Intersectionality and Social Movement Coalitions: The Case of the New Rights Agenda in Uruguay✽

Germán Bidegain, Martín Freigedo, and Sebastián Goinheix

Received: May 2, 2023 | Accepted: September 22, 2023 | Modified: October 11, 2023

https://doi.org/10.7440/res87.2024.03

Abstract | This article contributes to our understanding of how social movement coalitions with an intersectional political perspective function. It analyzes the development in Uruguay of a network of social movements that successfully promoted the so-called “new rights agenda” during the progressive government (2005-2020). This case is particularly interesting given its level of success in terms of legal changes and public policies and the role played by social movements in these changes. Considering the above, do Uruguayan social organizations in the new rights agenda form an integrated network of action? If so, what level of segmentation do these organizations assume based on their main issues? Through an analysis of networks, we show that these organizations operate within an integrated network, which is reinforced by the presence of specific entities that play a central intermediary role. However, the existence of organizational link segmentation is evident, indicating that while there is some capacity for interaction among different social movement industries, a thematic logic predominates when understanding interactions within the network. The network analysis presented is based on information collected in an original survey conducted with 49 organizations in Montevideo involved in the new rights agenda. Empirically, the article advances our knowledge of this unique case in the Latin American context through an innovative methodology for analyzing these phenomena. On a theoretical level, it addresses recent discussions in the literature concerning the impact of an intersectional perspective on the actions and outcomes of social movements and their capacity to create effective coalitions.

Keywords | intersectionality; social movement coalition; social network analysis; Uruguay

Interseccionalidad y coaliciones de movimientos sociales: el caso de la nueva agenda de derechos en Uruguay

Resumen | Este artículo contribuye al conocimiento sobre el funcionamiento de las coaliciones de movimientos sociales que cuentan con una perspectiva política interseccional. Para ello se analiza un caso latinoamericano: el desarrollo en Uruguay de una red demovimientos sociales que promovieron exitosamente la denominada “nueva agenda de derechos” durante el periodo de gobierno progresista (2005-2020). Se trata de un caso particularmente interesante por el nivel de éxito en términos de cambios legales y de políticas públicas, y por el papel que jugaron los movimientos sociales en estos cambios. A partir de lo anterior, ¿las organizaciones sociales uruguayas de la nueva agenda de derechos conforman una red integrada de acción? De ser así, ¿cuál es el nivel de segmentación que asumen las organizaciones a partir de los temas principales? A través de un análisis de redes se demuestra que estas organizaciones funcionan en una red integrada, fortalecida por la presencia de algunas de ellas que cumplen un rol central de intermediación. De todas formas, se prueba la existencia de una segmentación de los vínculos organizacionales, lo que muestra que, si bien existe cierta capacidad de interacción entre las diferentes industrias de movimientos sociales, prima una lógica temática a la hora de comprender las interacciones en la red. El análisis de redes propuesto se basa en información recolectada en una encuesta original, que se realizó a 49 organizaciones de Montevideo involucradas con la nueva agenda de derechos. A nivel empírico, el artículo permite avanzar en el conocimiento de este peculiar caso en el contexto latinoamericano, a través de una metodología novedosa para el análisis de estos fenómenos. A nivel teórico, responde al llamado reciente de la literatura respecto a los efectos que tiene la perspectiva interseccional en la acción y efectos de los movimientos sociales y su capacidad para formar coaliciones exitosas.

Palabras clave | análisis de redes sociales; coalición de movimientos sociales; interseccionalidad; Uruguay

Interseccionalidade e coalizões de movimentos sociais: o caso da nova agenda de direitos no Uruguai

Resumo | Este artigo contribui para conhecer sobre o funcionamento das coalizões de movimentos sociais com uma perspectiva política interseccional. Nele, analisa-se o desenvolvimento no Uruguai de uma rede de movimentos sociais que promoveu com sucesso a chamada “nova agenda de direitos” durante o governo progressista (2005-2020). Esse é um caso particularmente interessante devido ao nível de sucesso em termos de mudanças legais e de políticas públicas, e ao papel desempenhado pelos movimentos sociais nessas mudanças. Diante do exposto, as organizações sociais uruguaias na nova agenda de direitos formam uma rede integrada de ação? Em caso afirmativo, qual é o nível de segmentação assumido pelas organizações com base nas principais questões? Uma análise de rede mostra que essas organizações operam em uma rede integrada, fortalecida pela presença de certas entidades que desempenham um papel intermediário central. De qualquer forma, a existência de segmentação dos vínculos organizacionais é comprovada, o que mostra que, embora haja certa capacidade de interação entre os diferentes setores do movimento social, uma lógica temática prevalece quando se trata de entender as interações na rede. A análise de rede proposta baseia-se em informações coletadas em uma pesquisa original com 49 organizações de Montevidéu envolvidas na nova agenda de direitos. No nível empírico, este artigo permite avançar nosso conhecimento sobre esse caso peculiar no contexto latino-americano por meio de uma nova metodologia para a análise desses fenômenos. Em nível teórico, ele responde ao recente apelo da literatura sobre os efeitos da perspectiva interseccional na ação e nos efeitos dos movimentos sociais e sua capacidade de formar coalizões bem-sucedidas.

Palavras-chave | análise de redes sociais; coalizão de movimentos sociais; interseccionalidade; Uruguai

Introduction

Between 2005 and 2020, Uruguay experienced a distinctive period of left-wing government (Bidegain, Freigedo, and Zurbriggen 2021)1. An important series of reforms was introduced during this time, aimed at advancing the rights of historically marginalized individuals and groups. These wide-ranging initiatives included the decriminalization of abortion (2012); the legalization of same-sex marriage (2013); the regulation of cannabis production, distribution, and sale (2013); the Affirmative Action Law for Afro-descendants (2013); the Law on Gender-Based Violence Against Women (2017); and the Comprehensive Law for Transgender Individuals.

The Frente Amplio (FA) government, a left-wing political force with deep historical ties to Uruguayan social movements, created a more open political opportunity for these movements (Bidegain and Tricot 2017). However, this did not lead to an immediate translation of social demands into public policies. Various social movements combined strategies, using their close connections with some FA members while also protesting in the streets to pressure the government and garner public support (Johnson, Rodríguez Gustá, and Sempol 2019; Aguiar and Muñoz 2007). As noted, the collaborative efforts of various social movements led to “the consolidation of an informal political bloc involving the sexual diversity, feminist, labor, student, Afro-descendant, and cannabis movements”2 (Sempol 2016, 321). Furthermore, the development of perspectives and analytical frameworks facilitated coordination among these groups, although it occasionally led to tensions within the movements. In this context, the intersectional perspective made a significant contribution. For example, within the diversity movement, it has been argued that the concept of diversity itself was crucial in “constructing an intersectional approach to inequality. This approach enabled the coordination of various forms of struggle, reduced competition among organizations for state recognition of rights and public policies, and generated critical mass and political capital for each of the achievements obtained” (Sempol 2016, 336).

A distinctive aspect of the social movements that promoted and defended the new rights agenda during these years was their ability to forge alliances among themselves and propose a common working agenda. For example, in 2009, the Diversity March incorporated a broad range of issues into its platform, including the fight against racism and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. It also advocated for the decriminalization of abortion, the regulation of cannabis production and consumption, and addressed human rights violations that occurred during the dictatorship (Sempol 2016, 327). In 2013, a music festival —Puño Único Contra el Uruguay Conservador3— was held to celebrate legislative advances that represented “the advancement of rights and freedoms for all people” (La Diaria Política 2013), serving as a defense against the conservative campaign to lower the age of criminal responsibility. The festival’s organization involved the National Commission No a la baja, the coordinator for legal abortion, the Diversity March coordinator, and the national coordinator for marijuana regulation.

During these years, the progressive agenda coexisted with a conservative backlash, a phenomenon observed in other countries in the region as well (Ravecca et al. 2022). In Uruguay, this reaction manifested through the promotion of direct democracy mechanisms, both reactively and proactively. On the reactive front, referendums were initiated to repeal the law decriminalizing abortion and the comprehensive law for the transgender population. Proactively, two referendums on public security were promoted. The first was designed to lower the age of criminal responsibility, and the second proposed a series of repressive and punitive policies that threatened the general population’s freedoms. Although these initiatives ultimately failed, the referendums on public security came very close to being approved. Regardless of the outcomes, it is noteworthy that social movements aligned with the new rights agenda, along with the Frente Amplio (FA), opposed these initiatives and led the counter-campaigns that counteracted the conservative push.

Considering the above and the previously mentioned actions of the groups that promoted the new rights agenda (Sempol 2016; Johnson, Rodríguez Gustá, and Sempol 2019), this article explores whether the advancement of the intersectional perspective has influenced the relational dynamics of these organizations. It examines whether there is significant collaboration with other groups and topics on the agenda, or whether they tend to develop a more traditional approach focused on specific issues.

If the latter is the case, it could indicate a certain autonomy of the organizational forms and the discursive content and demands of the groups. The intersectionality of practice among movements and organizations will be studied through an analysis of the collaboration between the various organizations that constitute an area of interest for action—or a social movement industry, following McCarthy and Zald’s (1977) logic. Given the common narrative that various groups have developed regarding these exclusion processes, it is worth asking whether there are collaborative strategies among the organizations that support mobilization and create synergies in the demands of different groups.

Thus, we are interested in studying the connections between organizations that worked to promote and defend the new rights agenda in Uruguay from a network analysis perspective. Previous studies have highlighted the ability of Uruguayan social organizations to collaborate and coordinate their agendas (Sempol 2016; Johnson, Rodríguez Gustá, and Sempol 2019; Berri and Pandolfi 2018). However, this assertion is primarily based on qualitative analysis, as there are no empirical approaches based on quantitative data to support these claims, as far as we know.

In this context, network analysis provides a suitable approach to understanding the phenomenon, as it focuses on the relationships between the different actors within the system under study. The approach enables us to shed light on how organizations interact and potentially identify the presence of organizations (or groups of them) that operate in isolation. Network analysis also serves to shed light on the level of segmentation within the network based on the issues the organizations focus on. Given the above, our study is structured around two questions: Do Uruguayan social organizations advocating for the new rights agenda form an integrated action network? If so, what role does the intersectional perspective play in the functioning of this network?

To answer the questions posed, we examine the interaction between organizations promoting the new rights agenda in three ways. First, we analyze the level of network integration to determine whether, in line with the theoretical postulates and previous research, there is evidence of joint action by organizations on different issues under the umbrella of the new rights agenda. Second, we explore the level of network segmentation to determine whether there are exchanges that favor interactions within each social movement industry (SMI), leading to greater interaction among organizations with similar objectives. Third, we identify organizations that act as intermediaries, facilitating exchanges between groups with different areas of interest. Organizations with an intersectional perspective (i.e., having a discourse that positions them across multiple themes) are expected to play a more significant role as intermediaries among organizations focused on specific issues.

Empirical analysis shows that organizations on the new rights agenda operate within an integrated network, bolstered by the presence of key organizations that play a central intermediating role. These central organizations, while focusing on different primary issues, converge in their explicit intersectional perspective. However, there is a degree of thematic segmentation, indicating that while there is some capacity for interaction between different communities (gender and feminism, diversity, Afro-descendant population), a thematic logic primarily governs interactions within the network.

Methodologically, the literature recognizes the complexity and diversity of approaches to studying the intersectional work of organizations and social movements (McCall 2005). In this article, intersectionality is analyzed through social network analysis, a perspective that focuses on the relationships between actors. Studies on intersectionality have not systematically used this methodological tool to examine the links between social organizations, and this article is intended to contribute in that regard. By doing so, it observes intersectionality through the collaborative practices of organizations: an integrated structure (i.e., not fragmented or segmented) indicates a higher level of intersectionality. Theoretically, this article is designed to contribute in two ways: by assessing the actual level of interaction between social organizations focusing on different issues (gender and feminism, diversity, Afro-descendant population, etc.), and by evaluating the integration of the network of organizations concerning the new rights agenda.

The article is structured as follows, the first section theoretically anchors the research questions through a literature review on the case, incorporating contributions from the literature on social movement industries. The second section presents the methodological approach. The study focuses on organizations in Montevideo and is based on empirical material collected through a survey of 49 organizations primarily working on gender and feminism, diversity, and the Afro-descendant population4. This section also details the practical and conceptual decisions involved in the network analysis. The third section presents the main results, and the fourth, concludes.

Intersectionality and Social Movement Coalitions

Since the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, a significant debate emerged within the Black feminist movement in the United States regarding the diversity among women, particularly the critical experiences of those facing intersecting inequalities (racial, gender, sexual orientation, among others). Kimberlé Crenshaw’s seminal work (1989) summarized many of the key arguments of this discourse. Similar debates occurred during the same period within various European activism and intellectual circles (Cruells López 2015). The intersectional perspective spread to other regions through various channels: academic, political, and social action. In Latin America and the Caribbean, this reflection gained momentum in the 1990s, although “writings from an intersectional perspective are still scarce in our region” (Busquier 2018, 4).

The success of the concept of intersectionality has led to its widespread use in social, political, and academic contexts, at times, complicating the debate. In academia, recent calls have emerged for a shift towards intersectionality in the study of social movements and in addressing the power dynamics inherent in any mobilization process (Luna, Jesudason, and Kim 2020). Advancing in this direction requires considering several important distinctions. For example, a differentiation must be drawn between structural and political intersectionality (Roth 2021). Also, when analyzing the intersectional discourses of movements, we need to distinguish between their use in generating new identities, building coalitions, and creating inclusivity within social movement organizations (Evans and Lépinard 2019).

The relationship between different social movements is an important topic in academic literature. Some movements do not maintain contact with each other, others come together for specific campaigns, and some maintain long-term relationships (Van Dyke and McCammon 2010; McCammon and Moon 2015). These relationships vary for different reasons, with thematic affinities being a clear factor. This article explores intersectionality within the network by looking at how organizations—beyond those with the same primary focus—interact.

The work of McCarthy and Zald (1977) offers an insightful approach by distinguishing between social movement organizations (SMOs) and social movement industries (SMIs). According to their definition, a social movement encompasses preferences and beliefs about a specific issue within a particular society. SMOs are formal entities that aim to meet the goals of social movements by mobilizing collective action. According to McCarthy and Zald, all SMOs that work towards the general objectives of a social movement collectively form a SMI. This perspective accounts for a range of possible connections between SMOs within the same IMS, from cooperation to competition to attract potential activists. For example, feminism, cooperativism, environmentalism, and labor movements are considered distinct SMIs. The notion of SMIs illustrates how SMOs in a society typically organize and align around specific issues and fields of action.

Other research has also shown how movements often coordinate their demands and actions during massive protest cycles. In this context, dynamics of cooperation can emerge between different SMIs—that is, between organizations and groups whose main interests are different—such as between the feminist movement and the labor movement. The concept of brokerage is very effective for capturing these dynamics (McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly 2001; Silva 2009). In recent decades, the boundaries between areas of social protest (or SMIs, in McCarthy and Zald’s terminology) have been increasingly challenged, both by academia and social organizations. The concept of intersectionality is particularly relevant in this context, as it fundamentally questions the notion of SMOs that focus exclusively on single issues.

The reflections of Black feminism in the United States were crucial in highlighting the existence of multiple axes of inequality that affect people differently, depending on how they experience the intersections of inequality in their lives. For instance, when studying thespecific nature of violence suffered by Black women, Crenshaw (1991) distinguishes between structural, political, and representational intersectionality. The first, structural intersectionality, refers to the social positions occupied by Black women at the intersection of gender and race and the resulting impacts on their life experiences. The second, political intersectionality, pertains to how separate feminist and anti-racist policies can marginalize the issue of violence against women of color. The third, representational intersectionality, relates to the social construction of Black women and how the production and contestation of images are connected to dominant narratives of race and gender. This perspective gradually incorporated various social cleavages and realities, leading to new debates and practices in social activism, public policy, and academia.

In the study of social movements, there is a growing interest in deepening the intersectional perspective. Evans and Lépinard (2019) identify three main uses of intersectionality in the discourse of feminist and queer social movements: as an identity associated with the organizations’ self-identification; as inclusivity, meaning a strategy to avoid reproducing privilege dynamics within their practices; and as a crucial element for building successful coalitions.

In this context, coalition-building has been highlighted as a key strategy for achieving political intersectionality, enabling the articulation of a variety of demands and driving social change. The role of bridge-builders—individuals who connect various movements and their cultures—has also been emphasized. As noted by Roth (2021, 9), “coalition building requires succesful frame aligment (Benford y Snow 2000), conscious efforts of building trust, recognizing joint interests, respecting different cultures, and acknowledging power differentials.” Additionally, as Evans and Lépinard argue, understanding “whether, and how, these claims of inclusivity translate into actual practices that transform the composition of those movements, which have been criticized for prioritizing the needs, identities, and interests of those who are not multiply-marginalized and tend to dominate their constituency, is a matter for empirical inquiry and opens up a wide field of investigation” (2019, 6). In this article, we advance this discussion by analyzing a coalition of Uruguayan social movements that, united around the new rights agenda, successfully drove significant changes in public policy. We employ a network analysis methodology to examine the structure of relationships between these organizations and determine whether this structure exhibits segmented tendencies based on their areas of interest.

Methodology

To analyze the behavior of social movements, this study focuses on social organizations that promotes issues related to the new rights agenda5. Specifically, it centers on organizations in Uruguay’s capital, Montevideo, as it hosts the majority of organizations dedicated to these issues. Additionally, including organizations that are geographically distant could introduce variations in the forms of linkage, due to their location rather than their characteristics. For example, they might have fewer connections because of their geographical distance or because their mobilization strategies are influenced by local idiosyncrasies.

The inclusion of actors in the network was based on two criteria. The first involved identifying organizations using information from secondary sources (online catalogs of civil society and citizen participation areas)6 and consultations with various actors who served as qualified informants. The second criterion emerged from the survey process itself. By including a specific question at the end of the questionnaire designed to uncover other relevant organizations (regardless of whether they had direct links with them), the organizations we interviewed identified additional groups that were not initially recognized. This approach helped build a database of 49 organizations focused on issues related to the new rights agenda.

To collect data, we developed a semi-structured interview form to capture two primary types of information. First, we recorded and systematized the key characteristics of the organizations of interest (objectives, resources, degree of institutionalization). We also collected the organizations’ perceptions of their connections with public actors and their ability to influence public policies. Second, we identified the various links between organizations. The fieldwork was conducted between July and November 2018, via telephone and in-person interviews7.

When organizing groups of organizations, it’s essential to classify them by their objectives and main focus areas, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Organizations’ focus areas

Main theme of the organization

Number of organizations

Afro-descendance

18

Diversity

10

Gender

18

Human Rights

3

Total

49

Source: Authors based on the survey of organizations in Montevideo that promote new rights.

As mentioned earlier, this article employs network analysis to explore the research questions. This method examines the connections between various organizations using data from interviews. In these interviews, organizations were asked about the entities they share information with, collaborate with on coordination or brokerage, and participate in joint projects or actions with. To construct the network of organizations, at least one of these types of connections was used as an indicator of cooperation8. In terms of analysis techniques, we described the network to identify the number and proportion of organizations that form the largest component (a group of organizations that are directly or indirectly connected)9. This descriptive analysis helps us understand how integrated or fragmented the network is.

To measure segregation, we use the assortativity coefficient (Newman 2003), which analyzes the degree of linkage between organizations with similar characteristics (Bojanowski and Corten 2014)10. This measure indicates the association between an organizational characteristic (such as the organization’s primary focus) and the tendency for collaboration among organizations. It should not necessarily be interpreted as indicating segregation mechanisms, and is more likely to be understood as a measure of segmentation (Goinheix 2022). In the context of collaboration between organizations from different sectors, there is generally no explicit intention to produce such segmentation or erect barriers between groups. Thus, the dynamic can be interpreted as a result of the segmentation of collaboration rather than the exclusion of certain organizations.

To further analyze network segmentation, we identified distinct communities and examined their characteristics. These communities are defined as subgraphs or parts of the network with higher internal connectivity compared to the rest. We applied the fast greedy algorithm (Clauset, Newman, and Moore 2004) to detect distinct groups with greater cohesion than the rest. We also used other community detection algorithms, but they resulted in lower fit values compared to the fast greedy algorithm (according to the modularity measure). The algorithms calculated were multi-level (Blondel et al. 2008), leading eigenvector (Newman 2006), walktrap (Pons and Latapy 2005), infomap (Rosvall and Bergstrom 2008), and edge betweenness (Girvan and Newman 2002). The detailed results are available in Appendix 2.

In sum, the study explores the centrality of organizations and examines the presence of a core-periphery structure using the stochastic block model (Holland et al. 1983; Fienberg and Wasserman 1981). This clustering technique identifies diverse network substructures at a meso level, shedding light on whether specific organizations serve as key brokers within the network.

Results: Collaboration Network and Emerging Rights Communities

In this section, we focus on the empirical analysis of the case by examining whether social movements advocating for the new rights agenda form an integrated network; exploring the level of thematic segmentation to verify the existence of distinct SMIs; and analyzing the role of intersectional organizations in the overall network structure.

Network integration

To empirically address the level of network integration, we first conduct an exploratory analysis using a drawing of the network, and present an integration measure to formalize the observations derived from its visualization.

Figure 1 visually represents the network. Its integration is demonstrated by the fact that the network’s giant component11 contains 94% of the organizations (i.e., all organizations except for three isolated ones). This means that organizations within the giant component can access the rest through direct or indirect connections.

Figure 1. Montevideo organizations network

Note:The circles represent organizations, and their size indicates degree centrality. Each connection is represented by a line linking different organizations.

Source: Authors based on the survey of organizations in Montevideo that promote new rights using igraph (Csardi and Nepusz 2006).

Nearly all the organizations are connected to the same group, and the absence of fragmented components is an indicator of network integration. This implies that, at least theoretically, the organizations—except for the three isolated ones—can communicate with each other. Any of the organizations can obtain information flows, engage in dialogue, and exchange resources through the connections.

Thematic segmentation

Beyond the network’s integration, it’s important to consider how segmented it is based on the main topics the organizations address. We propose an analysis to evaluate the degree of segmentation in the relationships between these organizations. This will help us measure the network’s segmentation level, showing whether organizations tend to connect more with similar ones. Our main interest is to see how the primary focus of each organization affects its ability to connect with others in the network. To do this, we use the assortativity coefficient (see footnote 10).

The collaboration network among new rights organizations exhibits moderate segmentation, with a coefficient of 0.41. This value is significantly different from what would be expected by chance. In other words, the network is segmented but not highly so. Appendix 1 shows segregation measure values for different network operationalizations to test the robustness of the result. The assortativity coefficient increases as organizations that act as connectors and those belonging to activities with fewer organizations (such as human rights) are removed, possibly leading them to seek connections with others. Thus, the assortativity coefficient indicates that the connections between organizations are related to their primary objectives or areas of focus.

Given this thematic segmentation, we can further analyze the network by detecting communities, which helps us study its clustering. This approach helps identify whether organizations with similar themes are more likely to connect or if there is no relationship between these themes and their likelihood of connecting.

For this analysis, various algorithms are used: fast greedy, multi-level, leading eigenvector, walktrap, infomap, and edge betweenness. By comparing their modularity12 and the Adjusted Rand Index (Rand 1971; Hubert and Arabie 1985), we can confirm that the fast greedy, walktrap, multi-level, and infomap algorithms provide the most robust results (see Appendix 2). To simplify the presentation, we provide the data from the fast greedy algorithm, which has the highest modularity, as the results of the four algorithms are similar. Figure 2 illustrates the network segmented by the communities identified.

Figure 2. Communities of human rights organizations

Note: The isolated organizations are excluded from the analysis. The point sizes indicate the organizations’ degree centrality, and the colors represent their primary focus areas. Communities identified by the fast greedy algorithm are shown within green, violet, and red polygons. Black lines denote collaboration links within the same community, while red lines indicate links between different communities.

Source: Authors based on the survey of organizations in Montevideo that promote new rights using igraph (Csardi and Nepusz 2006).

The main takeaway of this analysis is the identification of three well-differentiated communities within the network. Regarding the organizations’ main areas of focus, these communities are largely composed of entities with similar objectives. This association is particularly strong in the case of a community composed almost exclusively of organizations working on Afro-descendant populations (representing 93% of the organizations in that community). A similar phenomenon occurs in the community primarily composed of gender and feminist organizations (representing 75%). Finally, the majority of diversity organizations converge in the community with the lowest level of thematic homogeneity (two-thirds of the community), along with a significant number of gender and feminist organizations (31%).

Thus, Afro-descendant organizations exhibit a greater tendency to connect with each other compared to those focused on other issues (13 Afro-focused organizations and only one that is not), while gender and diversity organizations present a more varied situation.

Organizations’ centrality and stochastic blocks

In this section, we study the centrality of the organizations and propose a stochastic block analysis to detect groups of organizations based on their structural position in the network or their relationship with other groups of organizations. The model reveals the density of connections within each block and in relation to others, enabling us to identify both core and peripheral groups of organizations within the network. The analysis excludes isolated organizations, which is a requirement for applying the model.

A close examination of the network revealed four organizations that stand out for their central role in connectivity. These organizations have three times more connections than the network’s average, highlighting their importance within the network13. This conclusion is drawn from the network visualization and the degree measurement analysis, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Organizations’ degree according to the main theme

Source: Authors based on the survey of organizations in Montevideo that promote new rights using ggplot2 (Wickham 2016).

The stochastic block model provides additional support for identifying the central position of certain organizations within the network. This technique offers a comprehensive perspective on the network structure, highlighting key organizations that play a central role, acting as intermediaries, bridging the gaps between others that might otherwise remain disconnected. The stochastic block model not only confirms their existence but also identifies which organizations fulfill this crucial role in maintaining network connectivity.

The first step in implementing this model is estimating the number of blocks, following the method proposed by Biernacki et al. (2000), who suggest using the maximum value of the integrated classification likelihood (ICL). The ICL takes the logarithmic probability and penalizes it by the number of parameters, as the former increases with the addition of estimators, but such an increase may not be relevant compared to the loss of precision that comes with having more parameters. According to this criterion, the model with five blocks is selected, as its gain over the model with four blocks is substantial, whereas the model with six blocks only marginally improves the fit (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Block quantity selection

Note: Isolated organizations are excluded.

Source: Authors based on the survey of organizations in Montevideo that promote new rights using dynsbm (Matias and Miele 2020).

The second step is to analyze the interaction and density of intra- and inter-block links based on the five-block model. As shown in Figure 5, Block 3 is central, with strong links between the organizations within it and high density connections with organizations in blocks 2 and 5, although slightly less so with Block 4. The relationship between Block 3 and Block 2 shows a high density of exchanges. Interestingly, the density of these exchanges is greater than the internal connections within Block 2 itself. The density of connections with Block 5 is slightly lower but still substantial. Block 1 is identified as containing the peripheral organizations, characterized by having few connections both within the block and with other blocks.

Figure 5. Beta values of the model with five blocks

Note: Isolated organizations are excluded. The cell values and color intensity indicate the probability of linkage between organizations in different blocks.

Source: Authors based on the survey of organizations in Montevideo that promote new rights using ggplot2 (Wickham 2016) and calculations using dynsbm (Matias and Miele 2020).

Figure 5 exhibits a high internal density (among the organizations within the same block) in blocks 2 to 5. A key point here is the integration of Block 3. When analyzing the organizations that comprise Block 3, we found that three of the four organizations previously identified with the highest degree centrality are included. Thus, the stochastic block model reinforces the finding that certain organizations play a crucial role in terms of brokerage within the network, essential for maintaining its integration by supporting intersectional strategies.

This can be graphically represented through a network drawing that distinguishes organizations by the block they belong to, unlike Figure 1, which differentiates them according to their main theme. Figure 6 illustrates network representation by blocks.

Figure 6. Stochastic block network

Note: Isolated organizations are excluded. The size of the dots represents the organizations’ degree centrality, and the color indicates the block to which they belong.

Source: Authors based on the survey of organizations in Montevideo that promote new rights using igraph (Csardi and Nepusz 2006).

Based on the findings, focusing on the organizations within Block 3—which are key to explaining the network’s overall connectivity—two especially significant observations can be made.

First, these three organizations focus on different primary themes (Afro-descendant, diversity, and gender). Second, and particularly relevant to the objective of this article, these organizations place a special emphasis on intersectional work. This is derived from the research database that analyzed the primary and secondary objectives of the organizations according to the surveyed representatives. Considering these objectives, these three organizations have a clear orientation toward intersectional work, as expressed in the way they defined their goals:

Based on the identification of these key organizations that play an important role in brokerage within the network, it is worthwhile to delve deeper into the segmentation analysis presented. The analysis reveals that segmentation increases when these coordinating organizations are excluded, highlighting their critical role in integrating groups with different foci (see Table 2). This increase in segmentation underscores the importance of their explicit strategy directed towards intersectionality.

Table 2. Segmentation of collaboration by primary theme of the organization without coordinating organizations

Segmentation measures by theme

Network without isolated organizations

Network without isolated or coordinating organizations

Assortativity

0.41

0.54

Note: Isolated organizations are excluded. The minimum and maximum values of the assortativity coefficient can be found in footnote 10.

Source: Authors based on the survey of organizations in Montevideo that promote new rights. Calculations performed using netseg (Bojanowski 2021).

In sum, it is important to highlight that the results derived from the analysis of thematic segmentation, communities, and stochastic blocks are complementary. On one hand, there is a group of three central organizations with diverse themes. On the other, these organizations have an intersectional perspective and play a significant role in understanding the functioning of the network and the connections among the social organizations of the new rights agenda.

Conclusions

This article contributes to the knowledge on social movement coalitions that incorporate an intersectional perspective. Specifically, it analyzes the interaction dynamics among Uruguayan social movement organizations, which have been included under what is referred to in the country as the new rights agenda. The study focused on whether these organizations form an integrated action network and the role that an intersectional perspective plays in the network’s functioning.

From a methodological perspective, this work proposes a novel approach—network analysis—rarely used in the literature on intersectionality and brokerage among social organizations, where qualitative perspectives have predominated. The research is intended to provide a contribution that can be replicated in other case studies to identify different interaction dynamics. However, the analysis also involves a number of limitations. Future research could incorporate organizations’ attributes (time in operation, number of members, etc.) to develop other hypotheses about aspects that explain collaboration. Also, using mixed designs would allow for combining network analysis with qualitative instruments to capture dynamic aspects of coalition formation.

The results presented allow us to draw some important conclusions. First, some of these are specific to the organizations and social movements of Uruguay’s new rights agenda. In line with qualitative precedents that have highlighted their capacity for coordination and brokerage (Sempol 2016; Berri and Pandolfi 2018; Johnson, Rodríguez Gustá, and Sempol 2019), the network analysis confirmed that the various organizations of the new rights agenda form an integrated network. Of the total identified organizations, only three were found outside the network. Although a fragmented network with internally connected but separate groups may theoretically have existed, the findings confirm the idea that the organizations of the new rights agenda form a single interconnected network. This supports the hypothesis of an intersectional functioning of this coalition, beyond the main themes of the different organizations.

That said, the results also indicate significant levels of segmentation, highlighting the importance of the organizations’ priority themes when defining their connections. A key to understanding the existence of an integrated network with high degrees of segmentation is provided by the block model analysis, which identified a group of organizations that play a crucial brokerage role in the network. These organizations present a significant density of connections among themselves and with other identified blocks. The latter is particularly significant and relates to a second type of theoretical conclusions. In this regard, it does not seem coincidental that the organizations forming the central block have different priority topics (gender and feminism, Afro-descendant population, diversity), but share an intersectional perspective in their work.

As discussed in the theoretical review, there are various uses of intersectionality in the discourse of social movements. The case studied highlights the importance of intersectionality in forming successful coalitions that can articulate demands, coordinate actions, and lead to social change. It shows that various Uruguayan social movements engage in an intersectional discourse expressed through concrete relationships, actions, and resource exchanges. Although this important aspect is not the sole factor explaining these organizations’ success in advancing the reformist agenda implemented during the progressive Uruguayan governments, it is a relevant factor that provides insights for comparative studies on the importance of forming coalitions among different social movement industries to promote transformative agendas. As recognized in the literature, this is not an obvious process given that translating intersectional discourse into concrete actions is still an emerging field of research (Evans and Lépinard 2019).

References

  1. Aguiar, Sebastián and Carlos Muñoz. 2007. “Movimientos sociales juveniles en Uruguay. Informe de la situación tipo 2: movimiento por la legalización del cannabis.” Montevideo, Uruguay: Grupo de Estudios Urbano y Generacionales. https://docplayer.es/14889986-Movimientos-sociales-juveniles-en-uruguay-informe-de-la-situacion-tipo-2-movimiento-por-la-legalizacion-del-cannabis-sebastian-aguiar-carlos-munoz.html
  2. Benford, Robert D. and David A. Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611-639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
  3. Berri, Mateo and Jimena Pandolfi. 2018. “Movimiento ‘No a la baja’. Construcción estratégica de la identidad colectiva.” Revista de Ciencias Sociales 31 (42): 37-56. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=453655546003
  4. Bidegain, Germán and Martín Freigedo. 2020. Mapeo colectivo de organizaciones de la sociedad civil. Horizonte de Libertades, Montevideo. https://www.mizangas.com/_files/ugd/2b96ac_c06323e21ace44fbbb11cdf15aa4bbc0.pdf
  5. Bidegain, Germán, Martín Freigedo, and Cristina Zurbriggen, eds. 2021. Fin de un ciclo: balance del Estado y las políticas públicas tras 15 años de gobiernos de izquierda en Uruguay. Montevideo: Department of Political Science / Universidad de la República.
  6. Bidegain, Germán and Víctor Tricot. 2017. “Political Opportunity Structure, Social Movements, and Malaise in Representation in Uruguay, 1985-2014.” In Malaise in Representation in Latin American Countries. Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay, edited by Alfredo Joignant, Mauricio Morales, and Claudio Fuentes, 139-160. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  7. Biernacki, Christophe, Gilles Celeux, and Gérard Govaert. 2000. “Assessing a Mixture Model for Clustering with the Integrated Completed Likelihood.” IEEE. Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 22 (7): 719-725. https://doi.org/10.1109/34.865189
  8. Blondel, Vincent D., Jean-Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte, and Etienne Lefebvre. 2008. “Fast Unfolding of Communities in Large Networks.” Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 10: online. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008
  9. Bojanowski, Michal. 2021. “Measures of Network Segregation and Homophily.” R package version 1.0-1, https://mbojan.github.io/netseg/
  10. Bojanowski, Michal and Rense Corten. 2014. “Measuring Segregation in Social Networks”. Social Networks 39: 14-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2014.04.001
  11. Busquier, Lucía. 2018. “¿Interseccionalidad en América Latina y el Caribe?” Con X 4: online. https://doi.org/10.24215/24690333e023
  12. Clauset, Aaron, M. E. J. Newman, and Cristopher Moore. 2004. “Finding Community Structure in very Large Networks.” Physical Review 70 (6): online. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.70.066111
  13. Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989: 139. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
  14. Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241-1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
  15. Cruells López, Marta. 2015. “La interseccionalidad política: tipos y factores de entrada en la agenda política, jurídica y de los movimientos sociales.” PhD dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
  16. Evans, Elizabeth and Eléonore Lépinard. 2019. “Confronting Privileges in Feminist and Queer Movements.” In Intersectionality in Feminist and Queer Movements: Confronting Privileges, edited by Elizabeth Evans and Eléonore Lépinard, 1-26. London; New York: Routledge.
  17. Fienberg Stephen E. and Stanley S. Wasserman. 1981. “Categorical Data Analysis of Single Sociometric Relations.” Sociological Methodology 12: 156-192. https://doi.org/10.2307/270741
  18. Girvan, Michelle and M. E. J. Newman. 2002. “Community Structure in Social and Biological Networks.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (12): 7821-7826. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.122653799
  19. Goinheix, Sebastián. 2022. “Integralidad en la implementación de políticas sociales. Análisis de una red interorganizacional en Uruguay.” Redes. Revista Hispana para el Análisis de Redes Sociales 33 (2): 135-157. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/redes.951
  20. González Guyer, Mariana. 2016. “Nueva agenda de derechos en el Uruguay: los procesos de reconocimiento y sus actores.” L’Ordinaire des Amériques 220: online. https://doi.org/10.4000/orda.2852
  21. Holland, Paul W., Kathryn Blackmond Laskey, and Samuel Leinhardt. 1983. “Stochastic Blockmodels: First Steps.” Social Networks 5 (2): 109-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(83)90021-7
  22. Hubert, Lawrence and Phipps Arabie. 1985. “Comparing Partitions.” Journal of Classification 2 (1): 193-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01908075
  23. Johnson, Niki, Ana Laura Rodríguez Gustá, and Diego Sempol. 2019. “Explaining Advances and Drawbacks in Women’s and LGBTIQ Rights in Uruguay: Multisited Pressures, Political Resistance, and Structural Inertias.” In Seeking Rights from the Left: Gender, Sexuality, and the Latin American Pink Tide, edited by Elisabeth Jay Friedman, 48-81. Durham; London: Duke University Press.
  24. La Diaria Política. 2013. “A puño cerrado.” La Diaria, December 23. https://ladiaria.com.uy/articulo/2013/12/a-puno-cerrado/
  25. Lissidini, Alicia. 2016. “Uruguay: derechos y cambio social ¿Un país de izquierda?” Nueva Sociedad 266: 98-112. https://nuso.org/articulo/uruguay-derechos-y-cambio-social/
  26. Luna, Zakiya, Sujatha Jesudason, and Mimi E. Kim. 2020. “Turning Toward Intersectionality in Social Movement Research.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 25 (4): 435-440. https://doi.org/10.17813/1086-671X-25-4-435
  27. Matias, Catherine and Vincent Miele. 2020. “dynsbm: Dynamic Stochastic Block Models.” R package version 0.7, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dynsbm
  28. McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  29. McCall, Leslie. 2005. “The Complexity of Intersectionality.” Signs 30 (3): 1771-1800. https://doi.org/10.1086/426800
  30. McCammon, Holly J. and Minyoung Moon. 2015. “Social Movement Coalitions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements, edited by Donatella Della Porta and Mario Diani, 326-339. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  31. McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (6): 1212-1241. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2777934
  32. Newman, M. E. J. 2003. “Mixing Patterns in Networks.” Physical Review 67 (2): online. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.67.026126
  33. Newman, M. E. J. 2006. “Finding Community Structure in Networks Using the Eigenvectors of Matrices.” Physical Review 74 (3): online. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.74.036104
  34. Pérez Bentancur, Verónica, Cecilia Rocha-Carpiuc, and Diego Sempol. 2021. “Las reformas sobre derechos de las mujeres y de diversidad sexual en los gobiernos del Frente Amplio.” In Fin de un ciclo: balance del Estado y las políticas públicas tras 15 años de gobiernos de izquierda en Uruguay, edited by Germán Bidegain, Martín Freigedo, and Cristina Zurbriggen, 369-392. Montevideo: Department of Political Science / Universidad de la República.
  35. Pons, Pascal and Matthieu Latapy. 2005. “Computing Communities in Large Networks Using Random Walks (Long Version).” arXiv, online. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.physics/0512106
  36. Rand, William M. 1971. “Objective Criteria for the Evaluation of Clustering Methods.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 66 (336): 846-850. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1971.10482356
  37. Ravecca, Paulo, Marcela Schenck, Diego Forteza, and Bruno Fonseca. 2022. “Interseccionalidad de derecha e ideología de género en América Latina.” Analecta Política 12 (22): 1-29. https://revistas.upb.edu.co/index.php/analecta/article/view/7364
  38. Rosvall, Martin and Carl T. Bergstrom. 2008. “Maps of random Walks on Complex Networks Reveal Community Structure.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (4): 1118-1123. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706851105
  39. Roth, Silke. 2021. “Intersectionality and Coalitions in Social Movement Research—A Survey and Outlook.” Sociology Compass 15 (7): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12885
  40. Sempol, Diego. 2016. “La diversidad en debate. Movimiento LGTBQ uruguayo y algunas tensiones de su realineamiento del marco interpretativo.” Psicología, Conocimiento y Sociedad 6 (2): 321-342. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=475848616018
  41. Silva, Eduardo. 2009. Challenging Neoliberalism in Latin America. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Van Dyke, Nella and Holly J. McCammon. 2010. Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Annex 1. Other Segmentation Measures by Theme

Segmentation measures by theme: Network without isolated organizations; Network without isolated or bridging organizations; Network without isolated, bridging, or human rights organizations

Segmentation measures by theme

Network without isolated organizations

Network without isolated or bridging organizations

Network without isolated, bridging, or human rights organizations

Assortativity

0.41

0.54

0.63

Orwg

4.76

6.98

8.44

Freeman

0.43

0.56

0.64

E-I Index

-0.20

-0.38

-0.53

Note: Isolated organizations are excluded. The minimum and maximum coefficient values are defined as follows: for Orwg from 0 to ∞, Freeman goes from 0 to 1, the E-I Index goes from -1 to 1, assortativity was defined in footnote 10.

Source: Authors based on the survey of organizations in Montevideo that promote new rights. Calculations performed using netseg (Bojanowski 2021).

Annex 2. Adjustment Measures and Comparison of CommunityDetection Algorithms

Algorithm

Modularity

Fast greedy

0.40

Walktrap

0.39

Multi level

0.39

Infomap

0.39

Leading eigenvector

0.37

Edge betweenness

0.33

Note: Isolated organizations are excluded.

Source: Authors based on the survey of organizations in Montevideo that promote new rights. Calculations performed using igraph (Csardi and Nepusz 2006).

Comparison Using the Adjusted Rand Index

Fast greedy

Walktrap

Multi level

Infomap

Leading eigenvector

Edge betweenness

Fast greedy

0.84

0.81

0.88

0.84

0.54

Walktrap

0.84

0.77

0.80

0.70

0.60

Multi level

0.81

0.77

0.69

0.70

0.59

Infomap

0.88

0.80

0.69

0.72

0.49

Leading eigenvector

0.84

0.70

0.70

0.72

0.59

Edge betweenness

0.54

0.60

0.59

0.49

0.59

Note: Isolated organizations are excluded. The darker green color represents strong similarity, while the yellow to orange shades represent lower similarity values.

Source: Authors based on the survey of organizations in Montevideo that promote new rights. Calculations performed using igraph (Csardi and Nepusz 2006).

✽ This article utilizes empirical material gathered through a collaboration between researchers Bidegain and Freigedo and the Horizonte de Libertades project. The initiative is carried out by a group of Uruguayan civil society organizations and funded by the European Union (thematic line of Support to Civil Society Organizations and Local Authorities), with information available at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/uruguay/horizonte-de-libertades_es?s=161. The article was prepared with the informed consent of all interviewees. The authors participated equally in the analysis and writing of the article. The article was translated with funding from the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, through the Patrimonio Autónomo Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Francisco José de Caldas fund and the Office of the Vice President for Research and Creation at Universidad de los Andes (Colombia). The article was originally published in Spanish in the issue 87 of the Revista de Estudios Sociales.

  1. 1 These were the administrations of Tabaré Vázquez (2005-2010, 2015-2020) and José Mujica (2010-2015).

  2. 2 All translations of citations are the translator’s unless stated otherwise.

  3. 3 A United Fist Against the Conservative Uruguay, in English.

  4. 4 Beyond potential theoretical debates about the category of diversity, in this article, we follow the native meaning given to this concept by social organizations in Uruguay, which is linked to those working on issues of sexual diversity. We apply the same criterion to classify organizations under “gender and feminisms,” which in the country are focused on women’s rights issues.

  5. 5 Organizations that mobilized or acted against this agenda (opposed to the decriminalization of abortion, same-sex marriage, among others) were not considered.

  6. 6 See the reports by Civicus (https://www.mapeodelasociedadcivil.uy) and Agesic (https://catalogo-participacionciudadana.portal.gub.uy/).

  7. 7 To find out more, see Bidegain and Freigedo (2020).

  8. 8 This decision was made with the understanding that any of these actions represents collaboration between organizations; no distinction is made between the content or intensity of the collaboration.

  9. 9 A component that includes a significant proportion of organizations (more than half) allows the network as a whole to acquire non-trivial properties compared to networks with lower connectivity.

  10. 10 Nominal assortativity (Newman 2003) is an association coefficient that compares the cells with links between the same type of organizations (∑ieii) to the values expected in the case of random probabilities (∑iaibi), according to the following formula: rG=(∑ieii -∑iaibi)/(1-∑iaibi). The coefficient theoretically ranges from -1 to 1, but disassortativity is closer to 0 since random linking results in connecting different types of organizations (i.e., disassortativity). Therefore, the minimum is defined as: rmin=-(∑iaibi)/(1-∑i aibi).

  11. 11 Social Network Analysis (SNA) defines a giant component as one that encompasses a substantial number of organizations.

  12. 12 Modularity is a measure that evaluates the fit of a classification based on the number of links within the community minus the expected value of that number in a random network. Thus, the value is positive if the links within the groups are greater than expected by chance.

  13. 13 The average degree of the network is 8.3, while the degree of the four central organizations is 29 (Afro), 28 (diversity), 25, and 24 (gender). It is important to emphasize that both incoming and outgoing links are analyzed. The analysis of incoming degrees also highlights the centrality of these organizations, allowing us to exclude the hypothesis that centrality is based on their own mentions of links with other organizations in the network. These are the four organizations in the network with the highest incoming degrees.

Germán Bidegain

Doctor in Political Science from the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Adjunct professor (full time) of the Department of Political Science of the Universidad de la República (Uruguay). Member of the National System of Researchers, level 1. Recent publications: “The Aratirí Open-Pit Mine Project in Uruguay: Politics of Time, Local and National Environmental Resistance to an Extractivist Government Priority” (co-authored), Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée 28 (3-4): 63-91, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3917/ripc.283.0063; and “Tracing Social Movements’ Influence Beyond Agenda-Setting: Waves of Protest, Chaining Mechanisms and Policy Outcomes in the Chilean Student Movement (2006-2018)” (co-authored), Partecipazione e Conflitto 14 (3): 1057-1075, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1285/i20356609v14i3p1057. german.bidegain@cienciassociales.edu.uy

Martín Freigedo

Doctor in Social Sciences from Flacso, Mexico. Adjunct professor (full time) of the Department of Political Science of the Universidad de la República (Uruguay). Member of the National System of Researchers, level 1. Recent publications: “The 2020 Subnational Elections in Uruguay: The Consolidation of the Right-Wing Electoral Power in the Territory,” Regional & Federal Studies 32 (4): 543-555, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2022.2029850; and “Nuevas conflictividades y vínculos entre movimientos sociales, partidos políticos y gobierno en el Uruguay progresista (2005-2020)” (co-authored), Sociologias 23 (58): 388-417, https://doi.org/10.1590/15174522-113033. martin.freigedo@cienciassociales.edu.uy

Sebastián Goinheix

Doctor in Social Sciences from the Universidad de Buenos Aires (Argentina). Adjunct professor at the Institute of Economics of the Universidad de la República (Uruguay). Recent publications: “Integralidad en la implementación de políticas sociales: análisis de una red interorganizacional en Uruguay,” Redes. Revista Hispana para el Análisis de Redes Sociales 33 (2): 135-157, 2022, https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/redes.951; and “La dimensión regional del desarrollo económico del Uruguay: una aproximación con estimaciones del VAB departamental 1981-2008” (co-authored), Revista Uruguaya de Historia Económica 22 (XXII): 49-70, 2022, https://www.audhe.org.uy/publicaciones/index.php/RUHE/article/view/70. sebastian.goinheix@fcea.edu.uy