During the last three decades, both Argentina and Chile have experienced capitailistrevolutions 'from above', which have transformed relationships between firms, workers and the state. These transformations have common elements: similar de industrialisation patterns focused on prirnary product exports, and 'hierarchical market' relationships between capital and labour (Schneider 2009), among others. Despite these similarities, approaches to capitalism in these countries currently diverge. Neoliberalism in Chile is ingrained in the institucional setting and naturalised among business and political elites.In Argentina, by contrast, a post-neoliberal landscape emerged in the wake of the 2001crisis and the state's interventionist capacity has been restored.How does the literature on varieties of capitalism and the new theories of capitalistchange help explain these revolutions 'from above' in Argentina and Chile? It has becoargued that a 'new spirit' that promotes autonomy, self-realisation aod noo-hierarchical relations has given capitalism a fresh justification in the developed world (Boltanski & Chiapello 2005). In this view, capitalism has become an increasingly theoretical enterprise supported by its owo 'cultural circuits' (Thrift 2005), which produce theories that justify capitalism's own purposes, recastiog it as something creative aod fun. Is this oew spiritpresent in Chile and Argentina? Can it be used to explain receot transformatioos there?This thesis explores the varieties of capitalism in Argentina and Chile by asking three main guestions. First, what are the similarities and differences of capitalism in these countries? Second, why did neoliberalism meet such different fates in them? Third, what kinds of spirits have driven recent capitalist changes in these countries? And in particular, is there a new spirit of capitalism (a la Boltanski & Chiapello) that emerged with neoliberalism in Argentina and Chile since the 1980s? This research is based on material collected from 120 interviews with representatives of the 'cultural circuits of capitalism' in Santiago and Buenos Aires during 2008-2009, combined with secondary data. The main fiodings of this research suggest that beyond the common hierarchical pattern,the pro-business capitalism in Chile and the national-popular capitalism in Argentinaoperate differently. Thc cohesivc business sector in Chile enjoys a dominant positionwhereas Argentina's factious business class is on the defensive. Vertical employmentrelations in Chile differ from the more horizontal relationships in Argentina, whereunioos still play a promineot political role. Powerful cultural circuits of capitalism inChile spread neoliberal notions of success, whereas analogous circuits in .Argentina havebeen contested, losing influence and visibility. Neoliberalism was naturalised in Chile not only because it produced wealth and rising living standards, but also because thedictatorship removed the institutions that sanctioned collective action, while helping to empower the business class. Moreover, the political class maintained commitment to themarket model through the transition to democracy. In Argentina, by contrast,neoliberalism was contcsted because the reforms wrought negative economic results andthe political and business classes never fully supported it. Moreover, Argentine society resisted the de-collectivising effects of the reforms, spreading social movements and unrest. Thc counter-offensive against neoliberalism guided by the Kirchners has further de-legitimized this project. Finally, this research found that rather than a 'new spirit' of autonomy and emancipation, 'old spirits' of capitalism were revived in Argentina and Chile, such as the 'commercial spirit' of Smith, the 'entrepreneurial spirit' of Schurnpeter and the 'destructive spirit' of Polanyi. Whereas neoliberalism was contested and unleashed disenchantment in Argentina, it provided an illusion of progress in Chile.PFCHA-BecasDoctor en Sociología306p.PFCHA-BecasTERMINADA