Democracy,Governance, and Emigration Intentions in Latin America and the Caribbean

It is now clear that the global shift toward democracy in recent decades has resulted in a highly uneven democratic landscape in which the quality and performance of democracies around the world vary greatly. In an era characterized by increasingly open borders to goods, services, information, and, at times, labor, we argue that poorly performing, uneven democracies have become an important, yet underexplored, component in one’s emigration calculus. We test this argument through analysis of survey data across 22 Latin American countries and find strong and consistent evidence that both the quality of a democratic system and its ability to fulfill basic governance responsibilities influence the degree to which an individual considers emigration as a viable life strategy. These findings in turn have implications for the subsequent impact emigration may have on the democratic development of high migration communities.     

Long Live Democracy: The Determinants of Political Instability in Latin America

We investigate the underlying causes of political instability in a panel of 18 Latin American countries from 1971–2000. We test whether regime type, regime durability, factionalism, income inequality, ethnic diversity, ethnic discrimination, regional spillover effects, urban growth and macroeconomic variables matter for instability. We find several important results: (1) democracy has a significant negative effect on instability that is robust to several alternative specifications; (2) factionalised political systems experience higher instability; (3) income inequality, ethnic fractionalisation, and urban growth have important nonlinear effects on instability; and (4) of the macroeconomic variables we study, only openness to trade has a significant negative effect on instability.     

Democracy and Development in a Globalized World: Thinking About Latin America from Within

The choice among paths that countries should follow has been a staple of political debates in Latin America and, over the past 40 years, Fernando Cardoso has brought his analysis to bear on these debates. This article summarizes and then assesses Cardoso’s argument about the choice of paths faced by Latin American countries, the consequences for democracy and development of following different paths, and the political position that is supported by this analysis of choices and their consequences. Though Cardoso explicitly supports the path of globalized social democracy over an anti-globalization option in the current period, I suggest that the current state of knowledge does not offer unequivocal support for the argument that choosing to follow the path of globalized social democracy—or that of anti-globalization—is the best political option for all countries in Latin America. Different countries might very well be doing what is best for them, given their circumstances, by following different paths.     

Access to Power Versus Exercise of Power Reconceptualizing the Quality of Democracy in Latin America

Research on comparative democratization has recently expanded its focus to issues of institutional quality: clientelism, corruption, abuse of executive decree authority, and weak checks and balances. However, problems of institutional quality are so different from those involved in regime transitions that it is unproductive to treat them as part of the same macro-process, democratization. Whereas regime transitions are changes in the form of access to power, problems of institutional quality involve the exercise of power. Abuses in the exercise of power affecting institutional quality are best characterized not as indicators of authoritarianism and deficiencies in democratization but as reflecting—in Weberian terms—patrimonialism and failures in bureaucratization. Moreover, struggles over the exercise of power involve causes, mechanisms, and actors that can be quite distinct from those at play in conflicts over access to power. The proposed analytical framework centered on the distinction between access and exercise enhances conceptual clarity and provides a stronger theoretical basis for tackling fundamental questions about politics in Latin America, including the failure of democratization to curb clientelism and foster other improvements of institutional quality, and the prospects of democratic stability under patrimonial administrations.     

Demilitarisation in Latin America

Since the mid 1970s relations between the USA and Libya have been antagonistic. The radical policies the regime of Muammar Qadaaffi has pursued have made Libya one of the USA's bêtes noires . The reasons for US antagonism derive from Libya's repression at home, its alleged support for terrorism and for radical movements opposed to US interests, its staunch opposition to Israel, and its anti-Western rhetoric. Libya's hostility towards the USA rests on a perception of the USA as a global power intent on maintaining its hegemony and control over the Arab and Islamic world. Libyans have been resentful of US support of Israel to the detriment of Arabs and Muslims. Libya's resolute opposition to the USA especially in the 1980s, resulted in a series of military confrontations. The USA has maintained sanctions despite the suspension of UN sanctions on Libya in 1999. The USA has retained Libya on its short list of 'rogue states' despite recognition that Libya has stopped sponsoring terrorism. The contention here is that Libya, like the other 'rogue states', provides justification for US domestic policies (eg National Missile Defense). Given the events of 11 September 2001 in the US, it is quite conceivable that Libya could become a target of the US antiterrorism campaign. The USA could at last find valid justification for the removal of the Qadaffi regime.     

Privatization in Asia and Latin America

This article analyzes the political and economic predictors of privatization in 17 developing countries in Asia and Latin America, using an OLS regression model with panel-corrected standard errors and data from 1988 to 1999. The regression results show that two factors, which, have hitherto been either neglected or underemphasized in the privatization literature, play a crucial role in the pace and scope of, privatization. The first is a government’s revenue needs (defined in terms of interest payments on public debt as a percentage of a government’s total budget expenditures). An unsustainable interest burden leads to a significant reduction in the social and public spending of a government. This, in turn, impels incumbents to raise revenues through the sale of, state assets. The second factor that explains privatization patterns is the extant degree of, political opportunity (defined in terms of the governing politicians’ legislative strength and their security to remain in office). In addition, the results show that privatization is associated, with declining inflation and economic growth rates.     

Economic Growth and Convergence in Latin America

Little is known about the convergence process among developing countries in general and in Latin America in particular. For the period as a whole there is no evidence of a narrowing in the cross-country dispersion of income (sigma convergence). But there is evidence of convergence to different steady state income levels at a speed that is common to all countries (conditional beta convergence). The article also shows that the estimates of convergence are sensitive to the way in which GDP per capita is measured.     

Liberalization and ethnic conflict in Latin America

Most contemporary analysts explain ethnic identity as a socially rooted phenomenon which can be catalyzed by changes in both economic and political conditions. Taking the 1982 debt crisis as a main triggering event, this article analyzes the relationship between economic adjustment and increasing levels of indigenous mobilization in Latin America. Through a comparison of the Bolivian, Peruvian, and Mexican cases,the analysis reveals wide variation in the types and levels of ethnic conflict in the region. Explanations for these differences center on the timing and content of economic adjustment policies, and on the institutional opportunities available for expressing and channeling economic and political demands. The article concludes that political and economic liberalization are likely to clash when shrinking the state also removes channels for popular participation; moreover, when those that bear most of the adjustment burden are also challengers to national identity, states ignore this challenge at their peril. Alison Brysk is assistant professor of politics at the University of California at Irvine. Her book,The Politics of Human Rights in Argentina, was published by Stanford University Press. Various aspects of her current research on Latin American indigenous rights movements have appeared inComparative Political Studies, Latin American Perspectives, andPolity. Carol Wise is assistant professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. She has published articles on Latin American political economy inInternational Organization, Latin American Research Review, and theJournal of Latin American Studies; she is the editor of a forthcoming collection entitledThe Post-NAFTA Political Economy: Mexico and the Western Hemisphere.     

The Presidentialist Tradition in Latin America

Abstract

The diffusion of presidentialism to Latin America has led to its distortion. The North American constitutional pattern, termed presidentialism under separation of powers and its most distinguishing feature, presidential leadership, while modeled in Latin America, has rarely led to democratic–constitutional government a la the United States. The institution of the presidency in Latin America is also typical for nondemocratic regimes in the region. One of the most widely accepted and widely professed facts in Latin American politics is the dominant role of the president but, curiously, most discussions of presidentialism are limited to the US and comparisons with Great Britain. Few studies of Latin American chief executives lend shape to the corpus of scholarly literature, despite the region's long experience and ejecutivismo. The gap, and this article, should be taken as a stimulus for more systematic explication, analysis, and research.