Institutional confidence and democratic consolidation in Latin America

Citizen confidence in the institutions of their nations is critical to democratic consolidation in Latin America. The data provided by the Latinobarómetro survey in 1995 mark the beginning of significant empirical investigation in this realm. While longitudinal comparisons are not yet possible, institutional confidence for the major countries as of 1995 can be probed. This study considers three levels of generality: the comparative study of institutions in the region; patterns of confidence related to political culture; and the degree of political learning derived from the repressive dictatorships of the 1970s and 1980s. John D. Martz is Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the Pennsylvania State University. He is also the editor of this journal.     

Trade and development policies in Colombia: Export promotion and outward orientation, 1967–1992

As developing democracies implement programs of economic adjustment and trade liberalization, we need to examine the relationship between the state and society in the making of foreign economic policies. This article examines trade and development policies in Colombia, one of Latin America's more institutionalized democracies. Colombia was one of the first countries in Latin America to begin a major reorientation away from full dependence on ISI as a strategy of development. The research shows that domestic political institutions and actors have had a decisive impact on the character and direction of foreign economic policies. The study also illustrates how state capacity for economic management is enhanced by bureaucratic insulation and institutional reform. Carlos E. Juárez is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Los Angeles. His research focuses on the politics of trade liberalization in Latin America, government-business relations in developing democracies, and comparative political economy. He was a visiting researcher and lecturer at theUniversidad de los Andes in Bogotá, Colombia from 1991–1992. For 1993–1994 he will be a visiting research fellow with the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at the University of California, San Diego.     

The limits to military power: Institutions and defense budgeting in democratic Argentina

This article examines the reasons behind the dramatic decline in military budgets in Argentina under democratic rule. These trends were unexpected, given the, political power the armed forces of that country have wielded in the past. Here it is argued that within the democratic state, there were institutional arrangements that enabled civilian decision makers to trim defense expenditures, despite opposition from the military. The two key institutional traits were found to be the concentration of authority and the autonomy of decision-makers from outside pressures. Because budgetmaking was centered within a well-insulated civilian-run ministry, fiscal planners working at the behest of the president were able to design and implement budgets they wanted, over and above the objections of military officers, and without interference from other branches of government. David Pion-Berlin is a Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Riverside. He is the author of several books, includingThrough Corridors of Power: Institutions and Civil-Military Relations in Argentina (Penn State University Press, 1997), and numerous articles on the subjects of Latin American civil-military relations, military regimes, political economy, and political repression.     

The Transformation of the Western State: The Growth of Democracy,Autocracy, and State Power Since 1800

This article uses POLITY II, a new dataset on the authority traits of 155 countries, to assess some general historical arguments about the dynamics of political change in Europe and Latin America from 1800 to 1986. The analysis, relying mainly on graphs, focuses first on the shifting balance between democratic and autocratic patterns in each world region and identifies some of the internal and international circumstances underlying the trends, and deviations from them. Trends in three indicators of state power also are examined in the two regions: the state's capacity to direct social and economic life, the coherence of political institutions, and military manpower. The state's capacity has increased steadily in both regions; coherence has increased in the European countries but not Latin America; while military power has fluctuated widley in both regions. The article is foundational to a series of more detailed longitudinal studies of the processes of state growth. Ted Robert Gurr is a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland and Distinguished Scholar at the University's Center for International Development and Conflict Management (Mill Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742). Among his 14 books and monographs areWhy Men Rebel (awarded the Woodrow Wilson Prize as best book in political science of 1970).Patterns of Authority: A comparative Basis for Political Inquiry (with Harry Eckstein, 1975), andViolence in America, (3d edition. 1989). He is engaged in a long-term global study of minorities' involvement in conflict and its consequences and resolution. Keith Jaggers is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Colorado and research assistant in the Department's Center for Comparative Politics, Campus Box 333, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309. He is co-author with Will H. Moore of “Deprivation, Mobilization, and the State,” recently published in theJournal of Developing Societies, and is currently working on an empirical study of the impact of war on the growth of the state. Will H. Moore is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Colorado and research assistant in the Department's Center for Comparative Politics. He is also a co-author with Maro Ellena of a forthcoming article inWestern Political Quarterly on the cross-national determinants of political violence. His current research interests include the resolution of internal wars and the formation of coercive states.     

Modelling peruvian debt rescheduling in the 1980s

International debt rescheduling has continued to be a crucial issue in the international political economy. This article develops a political-economic model to examine debt rescheduling between private banks and debtors. The model provides a means of developing bargaining games by allowing the analyst to deduce game payoffs based on actors' “individual situations” as defined by their overall capabilities, their debt-specific resources, and their coalitional stability. Based on these games, it predicts the likely bargaining outcomes in terms of the degree to which banks will make lending concessions and the degree to which debtors will agree to adjust their economies. The model is operationalized based on written sources and interviews and then applied to four periods of rescheduling between the banks and Peru from 1982 to 1990. It proves successful in predicting bargaining outcomes in these cases, and we argue that it should prove helpful in investigating other debt bargaining episodes. Vinod K. Aggarwal is associate professor of political science and affiliated professor in the Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author ofLiberal Protectionism: The International Politics of Organized Textile Trade (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press),International Debt Threat (Berkeley: Institute for International Studies), and articles on the politics of trade and finance. His forthcoming book is entitledDebt Games: Strategic Interaction in International Debt Rescheduling Maxwell A. Cameron is assistant professor at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University. He is the author ofDemocracy and Authoritarianism in Peru: Political Coalitions and Social Change (New York: St. Martin's Press, forthcoming), as well as a number of articles on Peruvian politics. He recently coeditedThe Political Economy of North American Free Trade (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993) with Ricardo Grinspun.     

Categorically wrong? Nominal versus graded measures of ethnic identity

Ethnic identity is a fundamental concept for understanding the dynamics of contemporary political change, but there has been very little exploration of how to measure ethnic identity and even less discussion of the implications of these measurements for understanding ethnic conflict. Through an analysis of Estonians and Slavs (Russians, Byelorussians, and Ukranians) in Estonia, we show that the ethnic identity of different groups is “salient” to different degrees and that this has significant implications for within-group agreement about political issues and for between-group differences. We show that nominal ethnic identity fully predicts political attitudes when ethnicity is highly salient because a highly salient ethnic identity sets in motion forces that cause individuals within a group to form similar attitudes based upon their ethnic identity. These forces were fully active for Estonians in Estonia in the early 1990s. In this case, nominal ethnic identity was sufficient to explain the attitudes of Estonians. But ethnicity must be treated as graded when it is not highly salient, as with Slavs in Estonia, because only degrees of ethnicity can explain the within-group differences in political attitudes that arise because of a lack of salient identity. Researchers, therefore, should typically treat ethnicity as if it were graded, and they should devise graded measures of it. Although nominal measures are sometimes appropriate (i.e., when ethnicity is highly salient), they will cause the researcher to miss something important in other situations. For example, our work suggests that if events discrupt the social processes that maintain a group’s sense of itself, then a graded measure of ethnicity is useful for predicting attitudes concerning ethnic identity and survival. In short, it is not categorically wrong to treat ethnicity as nominal, but it is best to begin by treating it as graded. Henry E. Brady, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, is co-author ofVoice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics andLetting the People Decide: The Dynamics of a Canadian Election. He has also written on elections, referendums, polotical behavior, and political methodology. Cynthia S. Kaplan, an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, received her Ph.D. from Columbia University and has conducted extensive research in Russia, Estonia, and Tatarstan. She is the author ofThe Party and Agricultural Crisis Management in the USSR and numerous articles on comparative ethnicity, social movements, and political culture in the former Soviet Union.     

Liberal moments and democracy’s durability: Comparing global outbreaks of democracy—1918, 1945, 1989

Conclusion Liberal Moments are constructed by ideational as well as more materials phenomena; by the crisis situations of war, the moments of peace that follow, and the liberal norms at play at each junsture. Understanding Liberal Moments is crucial to understanding the development of the international syaytem in the 20th century and the prospects for democracy or dictatorship across polities. These Moments have been times of heady enthusiasm, when the most liberal ambitions of key actors in the world community have been put forward. The patterns and extent of their unraveling are key indicators of the character of national politics thereafter. Daniel M. Green is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. His writings have appeared inDemocratization, Governance, Humboldt Journal of Social Research, and theReview of African Political Economy. He is currently finishing a book on the politics of economic reform in Ghana and editing a volume entitledConstructivist Comparative Politics: Theoretical Issues and Case Studies.     

Democratization in Namibia: Soft state,hard choice

Independent Namibia’s struggles to create a functioning democracy have made great strides, including a successful regional and local election process in 1992. Soft state problems such as external dependence, weak state capacity for development, and penetration of the state by particularistic class and ethnic interests threaten at independence. In Namibia’s case the economic dominance and potential for military intervention by South Africa restricted the options available to the new SWAPO government. The intimidation and sabotage in the UNSCR 435 election left the government fragmented and weakened its effectiveness in redressing past injustices. Despite adopting moderate economic and progressive social policies, the rewards from trade and investment have been minimal. The independence honeymoon and modest improvements have bought the government time, but a soft state situation limits success and has created openings for new class formations. William A. Lindeke is Associate Professor and Chair of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, 1 University Ave., Lowell, MA 01854. He is currently writing a book on Namibia’s independence period. His recent publications have appeared in the inaugural issue ofJournal of African Policy Studies, Africa Today andNew Solutions.     

Unlikely candidates for democracy: The role of structural context in democratic consolidation

Many contributors to the new literature on democratic consolidation overemphasize the role of political leadership, strategic choices about basic institutional arrangements or economic policy, and other contingent process variables. Their focus on political crafting has encounraged an undue optimism about the possibility of consolidating democracies in unfavorable structural contexts. This article critiques the current literature and asserts the primary importance of structural context in democratic consolidation. The powerful influence of structural context is illustrated by using just two structural variables, economic development level and prior authoritarian regime type, to indicate a group of thirty-eight countries in which democracy has failed to consolidate during the third wave of democratization (1974-present) and is very unlikely to do so in the near or medium-term future. Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past. J. Mark Ruhl is Gleen and Mary Todd Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA. He has written extensively on Latin American politics and has specialized in the cases of Colombia and Honduras. Recent publications by Professor Ruhl includeParty Politics and Elections in Latin America (Westview, 1989), coauthored with R.H. McDonald of Syracuse University, and “Redefining Civil-Military Relations in Honduras”Journal of Intermerican Studies and World Affairs (Spring 1996).     

Democracy, Law, and Comparative Politics

This article offers a revision of democratic theory in light of the experience of recently democratized countries, located outside of the northwestern quadrant of the world. First, various definitions of democracy that claim to follow Schumpeter and are usually considered to be “minimalist” or “processualist” are critically examined. Building upon but clarifying these conceptual efforts, a realistic and restricted, but not minimalist, definition of a democratic regime is proposed. Thereafter, this article argues that democracy should be analyzed not only at the level of the political regime but also in relation to the state—especially the state qua legal system—and to certain aspects of the overall social context. The main underlying theme that runs through this article is the concept of agency, especially as it is expressed in the legal system of existing democracies. I dedicate this article to my daughter Julia, for the metonymy and much love Guillermo O'Donnell is the Helen Kellogg Professor of Government at the University of Notre Dame. He has written many books and articles on authoritarianism, political transitions, democratization, and democratic theory. His latest book,Counterpoints, was published in 1998 by the University of Notre Dame Press. O'Donnell is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. I presented previous versions of this paper and received useful comments at seminars held in April and May 1999 at the University of North Carolina; Cornell University; Berlin's Wissenschaftszentrum; the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, August 1999; and in September 1999 at the Kellogg Institute. I also appreciate the comments and criticisms received from Michael Brie, Maxwell Cameron, Jorgen Elklit, Robert Fishman, Ernesto Garzón Valdés, Jonathan Hartlyn, Osvaldo Iazzetta, Gabriela Ippolito-O'Donnell, Iván Jaksić, Oscar Landi, Hans-Joachim Lauth, Steven Levitsky, Juan Linz, Scott Mainwaring, Juan M. Abal Medina, Martha Merritt, Peter Moody, Gerardo Munck, Luis Pásara, Timothy Power, Adam Przeworski, Héctor Schamis, Sidney Tarrow. Charles Tilly, Ashutosh Varshney, and Ruth Zimmerling. I am particularly grateful for the careful revision and editing undertaken by Gerardo Munck and Ruth Collier for the present issue ofSCID.     

When States Implode: The Correlates of Africa’s civil wars, 1950–92

This article provides a systematic analysis of the extent to which political, economic, and cultural factors are associated with civil wars in sub-Saharan African states. Drawing on a theoretical argument that associates the likelihood of civil war with the tumult that arises from the simultaneous challenges of state building and nation building, several testable propositions are derived on the correlates of African civil wars. Results of logistic regression analyses indicate that previous colonial experience is a significant predictor to the likelihood of civil wars. It is also found that economic development reduces the probability of civil war while militarization increases it. Regime type played no significant role in African civil wars. Similarly, no support was found for the thesis that cultural factors are significantly associated with African civil war, which belies the notion that African civil wars are simply “ethnic conflicts.” It appears that politico-economic factors—instead of cultural ones—give rise to civil wars in Africa. Errol A. Henderson, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Political Science, Wayne State University. He has published articles on international war, foreign policy, domestic conflict, and international political economy inInternational Studies Quarterly, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Journal of Peace Research, Journal of Politics, Peace & Change, andWorld Affairs.     

The Political Regimes Project

The Political Regimes Project is a comprehensive effort to study the determinants and comparative performance of political regimes. The main goal of the project is to assemble and analyze a large cross-national dataset containing indicators of the three basic political regime types (democracy, totalitarianism, and authoritarianism) and a variety of politcal regime subtypes (e.g., parliamentary democracy, bureaucratic authoritarianism). This dataset will contain yearly measures of political regime type and subtype for 117 major countries from 1946 (or a country's first full year of independence) through 1988. The author plans to use this dataset as the basis for a comprehensive study of the determinants and performance of political regimes, and will eventually make the dataset available to other researchers. The comprehensive scope of the Political Regimes Database, its time series properties, and the elaborate typology of regimes that it is based upon will enable researchers to examine political regimes in novel ways that may yield valuable new insights. Mark J. Gasiorowski is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. He has published recent articles inComparative Political Studies International Studies Quarterly, International Organization, and other journals, and is the author of a forthcoming book on U.S. foreign policy toward Iran.     

Rethinking agency and structure in the study of regime change

The oscillation of the study of political regime change between voluntarist and structural approaches has increasingly led scholars to seek research strategies for synthesizing the two approaches. This article addresses the conceptual and practical difficulties of achieving such a synthesis by evaluating several strategies for integrating voluntarist and structural factors in the analysis of regime change. It examines competing ways of conceptualizing agency and structure and assesses the varied consequences that different conceptualizations have for explaining regime transformation. The article also analyzes three distinct strategies for integrating agency and structure: the funnel, path-dependent, and eclectic strategies. Each integrative strategy isanchored by a different conceptual base and has characteristic strengths and limitations. The conclusion explores future directions for developing integrative strategies. The authors are listed in alphabetical order and share equal responsibility for the content of this analysis. We appreciate helpful comments and suggestions from Christopher Ansell, Ruth Berins Collier, Michael Bratton, David Collier, Larry Diamond, Giuseppe di Palma, Peter Evans, John Foran, Jeff Goodwin, Tomasz Grabowski, Ernst Haas, Stephan Haggard, Jonathan Hartlyn, Terry Karl, Steven Levitsky Juan Linz, Gerardo Munck, Pierre Ostiguy, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Eric Selbin, Michael Sinatra, Jutta Weldes, Alexander Wendt, and Brendan Works. James Mahoney is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Brown University. He is currently finishing a book that analyzes liberalism and regime change in five Central American countries during the 19th and 20th centuries. Richard Snyder is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He has published numerous articles on both regime change and the politics of economic reform. He is currently completing a forthcoming book entitledPolitics after Neoliberalism.     

Economic rights and government in developing countries: Cross-national evidence on growth and development

Most analysts assume that economic rights (especially to property and to contracts) help foster economic development, but the relationship is rarely studied empirically. Using three recently developed indexes of economic freedom, this article explores this issue for the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. It finds that developing countries that score better in protecting economic rights also tend to grow, faster and to score higher in human development. In addition, economic rights are associated with democratic government and with higher levels of average national income. Arthur A. Goldsmith is professor of management at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. During the 1998 academic year he is a Visiting Scholar at the Harvard Institute for International Development. Professor Goldsmith has published widely on global economic and management issues, and has consulted for several international development agencies. His most recent articles have appeared inInternational Review of Administrative Sciences, World Development, Journal of Development Studies, andDevelopment and Change. Professor Goldsmith's latest bookBusiness, Government, Society: The Global Political Economy was published in 1996.     

Macroeconomic conditions and political instability: An empirical analysis

This article uses statistical methods to examine the relationship between two key macroeconomic indicators—inflation and economic growth—and four measures of political instability—peaceful unrest, violent unrest, coups d’etat, and changes of government. Using a panel research design and fixed effects regression analysis, I examine first whether contemporaneous relationships exist between these two groups of variables and then the direction of causality between them. Peaceful unrest clearly produces higher inflation and slower growth. Oddly, coups d’etat seem to producelower inflation, and there is some evidence that reverse causation may operate here as well—that high inflation mayreduce the likelihood of coups. Slow economic growth is associated with higher levels of violent unrest and a higher likelihood of coups and changes of government, but the direction of causality in these relationships is not clear. These findings, taken together, suggest that the relationship between macroeconomic conditions and political instability runs primarily from the latter to the former, raising doubts about the widely held view that poor economic conditions generally produce unrest and instability. Mark J. Gasiorowski is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Louisiana State University. He is currently working on a project focusing on the relationship between democracy and macroeconomic conditions.     

After pension reform: Navigating the “Third Rail” in China

Studies of pension reform in developing and transition economies tend to take for granted the capacity of states to implement ambitious and complicated new schemes for the provision of old-age income to pensioners. This article explains the fragmented, decentralized pattern of pension administration in China as an unintended consequence of pension reform. Policy legacies from the command-economy period, principal-agent problems in the reform period, and the threat of pension protests left urban governments largely in control of pension administration. The central government thus succeeded in its policy goals of pension reform but failed to gain administrative control over pension funds. Mark W. Frazier is assistant professor of political science and the Luce Assistant Professor of East Asian Political Economy at Lawrence University. He is the author ofThe Making of the Chinese Industrial Workplace: State, Revolution, and Labor Management (Cambridge University Press, 2002). His current research focuses on how central and local governments in China compete over pension reform. The author gratefully acknowledges helpful comments from Mary E. Gallagher, William Hurst, Dorothy Solinger, Jaeyoun Won, and two anonymous reviewers fromStudies in Comparative International Development. Funds for this research were provided by the Luce Foundation, the University of Louisville, and Lawrence University.     

The public costs of private blessings: Fundamentals of the economic role of government

The main thrust of this overview is to demonstrate how the shift of government authority over time—from a defense of the realm against foreign intruders to an adjudication of conflicting citizen claims—has created a new set of problems and challenges for the modern state in search of development. It is argued that the power of the state expands as traditional forms of economic rivalries and class claims weaken, and as recourse to legal decision-making becomes widely accepted by all social and economic sectors. Government has proven better able to satisfy existing claims than at initiating new forms of social relations. Experiences in a variety of economic structures thus argue for a continued interplay of public and private, federal and personal claims. Irving Louis Horowitz is Hannah Arendt Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Political Science at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08933. Among his major works on development theory and practice areThree Worlds of Development: The Theory and Practice of International Stratification (Oxford University Press, 1965, 1972), andBeyond Empire and Revolution: Militarization and Modernization in the Third World (Oxford University Press, 1982). He was founding editor ofStudies in Comparative International Development.     

Review article

Janusz Bugajski and Maxine Pollock, East European Fault Lines: Dissent, Opposition, and Social Activism. Boulder: Westview Press, 1989. 332 pp., index, paper: $42.50.

H. Stuart Hughes, Sophisticated Rebels: the Political Culture of European Dissent, 1968–1987. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988. 171 pp., index, cloth: $20.00.

H. Gordon Skilling, Samizdat and an Independent Society in Central and Eastern Europe Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1989. 293 pp., index, cloth.