within civil society

(18)

and government (Cox, 1986, p. 216). The strict separation between state and society as presented within neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism, is fundamentally challenged by critical theory. Because of the state-centric perspective in neorealist theorizing, the interests and actions of people and groups in society that do not belong to the dominant end of power relationships are designated as unimportant and are not taken into account in the explaining of conflict. Moreover, neorealism’s rational expectations can explain to some extent why national policies correspond to international developments, but it cannot make any claims regarding the content of policy (change). No explanation can be given therefore, regarding the change from privatization to renationalization. However – we have to give credit for where credit is due - Waltz and other (neo)realist scientists acknowledge that agents are part of a larger structure. The units of the system should not be studied in isolation but in relation to the structure of the system. This line of thought can be perceived as a notion of the importance of context. Context however, when studying the behavior of states, refers only to the international system, which is anarchic. This international context is not sufficient to study the political shift in Bolivia, because firstly, an international context leaves out many crucial and possibly explanatory forces, such as the sole focus on states would prevent a neorealist from putting the research subject in a transnational context and thereby neglecting transnational social forces and institutions. Secondly, time and space are non-issues and that is why Cox points out that what he calls a problem-solving theory such as neorealism or neoliberal institutionalism is ahistorical: it “posits a continuing present” (Cox, p. 209). When trying to explain the power shift in Bolivia, a theory that takes into account historical processes is needed. Several periods of insurrection have preceded the one in the beginning of the 21st_{century (Hylton & Thomson, 2007, p. 20). It is also necessary to be}

aware of the historical context that laid the fundaments for the political shift in Bolivia in 2005. The fourth aspect of criticism, as explained in the introduction of this chapter, centers around the underlying idea of humanity. Schweller’s citation (above) shows that the neorealist and neoliberal institutionalists have a very pessimistic view on human nature. Following Hobbes’s assumptions, human beings are believed to be self-centered en competitive. As Waltz states: “Ultimately, conflict and war are rooted in human nature” (Waltz, 1990, p.35). To see conflict as intrinsic to being human is to reduce politics to conflict without looking at the content of it. Since conflict is our natural behavior according to neorealists, what we conflict about or why does not matter. As was said in the introduction, a critical theory perspective will be adopted in this thesis and this idea of humanity does not suit with the emancipatory element critical theories often contain. Although the notion of this emancipatory element can differ from an optimistic view to a pessimistic view (Rengger, 2001, p. 95), it is an important difference in relation to neorealist and neoliberal theories, because it allows theorists to believe in the transformative capacity of humankind. Hoffmann calls this the “humanist element that is central to critical theory” (Hoffmann, p. 232). When thinking about the mass movements that arose in Bolivia and the popular forces that gained power through bottom up initiatives and that achieved more than popular forces in any other Latin American country (Hylton & Thomson, p. 8),

(19)

one cannot deny the emancipatory power of people, and the importance of agency in politics as a way to change the course of history.

The term problem-solving theory has briefly entered the discussion and can be traced back to Cox (1986) who made the distinction between problem-solving theory and critical theory. It is useful to discuss the differences between these two types of theories here, because it shows why a critical perspective is in many aspects more useful to explain such a remarkable policy change. The difference between these types is based on different purposes a theory can have. The first theory is a guide to solve problems. A specific perspective that functions as a starting point, defines at the same time the problems that need to be solved. According to Cox a problem-solving theory “takes the world as it finds it, with the prevailing social and power relationships and the institutions into which they are organized, as the given framework of action” (Cox, 1986, p. 208). Neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism are problem-solving theories, because they do not question the agents, structure and relations they study, but take them as a given. They rather try to solve problems – problems that are defined by their perspective. The strength of these theories is that they make problems measurable and understandable. A very clear definition of the problem, indicating its limits and a division of the problem into a certain amount of variables, allows the researcher to subject the problem to precise examinations. In combination with the ceteris paribus assumption – which literally means all other things remain equal – the problem-solver is capable of making general statements and finding regularities (Cox, p. 208). The ceteris paribus clause logically follows when one accepts the world as it is and does not question the institutions or relations in it. Taking the existing world as a starting point thus makes it possible for researchers to achieve great precision, but as Cox points out, the order in the world is not fixed, but is instead always subject to change. To accept the world order as a given and as unchangeable, is to deny social reality as being constantly subject to change. Moreover, problem-solving theories as neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism pretend to have no ideological meaning. However, as Cox states a problem-solving theory is “value-bound by virtue of the fact that it implicitly accepts the prevailing order as its own framework” (Cox, p. 209). Hofmann notes the same phenomenon, namely the ideological function of neorealism, and argues that the legitimizing of a certain world order by neorealists “leaves a void of emancipatory interests, of the human element that is central to critical theory” (Hoffman, 2008, p. 232).

Another theoretical school that has offered severe criticism on the neorealist and neoliberal schools, especially on the ideational dimension or more specifically on the lack thereof, is constructivism.

2.1.2 Constructivism

Constructivism discards the neorealist’s primacy of material interests. The explanatory power of norms, ideas and perception is therefore neglected. Norms within neorealism are defined as rationalizations of self-interest. According to Klotz (1995, p. 15) there are two reasons that explain

(20)

why neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism are not capable of grasping the importance of the role of norms in international politics: “First, norms are a fundamental component of both the international system and agents’ definitions of their interests. Second, positivist epistemological and methodological assumptions are inherently incapable of capturing the crucial intersubjective aspect of norms”. Consequently, agents, their interests and identities are not solely shaped by the structure of the international system, but also socially constructed through constitutive norms and ideas. According to constructivists, things only exist by the virtue of giving meaning to them. The structure of the system is only influential, because agents give meaning to it. As Alexander Wendt put it famously: “Anarchy is what states make of it” (Wendt, 1992, p. 395). By emphasizing this, constructivists also point out that ‘things’ came into existence once and can cease to exist. For example, the sovereign state is real because states act upon the norm of sovereignty and through this ongoing practice they constitute its existence. However, “removing those practices will remove their intersubjective conditions of existence” (Wendt, p. 414) and therefore its existence itself.

Constructivism deserves credit for highlighting the role of ideas as intersubjective meanings instead of simply as the translation of self-interests. This theoretical development is a major improvement in comparison to realist thought, since constructivism focuses on the ideational dimension of international politics and offers room for historical context and potential for change. However, different theoretical perspectives have accused constructivists of not breaking away radically enough from the previously discussed IR theories. Bieler and Morton (2008) have adequately summed up several shortcomings of constructivism. Discussing Wendt’s work first, they claim that his theoretical writings still suffer from realist features as “state-centricity and an empirist methodology” (Bieler & Morton, 2008, p. 106). However, as Wendt in the eyes of many constructivists stays too much within the limits of realist thinking, it would not be fair to judge constructivism solely on his writings. Bieler and Morton therefore discuss also other authors such as Ruggie, Kratochwil, Blyth and Seabrooke. What these constructivists fail to grasp is the question of ‘why’. Constructivists can explain how certain ideas are constitutive of political structures but not why, because the influence of ideas is almost always separated from material relations. They fail thus to explain why certain ideas or political structures are dominant, because they neglect the interrelatedness between material and ideological dimensions of structures (Bieler and Morton, p. 107-109). If one wants to understand social and political structural change, as is intended in this thesis, it is necessary to know why a certain social group with its own ideas that conflict with ideas of others became dominant. Therefore one needs to ask and try to answer the questions “Which agents shape the core intersubjective beliefs of underlying social and world orders? Why does a particular set of ideas become part of the structure and not another?” (Bieler and Morton, p. 109) Constructivism, although incorporating the constitutive role of ideas and norms, is not fully capable of asking, let alone answering, these questions. Part of this incapability lies in the fact that state and civil society or the political and the economic are regarded as

(21)

given, separate entities. This separation is fictional, because they actually are “expressions of the same configuration of capitalist social relations of production” (Bieler and Morton, p. 116).

Bieler and Morton offer very useful insights through their substantial criticism regarding the assumptions of constructivism. The assumption that ideas and norms are crucial in defining the behavior of states and other agents in the international system is a sign of theoretical refinement in relation to neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism, but this still leaves a void. By focusing on the ideational dimension of social structures, the material dimension is underexposed. By drawing on ideational reductionism, constructivism offers a limited view on international relations, because a part of social reality is thereby denied. When things only exist, because people give meaning to it, there is no room for the material. This point becomes clearer by relating it to the research subject. Many gas and mineral reserves can be found in Bolivia. These facts form a reality that exists, independent of what meaning people give to it. That people give meaning to it, that they consider this to be of great importance for their nation, can turn this reality into a social structure that favors or restricts (groups of) people. This ideational dimension however, does not efface the material dimension of that same reality and the two dimensions should therefore not be seen as separate. Constructivism overlooks this interaction and these shortcomings prevent it from answering the research question adequately. Checkel states that constructivists believe that “norms are no longer a superstructure on a material base; rather, they help to create and define that base” (Checkel, 1998, p. 328). This base however, exists without norms creating it and irrespective of what meaning people attach to it. This may sound like a minor point of criticism, but as will be shown throughout this thesis, the material dimension in Bolivian politics is of crucial importance for understanding the policy change.

In comparison to neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism, constructivism takes into account more agents than solely states. Because constructivist try to explain how norms influence state interests, they study the role of international organizations and that includes non-governmental organizations as well. As units of analysis, international organizations are not seen as shells that only enclose state interests, but “they are purposive entities that are able, in some cases, to trump states and their power” (Checkel, p. 331).

Considering criticism regarding context, one of the major advances of constructivism is that international relations have been put in their social context. With regard to the situation in Bolivia that requires an explanation, this is of great importance. Ideas and norms have to be taken into account when exploring the discrepancies between different transnational and affiliated national groups. Discrepancies are not only determined by the anarchic structure of the international system or rational considerations as neorealists would predict, social constructs such as ideas and norms cause influence the goals and interests and thus their behavior as well. The social context that is central to constructivist thought thus makes it possible to gain a better insight and a more comprehensive understanding of international politics.

(22)

The underlying idea of humanity plays an important role in constructivism and distinctively sets it apart from neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism. “Constructivism is about human consciousness and its role in international life” (Ruggie, 1998, p. 856). It is the intersubjective dimension of being human and the ability to give significance to things through action that constitutes this human consciousness. Ruggie quotes Weber who stated that humans “are cultural beings, endowed with the capacity and the will to take a deliberate attitude towards the world” (Weber as quoted in Ruggie, p. 856). This view entails a more optimistic understanding of human nature, because it focuses on the capabilities of people. Humans are social rather than (only) rational and behave according to the ‘logic of appropriateness’ instead of the rational ‘logic of consequences’ that follows from utility maximization.

An important shortcoming of constructivism that is related to all four types of criticism, is the matter of agency. This ontological issue is closely linked to the problem of the strict division between the ideational and the material as discussed above. This division leads to neglecting the mutual constitution between the material and the ideational. When constructivist busy themselves with explaining how norms affect the interests of states, they fail to explain how and why these norms came to exist in the first place. Constructivism is a structure-centered approach, because it explains how socially constructed structure defines goals and interests of agents. Like neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism, it consequently neglects key issues, namely the explanatory role of agency. Thus, although constructivism has positively changed the way social construct, ideas and norms are perceived in IR, “it fails to explore systematically how norms connect with agents” (Checkel, p. 342).

2.1.3 Conclusion

The differences between constructivism and neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism have been discussed. Although several more pages and books could be used to further the discussion between these theories, I have tried to very shortly sum up what the main discrepancies are and which shortcomings these mainstream IR theories have. This critical discussion of mainstream theories also contains the reason why in this thesis the research question will be answered by using critical theory concepts and ideas. The question regarding the profound policy change that has taken place at the beginning of this century in Bolivia can only be answered when the historical processes of the political struggle between social groups in Bolivia are understood more fully. It is important to analyze what material and ideological structures constrained or enabled certain agents. Agents always enter a socially pre-structured world. Structure thus needs to be given a certain ontological primacy, yet not in a deterministic sense when taking into account the transformative role of agency. This thesis seeks to go further than exploring how the political struggle for policy change in Bolivia took place. Rather, it seeks to explain why: why has there been a struggle for power between certain groups, why now and why has one group succeeded and the other not, at least for the time being To be able to answer these questions and fully grasp what has happened in Bolivia requires a deeper understanding of not only

(23)

the agents at work but also the underlying structures and social power relations. Rather than merely testing theories according to a positivist epistemology, an iterative process has been adopted, moving back and forth from the concrete to the general, and up and down in the ladder of theoretical abstraction. As will be outlined below, a critical theory offers a more accurate and more comprehensive theoretical framework for answering the research question.

2.2 Critical theory

This section will firstly contain a general outline of critical theory. After that the concepts of agency, structure more generally, as well the neo-Gramscian theoretical concepts of hegemony and organic intellectuals will be discussed as they play an important explanatory role in this thesis, followed by a section on the social relations of production, as an essential component within critical theory. Then a short section on globalization will function as a bridge to the discussion of Robinson’s theoretical considerations regarding global capitalism. Robinson draws heavily on neo-Gramscian concepts and attributes a crucial explanatory role to agency. He uses the concepts that will be discussed and theorized in the next sections to formulate a theory of global capitalism. The concepts of agency, structure, hegemony, organic intellectuals and the social relations of production are useful for gaining understanding regarding policy change in Bolivia. They are also helpful in grasping the essence of Robinson’s ideas, since his theory shows how these concepts can be concretized. Together, all these considerations will serve as a theoretical lens through which the political shift in Bolivia is studied in order to answer the research question.

2.2.1 A general outline

In this section critical theory will be discussed and it will be argued why this perspective is adopted in this thesis. The writings of Cox (1986; 1993; 2001) are good starting point for exploring critical theory, because with his and Linklater’s writings “critical theory had emerged as a new, albeit undeveloped paradigm of IR theory” (Roach, 2008, p. xix). Therefore we go back to the earlier – only partly – discussed distinction Cox made between problem-solving theory and critical theory. The main purpose of a critical theory is to become aware of the different perspectives in theory as well as in practice or to “achieve a perspective on perspectives” (Cox, 1986, p. 208). A researcher can choose a different perspective than the one prevailing in for example the IR field or in the world as a whole, but must remain critical towards its own perspective as well. Cox is famous for his statement that “theory is always for someone and or some purpose” (Cox, p. 207), and the job of a critical theorist is to be aware of that, also (maybe especially) regarding the theory one adopted by him- or herself. Critical theory rejects the idea that the world order as we know it is fixed and instead departs from the notion that we deal “with a continuing process of historical change” (Cox, p. 209). Institutions, social and power relations and influential structures should not be understood as a given, but as part of a constantly changing reality. Everything must be questioned and traced back to its origins. For this reason Cox calls critical theory a theory of history, unlike problem-solving theories which he

(24)

designates as a-historical (Cox, p. 209). It must be clearly stated that critical theory is value-bound as well. The difference with problem-solving theory is that this is not hidden or denied, but made explicit. As long as one is aware of other perspectives or alternatives, there is room for choice and normative thought. As Cox (1986, p. 217) formulates it: “Critical theory is conscious of its own relativity but through this consciousness can achieve a broader time-perspective and become less relative than problem-solving theory”. Through critical theory it is possible to formulate an alternative world order, one that takes into account historical processes. Critical theory thus “can be a guide to strategic action for bringing about an alternative order” (Cox, p. 210).

This brief account on what a critical theory is or should be, is mainly still part of a critique towards problem-solving theories as neorealism. Critical IR theorists mostly agree on the criticism formulated towards mainstream IR theories, but have not found enough middle ground to develop one new replacing theory. Critical theorists can be influenced by diverse literatures, ranging from the Frankfurt School to the writings and life of Antonio Gramsci. The uniting element is “a shared commitment to exploring and elucidating the theme of human emancipation” (Wyn Jones, 2001, p. 9). However, Wyn Jones argues that as long as critical IR theory is viewed as a “constellation of approaches” instead of one approach, the significant linkages allow the researcher to speak of critical theory as a whole (Wyn Jones, p. 10).

Roach (2008, p. xvi) offers an overview consisting out of four central tenets to describe what critical theory comprises. First of all critical theory focuses on the reflexive dimension of theory. Theories or ideas of people are always strongly interlinked with their actions and values. This holds the same message as Cox’s ‘theory is always for someone and for some purpose’, because both statements mean that people’s ideas are influenced by their actions, values, or their position in society. Critical theory thus points out that theory and social reality can never be viewed as separate. An objective or neutral theory does not exist. Secondly, critical theory centralizes the possibility of changing political structures. This mutability is of crucial importance and refers to two already discussed points. It is linked with the emancipatory element that unites critical theorists. World order and structures are transformable and people are capable of establishing change. Besides, it also refers to the notion that critical theory does not accept the world as a given, but problematizes power imbalances and social inequality in the current world order. This prevents critical theorists from labeling a certain order as a permanent order. Thereby they show that political and social structures can dominate and oppress other people than the ones advocating these structures. Hoffmann shows the strong interlinkage between these two points by saying that critical theory “is able to provide a critique of the existing social order and point to its immanent capacity for change and for the realization of human potential” (Hoffmann, p. 232). The third tenet of critical theory is that it is an “open-ended interdisciplinary approach rooted in both ethical concerns and social and economic relations of production” (Roach, p. xvii). Open-ended in the sense that we can never achieve complete and absolute knowledge. One particular strand of critical theory is based on (neo-)Marxist views that the

(25)

underlying structures of society are derived from the capitalist relations of production. Fourthly and finally, critical theory offers an integrative analysis of social reality. It thus provides us with a lens through which we can study phenomena like counter-hegemonic efforts of (transnational) social movements.

These four tenets offer a useful overview of what critical theory can entail. Now, which criteria should a critical theory meet? Cox (1986, p. 217) summed the answer to this question up in five points. Action is not free, but takes place within “a framework for action which constitutes its problematic”. This awareness means that the building of theory always starts with human experience. Secondly, the problematic not only shapes action, but also theory. Theory therefore is never ‘done’, and this prevents a critical theory from becoming relative, because critical scientists are aware that their theory changes as reality changes. This implies, thirdly, that it is the task of a critical theory to understand these changes. The framework within which people act, has the form of a historical structure which consists out of ideological, material and institutional forces. These forces from some sort of coherent structure which does not define but constitute the actions of people. Lastly, according to Cox, the framework or historical structure has to be studied from below or from outside, with a focus on the conflicts that arise within them and that make transformation possible.

2.2.2 Structure and agency

The question is how the concepts of structure and agency ought to be conceived in this thesis and how they contribute to the research. It is not easy to define structure and agency very strictly, but this might not be necessary. Cox defines agency as “cumulative actions – not just a single event – that have as consequences either the maintenance or the transformation of structures” (Cox, 2001, p. 56). Structures should be seen as a combination of ideological, material and institutional forces, based on and at the same time constituting rules. These forces are linked, because they serve the interests of a certain group. In the discussion below the way structure and agency relate to each other will be addressed.

The possibility of transformation is very well captured by Dessler (1989) in what he calls “the transformative model”. 3_{This model is also a useful link to the concepts of structure and agency, two}

concepts that are important in an explanatory critical theory framework and therefore also in this thesis. To understand what is meant by structure and agency, how they relate to each other and in what

3_{The transformative model is opposed by the positional model. The latter is for example represented by Waltz’}

neorealism. According to neorealists, states and humans cannot change structure. Structure defines their interests and goals and thus their behavior, but it works only as a one way street. States do not have any influence on the structure of the system, which renders structures in the neoliberal view very static. Even though neorealists attach ontological primacy to structure, their understanding of what structures actually are and how they interrelate with agency is very restricted. Since structure defines the goals and behavior of states and the transformative nature of states or other agents is ignored, structure is in fact the only form of agency within neorealism.

A time of change

A Time of Change.

A Time of Change.

A critical perspective on the policy shift

from privatization to renationalization in Bolivia.

Master thesis

Indra Römgens (0406449)

January 2011

Supervisor: dr. Angela Wigger

Preface

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: Bolivia’s political struggles and natural resources in a world of

global capitalism

2. Theoretical discussion