In her book, Judith Teichman examines the contrasting achievements of Chile, South Korea and Mexico in terms of inequality and poverty reduction. Chile has been able to significantly curb poverty in the past twenty-five years, but Mexico has maintained high levels of poverty for decades. Both countries have also exhibited stubbornly high levels of inequality. South Korea, in turn, has been comparatively successful in maintaining low levels of inequality and reducing poverty.

To explain these divergent results, the author relays on an innovative approach that emphasises the relative strength or ability of social forces to influence an outcome related to poverty and inequality, and how they interact with the state. In conceptualising social forces, Teichman refers to them as ‘both broadly and narrowly constituted social groups that may have either formal or informal organisational features and that have shared interests’ (p. 4).

Although the author adopts a comparative historical approach, she avoids using a critical juncture framework as it tends to be closely tied to path dependency. At the same time, she does not endorse a predominantly institutional approach as it is crucial to acknowledge the ‘destruction of institutions and the constitution of new ones’. Social forces shaped institutions, but institutions, once established, moulded poverty and distributive outcomes’ (p. 167). She introduces the concept of critical conjuncture (emphasis in the original), a concept that partly entails both the notion of coyuntura and the term critical juncture in an effort to ‘indicate the possibility of both reactive and path-dependent sequences following a profound rupture from past arrangements and practices’ (p. 168).

After the first chapter, in which the author introduces her approach in detail, the following three chapters provide an exhaustive analysis of the cases under study. Chapter 2 convincingly shows that equitable development in South Korea has a long history. A relatively brief colonial rule was followed by increasing peasant mobilisation and the debilitation of the landed class, allowing land redistribution in a context in which a strong state emerged. South Korea's state promoted employment-generating growth and the adoption of different strategies to reduce poverty, promote equity and to facilitate social homogeneity.

As shown in chapters 3 and 4, the trajectories of Chile and Mexico were rather different from those of South Korea. While propertied groups were powerful and middle sectors were conservative in these two countries, peasants were weak. This context was inimical to comprehensive land reform and redistribution, and favoured social compartmentalisation. Industrialisation strategies in both countries were inadequate for the promotion of welfare. In this sense, ‘in Chile and Mexico, strong and conflictive social forces and weak states were responsible for less successful economic growth outcomes and poorer and more unequal social outcomes compared to South Korea’ (p. 97).

Chapters 5, 6 and 7 take evidence from the previous empirical chapters to analyse the origins and setting of poverty and inequality in the three countries. Chapter 5 shows that some of the key differences between South Korea and Chile and Mexico, in particular a lack of social compartmentalisation and a notable homogeneity, were the result of its compressed historical trajectory. In this sense, the timing and pace of events seem to be crucial to understand South Korea's superior performance. After the 1980s, all three countries started to diverge markedly, although this can be partly traced to institutional, political and economic legacies, as analysed in chapter 6. The Debt Crisis of the 1980s had dramatic consequences in Mexico and Chile, partly because of their already scandalous levels of socioeconomic inequality. In this context, South Korea was able to outperform the Latin American countries. As explained in chapter 7, from the year 2000 on, economic globalisation has led to an increasing convergence in terms of labour market flexibility and economic liberalisation, which, in turn, tends to produce labour precariousness and an increased inequality. While social forces have been associated with contrasting welfare regime results, states have been able to address employment-generating growth in different ways.

Beyond its main argument and findings, this book does a remarkable job in analysing complex political and social phenomena – such as poverty and inequality – in a detailed way that shows a thorough knowledge of the topics and cases under scrutiny. The impressive amount of information provided, the richness of the characterisation of each case of study and the development of a detailed narrative turn this book into a true contribution. Perhaps, the main strength of this book can partially be considered its main weakness. The nuanced analysis provided in this book is sometimes hard to follow, as specific trajectories of each case call for a tailor made examination. This also makes one wonder about how well the theory developed in this book may travel to other cases. However, there is no doubt that the book provides an original approach to a crucial topic, as well as a rich analysis of South Korea, Chile and Mexico. As a result, it is a must-read for scholars interested in the study of poverty and inequality from a comparative standpoint.