Even though it cannot yet be considered a fully consolidated field, the relationship between archival policies and public policies has been gaining increasing importance in research on archival studies, governance, and memory in Latin America (Jardim, 2013). In line with contemporary state modernization processes, various studies have examined the role of archival science in institutional transparency, effective state management, and processes of historical memory and reparation. In this regard, several specialists agree that, far from being merely technical procedures, archival policies form part of the core of state functioning, as they structure the production, management, preservation, and accessibility of the documents that underpin public action (Jardim, 2010).

To understand this assertion, it is necessary to begin with a definition of the State and of public policy. Following Oszlak and O’Donnell (1981), the State can be understood not as a monolithic entity but as the result of a dynamic process of interactions, conflicts, and alliances among multiple actors and social forces. From this perspective, the State does not constitute a purely technical domain of management or policy advising, and public policies must be conceived as historical and social products. According to these authors, state policy involves any “position taken and course of action adopted by an actor who speaks on behalf of and in representation of the State in the face of a socially problematized issue.” Consequently, archival policies are not limited to tools for administrative efficiency; rather, they function as instruments to guarantee fundamental rights such as transparency, legal certainty, access to information, and, more broadly, memory and history (Heredia Herrera, 2007; Cruz Mundet, 2012).

This approach is particularly relevant in Latin America, given the role that documentary and archival policies have played in transitional justice processes and in disputes over memory following periods of dictatorial governments or internal political violence. The return to democracy and the expansion of the right to information spurred renewed debates on the function of archives as a social resource (Jardim, 2010). Various studies have shown how archival policies became central to the opening of judicial processes, the establishment of memory and reparation policies, and the reform of democratic states, through the use of administrative records and documents from agencies linked to the armed and security forces (Boccia Paz, Palau Aguilar & Salerno, 2008; Markarian, 2016; Meoño Brenner, 2021; Sikkink, 2017; Ruderer & Straßner, 2015; López Macedoni, 2018, Vergara Low, 2022). In Argentina, Jelin (2002, 2017) and da Silva Catela (2007, 2011) demonstrated that memory policies—and, by extension, the archival policies that made them possible—constitute public policies that define which memories are legitimized and which remain silenced. Complementarily, Antonio González Quintana (2017) highlighted advances in the treatment of the archives of repression.

From the Latin American archival field, authors such as José María Jardim have proposed specific conceptual frameworks to analyze the articulation between archives and public policy. Jardim defines archival public policies as “the set of premises, decisions, and actions—produced by the State and incorporated into governmental agendas in the name of the public interest—that consider the various aspects (administrative, legal, scientific, cultural, technological, etc.) related to the production, use, and preservation of archival information of both a public and private nature” (Jardim, 2010, p. 211). He also emphasizes that the absence of archival infrastructure or of solid regulatory frameworks generates inequalities in access to public records and limits accountability.

At the international level, Terry Cook’s reflections on the paradigm shifts in archival theory and practice over the past 150 years are particularly relevant. Cook identifies four paradigms: legal legacy, cultural memory, social engagement, and community archives, associated with the notions of evidence, memory, identity, and community (Cook, 2013). He also highlights the persistent tension between those who prioritize protecting the evidential value of the actions of record creators and those who foreground the subjective and cultural dimensions of the archive. In response to this tension, Cook proposes that the “community” paradigm, especially in digital environments, may offer a constructive path for articulating approaches previously presented as oppositional. As Flinn (2020) summarizes, Cook does not support a sharp divide between evidence and memory; rather, he understands them as “friendly cousins” that relate to each other in creative, if sometimes conflicting, ways.

Drawing on this conceptual framework, the archival policies analyzed in this article are understood simultaneously as administrative infrastructures and as forms of evidence, as well as political decisions and technical practices that determine what is preserved in national archives, how records are classified and described, under what conditions they are accessed, and how their long-term preservation is ensured. In Latin American countries, their relevance becomes even more evident in the wake of the profound transformations that followed the repressive regimes of the second half of the twentieth century, which substantially altered the administrative and political functioning of States. In this sense, archival policies can be understood as decisions that shape the relationships between the State, citizenship, and collective memories.