challenges for brazil: a dialogue - clas, uc...

University of California, BerkeleyCenter for Latin American Studies Spring 2000

Panel I

Brazil in the Global Economy

R ecent decades have witnessed the profound transformation of the Americancontinent by forces of globalization and economic integration. Democraticreforms and new economic strategies have catalyzed rising productivity and

ambitious growth, yet scholars and policymakers remain concerned about incomepolarization, poverty, and other social problems whose solutions have proved moreelusive. How can policies harness the global market without threatening nationalprosperity, coupling market-driven growth with increased equity? In the context oftoday’s increasingly prominent public debate around globalization, the Center forLatin American Studies convened a historic conference, “Challenges for Brazil: ADialogue,” on February 25. The event brought together scholars, policymakers, andopinion leaders from two of the region’s most influential nations — the UnitedStates and Brazil — for an open discussion of contemporary economic and politicaltransformations, and their implications for both countries.

The first of three panel discussions, “Brazil in the Global Economy,” focused onthe relationship between growth and social welfare. Its participants, distinguished byunusual records of expertise and accomplishment, brought to the table a diverse setof perspectives on development in Brazil and beyond. The panel was comprised ofJosé Serra, a former senator and currently Brazil’s minister of health; CristovamBuarque, former governor of the federal district of Brasília and present head of

by Zachary Elkins

Continued on page 3

Participants outside theconference site

A DialogueChallenges for Brazil:

2

The Center for LatinAmerican StudiesNewsletter is publishedthree times a yearby the Center forLatin American Studies,International and AreaStudies, The Universityof California, 2334Bowditch Street,Berkeley, CA 94720-2312

ChairHarley Shaiken

Vice ChairMaría Massolo

EditorAngelina Snodgrass Godoy

Design and LayoutIsaac Mankita

Design ConsultantNigel French

PhotographyNair BenedictoMisha KleinMargaret LambJames LeragerMelissa Stevens-BriceñoHadley Vargas

Contributing WritersZachary ElkinsMarny RequaFabrizio C. RigoutJeffrey Sluyter-Beltrão

Center StaffChristopher ChinnockMargaret LambIsaac MankitaDio RamosMarny RequaMelissa Stevens-BriceñoAdolfo Ventura

Brazil in the Global Economy ................................................ 1

Labor in the Americas, Brazil and the U.S. .......................... 4

Social Problems, Political Alternatives ................................ 7

Conference Selections..........................................................11

Ruth Cardoso Teaches at Berkeley .....................................27

Letter from the Chair

Inside CLAS

B razil is increasingly at the forefront ofregional as well as international policydebates. As Latin America’s most populous

nation and the eighth most powerful economy inthe world, Brazil plays a pivotal role in the regionand globally. These realities, combined with theintensifying public debate around globalization,made the Center for Latin American Studies’recent “Challenges for Brazil: A Dialogue” confer-ence especially timely.

The event brought together a group of diversepolitical and intellectual leaders from both Braziland the United States for a series of in-depthdiscussions over the course of three days. We aimedto engage a far-reaching dialogue among Brazilianparticipants from across the political spectrum in acontext of unusual openness made possible by thetraditions of the University of California, Berkeley.In addition, we sought to encourage an emergentdiscussion between Brazilians and prominentpolitical and labor leaders from the United States, aswell as with key members of the UC Berkeleyacademic community.

Following an opening address by Dr. RuthCardoso, first lady of Brazil, the conferencecontinued with three plenary panels. The first,entitled “Brazil in the Global Economy,” exploredthe impact of global economic integration onBrazil and the United States, seeking to define the

choices faced by policymakers. The second panel,“Labor in the Americas: Brazil and the U.S.,”examined the process of global economic integra-tion from the perspective of unions, labor scholarsand policymakers. Finally, the third panel, “SocialProblems, Political Alternatives,” focused on socialproblems in both countries and the politicalchallenges involved in addressing them in today’sincreasingly globalized context. Each panel featureddiscussions among and between panelists and withkey members of UC Berkeley’s faculty, who askedtargeted, probing questions to help focus thedebate.

The panel discussions generated an unusualseries of intellectual engagements, sparkingconsiderable enthusiasm among participants andattendees. Following the daylong public forum, thedialogue continued to unfold through a series ofstructured working discussions and informalconversations held over the next two days. Wehope the discussions which took place at “Chal-lenges for Brazil: A Dialogue,” will contribute tothe ongoing exploration of these key issues in bothBrazil and the United States, enriching policydiscussions with the unique insights made possiblethrough these exchanges.

We were proud to organize and host this historicevent, and thank the William and Flora HewlettFoundation for its generous support.

— Harley Shaiken

3

Continued on page 4

Missão Criança, an NGO dedicated to the im-provement of living conditions for children inBrazil; R. Thomas Buffenbarger, internationalpresident of the International Association ofMachinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM);Antonio Barros de Castro, professor of economicsat the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and aformer head of Brazil’s development bank,BNDES; and United States Congressman DavidBonior, the second-ranking Democrat in theHouse of Representatives and an increasinglyprominent voice in U.S. debates on trade.

Minister Serra opened the morning’s discussionwith a detailed account of his country’s economicdevelopment over the last thirty years. “Economicgrowth is essential,” he explained, “preciselybecause it creates job opportunities and generatesthe fiscal revenues needed to finance expansion andimprovement in public health, education, socialsecurity and sanitation services.” Brazil’s shift to anopen market economy, he observed, has beensudden — a sharp contrast to the protractedprocess of political liberalization which eased thecountry into democracy. Minister Serra explainedthat the volatility of Brazil’s currency stemmedfrom the country’s vulnerability in the wake of theabrupt opening of its economy to unrestrainedinternational trade. He criticized developednations’ failure to reciprocate by lowering tradebarriers themselves, and accused the WTO ofperpetuating this form of protectionism through itspolicies. “Brazil’s very generous opening of itseconomy,” he argued, “has had no correspondinggesture by developed countries.”

Prof. Cristovam Buarque, on the other hand,insisted that growth must be subordinated to alarger concern: improving the quality of life for themajority of the population. The eradication ofpoverty, he argued, constitutes the principal

challenge. To solve this problem, he said, “We haveto escape from the logic that poverty is the conse-quence of insufficient wealth, and that insufficientwealth comes from insufficient growth.” Growthalone cannot guarantee an adequate distribution ofresources, yet it too often serves as the unques-tioned end-goal of economic policy.

The problem of poverty, for Buarque, is anethical one requiring collaboration across ideologi-cal divides. Furthermore, he insisted that theproblem could be solved with the creative manage-ment of existing resources. He mentioned aproposal to encourage the education of childlaborers by paying their families a modest wage —equivalent to what the children would earn at work— in return for their commitment to keep theirchildren in school. Such programs, he argued, havealready been tested in parts of Mexico and Ecua-dor. The cost of their implementation worldwidewould total some $40 billion. Given that theUnited States expects a trillion-dollar budgetsurplus in the coming years, Buarque suggestedthat a portion of those funds be devoted tounderwriting education for the world’s 250 millionchild laborers. “Why not use a small part of [the

The Global EconomyContinued from page 1

Rep. David Bonior

Panel I, left to right:Rep. David Bonior, Prof.Antonio Barros deCastro, R. ThomasBuffenbarger, Prof.Cristovam Buarque, Min.José Serra

4


From left to right, R.Thomas Buffenbarger

and Prof. CristovamBuarque

Min. José Serra

the resolution of social injustices. The problem ofBrazilian growth, he argued, had to do with its“stop and go” nature, unlike the steady expansionrate characteristic of European economies; Brazil’sgoal should be to achieve stability in its growthrates. Arguing against approaches that define themarket alone as the engine of economic expansion,he observed that reliable growth is best fostered bytwo complementary mechanisms: first, the protec-tion of profits in a key economic sector against theerosive effects of competition, and second, themenacing of these industries by some measure ofexternal pressure. Protection, he cautioned, shouldnot be conceived of solely as trade restraints;innovation, in particular, is one way of ensuringprofits, as are trademark, reputation, and otherapproaches. The agenda for Brazilian policymakers,then, is “to rebuild the mechanisms of protection,[and apply] menace and pressure in order for growthto resume in a rapid and sustained manner.”

United States Representative David Boniorbegan by emphasizing Brazil’s importance in theworld economy, calling for the United Nations toconsider making Brazil a permanent member of itsSecurity Council. “After all,” he remarked, “whyshould the structure of the U.N., or any interna-tional body, reflect the overarching dispute of thelast century — the conflict between the east andthe west — when the challenge of this century is toovercome the economic disparities between thenorth and the south?”

Representative Bonior voiced deep concernsabout the unrestrained opening of capital flowswithout protections for increasingly vulnerableworkers. Protecting workers is an urgent taskinternationally, he maintained, not just in develop-

surplus],” he asked, “for a large-scale internationalprogram to eradicate poverty through the transferof income for families on the condition that [they]use this income to escape from poverty?”

Growth and economic liberalization areimportant goals, the IAM’s Thomas Buffenbargerargued, but they cannot proceed without somemeasure of protection for the working families ofthe world. In his remarks, Buffenbarger de-nounced multinational corporations’ pursuit ofprofits over people. “Will we have a globaleconomy that is built on ignorance and arrogancein its continual refusal to acknowledge thatworkers’ rights and human rights are as much aneconomic issue as they are a moral issue?” he asked.“Or will we have a global economy that incorpo-rates workers’ interests throughout the world? Willwe have a global economy that pits workers in onecountry against workers in other countries? Or willwe have a global economy that is based uponinternational rules that will raise the standard ofliving for the world’s citizens?” Basic labor stan-dards must be incorporated into internationaltrade agreements, he declared. He stressed thatunions were not disposed to obstruct growth andtrade but rather to help manage it fairly; indeed,they sought to have a voice in the process. “Wewant to be a part of the solutions to the world’sproblems,” he insisted, “and we simply ask to beinvited to that table.”

For economist Antonio Barros de Castro, aformer head of Brazil’s influential national devel-opment bank, growth remains an importantobjective in itself. Prof. Barros de Castro agreedthat growth does not eliminate poverty, yet notedthat times of rapid growth have historicallycoincided with decreasing rates of poverty inBrazil. Growth, therefore, plays a pivotal role in

Continued on page 26

5

Paulo Pereira da Silva

Continued on page 6

Panel II

Labor in the Americasby Jeffrey Sluyter-Beltrão

Luiz Marinho

B razilian trade unions find themselves at acrossroads: despite the unprecedentedstrength of organized labor, shifting

configurations of political and economic powerpose sharp new challenges for the movement. Thesecond panel at the “Challenges for Brazil: ADialogue” conference provided an opportunity toexamine issues of workers’ rights and social justicein the context of a globalized economy, highlight-ing opportunities and obstacles for trade unionactivism in the new millennium. The discussionfeatured panelists Paulo Paiva, Minister of Laborunder the first Cardoso administration, andcurrently vice-president of the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank; Maria Hermínia Tavares deAlmeida, a political scientist and labor scholarfrom the University of São Paulo; Paulo Pereira daSilva, president of Força Sindical, Brazil’s secondlargest labor central; and Luiz Marinho, presidentof the ABC metalworkers’ union and an increas-ingly prominent figure within the CUT, Brazil’slargest labor central. They were joined by two UCBerkeley faculty members, James Lincoln, WarrenE. and Carol Spieker Professor in UC Berkeley’sWalter A. Haas School of Business and director ofthe Institute of Industrial Relations, and Prof. JoséLuiz Passos, of the Spanish and Portuguesedepartment, whose questions to panelists focusedon specific aspects of the debate.

Brazil’s reinvigorated unions played a pivotalrole in the country’s recent transitions fromauthoritarian to democratic government and fromstate-centered, developmentalist programs to

neoliberal economic policies. As Prof. MariaHermínia Tavares de Almeida explained, organizedlabor has consolidated its role as a vocal, influentialparticipant in the political process to a degreepreviously unprecedented in Brazilian history. Atthe same time, as labor leaders Luiz Marinho andPaulo Pereira da Silva made clear, the widespreadhardships of the economic transition have placedorganized labor on the defensive, shifting theirefforts and priorities to maintaining real wage andemployment levels.

In his opening remarks, Paulo Paiva of the Inter-American Development Bank emphasized thegrowing levels of unemployment which marked the1990’s, and suggested confronting the problemthrough increased economic growth, job training,and new labor legislation. In this era of highunemployment, demands for labor law reform havetwo underlying causes. First, the democratizationprocess triggered calls for social, political and laborrights; globalization further intensified pressures tomake labor law more flexible. Paiva argued that theCardoso administration had sought to improveworkers’ individual rights in three basic areas —forced labor, child labor, and discriminatory labormarket practices — in accordance with ILOconventions. These efforts had involved thecooperation of a variety of societal actors, particu-larly that of the leading labor centrals. Paivaconcluded his presentation by affirming thegovernment’s continued commitment to theprinciple of union freedom and to the preservationof workers’ rights enshrined in the 7th article of theBrazilian Constitution.

Professor Maria Hermínia Tavares de Almeida

6


Dr. Paulo Paiva

Prof. Maria HermíniaTavares de Almeida

Labor in the AmericasContinued from page 5

suggested that Brazil urgently needs reforms oflabor market institutions, civil service structures,and the social security system. Yet such changesaffect public benefits for thousands of workers andare therefore sure to be contentious. As a result, therole of organized labor in the promotion of suchreforms may prove pivotal to their success. Prof.Tavares offered three possible scenarios: first, sheposed a “unions absent” scenario, in which theexclusion of labor from reform processes results inchanges that place heavy burdens on workers;second, an “every union for itself ” approach couldbe taken, in which the strongest unions applyselective political pressure to defend their ownsectoral interests, producing meager results forworkers as a whole; lastly, a “one for all, all for one”strategy featuring a solidly implanted, well-coordinated labor movement as an advocate ofrealistic reform proposals, effectively negotiatingtrade-offs that would cushion workers in generalagainst the negative implications of the reforms.The first scenario, she argued, is implausible in ademocratically governed Brazil, given labor’sconsolidation as a central political actor. Organiza-tional and political obstacles, including the lowrates of union density in Brazil and the extremeorganizational fragmentation, undermine thefeasibility of the third approach. While top unionleaders from leading economic sectors are impor-tant players, they rarely formulate commonpolicies; their positions instead tend to vary fromsector to sector, and even union to union. As aresult, Professor Tavares concluded, the secondscenario is by far the most probable of the three.

Indeed, leading labor categories, with high uniondensity and established political clout, have alreadyshown themselves capable of negotiating effectivelyon behalf of their rank-and-file constituents —metalworkers, dockworkers, and civil servantsprovide examples of such (relative) success stories.In sum, Professor Tavares forecast an uneven mixof results for labor in influencing reform of laborlaw, civil service and social security.

Paulo Pereira da Silva, president of ForçaSindical — Brazil’s second largest labor central,with a strong presence among private sectorworkers — drew a broad portrait of Brazil’scontemporary social crisis. He began with theweakness of Brazilian parties, which hobbles theirability to carry out real reforms. Even recentlypassed social security reforms, he suggested, were sowatered down that they produced little meaningfulchange. Though Brazil’s fiscal deficit needs atten-tion, Pereira warned that the government’s eco-nomic adjustment policies lacked sufficientattention to the balancing of their social costs. Hecriticized the overwhelmingly speculative nature ofthe Brazilian financial sector, which provides fewlocal, small-enterprise oriented investments —precisely the sort which, Pereira argued, areurgently needed. Brazil’s “egotistical elite” ne-glected the country’s unjust income distribution,inadequate educational system and rising unem-ployment, he explained. In São Paulo, for example,unemployment has soared to unprecedented levels(20%), while scores of people die each week in an

7Continued on page 8

The discussions at “Challenges for Brazil: ADialogue,” revealed a surprising degree ofagreement about Brazil’s social problems —

and a sharp series of disagreements as to how theyshould best be tackled. Participants across thepolitical spectrum shared concerns about unem-ployment, imbalances in the social security system,environmental devastation, underdevelopment, andother issues. Yet some of the conference’s mostengaging debates emerged around which politicalprograms and protagonists could produce mean-ingful social change in Brazil. The thirdpanel,“Social Problems, Political Alternatives,”included an extended discussion of these themes byRaul Jungmann, minister of agrarian development;Vilmar Faria, special adviser on social policy toPresident Cardoso; Roberto Freire, president of theSocialist Popular Party (PPS) and senator for thenortheastern state of Pernambuco; Jorge Wilheim,Brazilian architect, urbanist, and former deputysecretary of the United Nations Conference onCities (Habitat 2); Senator Marina Silva of theWorkers’ Party (PT); and United States Congress-woman Nancy Pelosi.

Most panelists addressed the need to form newpolitical coalitions to tackle Brazil’s entrenchedsocial problems. As one of the main coordinator’sof Brazil’s federal land reform project, MinisterRaul Jungmann opened the panel with what hecalled a “provocation” against the left — particu-

Panel III

Social Problems, Political Alternativesby Fabrizio C. Rigout

larly the Workers’ Party — for its reluctance towork in coalition with the party of PresidentFernando Henrique Cardoso. Cardoso was electedwith support from conservatives and economicliberals, and according to Minister Jungmann, haspresided over an ambitious program of agrarianreform that has already provided more familieswith land than in all previous administrationscombined. “A smaller base, or a base made upexclusively of the left, would probably not haveproduced the same results,” Minister Jungmannexplained, in praise of the broad political coalitionon which Cardoso’s government is founded. “Thisis because the conservative sectors, or the right-wing sectors, wrapped up together as opposition,would recover power and veto ability outside of apact like this.” He highlighted accomplishments ofthe land reform project: family agriculture todayaccounts for 13.8 of 17 million jobs in the coun-tryside, and the cost of land has been dramaticallyreduced. Among other initiatives, MinisterJungmann discussed federal low-interest loanprograms and discounts in land price for familieswho keep their children in school. He pointed outthat these achievements were made possible, inpart, because of the weakening political power oftraditional landed classes, which have been forcedto accept major defeats such as the federalgovernment’s reclaiming of 93 million hectares ofillegally seized lands.

Speaking as special adviser to President Cardoso,Vilmar Faria also emphasized the importance ofcrafting stable political alliances for change. Aformer professor at the University of São Paulo, theUniversity of Campinas, and UC Berkeley, wherehe held the Rio Branco Chair in Brazilian studiesin Spring 1999, Dr. Faria termed present inequali-ties and injustices in Brazil “immoral” and insistedthat such problems be met with enlightened Min. Raul Jungmann

From left to right, Rep.Nancy Pelosi and Sen.Marina Silva

8

reason, rather than populism and demagoguery.Key to the success of any reform program, Dr.Faria argued, is the maintenance of stablepolitical alliances with a long-term commitmentto sustaining responsible social policy. Thesealliances must be founded on an enhanceddemocratic system that will guarantee access topolitical power for different groups in society.

Senator Roberto Freire argued for the need forinternational as well as national political coali-tions to advance the cause of social justice. Thispriority is even more important today, after theend of the Cold War and the ensuing search foralternative political and economic paradigms.“In this context,” said Senator Freire, “theUnited States, as capitalism’s principal represen-tative… is able to dictate what politics will beadopted, and the multilateral and internationalorganisms then put this very thing into effect.”Pointing to the example of Europe, the senatorproposed the strengthening of a South Americanbloc that would have stronger political leverageto represent the region’s interests in a multipolarworld. He called upon Brazilian progressiveorganizations to follow the example of theEuropean left, which now leads a EuropeanUnion on equal economic and political footingwith the United States. “Either we react togetherwith South America against the dollarization ofour economies, or we will be surrounded as acountry because of the dollarization of ourneighbors,” insisted Senator Freire, referring toArgentina and Ecuador’s recent decisions to peg

their national currencies to the United States dollar.The author of several books on planning, urban

life, and development, Jorge Wilheim criticizedthe haphazard implementation of market reformswithout consideration for their long-term socialeffects. He lamented Brazil’s passivity in relation tothe “Washington consensus” on privatization,deregulation, and trade, and insisted that “wecannot put the blame for not having a politicallong-term project and… a long-term strategy forthe transition on globalization, because this is adecision that Brazilians must make.” In the absenceof a long-term strategy for social reform in Brazil,he described the new economy as an archipelago,where islands of modern consumers are set apart by“oceans of excluded people.” Wilheim proposed a“new Renaissance” led by the Third World, whichwould build up the conditions for a long-termmarket-economy socialism based on “new valuesthat will substitute competition for solidarity,economic growth for human development, andconsuming products for [basic happiness].”

Senator Marina Silva, one of the youngestsenators in Brazil’s history, affirmed that politicsmust change to incorporate new voices. “We haveto learn the fundamental idea that the parties canno longer dominate state processes, like we used tothink a few years ago,” she said. As one of only sixwomen in the 81-seat Brazilian Senate, SenatorSilva spoke about social inequality by referring toher experience as a rubber-tapper and teacher inher home state of Acre, in Amazonia, where shehelped Chico Mendes found the local chapter ofthe CUT labor federation in 1984. She con-demned the continuing domination of the

Social Problems, Political AlternativesContinued from page 7

Sen. Roberto Freire

Prof. Manuel Castells

9

Brazilian “oligarchies”, who are incapable ofmaking pacts with other sectors of society andconsidering the interests of all.

In her remarks, Senator Silva also called atten-tion to Brazil’s immense biodiversity, arguing thatit is as important for development as the existingadvanced economic infrastructure. She stressed theimportance of development which is sustainable inall aspects — economically, socially, culturally, andpolitically — and demanded that ethical prioritiesorient the technical problems of public policy,rather than vice versa. The author of a law onbiodiversity, she criticized the practices of multina-tional pharmaceutical companies that profit fromthe medicinal knowledge of indigenous populationswithout compensating them for their contribution.

“I am always disgusted when I read in thenews,” Senator Silva declared, “…that with onesingle plant from the state of Amazonas calledpedra húmica, a Japanese laboratory has alreadymanaged to make $25 million per year. And theIndians who know the pedra húmica well earnabsolutely nothing.”

United States Representative Nancy Pelosiechoed many of Senator Silva’s environmentalconcerns, lamenting the destruction of Brazil’senvironment by international companies seeking toprofit from the appropriation and abuse of thecountry’s natural patrimony. “Protecting theAmazon is not only of interest to Brazil, it is ofconcern to the world for all the reasons that weknow,” she said. “…We hear about this issue of

sustainability and the conflict between developmentand preservation, …we have to have our values inplace as we make the judgements about how to havethis sustainable development.” Rep. Pelosi criticizedthe hypocrisy of United States policy that putscorporate earnings before ethics, defending U.S.intellectual property even as it acquiesces to theplundering of Brazilian resources. She mentionedher own authorship of the “Pelosi Amendment,”which obliges U.S. directors of multilateral develop-ment banks to support loans only after an environ-mental assessment is carried out and made knowninternationally, including to the indigenous popula-tions directly affected by the proposed project. “Butunless we make the decision, the public policydecision, to do these things,” she asserted, “the freemarket will not necessarily have sustainable develop-ment as a value. We must insist on it.”

Following the participants’ opening remarks, thedialogue deepened in response to questions from athree-person panel of faculty members, includingProfessors Manuel Castells, of city and regionalplanning and sociology, Pedro Noguera, of theGraduate School of Education, and Margaret Weir,of sociology and political science. Professor Weirasked Senator Freire and Dr. Faria about thedifferences in their approaches to the reform ofBrazil’s welfare state, which is notorious for itsfailure to adequately redistribute wealth to thedisadvantaged. Both agreed entirely on the need toeliminate the disproportionate privileges currentlyenjoyed by civil servants. Senator Freire mentionedan ambitious program he proposed, but which hadbeen defeated in the Senate. Dr. Faria pointed tothe regressive financing and distribution of funds asthe key problems of the Brazilian social protectionsystem. “How it is possible to transform this?Personally I don’t see any way out [except] what weare suggesting: negotiate, negotiate, negotiate, in


Dr. Vilmar Faria andProf. Margaret Weir

Jorge Wilheim

Panel 1: Brazil in the Global Economy

José SerraMinister of Health, Brazil

Cristovam BuarqueFormer Governor of the Federal District, Workers’Party (PT), Brazil

R. Thomas BuffenbargerInternational President, International Associationof Machinists (IAM), U.S.

Antonio Barros de CastroEconomist, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro(UFRJ), Brazil

David BoniorRepresentative, U.S. Congress, MichiganSecond-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives

Faculty PanelPeter Evans, Chair, Department of SociologyLourdes Sola, CLAS Visiting Professor and holderof the Rio Branco Chair in Brazilian Studies

Panel II: Labor in the Americas, Brazil andthe U.S.

Paulo PaivaVice President, Inter-American Development Bank,and former Minister of Labor, Brazil

Maria Hermínia Tavares de AlmeidaPolitical Scientist, University of São Paulo (USP),Brazil

Luiz MarinhoPresident, Metalworkers Union, ABC District, SãoPaulo, Brazil

Paulo Pereira da SilvaPresident, Força Sindical (Labor Federation), Brazil

Faculty PanelJames R. Lincoln, Haas School of Business andDirector, Institute of Industrial RelationsJosé Luiz PassosDepartment of Spanish and Portuguese

Panel III: Social Problems, Political Alternatives

Raul JungmannMinister of Agrarian Development, Brazil

Marina SilvaSenator, Workers’ Party (PT), Brazil

Nancy PelosiRepresentative, U.S. Congress, California (D)

Jorge WilheimUrbanist, Brazil

Vilmar E. FariaChief Adviser on Social Policy to PresidentCardoso, Brazil

Roberto FreireSenator and President, Socialist Popular Party(PPS), Brazil

Faculty PanelManuel Castells, Departments of City andRegional Planning and SociologyMargaret Weir, Departments of Sociology andPolitical SciencePedro Noguera, Graduate School of Education

Welcoming: Chancellor Robert M. BerdahlModerator: Harley Shaiken, Chair, CLASOpening Remarks: Dr. Ruth Cardoso, President,Conselho da Comunidade Solidária

February 25, 2000

The Clark Kerr Campus

University of California, Berkeley

CH

AL

LE

NG

ES F

OR

BR

AZ

IL

A D

IAL

OG

UE

Dr. Ruth CardosoPresident, Conselho da Comunidade Solidária

First Lady of Brazil

Due to space limitations, we are unable to print a complete transcript of participants’ remarks. The followingexcerpts include portions of opening remarks, responses to faculty questions, and closing statements. For a moredetailed account of conference proceedings, please visit the CLAS Web site at http://www.clas.berkeley.edu/clas. Keynote

“I would like to contribute to this exchange ofopinions by presenting an opening point that refersto the strategy of fighting poverty. Only collabora-tive action across several areas, government and non-government, can respond to this challenge in aneffective way. The Brazilian experience of socialexclusion is long. The mechanisms for fighting itwere generally assistance-based, and as we know, didnot produce effective results. We must learn fromthe past in order to look towards the future with anew vision that will allow us to build to build newstrategies. …We need coordinated actions acrossseveral areas: education, health, employment, welfareand so on. And we need to develop these in exten-sive partnership with civil society.

The fight against poverty is a fight for us all;citizen involvement is one condition for it. More-over, all public organizations, be they civil orgovernment, will only reach the degree of account-ability we hope for if, on the one hand, they aretransparent in their management and their deeds,and on the other, if they rest upon a sustaineddialogue with society. For it is society that legiti-mates and evaluates this intervention.

…Exclusion is social and economic, and for thisvery reason, we have to look at two different timesand paces of change. Progress in one spheredepends on advancements in the other, but not in amechanical way or one of simple causality. In Brazilthe first important step towards the improvementof living conditions for the poor was the Real Planbecause it brought about a drastic lowering ofinflation. Until the plan, those included in thelabor market, even with low income, had somechance to defend themselves against inflation. Butthis situation was sustained at the expense of the

poor, who could not protect their income againstdevaluation. Social interventions continued afterthe consolidation of the economic initiative.Social policy has ever since opted for focusedactions aiming at the poorest. Redesigned policiesin education, health, professional training andagrarian reform had remarkable results. Somenew policies were started in the field of welfareand micro credit. These changed policies make upa network that operates at varying speeds.

…The Brazilian experience combininginflation taming and grassroots oriented socialpolicies is quite unique and demonstrates that therelationship between economy and society ismore complex and more open to change than itmight appear. …Certainly the fight against socialinequality in Brazil is a complex, albeit urgent,task. But the minimum requirements, stabilityand the new mentality for social policies, are setfor the battle against income inequality in the21st century. This is everybody’s task, governmentand society. A partnership that brings togetherdifferent social groups expands the possibility ofcitizen involvement. There is one fundamentalcondition for our advancement: the perfectionand continuity of the democratic system.…Without a strong democratic base, it isimpossible to have citizenship and participation,which are two sides of the same coin. Society ismade up of groups with conflicting and some-times contradictory interests that require newchannels for their manifestation. The opening ofthese channels is a challenge, and the conditionfor the narrative of Brazilian development to betold as a success story.”

Conference Selections

11

José SerraMinister of Health, Brazil

“In contrast to the transition from the militaryregime to democracy in Brazil, which was a slowstep by step process, the transition to an openeconomy has been abrupt, drastic and fraught withuncertainties. In the early 90’s, Brazil eliminated allquantitative controls and prohibitions of specificimports, coupled with strong reductions in importduties. But the country adopted those measureswithout at that time having the necessary expertiseto cope with unfair trade practices. Even today,[Brazil’s] economy is almost free of non-tariff tradebarriers.

…There is also room for a more cooperativeattitude by Brazil’s major trading partners – theUnited States, the European Union and Japan – inboth bilateral and multilateral terms. As a matter offact, Brazil’s very generous opening of its economyhas had no corresponding gesture by developedcountries. Quite the contrary, those nations havemaintained and even intensified the traditionalforms of protectionism. As we know, they have avery special talent for imposing growing non-tarifftrade barriers based on quotas, antidumping duties,environmental requirements, safeguards,countervailing measures, etc. The truth is that theWorld Trade Organization agreements have soughtto protect the markets of the developed countriesfrom competition in sectors in which the develop-ing nations have comparative advantages, such asagriculture and textiles.

…The United States is Brazil’s single largesttrading partner, and drew the greatest benefits fromthe liberalization of the Brazilian economy. In the90’s, while the United States’ deficit with the rest of

the world expanded threefold, with Brazil [theU.S.] has registered surpluses since 1995. Between1990 and 1998, exports from the United States toBrazil more than tripled, while Brazilian foreignsales to the United States increased only by 27%.Despite Brazilian liberalization and the good willshown in relation to demands put forward by theUnited States in areas such as intellectual property,barriers to Brazilian access to the U.S. market keptexisting, increased, and made a crucial contributionto the negative results for Brazil. Brazilian exportgoods such as orange juice, steel products, sugar,footwear, tobacco, gasoline, soybean oil, shrimp,alcohol are still subject to restrictions. In the case ofthese eight products, removal of the barriers wouldresult in a 50% increase in the value of Braziliansales or about $830 million a year.

…More generally, developing countries have tocope now with a perverse strategy stance on thepart of the developed nations: an endless process ofintroducing new theses — such as liberalization ofservices, investment agreements and social clauses— which would only worsen the already difficultsituation of the developing world. The bestexample of the enormous pressures exerted by theUnited States within the WTO is the adoption ofcommon labor norms with more comparable wagelevels as a precondition for fair trade, denyingconventional economic knowledge since Smith andRicardo. It means the same as denying to thedeveloping nations their comparative tradeadvantage of lower labor costs, preventing themfrom creating more jobs and paying better wages.”

Cristovam BuarqueFormer Governor of the Federal DistrictWorkers’ Party (PT), Brazil

“…The [great] challenge in Brazil, which is theworld’s challenge as well, is the eradication ofpoverty. I want to propose to you a revolution inthe way of understanding the problem of poverty.We have to escape from the logic that poverty isthe consequence of insufficient wealth and thatinsufficient wealth comes from insufficient growth.We can continue to grow, getting richer, [yet]the

people may continue to be poor because therelation [between growth and the elimination ofpoverty] is a false relation that functioned onlyuntil a certain point in the 1950’s, when wealthand growth were spreading throughout society.Today, wealth is not spreading; it is increasing forthe same group of people. And so, the first thing[we need] is a new understanding of wealth, seeing

Panel I Conference Selections

12

wealth as something separate from poverty. Second,we must see poverty under the wing of ethics.Poverty is something immoral for society; it is not atechnical problem. Third, [we must] understandthat to eradicate poverty it is necessary to attack itat its base, and to attack it with concrete measures.

…I am not proposing the construction ofequality; I am proposing the eradication of poverty.For example, the first sign of poverty is childrenwho are out of school. Today it is well known howto put children in school even before achievingeconomic growth: … in Mexico, in many Braziliancities, and in Ecuador today… poor families arereceiving a wage if their children are allowed tostudy. This doesn’t cost much money. There are250 million children in the world who are workingtoday. For 250 million children to be able to go toschool with an income for their families, $40billion would be necessary — 13% of the serviceon the external debt. …In the coming years, theUnited States will have a budgetary surplus of sometrillion dollars and the debate here is what to dowith this surplus. Why not use a small part of it fora large-scale international program to eradicatepoverty through the transfer of income for familieson the condition that these families use thisincome to escape from poverty?

…I think that the question is how to move toanother kind of world …how to globalize global-

ization. ...I want to repeat that the main way is noteconomic growth. We need economic growth, buteconomic growth will not put people together.

…The problem is how to abolish poverty amongthe people. ...We have resources to abolish povertyin Brazil, we know how to do that, we just have tomove from the understanding that the problem iseconomic and to use the money we already have todo the necessary programs to abolish poverty, toput every child in school — and in good schools— to take health to every family in our country, tohouse our people, to put our young people in goodplaces. All of these projects in the case of Brazil willcost less than 5% of our gross domestic product. Iwould estimate that it would be the same amount,on a global scale, in the world.

…We know how to globalize globalization inthe case of Brazil. We just have to find the commit-ment to do that. And I’m not saying that it’s aproblem of right against left; no, this is an ethicalproblem. I think that the problem is not theconservatives versus the progressives in Brazil, buthow to put together an ethical commitment withan ethical agenda by ethical people, ethical leadersthat could do first what should be done first froman ethical point of view. And from an ethical pointof view, the most important purpose is to abolishpoverty. I think this is the challenge of globaliza-tion in the world.”

R. Thomas BuffenbargerInternational President, International Association

of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, United States

“Given the nature of our representation, we [in theIAM] realize as much as anyone that our jobs aredependent upon the global economy. We knowthere is no turning back, that the global economyis here to stay. The question for us is not whetherwe participate in the global economy. The questionis: what kind of global economy will we have? Willwe have a global economy that is built on igno-rance and arrogance in its continual refusal toacknowledge that workers’ rights and human rightsare as much an economic issue as they are a moralissue? Or will we have a global economy that

incorporates workers’ interests throughout theworld? Will we have a global economy that pitsworkers in one country against workers in othercountries? Or will we have a global economy that isbased upon international rules that will raise thestandard of living for the world’s citizens? Will wehave a global economy that is negotiated bycorporations or will we have a global economywhere workers are at the negotiating table?

This was the fight that took place in Seattle.And I am proud that the IAM and workers fromthroughout the world, from developed countries


13

“I will start with a few words about what ispeculiar in Brazilian growth. First of all, we had avery strong regime of growth over forty years andin 1980 — precisely in that year — growthstopped. And from 1980 until now, … instead ofgrowth, we had a constant stop and go regime.Now from 1999 to 2000, [and especially in] 2000,there are many signs that growth possibly may beresumed and this is being transformed into a greatdebate in our country.

There are two positions about this. One… is thehegemonic position. I will not try to synthesize thethesis but I will only say that it’s the thesis that isvery much in favor of pro-market reforms. …Thisthesis is facing a lot of difficulties in explaining

either Brazil’s long-run trajectory or its presentpossibilities. First of all, this thesis is incapable ofexplaining why between 1940 and 1980, havingchosen the wrong way, Brazil grew so much.Second, this thesis is entirely incapable of explain-ing why investment is rising [especially in] theautomobile industry and telecommunications. Theautomobile industry is protected, very much, as inthe old import-substitution model. And … intelecommunications there is no such a thing asnon-tradeable; everything — including price andconditions for investment — has been settled byspecial institutions. So both these sectors … do notproperly represent a simple market economy. It is avery politicized and institutionalized face of the

Prof. Antonio Barros de CastroEconomist, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

and developing countries, joined together inSeattle to protest the World Trade Organization.…The IAM represented a majority of thoseworkers who marched in the peaceful labor rallythat was held during the first day of the ministerial.Our march made the international news andrepresented the point that a peaceful demonstra-tion could also be effective in Seattle.

Our peaceful demonstration was effective fortwo reasons. First, it served to show the outrage ofthousands of workers throughout the world over atrade organization and trade agreements thatignore the world’s citizens. And secondly, it servedas a way to educate the world’s trade ministers onbasic principles of human rights and economics.…Together in Seattle we sought to [teach] theworld’s trade ministers what real trade policy mustlook like. A real trade policy that incorporatesfundamental human rights. We taught them that aworld trade policy that will lift workers in China isa trade policy that will raise living standards inBrazil and the United States. And we sought toteach them that imprisoning workers for merelytrying to exercise their fundamental human rightswill ultimately result in imprisonment of workerseverywhere. Lastly, we sought to educate trade

ministers on the basics of democratic principles,that is, that a global economy built on the backs ofworking men and women, and their children,throughout the world is a trade policy that simplywill not work.

…As people throughout the world spoke up inSeattle they formed a beacon, a beacon that shineda light on the WTO, exposing it to the world. TheWTO as a result could not stand on its own, withthe bright light of the world shining in, and itcollapsed on its own weight. Since our demonstra-tion in Seattle, our numbers have grown and ourvoice has gotten stronger. We will continue toeducate our trade ministers and our governmentsuntil they finally at long last begin to understandthat unless world trade organizations and agree-ments work in the interests of the world’s citizens,they will not work for anyone. Our educationefforts will culminate when trade ministersthroughout the world finally understand and act onwhat we in labor already know. That is, integrationof the global economy is for everyone, not just afew. That is what justice is all about, that is what apeaceful world is all about, and that is what thecitizens of the world so desperately want and need.”


14

economy, and these are the sectors where growthhas been very quick, very strong. So there aredifficulties, severe difficulties. But the criticalposition about the reformists’ thesis also hasdifficulties… They are absolutely unable to explainthe differences, and they are quite considerable,between what happened to Brazil and whathappened to Argentina and what happened toPeru, not to speak about Russia and Poland.

…Now, [I argue] that rapid and sustainedgrowth supposed two mechanisms. Profit in animportant set of industries must be somehowprotected against erosion provoked by competition,and this is the first mechanism. Please, be careful;protection may be made in several ways. Innova-tion is the brightest and most well-known form ofprotecting profits. [Other forms include] trade-

mark, reputation, and of course institutionalbarriers. But there is the necessity of somehowprotecting. …Then comes the second argument:although protected, these industries have to feelthemselves menaced. They have to feel thatsomething is behind them and menacing them.Their positions must be contestable. These twomechanisms play together.

…My question may be phrased in the followingway: Is it possible to rebuild the two mechanismsof protection, which may be a microeconomicprotection, and menace and pressure for growth toresume in a rapid and sustained way in order for usto get out of stop and go, or to get out of a sort oflazy growth of three percent that any country inEurope can have?”

Rep. David BoniorSecond-ranking Democrat,

U.S. House of Representatives “Over the years …the U.S. relationship withBrazil has been far more patronizing than respect-ful. That’s why I hope that, if nothing else, onemessage today will be that the U.S. partnershipwith Brazil must not be based on old myths, buton a new reality: the fact that today’s Brazil is amajor industrial power and will continue to be inthe future. And forging that kind of partnershiprequires policymakers in this country to rethinktheir assumptions about Brazil’s role, not just in theAmericas, but in the world. In that regard, I don’tthink that it is at all inappropriate that the UnitedStates and other countries explore the possibility ofBrazil joining Russia, France, the United States, theU.K., and China as a permanent member of theUnited Nations Security Council. After all, whyshould the structure of the U.N., or any interna-tional body, reflect the overarching dispute of thelast century, the conflict between the east and thewest, when the challenge of this century is toovercome the economic disparities between thenorth and the south?

…As a member of the United States Congress,I’m convinced that responding to the new chal-lenges of globalization has never been more urgent

than it is today. …It’s true that over the last decade,foreign direct investment into Latin America grewfrom $8 billion to $67 billion a year. But it’s alsotrue that for the most part that capital wasn’t usedto create high-quality new jobs, but to purchasenewly privatized public companies and to buy upother businesses. Are new jobs being created? Surethey are, but 85% are in what is called the informalsector, and too many of those are going to children.Today as many as 19% of Latin America’s childrenaged 10 to 14 are working. That’s why some of themost eloquent voices speaking out against unre-strained globalization aren’t those of activists in theUnited States.

…I raise this point because all too often opinionleaders in this country, Brazil, and really through-out much of the world, have characterized con-cerns about globalization and free trade as beingboth protectionist and limited to the United States.Well they are wrong on both counts. That isn’t tosay that U.S. workers aren’t motivated by seriousconcerns of their own. While the U.S. is in themidst of an unprecedented economic expansion,with corporate profits growing by more than 30%over just 24 months, the truth is that American


15

families are having to work harder and longer toenjoy it [and] multinational employers in the U.S.routinely threaten unionized workforces withrelocation of jobs outside the United States. …Soyou might ask, do some U.S. manufacturingworkers resent their counterparts in Brazil?

Well, you might be able to find some, but frommy experience, what I can tell you is that what theytruly resent is the power of transnational corpora-tions to threaten their economic security. And theyresent something else, too. They resent the reluc-tance of elected officials to challenge it. It’s the factthat while these corporations control well over aquarter of the world’s economic activity, no onecontrols them save for their stockholders. The 225

richest people in this world have more wealth than41% of all of humanity, of all of humanity. Andthat’s why that I’m convinced that the mostimportant issue in the United States’ relationshipwith Brazil isn’t so much whether we negotiate aFree Trade Area of the America or what ties itmight have with Mercosur. Instead, it’s whetherany trade agreement speaks to more than theinterests of a small corporate elite. It’s whether thetrade agreements we craft incorporate what youcould describe as a Bill of Rights for workers andtheir communities: A compact between labor,government and transnational capital to insure thatas globalization moves ahead, that workers and theenvironment aren’t left behind.”

“It seems to me that about two and half years ago itwas decided by the WTO that the process ofimproving labor standards should be forward indefense of the basic labor standards, related to bothcollective rights and individual rights, and wouldbe monitored by the International Labor Organiza-tion (ILO). And indeed in 1999 all countries hadapproved a solemn declaration of the ILO, whichestablishes exactly these rights.

…I believe that the discussion of these rightswould be much more fruitful if tied in with thequestion of consolidating democracy, consolidatingeconomic, political, and social rights, than withany kind of enforcement through trade. I believethat to try to progress along this way is not toprogress at all. I think that what we should is findthe areas where there is consensus within eachcountry and then among countries. In the case ofBrazil, for instance, there is much that government,the labor movement and entrepreneurs can agreeupon. From the point of view of consolidation theautonomy and freedom of labor unions in Brazil,and the defense of rights, this is preferable tocreating a control mechanism through trade.

…The way to have some control is less through

the institution or participation of governmentsthan perhaps through the consumer’s sovereign.I’d say that in the case of child labor, certainly themarket is much more powerful to, for example,stop buying products that have used child laborthan any kind of government control.

But, in any case, I would set a challenge, letfirst have all countries approve the major laborstandard conventions of the ILO, and then letthem discuss at the table how to connect this withtrade. First…let all countries adopt these conven-tions, and then let them talk about how to createa control mechanism for their effectiveness.

…There is the possibility of a consensus for the

democratization of labor relations, that is forhaving freedom of association and collectivebargaining. For that it is need to allow centrallabor organizations to be incorporated as formalentities, not only as legitimate but also as formalentities in the labor framework in Brazil, replac-ing the current corporative system. And theresistance lies not on the side of labor movement,but on the employers’ side, based on the discon-tinuation of the existing confederative system.

Paulo PaivaVice President, Inter-American Development BankFormer Minister of Labor, Brazil

Panel II


16

…On this path of dialogue we have uniqueopportunity, which we should take up, for advanc-ing in the theme of competitiveness policy, which[Luiz] Marinho calls “cameras setoriais”(sectorchambers). Here there is an opportunity for debat-ing the insertion of the Brazilian economy in a moreintegrated environment where workers, employers,and government can get together and debate…

Another lesson that I think we get here is thatthe dialogue [between] people who representdifferent entities, by their different insertions inBrazilian society, and their thoughts and ideas, still

indicates a certain consensus: that our greatchallenge is to try to combine efficiency and equity,to try to combine growth with fighting poverty andconsolidating and deepening democracy. I think itis fundamental that we continue widening this typeof alliance, to guarantee economic, political andsocial rights, which would lead us to revising theconcept of development — and here I’m remindedof the recent book by Amartya Sen…when he dealswith development as freedom. I believe that this isprobably an inspiration for all of us to continuetogether, helping transform our country.”

Maria Hermínia Tavares de AlmeidaDepartment of Political ScienceUniversity of São Paulo, Brazil

“First I’d like to remind you that today unions,central labor organizations, etc. are political actorsin Brazil more than they ever were — even duringthe other democratic period, from 1945 to 1964.Nowadays it is impossible to have a public debatein Brazil without having labor representativesaround the table, and this proves somehow how fardemocracy has come in Brazil.

Secondly, and less optimistically, the unionworld has its limits. The first limit is that of thelabor market. Nowadays more than 50% of theeconomically active population belong to theinformal labor market, and this is an area whereunions have a hard time getting in. Apart fromdisagreements about unionization rates, and so on,the market sets a limit to the world of unions.

The other limit… has to do with the structureof the system, which divides, decentralizes, chopsup the labor movement. There have been attemptsto reduce fragmentation by building nationwideunions, and so on. Clearly, the two main centrallabor organizations have been moving in thedirection of more initiatives in common, thusreducing the decentralization that existed until

recently, but the institutional framework does notmake it easy for the labor movement to applypressure in a unified way.

Finally, I’d like to address the question of thechange in the system of labor relations. I thinkthere is no one around this table who thinks it’snecessary to maintain the old system that datesfrom the 40’s. However, I personally don’t thinkit’s possible to go from this system to one whereeverything is contract-based — exactly becausethe situation in the labor market and the levels oforganization vary so much. If the whole formallabor market in Brazil were like the sectors thatproduced the two labor leaders who are heretoday, we could leave everything up to collectivebargaining and have no legislated worker rights.But this is not the situation of workers in theorganized labor market as a whole, even less thatof the non-organized labor market, so imaginingthat we will move from a highly regulated systemto one with very few legal guarantees andeverything up to negotiation, is dangerous to saythe least.”


17

“I would say that we in Brazil succeeded inbreaking with the military dictatorship, but we stillhave a little — or rather a big — dictatorship: theeconomic dictatorship, the dictatorship of socialexclusion, of children dying everyday, of themothers and fathers who … are being murdered inthe peripheral neighborhoods, of drug traffic, ofcorruption, of the great ills that afflict our country.

But I say that, in spite of all its problems, Brazilcan be fixed. Brazil has fantastic potential in termsof job creation. I think our country, more thanmany others, would be able to generate thousands,millions of jobs, but certain decisions would haveto be made.

The first decision concerns income distribution.We need, starting with a better income distribu-tion, to breathe life into the market, to make theBrazilian economy grow and create jobs. For this tohappen, we need a plan that takes into accountBrazil as a whole, that looks at the country’spotential and makes investments along those lines.

… In 1990, Brazil had 2.3 million unemployed;it was the eighth country in the world in terms ofunemployment. Today we’re in third place — we’realmost champions — with 7.7 million unem-ployed. I’d say we’ve made some serious mistakes:although it was necessary to open up the economyand integrate ourselves with the global economy,this was done in an incompetent way. There was noplanning; we got into the globalization process notto profit from it but in fact the reverse.

…Another problem that led to unemployment,to a deterioration in the economic structure, toseveral areas of our industry crumbling and beingtaken over by foreign capital — not that we haveanything against foreign capital, not at all, but theproblem is that foreign capital does not set roots inBrazil. It is said that capital has no motherland; I’dsay it does: its motherland is where shareholders live.That’s where decisions are made, where investmentsare moved around lightly, if things are not working.

…Now, with the current policy, the currenteconomic policy, we won’t solve the unemploymentproblem any time soon. With interest rates the waythey are, the lack of available credit, and so on, it’sall very complicated. If we live in a globaleconomy, if Brazilian companies or those thatoperate in Brazil are participating in a globalmarket, they are much less competitive if the costof borrowing is high in Brazil and less credit isavailable than elsewhere.

So who gets the blame? The cost of labor getsthe blame. Overhead for workers’ benefits is toogreat, and this and that. It’s all hogwash. Because ifwe take comparative salaries in Brazil and in theUnited States or Europe, ours are much lower. Ofcourse there are things that can be negotiated ordealt with, but they must be dealt with morehonestly than has been the case so far, with thegovernment for example trying to abolish Article 7of the Constitution, which amounts to abolishingvacations — not abolishing them exactly, that’s notwhat the government is proposing, but allowingthem to disappear — vacations, the Decemberdouble salary, worker-vested unemployment funds,etc. — all these benefits that the working classacquired in Brazil after many years of struggle.

…I would say that, as union leaders, we are inagreement about the need to oppose what’s calledsocial dumping. In this we agree. Introducing… auniversal clause in the defense of work conditionsand pay, has been suggested by Bill Clintonhimself. But, as Brazilian citizens we should besomewhat careful: we cannot overlook the risk thatsuch clauses might be used simply as an under-handed and hypocritical means of surtaxingproducts from developing countries. …Of course,everyone is against child labor and slave labor, forexample. We agree in opposing these two things,but let’s tread carefully, not to throw out the babywith the bathwater.”

Luiz MarinhoPresident, Metalworkers Union of the ABC RegionSão Paulo, Brazil


18

“In Brazil today there is a great concern [aboutsocial problems] …The labor unions used to justorganize strikes [but] now we’re concerned withstreet kids. Almost all our labor unions have someinitiative involving street kids, abandoned kids,who typically used to live on the streets begging…When there is a report of child exploitation theunions themselves contact the authorities, who gocheck, and report it further up the chain, and inthe end the employer has to give in and stop usingchild labor.

There is also a whole set of initiatives — aproject that took place in Brasília, with ProfessorCristovam Buarque, consisting in getting kids offthe streets, making them go to school, and [provid-ing] their family [with] a small allowance, notmuch but enough to buy basic food and survive.This initiative has been growing nationally.

So, the whole society is involved in this effort,and if you now come with legislation that preventsproducts from that country to come into anothercountry — it seems to me like a complication. I’dsay in fact that this business of globalization hascomplicated the life of labor leaders — it was a loteasier earlier, wasn’t it? We were against everything,and it worked.

…I think we can’t start having overnight abunch of social clauses to prevent countries frombeing able to develop. I think there should bepressure, and today there is pressure in Brazil, toprevent exploitation by employers of child labor.But I get a bit anxious when this is reported here inthe States, because here all you see is bad news,when it’s something good it’s not reported. Whengood things happen in Brazil they’re not reported,but when there are children on the streets or otherproblems, it makes the headlines on the newspa-

pers here. So let’s not exaggerate, it’s not thecomplete disgrace that Americans think Brazil is,things are not quite so bad.

…We are in a good position to grow, it’s a big

country, a country with a great growth potential.We think investments are misplaced: we shouldinstead be investing in microbusinesses, in smallindustry, and in the countryside — especially inthe countryside, because jobs can be created therecheaply. Money is lent to big corporations, wherejobs are expensive to create: to create a job in theindustry you need $400 to 500 thousand, whereasin a small business or in the countryside you cancreate a job for $2000, or even less.

…I mentioned this issue about industry layoffsand increased production — this means someone ismaking money, and it’s not the workers. We believethere has been a greater concentration of income.Companies started laying off workers and produc-ing more and using better technology. So, ifproduction went up, if technology is better, ifthey’re making more money, we want to work lessin Brazil. For this reason we had a meeting amongthe three top-level labor organizations, ForçaSindical, CUT and CGT, and decided that we willmake a great campaign, including big strikes insome sectors of the economy, to reduce theworkload, because we work 44 hours there. Wewant to work 40 hours a week, which is already alot compared with other countries, but we think itwould be a reasonable number. And we believe thatwith this we would create 1.7 million new jobs. Itwon’t solve the problem of unemployment in thecountry, but it will certainly help thousands ofpeople who have no jobs today.”

Paulo Pereira da SilvaPresident, Força Sindical, Brazil

Panel III participants,left to right: Sen.Roberto Freire, Dr. VilmarFaria, Jorge Wilheim,Rep. Nancy Pelosi andSen. Marina Silva. Notpictured: Min. RaulJungmann.


19

Raul JungmannMinister of Agrarian Development, Brazil

“The actors who are the motivators of change in theBrazilian agrarian realm are, in the first place, thesocial movements, the unions, the associations andalso those who unite all the family farmers. To themis given the duty of organizing, pressuring andfighting for changes and improvements and aboveall for their own inclusion in a country characterizedby immense inequality in landholding in thecountryside. Meanwhile, it is also necessary that theparties of the Center, of the Left, join with thesesocial actors because the agrarian question is one ofthe most important and central questions. And it isstill necessary to add to these, the disposition, theelasticity, and above all, the performance of thePresident himself, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, inthe sense that he has invested, from the highestexecutive function of the country, he has looked forall of the ways in which to help us to resolve thisproblem.

… I want to ask a question: when RepresentativeNancy Pelosi … pushes us on the issue of theAmazon burning, at the same time I remember thatthe United States has not been fulfilling the deci-sions made during Eco92 in which she participated.The United States has not brought the necessaryresources to the global environmental funds so that,

among other things, the Amazon will not burn. Sothen, which United States [are we talking about]?Which United States, the one that pushes us on thesubject of the Amazon or the one that does notprovide the resources promised in internationalagreements, that doesn’t observe or give thenecessary support for the Climate Convention andpolluting gasses and many others? That which putsits development as a nation, which is very just, infront of more global questions, or that which, atthe same time, becomes emotional [about] thesituation of the Brazilian Indians — those verysame people who out of poverty and even misery,still burn a part of the Amazon Forest today,although they are not the only nor the primaryactors responsible. Which U.S.? Which one ofthem? If we do not resolve this question withclarity, then it is necessary to say that a good partof the preoccupation with our Amazon — whichcould also be the preoccupation with what ishappening today in the American forests here, oreven with the TAIFA in Russia that also suffer avery large process of aggression and destruction —we run the risk of thinking that a good part of thatwhich is being expressed here today has the strongsmell of eco-colonialism.”

Senator Marina SilvaWorkers’ Party (PT), Brazil

“I am from a country that lives a paradox. Al-though the country is considered the eighth largesteconomy in the world, this richness is contrastedwith shameful indices of poverty in the sense thatwe have more or less 70 million poor people…These poor people survive on an average of 149reais per month and there are people who livebelow this poverty line with less than one dollar perday. We have a social reality that includes 15million illiterate youths. This puts us in a situationthat compromises our possibilities for the future ifwe don’t invest correctly in education for ouryoung people.

…And, I want to say, that [we have] points ofintersection with the developed countries. …I don’t

see any difference between the landowner who paysa private militia to prohibit agrarian reform,assassinating the landless, and those who have apurely monetarist vision and who are not able tounderstand that the taxation of capital flows couldalso — just like agrarian reform — solve theproblems of immense and impoverished groups. If,in the case of Brazil, there are four million landlesswho would benefit from agrarian reform, certainlywe would be able to benefit a billion people in thewhole world with the taxation of capital flows. Thisis a wealth the belongs to humanity, and if it ishumanity’s, it ought to be returned, especially tothe less-favored groups.

If we are talking in the context of globalization,

Panel III Conference Selections

20

political power must be diluted, decentralized.…From the point of view of globalized relations,

we have to believe that the developed countriescannot continue using and abusing technology tothe detriment of those natural resources of develop-ing countries, taking into account that withoutsuch resources we wouldn’t have any way to use itstechnology. I am always disgusted, when I read inthe news … when I see that with one single plantfrom the state of Amazonas called pedra húmica, aJapanese laboratory has already managed to make$25 million per year, and the Indians who knowthe pedra húmica well earn absolutely nothing. Iam fairly outraged when I see that with a substancetaken from the sweat of a frog species in theAmazon, an American and Italian laboratory ismaking more than $30 million. So I ask myself, ifthey are able to make so much money with thesweat from our frog, I can’t help wondering aboutthe sweat of our people. And so I want to say thatin order to resolve the social problems of develop-ing countries, we have to justly divide the benefitsof technology, of the internalization of knowledge,of the recognition of the wisdom of traditionalpopulations and the autonomy of developingcountries in relation to natural resources. Once thishas been laid out, we can be in any part of theplanet discussing our social problems as that iswhat is positive about globalization.”

we have to frame the question in the followingway: we have experienced technical advance that isimpressive as Professor Cristovam [Buarque] says,but from the point of view of ethics, we are still inthe pre-history of our development. It is thisdisparity between ethics and technology that putsus in the situation we are in today of trying toresolve Brazilian social problems here.

…The political can no longer be understood asbelonging exclusively to the parties and to thepoliticians. We have to learn and begin together thepolitics of society and the politics of the politicians.We have to learn the fundamental idea that theparties can no longer dominate political processes,like we used to think a few years ago — principallyus from the Left. This no longer functions in thenew social reality that we have.

Now we have to learn to act in networks, and toknow that in order to have a sustainable politics wedo not necessarily need to all think religiously thesame way. On certain golden ethical principles, wecan make alliances around specific points. I candisagree with Minister Serra on a specific question,but that a single health system has to function, ithas to function, and this I will support. I candisagree with some proposals but, on others I agree,and it is this that I am calling sustainable politics.We cannot negate the partnerships and the futurealliances with a dogmatic vision in which we allhave to think alike the same way. …For me,

“Protecting the Amazon is not only of interest toBrazil, it is of concern to the world for all thereasons that we know. …You know we hear aboutthis issue of sustainability and the conflictbetween development and preservation, …inLatin America whether it’s the Bio-Bio in Chile,damming that river, whether it’s what I just talkedto President Pastrana about in Colombia, whichwas an oil project in the lands of the U’wa indiansin Colombia, it happens all over and we have to

have our values in place as we make the judgementsabout how to have this sustainable development.

But the point I want to make is that this issue isa larger issue… because now I think we have totake some of this discussion to a different place.For years, for example, we have being trying to getthe issue of AIDS — because that’s a sustainabilityissue, it’s about the economy of countries — to getthe issue of AIDS on the agenda of the G-7. I don’tknow when I’ve heard the G-7 ever talk about

Rep. Nancy PelosiU.S. House of Representatives (D-CA)


21

Jorge WilheimUrbanist and Consultant, Brazil

“Any project for the human development of Brazilhas to face two very strategic obstacles. One ofthem is the financial public debt, and this meansdomestic and foreign. And the second one is anoutrageous social debt, the maintenance orwidening of the social gap. This is not new. Whatis new is the way we tackle these two problems. Wehave been competently reacting to short-termpolicies and to short-term decisions and suddenand unpredictable initiatives that come fromabroad. We have not been, in my opinion, suffi-ciently competent to think of these problems in along-term measure, in a long-term national project.We have been competent in that because just toreact with a short-term project means always towork on urgent issues. And urgent issues do nottranslate necessarily in fundamental, basic issues,those issues that deal with the human developmentof a country. Brazil still lacks such a long-termproject of development, a concept for its future, apolitical vision of what we want to do with ourcountry, and a strategy to build it. Any long-termproject needs in my point of view, to be placed in

an overall global framework, taking account of thepresent period of transition of history and of thefact that this transition is profoundly marked andaccelerated by the new global connectivity.

In this period of transition, some dynamics areset up and present important changes. And Imention only three of these changes. The first oneis a new geography that is being set up. It is not thegeography of mega-cities. It is not the geography ofglobal cities either. I propose this new geography asan archipelago, a global archipelago of islands ofmodern consumers, such as they exist in New York,in Los Angeles, in Bombay and in São Paulo. Butwhen you talk of islands, you are talking of theoceans that surround these islands, and these arethe oceans of the excluded and “irrelevant” people.In some cases the islands are big and the oceans aresmall, in other countries the islands are small andthe oceans are big. People on the islands livespeedily, those in the oceans slowly...

The second element of this important change isthe negotiation of a new social contract. In thisnegotiation of ‘who does what”, the actors are

AIDS. They’ve told us it takes years to put theiragendas together and we have to be three yearsahead if we want to get on, and we’ve been askingfor 10 years. But all these issues that we’re talkingabout here cannot only be discussed in these kindsof fora, which are very important, but they have tobe on the agenda at the highest level of people ifthey’re talking about the economies of the develop-ing world, if they’re talking about the economies ofthe developed world, they cannot ignore [these]issues… sustainability includes many more thingsthan it used to. It has to include the sustainabilityof an economy where the managers make 50 timesas much as the workers — and that would bereasonable … nowadays it’s even much worse thanthat. That is dangerous. That is not sustainable. Soa lot of these other newer concepts… we never

imagined 10 years ago that the disparity betweenworkers and managers and owners would be asgreat as it is today, with the creation of wealth inthe high-tech community.

…As far as intellectual property is concerned, it’sa funny thing about intellectual property, when it’sU.S. intellectual property, we’ll do anything toprotect it. In fact, we’ll even keep costs high inselling AIDS drugs in Africa because of intellectualproperty concerns in the U.S. But when we’retalking about the Amazon, we have to be as fair.…When we talk about intellectual property, wehave to think in larger and different ways, butcertainly respectfully of the indigenous people inthe region who are responsible for bringing forthsome of these formulas; many have been with themfor centuries.”


22

are contradictions among transnational corpora-tions, as well as between the center and theperiphery and so forth. And of course there arecontradictions between capital and labor, and forthe time being, capital is winning. What systemwill best serve a market economy?

In Brazil we cannot put the blame on globaliza-tion for not having a political long-term projectand planning, and consequently a long-termstrategy for the transition, because this is a decisionthat Brazilians must make. And we are free to do it.We cannot make the fatal mistake that was done bythe ruling oligarchy in the 19th century, when theemperor, the government and the oligarchy put alltheir chips betting on the past, slavery, instead ofbetting on the future, which was capitalism at thatmoment. Similarly, we cannot now place all of ourbets looking backward to neo-liberal capitalisminstead of forward to something that might be anew market-economy socialism.”

different from what they were in the 18th century.We have to deal with the state, yes, we have to dealwith civil society, organized and very often notorganized. We have to deal with production andwhen we speak of market economy and produc-tion, usually we only invite producers to negotiate,in the terms of the corporations, and not theworkers. We have to deal with both, because bothshould be part of the new social contract.

The third element of this transition period isinside capitalism itself, the inner tensions, thecontradictions, and the eventual changes in thecapitalist system. There is no reason to think thathistory has arrived to an end. And what was in therecent past a contradiction between two economicsystems — as one of them failed and does not existanymore — reveals now as tensions inside the onlyeconomic system that is practiced. There is noreason to think that there are no contradictionsbecause there are contradictions between thefinancial sector and the production sector. There

Vilmar FariaChief Adviser on Social Policy to President Cardoso, Brazil

“Brazil is a large country, well endowed withhuman and material resources and where, mostfortunately, religious, linguistic, and culturaldifferences are not strongly divisive. Brazil… hasbecome one of the largest and more complex urbanindustrial societies at the periphery of the worldsystem, if not the largest and the most complex.However… poverty and indigence are still wide-spread. Educational attainment is far from whatcould be expected given the Brazilian developmentlevel. Health indicators remain alarmingly low.Regional imbalances are still large, and income andwealth inequality reached one of the highest levelsamong modern urban industrial societies. In such acontext, the persistence of a large array of deepsocial problems does not find any justification, anddeserves only one strong value judgment: theBrazilian social situation is immoral.

The reasons for this sad picture are complex,historically rooted and not entirely explained by

existing academic knowledge. To face the chal-lenges resulting from this situation is an urgentresponsibility for all Brazilians, but particularlythose few who belong to its tiny privileged yetinsensitive economic, political, social and culturalelite segments. [Given] the differentiation and thecomplexity of contemporary Brazilian society, it’snatural that several actors and groups will disagreeregarding causes and solutions for this immoralsituation. However, I would like to submit that forthe public debate to reach fruitful and viablepolitical solutions, the actors involved should sharea set of principles, values and attitudes. Suchprinciples should be combined in such a way thatan adequate value context will be created tofunction as a springboard from which a set ofpolicy options would be discussed, designed,adopted, and implemented.

Three such values, principles, attitudes orideological commitments are outstanding. First,


23

Senator Roberto FreirePresident, Socialist Popular Party (PPS), Brazil

moral indignation with the Brazilian socialsituation. Second, enlightened reason to guidepolicy discussion, choice, and design. Third, strongcommitment to radical democracy as the appropri-ate institutional framework for policy adoption andimplementation. Without the first, moral indigna-tion, we run the risk that the long-term persistenceof social problems in Brazil will continue to feedindifference, lenience, and an attitude that povertyand destitution are natural phenomena and nothistorical and social conditions amenable to humanintervention and resolution. Without the second,the guidance of enlightened reason, the debate onpolicy design and choice can be dominated bydemagogy, by the illusion of solutions as easy andsimple as false, and by an inadequate grasp of thepolicy constraints and difficulties. Without thethird, strong commitment to radical democraticvalues, and the consequent respect for diversity anddifference as well as for negotiation and lawfulness,the political arena can be easily dominated eitherby authoritarianism, be it enlightened or not, or bypopulism, be it from the right or from the left. Oreven more probably, by a perverse combination ofboth. The dialogue that is taking place now is alively demonstration of how an adequate combina-tion of such commitments is useful for generatingsolutions and compromises.

…Certain rights and privileges are associatedwith the [social welfare] system. [This] is extremely

difficult in the context of a reform that must bedemocratic, negotiated, discussed. Destroying theprivileges without affecting rights… this is acomplex process; it is difficult and the advanceshave been very slow. [In Brazil there is a saying:] itis necessary to go slowly when transporting thefigure of a saint, because the saint is made of clay.In some cases, and this is extremely important toconsider, the Brazilian welfare system is perhapsone of the few programs [in the country] that has aredistributive element. … However, I believe, asSenator Roberto Freire said, that anyone wouldagree that the reform of the pension sector isabsolutely strategic for the functioning of thesystem of social protection in Brazil. …How it ispossible to transform this, personally I don’t seeany way out [except] what we are suggesting:negotiate, negotiate, negotiate, in such a way thatthe democratic institutions, from top to bottom,are empowered by popular pressure and by acorrect understanding of these questions —beyond party divisions and beyond the lines, thenwe will carry out a reform of the system of socialprotection that is worthy of its name. In truth,Brazil’s problem is a problem of how we are goingto reconstruct a republican system of socialprotection, but it is necessary to remember thatthis is not a technical question, it is basically apolitical question.”

“As incredible as it may seem, Brazilian society is soparadoxical that on this point regarding socialwelfare, there is no difference between the opposi-tion I represent and some sectors of FernandoHenrique Cardoso’s government… There isagreement over the defense of the state, andtherefore there is agreement to overcome a precari-ous social welfare system constructed to guaranteeprivileges for those who are integrated in the state.The people who are integrated in the state are notjust those who take advantage of it for their

income-concentrating politics. They are alsopeople who — for whatever reason — receivedsome of these income distributions such as theworkers’ movement from the ABC region of SãoPaulo. The workers’ movement represents one ofthe most dynamic sectors of the economy and hasa real advantage within the state from the point ofview that — and this was discussed here today bytwo important leaders of the working movement inSão Paulo — … these leaders said that [today]there is a new relationship because the State was


24

always at the service of this sector of the economy.…I am from a region that suffers tremendously

from prejudices. It was said here that there is afiscal war and in Brazil there has been a whole fiscalpolitics geared towards privileging São Paulo —with refunds, with incentives, with subsidies incertain moments. For example, in the process ofindustrialization, the decision was made to installan automobile industry in São Paulo because of itslevel of [capital] accumulation, because of thesurplus that it generated and because of its proxim-ity to essential raw material from Volta Redonda.This industry concentrated income to such anextent that in Brazil this monstrosity exists — 45%of the country’s GDP is concentrated in the state ofSão Paulo. And the tendency is that these intereststhat built themselves up in São Paulo are so strongand so independent from ideologies, independentfrom social class, they are so strong that theBrazilian state is at their service.

On the other hand, the public servant en-trenched in the patrimonial state has also some-times received enormous benefits and privileges. Inthe area of social security, this is flagrantly obvious.Today, when one discusses social security, there is a

paradox. [We had] a proposal for the reform ofsocial security which would radically change itsstructure, creating a simple and universal system ofrepartition with a ceiling of 10 minimum salariesfor all Brazilian citizens and above this, a comple-mentary social security for capitalization (whichwould be an important system not just for guaran-teeing the integration of those who, with retire-ment plans, can also guarantee themselves in termsof their income, but also an important advance forinvestments, a savings account for the nationaleconomy.) …For a moment, the governmentthought about accepting and [then] immediatelyrejected it because of pressure from its base. And itis having tremendous difficulties doing a socialsecurity system reform, given that it was a projectof at least two opposition groups. …The publicservant in Brazil does not want to talk aboutchanging social security. This is the contradictionin Brazil. This is one of the paradoxes of a statethat was privatized a long time ago in the interestof those integrated in the state, whether they arecapital interests, or, unfortunately, whether they arelabor interests from some sectors.”

Bottom left: UC BerkeleyChancellor Robert M.Berdahl opened theconference.

Bottom Right, fom left toright: Amb. André Amadoof the Rio BrancoInstitute, Amb. RubensBarbosa, Brazil’sambassador to the UnitedStates, and Dr. RuthCardoso


25

26


Prof. AntonioBarros de Castro

Professors Peter Evans,chair of the UC Berkeley

sociology department,and Lourdes Sola,

visiting professor atCLAS and current holderof the Rio Branco Chair

ing countries; nations such as the United Stateshave a moral responsibility to join forces with theircounterparts from the South in seeking fair,equitable solutions to the new problems presentedby global trends. Citizens, corporations, andgovernments must reorient their attention toprevent the erosion of worker’s rights and promotethe inclusion of such considerations in interna-tional agreements. Cross-border collaboration, hestated, has never been more important. Rep.Bonior argued that it is necessary to forge a new“compact between labor, government andtransnational capital to insure that as globalizationmoves ahead, workers and the environment aren’tleft behind.”

As part of the discussion, two UC Berkeleyfaculty members posed targeted questions to thepanelists, seeking to focus attention on specific

aspects of the debate. Professor Peter Evans, chairof the sociology department and a notedBrazilianist, remarked on growing opposition inboth the United States and Brazil to the practicesof global governance organizations. In light of suchdevelopments, he asked, can we begin to envision acommon agenda, shared by those in both countrieswho seek to change the operations of institutionssuch as the International Monetary Fund or theWorld Trade Organization?

Arguing that both countries share the same corevalues, including a basic belief in citizens’ right tocome together democratically to improve theircondition, Rep. Bonior underscored the need toenshrine a basic “bill of rights” in international tradeagreements. Thomas Buffenbarger concurred,

pointing to labor’s recent successes based on newglobalized strategies for activism. Minister Serra wasunequivocal in his support for the spirit of socialjustice and worker’s rights, but emphasized thepotential use of such humanitarian goals as protec-tionist measures. Such clauses, he argued, can beabused in trade relations, particularly in the contextof the United States and Brazil. The United States,he continued, defines intellectual property as a tradeissue, but not capital volatility, an importantconsideration for Brazilians. As such, there is a perilin introducing such provisions to bilateral tradeagreements when the parties are not equallyempowered to define the terms of the debate.

Professor Lourdes Sola, president of the Brazil-ian Political Science Association and current holderof UC Berkeley’s Rio Branco Chair in Brazilianstudies, directed her question to the need to


Prof. Harley Shaiken,conference moderator

27

Ruth Cardoso Teaches at Berkeleyby Marny Requa

Dr. Ruth Cardoso

Ruth Cardoso has a unique perspective oncontemporary Brazil. As a seasoned anthro-pologist, the president of a major commu-

nity service organization, and Brazil’s First Lady,she focuses on the intersection of government, civilsociety, and cultural change. An understanding oftheir interdependence is necessary, Dr. Cardosoargues, in formulating strategies to address thecountry’s complex social problems.

As a visiting professor at Berkeley in Februaryand March, Dr. Cardoso shared her reflections onthese relationships in a series of activities at CLAS.She taught a graduate seminar on youth in Brazil,held a public talk on Comunidade Solidária, anddelivered the opening address at the “Challengesfor Brazil” conference on February 25. During herstay, she also took advantage of the respite from herpolitical activities, and the availability of Berkeley’slibraries, to work on her own academic research.

In his opening remarks at Dr. Cardoso’s publiclecture, Prof. Harley Shaiken described her as “apublic intellectual” and a keen observer of politicaland social developments during periods of resi-dence in Brazil, Chile, and France. Insights fromher diverse experiences ran through Dr. Cardoso’stalks and seminar: when she discussed transitionsin the family, the role of women, political partici-pation, and academic theory, her contributionswere enriched by her unusual expertise.

In her public lecture on Comunidade Solidária,Dr. Cardoso described how the lessons of the pastare used to direct the organization and to avoidpitfalls that have traditionally befallen largecommunity service groups. By serving as a linkbetween government agencies, community groups,universities, and corporations, ComunidadeSolidária exemplifies Dr. Cardoso’s conviction that“fighting social exclusion must be the project ofboth government and civil society.” Key to itssuccess is the organization’s flexibility in workingwith community groups and small, local-basedNGOs to fight poverty, illiteracy, and hunger.

While thinking broadly is essential in a countryas large as Brazil, Comunidade Solidária addressesissues in different ways in different communities,Dr. Cardoso explained. The organization interactswith public programs but maintains the support ofindividual communities because it is funded partlyby the federal government and partly by local

businesses and foundations. “ComunidadeSolidária is not government and it’s not civilsociety,” Dr. Cardoso said. “It’s something new andambiguous, with the support of both.”

Youth are clearly at the center of Dr. Cardoso’sinterests. Comunidade Solidária’s programs aim towork directly with young people, both because oftheir vulnerability — to unemployment, pooreducation, violence, inequality — and also becauseof their “energy and desire to learn, communicatewith each other, and change society,” according toDr. Cardoso. The graduate seminar “Youth inBrazil” focused on youth as both agents, victims,and beneficiaries of social change. Younger genera-tions, Dr. Cardoso argued, are those best suited toliving in the contemporary world, but also thosemost vulnerable to our lack of understanding of theeffects of emerging trends.

Many argue that young people today areapathetic, a notion that Dr. Cardoso emphaticallyrejects. Instead, she notes that their lack of partici-pation demonstrates a need for new forms ofrepresentation and new means of measuringinterest. She pointed to spontaneous movements— when youth have come out strongly to protest


28

Ruth Cardoso teaches at BerkeleyContinued from page 27

government actions — as proving they are “like asleeping force.” Unlike the generations of the1960’s and 1970’s, who struggled for democracy inLatin America, today’s young people do not feelrepresented by these political institutions. Whereasthe older generations insist that “democracy mustbe supported,” today’s youth question just what isbeing called democracy.

Dr. Cardoso’s course also focused on the effectsof cultural changes spurred by technology, thediffusion of media, and globalization. In today’sworld, she argued, people move in and out ofidentifications with various subcultures, defyingthe rigid boundaries of the past. “Youth culture” isa language, something to be consumed rather thanan enduring community. Using studies of funkdance in Rio de Janeiro over the course of adecade, she identified key characteristics ofcontemporary cultural relations in Brazil. From1988 to 1997, the music played at the funk dances— originally imported from the United States —was “Brazilianized” by consumer demand, trans-forming it into a national symbol and creating aneconomic network for its consumption. Media was“the instrument of its integration,” according toDr. Cardoso, even though the press continuallymisrepresented the dances as violent gatherings.The music, first favored by working-class youth,

eventually became popular among a larger pool ofBrazilians. This represents a departure from pastpatterns of cultural production, in which the upperclasses took the lead in importing trends andinfluencing tastes. The example of Brazilian funkillustrates the evolving ability of Brazilian consum-ers to control the direction of contemporarycultural trends, molding international influences tolocal contexts.

Having worked for political change, studied as asocial scientist, participated in the women’smovement, and pioneered new forms of commu-nity service, Dr. Cardoso approaches these discus-sions from multiple angles. Despite this — orperhaps because of it — all of her endeavors drawstrength from a single deep conviction. For Dr.Cardoso, today’s social problems can only betackled through a perhaps-unconventional combi-nation of forces and approaches. As she stated inher keynote address at the “Challenges for Brazil”conference, “Only collaborative action acrossseveral areas, government and non-government, canrespond to this challenge in an effective way. …Only with a new mind-set can we achieve thenecessary urgency and efficiency.” ■

Marny Requa is a graduate student in LatinAmerican studies.

The Center for Latin American Studies would like toexpress its gratitude to all the staff and volunteerswho worked on “Challenges for Brazil: A Dialogue.”Pictured are, in rear, Christopher Chinnock, IngridPerry-Houts, Fabrizio C. Rigout, Marny Requa,Angelina Snodgrass Godoy, María Massolo, MishaKlein, and Margaret Lamb; in front, Isaac Mankita,Alix Vargas, Melissa Stevens-Briceño, and AllisonDavenport. Many others, including Josh Bloom, ZachElkins, Jeff Sluyter-Beltrão, Glauber Silva deCarvalho, Ben Goldfrank, Aaron Schneider, RenataAndrade, Wendy Wolford, Soledad Falabella, JulieRodriguez, Nich Thompson, Adolfo Ventura, JulieEkstrom, Jason Katz, Khamly Chuop and DioniciaRamos also contributed immeasurably to the successof the event. Thank you to all who participated.

Many Thanks

29

From left to right, R.Thomas Buffenbarger,international presidentof the IAM; OwenHerrnstadt, the IAM’sdirector for internationalaffairs; Paulo Pereira daSilva, president of ForçaSindical; and JohnFernandes, ForçaSindical’s director ofinternational relations


Prof. James R. Lincoln


“undeclared civil war” ravaging the country’s largestcities. Lastly, both a regressive tax structure and askewed social security system protect the relativelywell-off while leaving tens of thousands of workerswith barely enough to live on, fueling the country’sdaunting public deficit. Major reforms of thecurrent system of unusually generous social securitybenefits for public sector employees, he argued,must be undertaken to address the social problemsof the country as a whole.

Union activist Luiz Marinho also addressedcontemporary social problems. Brazil, he insisted,has incredible potential for economic growth anddevelopment, but needs far-reaching policychanges favoring a better distribution of incomeand generating more jobs. Unlike Pereira, he didnot emphasize social security reform; as the largestunion of public sector employees, the CUT hasbeen reluctant to endorse any far-reaching changesto existing social security benefits for civil servants.Rather, Marinho suggested three areas where amodest investment of public funds could createsignificant numbers of jobs: agriculture (via landreform), tourism, and educational training (includ-ing much-needed commitments to local researchand development). He emphasized indicators ofdeclining social welfare in Brazil, pointing out thecountry’s rise from 8th place in the global rankingsof total unemployment in 1990 (with 2.3 million)to 3rd place by decade’s end (7.7 million). Industryhas declined, becoming ever less national, whileinternational firms expand their presence in Brazilbut fail to establish “firm roots” in the country. Therestructuring of modern production processes haschallenged unions to play a constructive, mediatingrole, particularly in those sectors where ownershave demonstrated little willingness to develop acooperative relationship. Marinho stressed thatliving conditions for Brazilian workers in generalhave become ever more difficult; some 29 millionworkers must regularly put in overtime hours, and7 million retirees are forced to continue working tomake ends meet. Recently released statistics showthat real wages declined almost 3% nationally overthe past year. He concluded by calling for anincrease in the minimum wage, emphasizing theCUT’s support for a set schedule of increases thatwould gradually raise the minimum wage over time.

In response to a question from Professor JamesLincoln, several panelists revisited themes raisedduring the conference’s first panel, “Brazil in the

Global Economy.” Although they affirmed theirsupport for fair labor standards as expressed in ILOconventions, most were hesitant to endorseinternational efforts to ensure their application inBrazil. Paulo Paiva, for example, preferred to seechanges of labor law emerge as expressions ofBrazil’s domestic process of democratic consolida-tion rather than subjecting such changes tointernational determination. He believed thatnegotiations among labor, business and govern-ment leaders should take place relatively free fromexternal constraints, particularly threats to thecountry’s economic development. Paulo Pereiralargely agreed, emphasizing the critical role to be

30

Social Problems, Political AlternativesContinued from page 9

Prof. Pedro Noguera


such a way that the democratic institutions, fromtop to bottom, are empowered by popular pressureand by a correct understanding of these questions —beyond party divisions and beyond the lines — thenwe will carry out a reform of the system of socialprotection that is worthy of its name,” Faria replied.

In response to a question about the sources ofsocial change in Brazil, Minister Jungmannresponded to Rep. Pelosi’s earlier comments by

criticizing the contradictory role played by theUnited States. On the one hand, he suggested, theUnited States pressures Brazil to control unsustain-able growth in the Amazon; at the same time,however, it fails to fulfill its own commitments toenvironmental projects as stipulated in interna-tional conventions. “Which United States [are wetalking about]?” Minister Jungmann asked.“Which United States, the one that pushes us onthe subject of the Amazon or the one that does notprovide the resources promised in internationalagreements, that doesn’t observe or give thenecessary support for the Climate Convention andpolluting gasses and many others? …If we do notresolve this question with clarity, then it isnecessary to say that a good part of the preoccupa-tion with our Amazon …a good part of that whichis being expressed here today has the strong smellof eco-colonialism.” ■

Fabrizio C. Rigout is a graduate student in thesociology department

reconcile growth, stabilization, and equity inBrazil. What government policies, she asked, wouldbest advance these aims?

Referring to previous remarks by Antonio Barrosde Castro, Cristovam Buarque responded that hedid not question the need for economic stability.Rather, he questioned the directing of governmentpolicy based on abstract economic figures insteadof the gripping realities of people’s lives. Education,health care, and other social objectives need to befirst on the list, he insisted, and policy should bedesigned with these priorities in mind. Minister

Serra agreed that growth alone does not necessarilygenerate social justice. This, he argued, does notcontradict the need for stable economic growth, asProf. Castro had explained, but underscores theneed for both strategic economic policy and innova-tive social spending to redress Brazil’s endemicinequalities. ■

Zachary Elkins is a Ph.D. candidate in the politicalscience department currently completing adissertation on the democratization process inBrazil.

31


Conference attendeesfilled the auditorium

played by societal actors in efforts to resolve Brazil’sproblems and suggesting that, given the severity ofthose problems, it seemed dangerous to accede tointernational standards which might block Brazil’seconomic development. “I think no one disagreeswith [fair labor standards],” Luiz Marinho ex-plained, “…But as Brazilian citizens we should besomewhat careful: we cannot overlook the risk thatsuch clauses might be used simply as an under-handed and hypocritical means of surtaxingproducts from developing countries. We have to becareful nowadays. Of course, everyone is againstchild labor and slave labor… We agree in opposingthese two things, but let’s tread carefully, [so as] notto throw out the baby with the bathwater.” ■

Jeffrey Sluyter-Beltrão is a Ph.D. candidate in thepolitical science department whose dissertationfocuses on the internal politics of Brazil’s NewUnionism movement from 1978 to 1995.

Prof. José Luiz Passos

Center for Latin American StudiesUniversity of California2334 Bowditch St., #2312Berkeley, CA 94720-2312Tel: (510) 642-2088Fax: (510) 642-3260Email: [email protected]

In addition to comprehensive coverage of recent andupcoming events, the CLAS Web site constitutes aunique resource for the study of Latin America,featuring original articles and remarks by CLASvisitors and associates, streaming video of conferencehighlights, photo galleries, and extensive links tomajor publications, research institutions, politicalorganizations, and other relevant sites.

www.clas.berkeley.edu/clas

challenges for brazil: a dialogue - clas, uc...

Documents