POLI 278

The study of how authoritarian countries become democratic is one of the richest areas of political science. Smith and Sells provide a guide to studying democratic transitions in Latin America, by discussing a set of conditions under which non-democracies are more likely to become democratic and evaluating each one of these conditions in the context of Latin America. Please use your own words to evaluate how well each one of these factors explains transitions to democracy in Latin America. Remember to mention changes over time in the importance of each one of these factors for democratic transitions in LA. Characteristics of the existing (authoritarian) regime Economic Development Social Forces

1. Different types of authoritarian regimes had different levels of success transitioning to democracy. Authoritarian regimes with a dictator, or countries ruled by one leader, had success transitioning to democracies after the ruler was removed. There were also institutional authoritarian regimes. These regimes usually had complex political systems since they were not ruled by one person. Transition to democracy was more difficult in these nations because their country already revolved around a complex system of government and it had to be entirely changed. 2. Smith and Sells discuss the idea that the more economically developed a country becomes, the more likely they will transition to democracy, and the easier this transition will be. As countries become more developed, the middle and working classes increase and citizens have more power and demand representation and a say in government. Due to citizens wanting representation in government, more developed nations often move towards democracies. Countries with the highest GDPs were most likely to transition first. 3. I touched on this a little above, but over time, especially as countries developed, there were far greater social pressures to transition to democracy. At first, elites were not supportive of this, as they wanted to keep power consolidated, but eventually democracies emerged. In countries where elites made alliances with the working class, it was an easier transition to democracy. In addition, as diffusion spread democracy, social pressure for a representative government continued to increase.

Political instability has long characterized Latin America, but Smith and Sells provide some evidence that the nature or type of instability has changed over time. What do you think are the two main ways in which political instability has changed over time in Latin America?

According to Smith & Sells, one of the main changes to stability in Latin America is that, recently, regimes are changing far less. Modern day democracies are more long lasting and stable, especially compared to governments in the early to mid 1900s. Back then, the form of government would change often, leading to instability. In addition, another change to instability is the fact that even though regimes are not changing, leaders have changed rapidly and suddenly. Oftentimes, presidents would end their terms early or resign, and the unpredictable cycle of leadership without a regime change has led to a new kind of instability.

Explain the link between the deepening of ISI (or the "second stage" of ISI) and the rise of bureaucratic authoritarian regimes in Latin America.

After growth and development due to ISI, the economic boom began to die down. The domestic market for manufactured goods was stagnant, and it did not help that many of the goods produced were of low quality. Without room to expand the market, military and civilian elites believed they needed to stimulate investment. Many thought that strict control over the working class was needed to attract foreign investment, since political stability was necessary to do this. In addition, politicians were seen as ineffective and unable to deal with unrest from workers and economic problems. Therefore, countries turned to strict military regimes, or bureaucratic authoritarian regimes to stimulate the economy.

After reading Chapter 1 of Smith and Selles ("Dimensions of Democracy"), define democracy in your own words. As far as you know, are any countries in Latin America democracies?

After reading "Dimensions of Democracy," I have found that democracy requires three key components. A democracy is the election of officials through participation with a free, fair, and competitive election in which elected officials are held accountable for their actions. Therefore, democracy is not simply a free and fair election, electees must be held to a limitation of power. I think many countries in Latin America have elections, believing themselves to be democracies but because they do not guarantee citizens' rights or limit electees power, there are many examples of illiberal democracies, but I am not sure of any liberal democracies.

What were the defining characteristics of the "bureaucratic-authoritarian" regimes that dominated much of Latin America in the 1960s to the early 1980s?

Bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes centered around military control of the state to attract foreign investment, cut costs, limit debts, and therefore promote economic growth. These systems of government tightly controlled the working class and excluded the labor and the left. This political system was based around one-party rule, and the institution controlled wages, working conditions, benefits, and the right to organize. The government also wanted to lower inflation. One way they did this was by paying low wages to the working class. Another common characteristic was to grant public office to people with highly bureaucratized careers - to members of the military, civil service, or large business firms. Finally, these regimes also relied on torture, incarceration, and assassination of opponents as instruments of intimidation and control.

Define the terms conditionality and structural reform program and explain the role they played in the implementation of neoliberal economic reforms in Latin America.

Conditionality describes the conditions that come with loans or debt relief to Latin American countries. This meant that in order for Latin America to borrow money from the IMF or international banks to attempt to get themselves out of debt, they had to meet certain standards and agreements such as relaxing control of markets. Structural reform programs were designed to change the structure of the economy. Examples of this were deregulation of the economy, the privatization of many sectors that were previously government controlled, and liberalizing policies on trade such as limits on foreign imports.

Explain the connection between the way reforms were implemented and their effect on poverty and inequality.

Different styles of implementation impacted the effectiveness of Neoliberal Reforms in Latin America. This can be seen as strong reforms were either implemented all at once (shock-therapy), or gradually with more moderate reforms (gradualism). Countries that implemented their reforms through shock-therapy had the most poverty and inequality. Gradual reform seemed to work better and limit the negative effects of the switch in economic systems.

In this chapter, Smith and Sells evaluate different explanations for the evolution of democracy in Latin America, including diffusion, the influence of the United States, and earlier experience with democracy. Briefly describe the connection between each one of these and democracy.

Diffusion is the idea of democracy and its ideals spreading from country to country. It also contains the idea that countries with democracy are an example therefore, flourishing democracies influence spreading it while ones that are struggling discourage its implementation. The United States is explained to have a bad connection with implementing democracies in other places. Countries with less US influence have tended to have more successful democracies which I found to be a very interesting claim. Smith and Sells also explain that countries with prior experience with democracy are more likely to implement it longterm.

In his work, Samuel Huntington describes three global waves of democracy. To what degree to Latin American countries fit into these "waves"?

Huntington refers to three "waves" of democracy in which countries around the world became democracies. While these waves somewhat fit the history of Latin American democracy, the countries of Latin America seem to be a little behind the worldwide waves. For example, the first wave of democracy mentioned by Huntington occurred from 1828 to 1926. However, very few Latin American countries were vying for democracy during this first wave. However, entering the 1950s the Latin American countries catch up with the waves and begin building democracies

The study of democracy for a long time referred to countries as democracies or as non-democracies (or countries where the characteristics of democracies were not present). What was the importance of Juan Linz's adoption of the concept of authoritarianism? How did it change how we study and understand political regimes?

Linz's adoption of the concept of authoritarianism expanded our understanding of political regimes by explaining that the scope of political regimes goes beyond simply "democracies" and "non-democracies." However, many Latin American countries had systems of government in place that did not fall under either of those categories. For example, while these systems of government were not fully totalitarian with a dictator, they still lacked some of the key characteristics of democracies such as fair elections. Linz was able to categorize this type of government as Authoritarian, which is neither a democracy or non-democracy.

How do bureaucratic authoritarian regimes contradict the predictions of Modernization Theory in Latin America?

Modernization Theory is the theory that economic progress will bring about social and political change. The idea is that wealth will lead to the growth of the middle class and that the country will have a better chance of sustaining democracy due to its economic prosperity. However, the decline of Latin American economies following the post WW2 boom contradicted the idea that wealth leads to sustainable democracy as countries implemented bureaucratic authoritarian regimes in hopes of rekindling economic growth and development.

What were the political consequences of ISI? Connect the changes in economic policy to changes in the political organization of countries in Latin America.

One major political consequence of ISI was a change in socioeconomic structure. The emergence of a new class, industrial elites, altered the social hierarchy. Industrial elites were people who made economic profit by investing early into industrialization and companies in Latin America. In addition, the working class substantially grew. Once the working class achieved suffrage, their political influence continued to grow. In some Latin American countries, businesses and workers formed political alliances which were promoted by governments.

Describe two substantial ways in which the Independence of Brazil differed from most other movements for independence in Latin America

One significant difference in the Independence of Brazil was that Portugal did not have the same level of governmental control that Spain did over its territories. Portugal did not have the power to stop Brazil's move to an independent nation. Since Portugal was different from Spain in the fact that it did not have the military strength to fight against the independence of its colonies, the path to independence for Brazil was far less violent than for Spanish America.

What kinds of racial and social hierarchies existed in colonial Spanish and Portuguese America? How did they change, if at all, over time?

Racial and social hierarchies were prevalent in colonial Spanish and Portuguese America. European whites, or Peninsulares, were at the top of the hierarchy. Creoles, or whites born in the Americas from European descent were next. Then, mestizos, or those of mixed blood followed. Finally, the natives and blacks were on the bottom. Over time, the classes started to mix more. Creoles began to assert control and gain power for themselves.

This chapter introduces several terms and concepts that are useful in talking about democratic transitions and that we will use as we discuss the cases of Chile and Mexico. Briefly describe the following terms: Social Class Liberalization (as opposed to democratization) Consolidation of democracy (as opposed to its initiation)

Social class is an analytical construct that refers to a group of people's, or social group's, position in the hierarchy of society. Usually, economic status or culture place people into a certain social class. Democratization refers to the implementation of a democracy. Liberalization centers around the loosening of government control, especially economically. Therefore, liberalization describes the movement towards democracy. Consolidation of democracy describes the maturation and survival of democracy. The more democracy matures and develops, the less likely the nation reverts back to authoritarianism. Initiation deals with the implementation of democracy.

What is the Reversal of Fortunes?

The "Reversal of Fortunes" is a term for the impact colonialism had on the development of different areas. Populous and developed regions, pre-colonization, often declined in prosperity following colonialism. However, the poorest and least developed regions often emerged the wealthiest after colonization. The "fortunes" of the colonized areas often depended on the conditions of the land and the colonizers themselves. Overall, Spanish colonization tended to have negative consequences for post colonial development, while the effects of British colonialism were more positive.

Explain how the 1982 Debt Crisis led to a wave of economic reforms in the late 1980s and 1990s typically referred to as "Neoliberal reforms."

The 1982 debt crisis was caused by increased borrowing from Latin American countries during the 1970s. These worked in the short-term, but as interest rates rose due to worldwide stagflation, as well as a decrease in demand for Latin American goods, the borrowing countries could not pay their debts. This led to economic stagnation and a tremendous decrease in output. Economists decided that Latin America required major economic reform, causing countries to move away from ISI and towards "neoliberalism," which was based around the free market. This led to reducing the role of the state (privatizing state owned industries), government supporting the private sector, and liberalizing policies on trade. In some ways, went back to the export-import model and utilize comparative advantage.

How was Colonial Spanish America politically organized? How did that scheme of political organization facilitate Spanish imperial control and how did it make it challenging?

The Spanish Crown realized it had a conflict of interest with the conquistadores and thus created a bureaucracy to solidify its control over the colonies. The monarch created the Council of Indies to handle imperial affairs and appointed viceroys in Mexico and Peru to rule the colonies. This system of government allowed the Spanish to make final decisions on important matters through the viceroy or Council of Indies. One challenge of the new government was that there were often disagreements over jurisdiction.

What were the main elements of the "Washington Consensus"?

The Washington Consensus is based around economic strategies that are encouraged by Washington in order to help nations achieve economic growth and development. The Consensus was a response by Washington to the economic crisis in Latin America. It suggested the region go back to the export-import economic model, with countries profiting off of their comparative advantage. The Consensus also stressed relaxing the control of the state on the economy. For example, privatization of state owned businesses were suggested to create competition. Reliance on free trade, such as import liberalization, was also a key factor.

Most transitions in Latin America have been pacted, that is, the result of a bargaining process. In Figure 2.2, Smith and Sells reproduce a representation of this bargaining process first proposed by Adam Przeworski (a famous political scientist). Can you explain this Figure with your own words?

The bargaining process referred to in figure 2.2 is the negotiation between supporters of the current authoritarian regime, and the opposition, who want democracy. When dealing with opposition, the authoritarian regime either has to oppress or negotiate. When negotiating, opposition to the regime, such as the moderates, need to gain the support of the reformers in order to begin a transition. If the moderates are able to ally with the reformers, they can make bargains to move towards a democracy. Reformers are often in favor of this, as these bargains often give them power and important positions in the new government. However, if the reformers ally with the hardliners, who do not want governmental change, then it is very difficult to transition to democracy.

Contrast the logic of the Import-Export model of growth and ISI. How was each model supposed to generate economic development?

The logic of the import-export model of growth was to export raw materials to Europe where they could be manufactured. This strategy revolved around laissez-faire economics and the idea that progress would come from free markets. Countries were expected to profit by utilizing their comparative advantage, meaning that countries would ship away the materials they had in abundance and could access quickly and easily. However, the ISI approach centered on the idea that government intervention was necessary to create an industrial economy in developing nations. This system wanted to establish economic independence for Latin America and catch the countries up with the industrialized nations overseas. The idea was that Latin America would develop and produce their own goods.

Far from a "consensus" around neoliberal policies, in the years since they were implemented there have been many questions about the reforms and their effects. Based on your readings, evaluate the long-term effects of neoliberal reforms on each of the following areas: (Your answer should include a short paragraph by area) - Economic growth - Job creation and employment - Inequality and Poverty - Democracy

The long-term effects of Neoliberal reforms are complicated and differ depending on the country. However, general economic growth was slower in Latin America than the ISI period. One country that exemplifies hindered growth is Mexico. Neoliberalism did effectively cut government deficits and reduce inflation. Employment during this time period increased, but, increases were mainly in the informal sector. Therefore, the government did not do well with job-creation. Neoliberalism did not solve the issues of inequality and poverty. In some cases, there was even more inequality and poverty, especially at first. Lastly, changes in government towards democracy did not solve long-standing issues of corruption.

How did Spain and Britain's economic models differ and how did these differences lead them to impose different levels of colonialism in the Americas?

The mercantilist economic model of Spain drove them to colonize areas that were populous and economically developed. Spain wanted to extract resources, particularly valuable metals, for economic gain. Therefore, Spain chose to colonize populous areas as they already had a consistent labor force that they could use to gather resources. Since Spain's goal was to profit off the land, they did not spend much time developing their territory. In addition, this mercantilist approach often brought strict social classes and trade restrictions, hindering long term development. As for Britain, their liberal government pushed them in the direction of less populated and developed territory. British colonialism implemented laws, effective administration, and competitive markets, all of which helped develop their colonies. Britain intended for their colonies to last for a substantial period of time, so they put more effort into developing them.

Describe two features of colonial society, economics and politics that changed with Independence, and two that did not change.

The socioeconomic structure of colonial society did not change after independence. A thin elite stayed at the top, followed by a small middle group, with 80-90% of the population at the bottom. Another aspect that remained the same was the reliance of the Americas on goods from Europe and the United States. The biggest change in the New World was that, for the first time, the people were not ruled by a monarch. Instead, alternative forms of government were put in place, and citizens generally had more power/influence. In addition, the transportation network in Latin America improved, as railroads, canals, docks, and roads were built.

Define the terms mestizo, peninsulares and criollos, and briefly describe how their rivalry between these last two groups shaped the independence wars in Latin America.

The term "mestizo" referred to individuals with "mixed blood" of Spanish and Indigenous descent. People of European descent that were born in the new world were called "criollos," and "peninsulares" refers to the people that arrived from Spain. The conflict between the criollos and peninsulares is described as what "shaped the struggles that led to independence." This conflict was rooted in the attempt for both groups to achieve power and authority.

Before the beginning of the 20th century, Latin American countries had not experienced democracy. What were the three main types of rule in the 19th century?

The three main types of rule in the 19th century were Caudillism, integrating dictatorships, and competitive oligarchy. Caudillism centers around competition for power and control between military groups. Integrating dictatorships is when the military attempts to build a powerful state and control this state via the military. Competitive oligarchy revolved around democratic processes, but only gave power to the elites. For example, only the elites could vote in elections.

3 most important trends in the evolution of democracy in Latin America illustrated by this figure.

The three most important trends illustrated by figure 1.1 are the periods between 1900-2000 of oligarchy, semi-democracy, and democracy. During the oligarchical time period, countries began to have some democratic characteristics such as elections. However, these were usually reserved for the elite, and power was held by a small number of people. During the period of semi-democracy, governments were controlled by the military, but governments continued to move closer to democracy. This period was centered around free elections and the spread of democratic ideals. Finally, the democratic period was characterized by full democracy being implemented in the majority of Latin American countries.

Describe three concrete policies that governments implemented to promote domestic industrialization during the ISI period. In your description mention how each policy was supposed to promoted industrialization.

Three concrete policies that governments implemented to promote domestic industrialization during the ISI period were protective tariffs, investment in infrastructure, and the support of the overvalued exchange rate. Protective tariffs were designed to tax foreign imports and make them more expensive than local goods. Investment in infrastructure had the goal of progressing industrialization and the local economy. Support of the overvalued exchange rate was designed to make the currency of the nation more valuable. By increasing the value of the local currency, importing capital goods became less expensive, and the idea was that the Latin American nations would use these capital goods to make their own manufactured goods.

Import-substitution industrialization appeared to work well in some countries in the decades after World War II. What led to its demise?

While import-substitution industrialization often works well in the short term, it often falters in the long-run. National markets fell subject to saturation. In addition, substantial imports of capital goods were still needed for production. The high costs of production were placed on consumers, and monopolies discouraged investment in technology. Lastly, the focus of the nations resources on industrial development weakened the nation's agricultural sectors. All of these factors led to the demise of ISI and encouraged policy makers to search for new strategies.