Handbook of Political Science Research on Latin America 9780313264467, 0313264465

Citation preview

WITHDRAWN

THE DENISON UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES SEELEY G. MUDD LEARNING CENTER WILLIAM HOWARD DOANE LIBRARY

HANDBOOK OF POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ON LATIN AMERICA

Handbook of Political Science Research on Latin America TRENDS FROM THE 1960s TO THE 1990s Edited by

David W. Dent

GREENWOOD PRESS New York • Westport, Connecticut • London

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Handbook of political science research on Latin America : trends from the 1960s to the 1990s / edited by David W. Dent, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 0-313-26446-5 (lib. bdg. : alk. paper) 1. Political science—Research—Latin America. JA84.L3H36 1990 320.98'072—dc20

I. Dent, David W.

90-36626

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright © 1990 by David W. Dent All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 90-36626 ISBN: 0-313-26446-5 First published in 1990 Greenwood Press, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. Printed in the United States of America

The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48-1984). 10 987654321

Copyright Acknowledgments The author and publisher are grateful to the following for allowing the use of material: Abraham F. Lowenthal, “Research in Latin America and the Caribbean on International Relations and Foreign Policy: Some Impressions.” Reprinted from the Latin American Research Review, volume 23, number 1 (1983), pp. 154-174. Nathan A. Haverstock (volumes 22-23); Earl J. Pariseau (volumes 24, 25, 27); Henry E. Adams (volumes 29, 31); Donald E. J. Stewart (volumes 33, 35, 37); Dolores Moyano Martin (volume 39), eds. Handbook of Latin American Studies. Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida Press, 1960-1977. Reprinted with permission from the University Presses of Florida. Dolores Moyano Martin, ed. Handbook of Latin American Studies, volumes 41-49. Austin, Tex. University of Texas Press, 1979-87. Reprinted with permission from the University of Texas Press. The World of Learning 1989. 1989. London: Europa Publications.

90005893

CONTENTS PREFACE

ix

1. Introduction: Political Science Research on Latin America David W. Dent

1

Part I: Comparative Politics: Countries and Regions 2.

Mexico Roderic A. Camp

3.

Central America Robert H. Trudeau

4.

109

Colombia Robert E. Biles

8.

99

Venezuela David W. Dent

7.

79

The Dominican Republic Michael J. Kryzanek

6.

47

Cuba Julie Marie Bunck

5.

25

131

Ecuador David W. Dent

149

vi

/

Contents

9. Peru David G. Becker 10.

163

Bolivia Eduardo A. Gamarra

11.

189

Chile Paul E. Sigmund

12.

207

Brazil Frances Hagopian

13.

229

Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay Gary W. Wynia

265

Part II: International Relations: Countries and Regions 14.

Patterns of International Relations Research G. Pope Atkins

15.

285

Mexico’s International Relations Dale Story

16.

307

Central America and the Caribbean Damian J. Fernandez

17.

325

South America Michael J. Francis and Timothy J. Power

347

Part III: Appendixes A:

A Selected Bibliography of Politics Reference Works for Latin America Peter T. Johnson

B:

373

Macro-Trends in Political Science Research, 1960-1985: Data from the Handbook of Latin American Studies David W. Dent

385

Contents C:

/

vii

Major Research Centers and Institutes in Latin America and the Caribbean David W. Dent

393

NAME INDEX

413

SUBJECT INDEX

429

ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS

445

PREFACE This book is the outgrowth of close to fifteen years of work as a contributing editor to the government and politics literature found in the Handbook of Latin American Studies, a standard reference bibliography covering all aspects of research on Latin America. My original goal was to utilize the existing contrib¬ utors to the Handbook to produce a reference work that would synthesize the research trends in the field of Latin American politics since 1960. This turned out to be unrealistic given the heavy research and writing commitments of some contributors and the division of labor employed by the Handbook of Latin Amer¬ ican Studies at the Library of Congress. To produce this reference handbook, I relied on sixteen scholars who have been key contributors to the study of Latin American politics in the United States and Latin America. All of the contributors to this volume have lived and done field work in Latin America and the Caribbean and have studied and taught about Latin America for a good part of their lives. Many have been involved in the major debates over how to best approach the politics of the region and how to better understand the international relations of our neighbors to the south. Seven of the contributors are current or former contributors to the Handbook of Latin American Studies where they review and annotate the government and politics or international relations materials that are sent to them by the staff at the Hispanic Division of the Library of Congress. Political science research on Latin America did not reach the “takeoff” stage until the early 1960s when the growth of the profession coincided with the Cuban Revolution and the Alliance for Progress. At the time there were very few trained political scientists writing about Latin America; those who were interested in Latin American affairs were mostly historians or journalists from the United States. The “political science” literature from Latin America consisted largely of ministerial reports and partisan tracks by Latin American intellectuals or

x

/

Preface

pensadores interested mainly in philosophical or ideological issues. However, formal academic training improved in the 1960s and 1970s, generating a vast amount of improved literature from scholars in North America, Latin America, Western Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. The internationalization of research attention has contributed to a greater theoretical understanding of Latin American political life today than existed thirty years ago. The genesis of this book is the creation of a data file from all of the entries in the govemment/political science and international relations sections of the Handbook dating back to 1950. The availability of this data file enabled me to categorize and synthesize a vast amount of the literature on political science research on Latin America. Of particular importance in this stocktaking was the ability to map out some of the major contours in the research literature in the post-World War II period. The scholars who joined me in this volume built on some of the trends and patterns suggested by the skeletal data provided in the brief annotations in the Handbook. We were interested in what subjects of investigation have intrigued political scientists and why. Which countries in Latin America and the Caribbean receive the most research attention and why? Do North American and Latin American scholars study and interpret the same political phenomena in a similar fashion? What is the connection between the Latin American policy of the United States and political science research on Latin America? What are the impacts of political change and regime type on political science research on Latin America? How have theoretical developments outside of Latin America influenced the study of Latin American politics? This handbook offers the reader a rich synthesis of the kinds of political science research that have been done on the Latin American region over the past thirty years. It includes mainly published books, articles, and government documents— in both Spanish and English—in addition to a few doctoral dissertations that fill important research lacunae but were never published. The general division within the discipline of political science—comparative government and international relations—is followed in the organizational structure of this book, although at times it is obvious that this categorization ignores the symbiotic nature of the two subfields. The seventeen chapters in this volume cover either a single country or a major region, for example, South America, Central America, or the Southern Cone (Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay). This book should be of immense value to those interested in the history and methodology of political science research on Latin America and the Caribbean. Area specialists from other regions will find a bounty of literature to compare with macro-trends in their area of expertise. For those who are just beginning a career in Latin America area studies, this reference work will provide a wealth of information which can be used to comprehend what subjects of research and theoretical frameworks have been devised to understand better political life and social change in the region. If the synthesis of trends in this volume contributes to a better understanding of comparative politics and international relations in Latin America, then many of our expectations will have been fulfilled.

Preface / xi A book of this complexity and scope would not have been possible without the encouragement and assistance of those in the Hispanic Division of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Dolores M. Martin, editor of the Handbook of Latin American Studies, and Georgette M. Dom, head of the reference section of the Hispanic Division, provided enthusiasm and professional advice to move this project from a modest effort at mapping out research trends that appeared as “Past and Present Trends in Research on Latin American Politics, 19501980’’ (Latin American Research Review 13, no. 1 [1986]), to a much more expansive project covering research trends within individual countries and regions over a thirty-year span of time. Sue Mundell, staff assistant with the Handbook, helped me in tracking down hundreds of citations for both books and serial publications not easily found in other libraries. I owe a debt of gratitude to each of the scholars who agreed to join this effort in trying to make sense out of the political science research on Latin America. I want to offer personal thanks to a number of colleagues who offered assistance in commenting on chapters or in tracking down entries for the appendix on research centers and institutes in Latin America and the Caribbean: David Becker, Fran Hagopian, Robert Biles, John Booth, Paul Sigmund, Frank Knight, Scott Mainwaring, Bruce M. Bagley, Larman Wilson, Peter Johnson, Bob Trudeau, Max Azicri, Harvey Williams, Gloria Rudolph, Steve Ropp, Eduardo Gamarra, Paul H. Lewis, Cristina Eguizabal, Mitchell Seligson, Jorge I. Dominguez, Catherine M. Conaghan, J. Samuel Fitch, Kenneth Paul Erickson, David W. Schodt, John D. Martz, David J. Myers, Gene Bigler, Rene Salgado, Abraham F. Lowenthal, Juan del Aguila, Cynthia McClintock, Thomas Mullen, G. Pope Atkins, Ruben de Hoyos, Rod A. Camp, and Ronn Pineo. Margaret Thurber’s assistance with the manuscript during the final stages was much appreciated. My thanks and gratitude are also extended to Mildred Vasan, Greenwood editor, who guided me through the rough terrain of being a general editor of such a vast undertaking. The Faculty Development Committee of Towson State Uni¬ versity was generous in providing two summer faculty research grants to assist in the production of this work. Perhaps the best test of an effort of this magnitude will be the comments and criticisms from the political scientists—both in North America and Latin America, and elsewhere—who we have discussed in this book. We welcome this kind of communication because we hope it will foster a sound and invigorating debate about the future of political science research on Latin America—the purpose of writing this volume. Significant advances have been made in the study of Latin American politics since 1960; we hope that this volume will serve as a guide to more theoretically sound and empirically grounded works over the next decade. It goes without saying in enterprises such as this, the use and interpretation of all materials rests with the authors of the chapters that follow.

HANDBOOK OF POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ON LATIN AMERICA

1 INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ON LATIN AMERICA David W. Dent

Over the past three decades political scientists have posed a number of critical questions about the nature of Latin American politics and the international re¬ lations of the region. In 1961, only a few Latin American governments were run directly by the military. As the decade progressed, a wave of military coups struck South America upsetting democratic traditions and some of the most welldeveloped political institutions in the region. With the exception of President Salvador Allende’s Unidad Popular experiment in democratic socialism, the political change in South America had little impact on the national security of the United States and in the conduct of American foreign policy. Social scientists trained to expect different consequences from the process of modernization were confounded by the growing reality that economic devel¬ opment and industrialization (the bedrocks of such U.S. policies as the Alliance for Progress) had not produced stable, effective, and legitimate governments. At this juncture, many political scientists—in both North America and Latin America—began the search for theoretical explanations for the rise of the military authoritarian governments that dominated the political landscape of South Amer¬ ica during the 1960s and 1970s. By 1990, however, authoritarian regimes had disappeared from the political landscape of South America. Thus, in a span of thirty years, the cycle of regime transition had come full circle, creating more political puzzles and debates on the reasons for liberalization and redemocrati¬ zation in this part of Latin America. Why did authoritarian regimes decompose so rapidly and with such uniformity during the 1980s, and are we likely to see a breakdown of democratic regimes in the 1990s? The process of the rise and fall of authoritarian regimes is examined in the edited volume by George A. Lopez and Michael Stohl, Liberalization and Redemocratization in Latin America (1987), where the authors present a number of critical factors affecting regime

2

/

Introduction

transition, including the interesting observation that military authoritarian gov¬ ernments carry the seeds of their own destruction. In Central America and the Caribbean, authoritarian regimes of a different character dominated the region until the late 1970s when revolutionary move¬ ments challenged the power of traditional institutions and groups. The demise of traditional dictatorships and the emergence of a post-authoritarian future pro¬ duced a different pattern of political transition than in South America. First, the political change in Central America took place with little in the way of a tradition of effective and legitimate democratic political institutions, with the exception of pluralist Costa Rica. Second, the inspiration for regime transition occurred mostly through the creation of mass-based armed revolutionary movements. The post-authoritarian regimes that emerged in the 1980s had to face both a higher level of popular expectations for meaningful change and a less propitious climate for political compromise and reconciliation. Third, post-authoritarian regimes in Central America clashed with U.S. security and economic interests, thus reducing the possibilities for peaceful and democratic change. According to Richard Stahler-Sholk, “Building Democracy in Nicaragua,” in George A. Lopez and Michael Stohl, eds., Liberalization and Redemocratization in Latin America (1987: 60-61), “[T]he development of Central American revolutionary move¬ ments coincided with a period of palpable decline in U.S. hegemony and a new ‘rollback’ ideology reminiscent of the Cold War, a combination which produced an intense new wave of U.S. involvement in Central American politics.” All three of these factors influenced the theoretical efforts of political scientists to explain the nature of politics and political change at a time when little scholarly work existed to understand Central American politics. Some of the competing theories of Central American revolutions are examined in a recent volume by John A. Booth and Thomas W. Walker, Understanding Central America (1989). These two authors reject the “communist subversion” theory and argue per¬ suasively that rapid changes in economic and political conditions are the principal reasons behind the nationalist revolts in El Salvador and Guatemala as well as the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. While many gaps in the literature have been filled over the past decade, political scientists are still grasping for a pow¬ erful paradigm to analyze and explain the politics of Central America. The political events described above have had a marked impact on the craft of political science research on Latin America since I960.' When Fidel Castro came to power in 1959, little in the way of systematic research was being done by political scientists interested in Latin America. Much of what passed for political science research in the 1950s was narrowly focused, ethnocentric, atheoretical, and noncomparative. Arturo Valenzuela, “Political Science and the Study of Latin America, ’ ’ in Christopher Mitchell, ed., Changing Perspectives in Latin American Studies: Insights from Six Disciplines (1988), classifies this period as the “public law phase” in which a few pioneering scholars “sought to chronicle contemporary history, evaluate the prospects for democracy in the region, and

Introduction

/

3

describe constitutions, institutions, and formal processes in Latin America” (p. 65). The bridge between this kind of political science research and what was to follow in the 1960s was provided by several pioneers, who helped train dozens of graduate students, and continued their interest in Latin American politics into the 1980s. John J. Johnson’s Political Change in Latin America: The Emergence of the Middle Sectors (1958) began a debate on how political change takes place through an examination of the changing power of what he called the “middle sectors.” Merle Kling, “Towards a Theory of Power and Political Stability in Latin America” (1956), devoted more attention to the concept of power and political theory than had been the case previously in the study of Latin American politics. Charles W. Anderson and Albert O. Hirschman trained a number of Latin Americanists who later applied their conceptualizations of political econ¬ omy to cases in Latin America. In Politics and Economic Change in Latin America: The Governing of Restless Nations (1967), Anderson develops a theory of the Latin American political system emphasizing “power contenders” and “power capabilities.” Hirschman’s Journeys toward Progress: Studies of Eco¬ nomic Policy-Making in Latin America (1965) explores a number of classic political problems-—land reform, inflation, and poverty—and their connection with Latin American policymakers. Kalman H. Silvert, The Conflict Society (1966), was one of the first scholars to question whether the North American approaches to understanding political life could be applied to the Latin American context. Many political scientists, after spending time doing field work in Latin America, came to realize that their academic training in comparative politics or international relations was inadequate to understand fully the process of devel¬ opment and change in Latin America. Today, there are political scientists in all parts of the globe who produce a large volume of literature dealing with comparative government and international relations in the region. In Latin America there has been a dramatic growth in qualified academics and practitioners, many trained in the United States and Western Europe, who are making important contributions through such wellknown research centers as El Colegio de Mexico (Mexico), the Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (Argentina), the Centro Brasileiro de Analise e Planejamento and the Instituto Universitario de Pesquisa do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (Costa Rica, Guatemala, Chile, Ecuador, Argentina), and the Centro de Estudios y Promocion del Desarrollo (Peru). There has also been a boom in European interest in Latin America which has coincided with the dramatic growth in programs and scholarship in the United States after 1960. However, in Carmelo Mesa-Lago’s Latin American Studies in Europe (1978:176-178), he finds that political science occupies a small percent of disciplinary activity in European research on Latin America. Yet similar political factors—the Cuban Revolution and missile crisis, the rise of democratic reformist parties (particularly in Chile and Venezuela), the Allende experiment

4

/

Introduction

in socialism, and the rampant militarism that drove thousands of academic ref¬ ugees out of Latin America—are the most important factors in explaining the European and North American interest in Latin America politics from 1960 to the present. The cornucopia of literature after 1960 can be illustrated by counting the citations in the Handbook of Latin American Studies for the decades of the 1950s and 1960s. During the whole decade of the 1950s, only 796 items were cited in the government section of the Handbook, in contrast to 2,577 for the following decade. For the past three decades, political science research on Latin America has tried to fill a huge intellectual void and, at the same time, to ameliorate the weaknesses that were so evident in the scholarship that was produced in the 1950s. The tension between traditional political science and the behavioralist orien¬ tation found in the “modernization and development” literature produced a number of depressing assessments of the quality of political science research on Latin America in the early 1960s. One of the classics from this period is Merle Kling’s “The State of Research on Latin America: Political Science,” in Charles Wagley, ed., Social Science Research on Latin America (1964), whose cogent criticisms—anecdotal, prescriptive, and normative—helped pave the way toward the quantitative outpouring and qualitative upgrading that would come during the late 1960s and 1970s. Kling’s major concerns centered on the need for political scientists to couch their analysis in terms of the fledgling concepts of political development and modernization while striving toward greater meth¬ odological rigor and empirical quantification. To make the break with the le¬ galistic tradition that had taken hold after World War II, scholars began to expand their range of subjects of investigation to include interest groups, parties, elec¬ tions, government decision making and functions, and political leadership. How¬ ever, this trend was hampered by the rise of bureaucratic authoritarian regimes, the persistent political tradition of a strong leader, and new modes of analysis— political economy, dependency, and class—which put little emphasis on political institutions. The concrete results of what Valenzuela (1988) calls the “modernization phase” were often disappointing, particularly in dealing with the relationship between regime type and economic policies and structures, and the key as¬ sumptions associated with the modernization and political development literature. The growing dissatisfaction with this type of analysis became the genesis of the “dependency school” of political science research led primarily by Latin Amer¬ ican scholars interested in such themes as authoritarianism, economic under¬ development, class analysis, and cooptation/control functions. The dependency movement was not without its critics, particularly among some of the founders of “modem” comparative politics. In a recent article, Gabriel A. Almond, “The Development of Political Development,” in Myron Weiner and Samuel P. Hun¬ tington, eds., Understanding Political Development (1987), criticizes the dependencistas for being incomplete and inconclusive. In Almond’s view, “We should not blink at the fact that the adoption of a dependency perspective was

Introduction

/

5

a backward step, a movement away from the hard-won rule of evidence and inference in social studies. It gave up the battle for science in the study of society on the grounds that a complete victory could never be won” (p. 454). By the 1980s, political science research on Latin Arperica had gone through a number of significant phases designed to unlock some of the important questions dealing with Latin American politics and development. However, twenty-five years after Kling’s (1964) critique of political science research on Latin America, Valenzuela (1988) concluded that there had been less progress than one would have expected, given the tremendous amount of ferment in the field. Despite a number of achievements in the study of Latin American politics— close collaboration between Latin American and U.S. specialists and new paradigms and conceptual tools designed to handle existing patterns of devel¬ opment—there are still theoretical and epistemological difficulties that plague the discipline. Diverse conceptual tools such as dependency, corporatism, bu¬ reaucratic-authoritarianism, and redemocratization have contributed to both scholarly debates and electicism in the research orientation of North American and Latin American scholars. The following section examines the research trends and perspectives among North American and Latin American scholars that have emerged in the study of Latin American politics since 1960.

NORTH AMERICAN VERSUS LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES The following discussion examines six variables—country and region of re¬ search concentration, major research subjects, sources of scholarly communi¬ cation, academic preparation, research orientation, and locus of research—which summarize (see Table 1.1) the history and epistemology of political science research on Latin America. Some of the quantitative data used in this summary analysis are drawn from the Handbook of Latin American Studies and are pre¬ sented in tabular form in Appendix B of this volume. The methodology is discussed in David W. Dent, ‘‘Past and Present Trends in Research on Latin American Politics, 1950-1980” (1986).

Country of Research Concentration Which of the Latin American and Caribbean countries receive the most re¬ search attention? Recent efforts to examine trends in political science research indicate that since 1950 only a few Latin American countries receive the bulk of attention. In one of the early empirical studies designed to map out research trends, Peter Ranis, “Trends in Research on Latin American Politics: 1961-67” (1967), found that political scientists tend to focus their research attention on the larger and more accessible Latin American countries. In Dent (1986), five countries—Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Cuba, and Mexico—accounted for close to three-fifths of all citations in the Handbook of Latin American Studies from 1950

6

/

Introduction

Table 1.1 Political Science Research on Latin America: A Summary of North American and Latin American Perspectives

Research Perspective

North American

Latin American

1. Most Studied Countries (Top Five)

Cuba, Chile, Mexico, Brazil, and Peru

Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Venezuela

2. Major Research Subjects

Revolutionary Issues, Country & Comparative Studies, Armed Forces and the soIdc de estado. and Parties & Elections.

Revolutionary Issues, Political Leaders, Parties & Elections, Government & Legal Institutions.

3.

Major Source of Scholarly Communication

Books, Monographs, and Journal Articles.

Books and Monographs.

4.

Background & Academic Training

Advanced degree training in area studies & political science; influenced by developments in the 1960s and 1970s; Cuban Revolution, Vietnam War, Allende’s Chile, and the failure of the Alliance for Progress; Some with Peace Corps training.

Combination of recent emphasis on advanced training in political science/area studies with many influenced by older Marxist intellectuals with little familiarity with modernization & development theory. Many with European training.

5.

Predominant Research Orientation

Less conceptual orthodoxy with interest in corporatism, clientelism, populism, and various forms of structuralism.

More conceptual orthodoxy with emphasis on dependency, bureaucraticauthoritarianism, and neoMarxist approaches to politics.

College or university where teaching & research often go together; most research & writing is done by and for individuals.

Non-govemmental research institutes with both a team & interdisciplinary focus. Less university-based individual research.

6. Locus of Research

to 1980. It is obvious that the size of population and the quality of the research infrastructure are factors in drawing political scientists to study Latin America (see Chapter 12). Over the past two decades, research attention has fluctuated as a result of internal political change and the U.S. response to the contours of Latin American politics. Both the rise and fall of Salvador Allende in Chile and the crisis in Central America during the 1980s generated a massive amount of literature (see Chapters 3 and 11) devoted to either comparative politics or international relations. In the two cases of El Salvador and Nicaragua, the growth

Introduction

/

7

in political science literature has been dramatic. For example, in Dent’s (1986:141) trend analysis which focused on the 1950-1980 period, “only nine¬ teen works of a political nature were cited and annotated in the Handbook for Nicaragua over a span of thirty years. El Salvador received scarcely more at¬ tention, with forty-one works cited over the same time period.” In contrast, between volume 43 (1979) and volume 49 (1989) of the Handbook of Latin American Studies, research citations on Nicaragua increased fivefold. Until the 1980s, political science doctoral dissertations on Central America were rare.2 The striking increase in the publications on Central America is a direct con¬ sequence of the Nicaraguan revolution, the civil wars in El Salvador and Gua¬ temala, the shifting sovereignty over the Panama Canal, the contra war conducted by the United States against Nicaragua from Honduras, the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), and the policy “review” found in the Kissinger Commission Report on Central America. This trend shows no signs of abating as books, journal articles, and dissertations continue to focus on the Central American region. As Mark B. Rosenberg points out in “Honduras: Bastion of Stability or Quagmire?” in Donald E. Shulz and Douglas H. Graham, eds., Revolution and Counterrevolution in Central America and the Caribbean (1984: 331), “Political conflict, civil war, and revolution have done for Central America what years of poverty, deprivation, and authoritarianism could not: They have placed it squarely on the agenda of important U.S. foreign policy interests.” This current trend in research attention devoted to Central America demonstrates how U.S. foreign policy can shift from one country to another depending on how political change in Latin America is perceived by policymakers in Washington, D.C. This trend continues in other parts of Latin America where research attention changes when the country becomes the focus of attention in the United States for economic or security reasons or when authoritarianism, political violence, or drug trafficking makes research difficult to carry out. This shift in research focus has drawn political scientists away from countries in South America where many did doctoral research or served as Peace Corps volunteers to the dramatic political change associated with the upheavals in El Salvador and Nicaragua beginning in 1979. This pattern is a good illustration of what Joseph S. Tulchin, “Emerging Patterns of Research in the Study of Latin America” (1983), calls the “herding instinct,” in terms of the countries in which the research is being done, the subjects of investigation, and the con¬ ceptual frameworks used to understand political phenomena. By the 1980s, however, the problem was not the quantity of the research being carried out, but generally the poor quality of political science research, particularly in terms of the standards of scientific inquiry. In his review of the political science research on Central America, Steve Ropp, “Government and Politics: Central America,” in Dolores M. Martin, ed., Handbook of Latin American Studies (1989), claims that the poor quality of political science research is intertwined with three dominant subpattems within the region. The first prob¬ lem is that political science research tends to be highly polemical and ideological

8

/

Introduction

without the most rudimentary use of social science methodology. Second, the research is focused overwhelmingly on only two countries—Nicaragua and El Salvador. Third, the subjects of research investigation are quite narrow; most attention is devoted to actors engaged in the use of violence (e.g., revolutionary movements, terrorism, and political ideology) while other political groups, such as women, students, intellectuals, and party leaders, are largely ignored. The research in the area of international relations is devoted largely to polemical attacks on President Ronald Reagan’s Central American policy and its conse¬ quences. Ropp (1989: 512) does not see much progress in what political science research has offered for understanding political developments in the region: “Methodologically sound studies are being sporadically produced at best, po¬ lemics and rhetoric continue to dominate even the ‘academic’ arena, and more rather than less attention is being paid to relatively transient political events.” However, some political scientists argue that there are redeeming features in the engage scholarship endemic to Central America (see Chapter 3). The polemic criticism is not unique to the events examined in Central America. The political science literature that was spawned by the Cuban Revolution, Salvador Allende’s election and overthrow, and the rise and fall of Juan D. Peron in Argentina also exhibited similar patterns where the quality of academic research suffered from a lack of theoretical and epistemological sophistication. How do we explain the fact that only two countries—Brazil and Chile—appear on both lists of the top five countries studied by both North Americans and Latin Americans in Table 1? Is it possible that the North American research fascination with Cuba and Chile is due in large part to the nature of political development, the personal attributes of their leaders (Fidel Castro and Salvador Allende until 1973), and the perceived importance of these two countries to the foreign policy of the United States? Mexico receives a considerable amount of research attention because it is politically stable, accessible, and endowed with a number of im¬ portant social science research centers with highly professional political scientists trained in either Mexico or the United States. The geographical focus of research among Latin Americans is related to level of development, the national popu¬ lation, and the prevailing research infrastructure. The large volume of political science research on Brazil is a function of its size and the growing number of political scientists trained in country (see Chapter 12).

Major Subjects of Investigation What are the subjects of investigation that have guided political scientists interested in Latin America and the Caribbean? Do differences exist between North America and Latin American research perspectives? The trends in subject areas of research indicate a strong interest in five areas (see Appendix B): revolutionary issues (organized movements, terrorism, violence, and ideology); political parties, elections, and interest groups; country and comparative studies; government and legal institutions; and leaders of various types (oligarchs, die-

Introduction

/

9

tators, caudillos, and so on).3 Between 50 and 60 percent of the political science literature over the past thirty years is devoted to these five categories. In contrast, the least studied subjects include the role of women in politics, education and student politics, human rights, and politics and the news media. The amount of interest in political science subjects over the past thirty years appears to vary only slightly over time. From 1960 to 1985, interest in the following research subjects increased: armed forces, government and legal in¬ stitutions, leaders, revolutionary issues, and political parties and elections. How¬ ever, the interest in education, theory, and country and comparative studies declined over the same time period. It is interesting to note that the amount of general attention devoted to church-state issues has remained virtually the same since 1960 despite changes in the way in which this subject is investigated and the importance of liberation theology and Protestant fundamentalism in many parts of Latin America (see Appendix B). North American and Latin American scholars are interested in individual countries because of the nature of politics and the degree of political change. The most popular subject of investigation—revolutionary issues—is of little interest in relatively stable and democratic Costa Rica but of great interest in revolutionary Nicaragua (see Appendix B). The second most popular subject of investigation—parties, elections, and group politics—also varies according to regime type. Colombia, Costa Rica, and Venezuela (the three countries that remained the most democratic throughout the militarization of Latin America in the 1970s) received considerably more research attention on these subjects than did the countries that succumbed to military authoritarian rule. The pattern is not so pronounced with other subjects of investigation. The attention devoted to agrarian issues in Latin American politics has fluctuated little over time in most countries. However, in Peru, Guatemala, Chile, and Costa Rica, agrarian issues receive considerably more attention than elsewhere in the region. Given the dominance of military authoritarian governments in Latin America during the 1960s and 1970s, it is not surprising that the study of the armed forces and military politics is so prevalent in Argentina, Chile, Ec¬ uador, and Peru. Church-state issues remain fairly constant but receive the most attention in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Colombia relative to other political subjects of investigation. Country and comparative studies have been on the decline since the 1960s, but most of this type of literature appears on Ecuador, Uruguay, and the Dominican Republic. Institutional analysis has made a sig¬ nificant comeback since it was replaced by behavioral and dependency analysis beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The study of Latin American political leaders has been particularly popular in Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Argentina, where populists have dominated the political process. Revolutionary issues are the most researched topic in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, and Bolivia. Urban issues, including the study of labor politics, have remained fairly stable over the past few decades with much of this type of research being done by historians interested in labor as a manifestation of Marxist theory. However, the

10

/

Introduction

most research on urban issues is in Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, and Argentina where hyperurbanization and labor union activity are salient forces for under¬ standing political change during the post-World War II period. Surprisingly, North American and Latin American scholars have similar in¬ terests when it comes to subjects of investigation. Both North American and Latin American scholars focus most of their attention on revolutionary issues, political leaders, political parties and elections, and government and legal in¬ stitutions. However, a few differences in subjects of research do exist: North Americans focus more of their attention on country studies that can be used in the classroom and comparative studies drawn from computerized data sets de¬ signed to test various theoretical propositions; Latin Americans center more of their research attention on political leaders and revolutionary ideology. What is surprising, using the Handbook as a data base, is the remarkable consistency between the subjects of political research that both North Americans and Latin Americans have chosen to investigate since 1960.

Major Sources of Scholarly Publication What are the major sources of scholarly publication and how does this influence the study of Latin American politics? Books and monographs are the major sources of scholarly communication in Latin America in contrast to an almost even split between books and journals in North American political science re¬ search (see Appendix B). Moreover, the quality of political science research varies between North America and Latin America. In general, North American social science journals are recognized as being of higher quality due to the peer review process (despite some of its limitations), the attention devoted to the appropriate social science methodology, and the easier access to sources of data on Latin American politics in the United States. Although books and monographs cited in the Handbook of Latin American Studies make up almost three-quarters of all published forms of political science research on Latin America, some of the best studies are found in journals devoted to Latin America, especially in North America where journal article output is double that in Latin America. For example, in volume 49 (1989) of the Handbook of Latin American Studies, sixty-eight professional journals (concerned with comparative politics and international relations) were cited, including thirty in the United States and Canada, twenty-one in Western Europe, sixteen in Latin America and the Caribbean, and one from the Soviet Union. While journal articles tend to generate more quality research than that found in books or monographs, it is important to point out that publication sources often serve different functions. For example, much of what is published in Latin America, which has to do with political life, is not intended to be scholarly literature. This is particularly the case with the “research” on political parties, leaders, ideology, and revolution. The literature devoted to these subjects is often produced in Latin America to provoke its readership into responding favorably

Introduction

/

11

toward the ideological position being argued by the author or authors. Yet when this literature reaches North American readers, particularly political scientists interested in Latin America, the readership changes to a body of scholars whose primary interest in the literature is quite different. Further distortions arise from the fact that Latin American political research is often weakened by the publishing and peer review process which is much more lax than in the United States or Western Europe. Even in the United States, where the peer review process tends to be more professional and attuned to social science methodology, the quality and quantity of research can be seriously af¬ fected by marketing trends in the publishing industry, the research perspectives of peer reviewers, and the relationship between what is defined as political science and its relationship to area studies having to do with Latin America. One of the interesting patterns over the past three decades is the dramatic growth in the number of journals devoted to Latin American political research coupled with a declining interest in Latin America among the premier professional journals dealing with political science in the United States. For example, the major political science journals in the United States—The American Political Science Review, Journal of Politics, and World Politics—rarely publish articles dealing with the politics of Latin America. Since 1970, The American Political Science Review has published less than a handful of articles devoted exclusively to Latin American politics despite the fact that their book review section covers most of the major works being published in comparative Latin American politics and U.S.-Latin American relations. In an examination of the relationship between political science journals and Latin America over the past thirty years, John D. Martz, “Political Science and Latin American Studies: Patterns and Asymmetries of Research Publication” (1990), argues that a serious gap exists between the study of Latin American politics and the contemporary discipline of political science. Looking at the publication patterns for six political science journals from 1960 to 1987, Martz (1990: 69) finds that “only 113 of 4,902 full-blown professional articles have dealt with Latin American politics.” Martz’s study raises more questions than answers about these publishing asymmetries, but his conclusions confirm a dis¬ tressing trend in which the major theoretical contributions to the study of Latin American politics are highly unlikely to appear in journals devoted exclusively to the discipline of political science. While it is true that professional journals cannot cover all facets of the field, it is unfortunate that what is published dealing with political science research is confined to only a few journals even though some maintain high standards of scholarship and social science methodology, for example, the Latin American Research Review and Studies in Comparative International Development. What passes for peer review also affects the quality of political science research on Latin America. In a poll conducted by the American Council of Learned Societies of seven disciplines, including political science, the most significant finding was the widespread dissatisfaction with the peer review system in the

12

/

Introduction

social sciences. For example, a majority of the 5,385 respondents said that “the process overlooked pioneering voices in favor of conservative opinions sanc¬ tioned by the academic establishment or trendy views already approved by pow¬ erful intellectual in-groups.”4 While this may be less of a problem in the publication of political science research in Latin America, it does highlight a potential problem in the dissemination of information to professional political scientists doing research on Latin America.

Background and Academic Training How does professional training affect the nature of political science research on Latin America? The background and academic training of those who do research on Latin American politics also vary and tend to shape the major style and research orientation between North American and Latin American scholars. For example, North Americans are more likely to have received formal academic training leading to a doctorate in political science or Latin American studies than would be the case in Latin America. Many Latin Americanists in the United States have had Peace Corps experience in one of the lesser developed Latin American countries such as Honduras, Guatemala, Panama, Ecuador, or Peru. North American political scientists, because of the period in which they received their training, have been profoundly influenced by the modernization and de¬ velopment literature of the 1960s and the major political conflicts in the United States (the Vietnam War and Watergate) and Latin America (the failure of the Alliance for Progress, the overthrow of Salvador Allende, and the U.S. military intervention in Cuba and the Dominican Republic) during this time period. While many Latin American scholars go to the United States and Western Europe for university political science training, the majority acquire their aca¬ demic credentials in Latin America. The best known scholars involved in political science research in Latin America received the bulk of their training in either political science or Latin American studies programs in the United States over the past thirty years. Those who write about government and politics and foreign policy in Latin America are more likely to be trained in some form of Marxist analysis with an emphasis on political economy, linkage politics, and centerperiphery relationships. Almond (1987) argues that indigenous intellectuals were radicalized by the repressive regimes, more or less supported by the United States, that swept Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s and that these events made the dependency approach a plausible method for understanding Latin Amer¬ ican politics. Political science research on Latin America and the Third World is also conditioned by a general perspective that political analysis has little to offer in terms of understanding basic development problems. As L. Adele Jinadu, “The Institutional Development of Political Science in Nigeria: Trends, Prob¬ lems, and Prospects” (1987: 68-69), points out in his treatment of political science in Nigeria, many policymakers feel “that political science has no con¬ tribution to make to the solution of pressing national problems.” Perhaps this

Introduction

/

13

is why, as indicated previously, political science research from Latin America is often more polemical, journalistic, and devoid of social science methodology as a basis of investigation.

Predominant Research Orientation At the forefront of many of the revolutionary changes that have taken place in the study of Latin American politics are the growing contributions to theory development and interdisciplinary research by Latin American scholars. While there is still a maldistribution of scholarly resources, research centers, and re¬ search productivity, Latin American scholars have joined a world community of individuals concerned with political science research on Latin America. Yet, the Latin American research tradition is different from that usually found in North America and Western Europe. In Latin America, for example, political science research places more emphasis on historical and macro-sociological stud¬ ies in contrast to the North American tradition that is more quantitative, theo¬ retical, and sharply focused. Some of the salient epistemological differences between North American and Latin American scholars are examined and dis¬ cussed in Julio Cotier and Richard R. Fagen, edsLatin America and the United States: The Changing Political Realities (1974). Another pattern, with particular emphasis in Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil, is the increasing involvement of Latin American scholars in research on the government and politics of the United States and American foreign policy. This is a long overdue side of hemispheric research, particularly when there are thousands of Latin Americans doing grad¬ uate work in the United States.5 As was pointed out earlier, the early post-World War II approaches to the study of Latin American politics were mostly legal historical, atheoretical, and highly ethnocentric. Much of the research literature on Latin American politics during the 1950s and early 1960s referred to “the pathology of democracy” and “developmentalism” as if Latin American political institutions and processes could be studied in the same framework as that of the pluralist democracies in the more advanced industrial nations of Western Europe and the United States. As James M. Malloy, Authoritarians and Democrats: Regime Transition in Latin America (1987: 235), points out, “[Military interruptions of democratic pro¬ cedures were perceived as pathological and as a symptom of political immatu¬ rity.” Starting in the mid-1960s, Latin American social scientists began to question earlier theories and to embark on new types of analysis aimed at a closer fit between developmental theory and Latin American political reality. Tulchin (1983) refers to this pattern as the increasing use of structural analysis including a “gradual absorption into the mainstream [of approaches to the study of Latin America] the principles and concepts of Marxist theory as well as of its structuralist ‘cousins’ such as dependency, human ecology, and world system theory” (p. 89). Yet by the early 1980s political scientists and economists began to move away from the dependencia trend to more eclectic frameworks and

14

/

Introduction

models. Dolores M. Martin, “Editor’s Note,” in Dolores M. Martin, ed., Hand¬ book of Political Science Research on Latin America (1979), notes this change beginning in 1978-1979 when scholars began to focus more on “the many varieties and degrees of dependency” instead of the “ideological assertions” that influenced much of the political science research during the 1970s (see Chapters 9 and 14). This pattern was probably unavoidable given the strains involved in overcoming the crippling control of modernization and development theory that defined research orthodoxy in the 1950s and 1960s. The new militarism that emerged in Latin America beginning around 1964 and lasting until the early 1980s also generated a revisionist trend in the study of Latin America in which the authoritarian and corporatist nature of politics quickly led to a vast amount of rather sophisticated analysis. The research studies that paved the way in this area include Guillermo A. O’Donnell, Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics (1973); Frederick B. Pike and Thomas Stritch, eds., The New Corporatism: SocialPolitical Structures in the Iberian World (1974); Philippe C. Schmitter, ed., Military Rule in Latin America: Function, Consequences and Perspectives (1973); Alfred Stepan, ed., Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies and Future (1973); Linn Hammergren, “Corporatism in Latin American Politics: A Reex¬ amination of the ‘Unique’ Tradition” (1977); Howard J. Wiarda, “Corporatist Theory and Ideology: A Latin American Development Paradigm” (1978); and Jose Luis Reyna and Richard Weinert, edsAuthoritarianism in Mexico (1977). With the resurgence of democratic governments in the 1980s, the research pen¬ dulum has moved away from authoritarianism and corporatism to the political dynamics of regime transition and redemocratization. The latest trend is a grow¬ ing interest in institutional analysis including an examination of the policy con¬ sequences of having a presidential or a parliamentary form of government. Certain aspects of this kind of political science research reach back to the efforts of Russell Fitzgibbon to measure democracy using a network of experts with field experience to judge the operation of the political system. While much of Fitzgibbon’s work was pathbreaking in its efforts, it suffered from the lack of explanatory power to understand both the breakdown of democracies such as Chile and Uruguay and the efforts to redemocratize Latin America during much of the 1980s. This current pattern has focused most of its attention on South America, although occasionally Costa Rica is included in the research design. The comparative study of regime transition by Malloy and Seligson (1987) is an excellent starting point for understanding redemocratization in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador. The Woodrow Wilson International Center’s project on regime transition, including different types of regime transition in eight Latin American governments over the past twenty-five years, is reported in two works by Guillermo A. O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, eds.: Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives (1986) and Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Latin America (1986). John A. Peeler, Latin American Democracies: Colombia, Costa Rica, and Venezuela

Introduction

/

15

(1985), tries to explain the development and maintenance of stable democracy using the three cases that survived the militarization of Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s. The theoretical treatment of this subject by Karen L. Remmer, “Redemocratization and the Impact of Authoritarian Rule in Latin America” (1985), provides important insights into the relationship between authoritarian rule and political change. Perhaps her most interesting conclusion is that “au¬ thoritarian rule tends to promote political change rather than freeze preexisting political patterns” (p. 273). In a more expansive work, Charles F. Andrain, Political Change in the Third World (1988), utilizes two case studies from Latin America—Cuba and Chile— to develop a theory of political change (both within and between systems) based on the impact of sociopolitical structures, beliefs, and public policies. His find¬ ings support the proposition that “during the twentieth century, the bureaucraticauthoritarian political system has become the dominant type throughout the Third World” (p. 288). However, according to Jorge I. Dominguez, “Political Change: Central America, South America, and the Caribbean,” in Myron Weiner and Samuel P. Huntington, eds., Understanding Political Development (1987: 79), “[Sjcholars mistakenly interpreted the rise of authoritarian regimes in the 1960s and early 1970s as an enduring shift of regime rather than as one more example of political instability.” What Dominguez finds is a paradox where strong states in Latin America go hand in hand with weak regimes and weak incumbents, leading eventually to cycles of civilian and military rule. Within this pattern of research on Latin American politics is the emergence of two distinct groups armed with theory and data designed to explain the future of political development in Latin America: democratic pessimists and democratic optimists. The pessimists argue that there will never be a permanent shift to some form of democratic rule in Latin America given the economic, international, and sociopolitical constants that are endemic to Latin American political life. Bertha Lener, “El renacer de la democracia polltica en America Latina” (1985), is one of the key Latin American pessimists who argues persuasively that the rebirth of democracy in Latin America is merely the consequence of discredited military dictatorships, the perceived danger of the radicalization of politics with¬ out an end to “dirty war” politics, and the severe economic downturns that confronted military regimes in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In Lener’s (1985) view, the future of political democracy is not very bright without fundamental socioeconomic changes in Latin America. As a result, the bureaucratic author¬ itarian regime type is not likely to disappear from the Latin American political landscape for years to come. The work of O’Donnell (1973); Stepan (1973); James M. Malloy, ed., Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America (1977); and David Collier, ed., The New Authoritarianism in Latin America (1979) tend to support this view. Those who tend to be more sanguine about liberalization and redemocratization on a more permanent basis in Latin America are those who have incorporated some of the European experience into their analysis. Representative works in

16

/

Introduction

this category would include Howard J. Wiarda, ed., The Continuing Struggle for Democracy in Latin America (1980); Thomas Draper, ed., Democracy and Dictatorship in Latin America (1981); and Wayne A. Selcher, ed.. Political Liberalization in Brazil (1985). With the swing toward democratic forms of government in Latin America in the 1990s, more cross-national studies of regime transitions are likely to dominate the literature in the field.

Locus of Research The fact that the locus of research varies between the two regions under in¬ vestigation helps explain the differences found in both the quality and quantity of political science research. The major difference between Latin American and North American political science research is that scholarly activity in Latin America is done mostly outside of the university. Many scholars, for example, operate within the confines of research institutes (nongovernmental) and fre¬ quently do group (or project) research. In contrast, North American scholars tend to operate out of a university setting where most of the research is indi¬ vidual and geared toward subjects that are deemed important to the scholarly community in the United States or Canada. With less university-based individ¬ ual research in Latin America, and the limited number of scholarly resources and publishing outlets, political science research is clearly a distinct enterprise from what takes place in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. In short. North American political research on Latin America stems from quite different bases and styles for conducting research which in turn plays a signif¬ icant role in the development of theoretical frameworks and subjects of investigation.6 In addition, the splendid Latin American collections found in the United States and the United Kingdom simply do not exist anywhere in Latin America. The Hispanic Division of the Library of Congress, for example, contains roughly two million volumes, many times more than a researcher is likely to find in any single Latin American or European country. As a result of this maldistribution of scholarly resources, Latin American political research tends to be more his¬ torical and theoretical, or impressionistic, since Latin American scholars cannot conduct the types of literature searches that are possible within the United States.

CONCLUSIONS The field of Latin American politics has undergone major changes since 1960, but it has often failed to keep up with the massive transformations that have occurred in Latin American economic, social, and political life. The failure to keep up with Latin America’s transformation and the decline in U.S. hegemony in the region have left political scientists and policymakers in a quandary as how to best understand the region. As Abraham F. Lowenthal points out in Partners in Conflict: The United States and Latin America (1987: 8-9), “The region has

Introduction

/

17

experienced major alterations of its population, economy, social conditions, politics, institutions, and international relations.” Distortions in the intellectual agenda frequently result from the fact that different visions of political life stem from where scholars have done their field research. Those with experience in Central America and the Caribbean see the reality of Latin American politics differently from those who have studied the northern Andean countries or the bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes of the Southern Cone. Some of the central issues in the scholarly debates stem from differences in background and training and the mode of analysis employed to understand the politics of the region. The research that was produced during the dominant phases discussed by Valenzuela (1988) indicates that political scientists studying Latin America have made significant progress. The quality of the research, for example, has improved with the expanding number of well-trained Latin Americanists in the United States, Western Europe, and Latin America. Innovative cross-national designs and analytical frameworks have replaced the noncomparative and ethnocentric approaches so evident in the earlier studies of Latin America. After decades of neglect, we have more information on Central America than scholars could have dreamed of in the 1960s and 1970s (see Chapter 3). The growth rate in research centers in Latin America and the Caribbean (see Appendix C) and the number of professional journals devoted to Latin American studies is a healthy trend. Political science research that emanates from scholarly pursuits outside of the United States is taken much more seriously than was the case thirty years ago. Much of the political science research on Latin America is interdisciplinary to a degree, recognizing the importance of anthropology, economics, legal systems, and history to an understanding of the region. The Latin American Studies Association (LASA) has made great strides in serving as an international focal point for integrating a broad range of specialists and their research from around the world. The Latin American Research Review (LARR) is now the preeminent journal for those involved in political science research on Latin America. With the transition to democracy in Latin America over the past decade, the climate of free expression has expanded research opportunities into subjects of investi¬ gation that were off limits during the periods of authoritarian rule. Many exiles, forced out of Latin America because of the impossibility of doing political science research, have returned to carry out investigations within a more healthy research environment. At the same time that there have been these positive achievements, there are also defects in the research. There is still a tendency to shift research attention solely on the basis of media attention, U.S. foreign policy directives, and the availability of research funds. In the past thirty years, this had led to a pattern of ignoring important countries and subjects of investigation. The popularity of certain approaches and modes of analysis has often produced a kind of intellectual dogma that tends to undermine the objectivity and value of large amounts of political science research on Latin America. What stands out in this regard is the overemphasis on revolutionary issues at the expense of understanding Latin

18

/

Introduction

American revolutions. Most would agree that polemics and heavily laden ideo¬ logical works still prevail in a great deal of the literature. The chapters that follow examine research trends in individual countries and regions over the past three decades. Part I covers the comparative politics lit¬ erature from twelve countries and regions, focusing on trends in analysis, subjects of investigation, and research agendas for the 1990s. Part II deals with the international relations research emphasizing general research trends in the United States, Europe, Latin America, and the Soviet Union; major actors and policies; important analytical trends; and future research agendas for the study of U.S.Latin American relations and Latin American foreign policy. Although obviously not all the literature for this period can be included, what researchers will find is a valuable resource for comprehending a discipline and an area during a time in which significant contributions were made by many scholars—Latin American and North American—working to enhance our understanding of Latin American politics.

NOTES 1. For a historical sketch of the development of political science within Latin American studies, see Federico G. Gil, “Latin American Studies and Political Science: A Historical Sketch” (1985). John J. Johnson, “Remarks upon Acceptance of the LASA Kalman Silvert President s Prize (1984), also offers some interesting insights on trends in political science research on Latin America since 1960. 2. The most systematic treatment of this subject during this period is found in D. Neil Snarr and E. Leonard Brown, “An Analysis of Ph.D. Dissertations on Central America1960-1974” (1977). 3. The relatively large amount of research attention devoted to the category of “In¬ ternational Relations and Foreign Affairs” (Appendix B) is largely a result of the clas¬ sification system of the Handbook of Latin American Studies. During the 1960s, for example, the international relations materials and the internal political and governmental literature were combined under the heading of “Government and International Relations. ” This classification system ceased beginning with volume 35 of the Handbook. 4. Fred Heckinger, “Humanities’ Peer Review Is Faulted” (1986). 5. For a good discussion of this new pattern, see Joseph S. Tulchin, “Emerging Patterns of Research in the Study of Latin America” (1983). 6. I am grateful to Peter T. Johnson, Princeton’s Latin American bibliographer, for this important observation.

REFERENCES Almond, Gabriel A. 1987. “The Development of Political Development,” in Myron Weiner and Samuel P. Huntington, eds., Understanding Political Development. Boston: Little Brown. Anderson, Charles W. 1967. Politics and Economic Change in Latin America: The Governing of Restless Nations. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Andrain, Charles F. 1988. Political Change in the Third World. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Introduction

/

19

Booth, John A., and Thomas W. Walker. 1989. Understanding Central America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Collier, David, ed. 1979. The New Authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Cotier, Julio, and Richard R. Fagen, eds. 1974. Latin America and the United States: The Changing Political Realities. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Dent, David W. 1986. “Past and Present Trends in Research on Latin American Politics, 1950-1980.” Latin American Research Review 21, no. 1: 139-51. Dominguez, Jorge I. 1987. “Political Change: Central America, South America, and the Caribbean.” In Myron Weiner and Samuel P. Huntington, eds., Understanding Political Development. Boston: Little Brown. Draper, Thomas, ed., 1981. Democracy and Dictatorship in Latin America. New York: H. W. Wilson. Gil, Federico G. 1985. “Latin American Studies and Political Science: A Historical Sketch.” LASA Forum 16, no. 2 (Summer):8-12. Hammergren, Linn. 1977. “Corporatism in Latin American Politics: A Reexamination of the ‘Unique’ Tradition.” Comparative Politics 9, no. 4: 443-61. Heckinger, Fred. 1986. “Humanities’ Peer Review Is Faulted.” New York Times (Sep¬ tember 30): Cl. Hirschman, Albert O. 1965. Journeys toward Progress: Studies of Economic PolicyMaking in Latin America. New York: Anchor. Jinadu, L. Adele. 1987. “The Institutional Development of Political Science in Nigeria: Trends, Problems, and Prospects.” International Political Science Review 8, no. 2: 68-69. Johnson, John J. 1958. Political Change in Latin America: The Emergence of the Middle Sectors. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. -. 1984. “Remarks upon Acceptance of the LASA Kalman Silvert President’s Prize.” LASA Forum 15, no. 2 (Summer): 8-11. Kling, Merle. 1956. “Towards a Theory of Power and Political Stability in Latin America.” Western Political Quarterly 9, no. 1 (March): 21-35. -. 1964. “The State of Research on Latin America: Political Science.” In Charles Wagley, ed., Social Science Research on Latin America. New York: Columbia University Press. Lener, Bertha. 1985. “El renacer de la democracia polltica en America Latina.” Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Politicos y Sociales 31 (abril/junio): 136-58. Lopez, George A., and Michael Stohl, eds. 1987. Liberalization and Redemocratization in Latin America. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Lowenthal, Abraham F. 1987. Partners in Conflict: The United States and Latin America. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Malloy, James M., ed. 1977. Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America. Pitts¬ burgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Malloy, James M., and Mitchell A. Seligson, eds. 1987. Authoritarians and Democrats: Regime Transition in Latin America. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Martin, Dolores M., ed. 1979. “Editor’s Note.” In Dolores M. Martin, ed., Handbook of Latin American Studies 41. Austin: University of Texas Press. Martz, John D., 1990. “Political Science and Latin American Studies: Patterns and

20

/

Introduction Asymmetries of Research Publications.” Latin American Research Review 25, no. 1: 67-86.

Mesa-Lago, Carmelo. 1978. Latin American Studies in Europe. Latin American Mono¬ graph & Document Series 1. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Center for Latin American Studies, University of Pittsburgh. O’Donnell, Guillermo A. 1973. Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Stud¬ ies in South American Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. O’Donnell, Guillermo, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, eds. 1986. Tran¬ sitionsfrom Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives. Baltimore, Md.: Johns

Hopkins University Press. -. 1986. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Latin America. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Peeler, John A. 1985. Latin American Democracies: Colombia, Costa Rica, and Ven¬ ezuela. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Pike, Frederick B., and Thomas Stritch, eds. 1974. The New Corporatism: Social-Political Structures in the Iberian World. South Bend, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press. Ranis, Peter. 1967. “Trends in Research on Latin American Politics: 1961-67.” Latin American Research Review 3, no. 3: 71-78. Remmer, Karen L. 1985. “Redemocratization and the Impact of Authoritarian Rule in Latin America.” Comparative Politics 17, no. 3 (April): 253-75. Reyna, Jose Luis, and Richard Weinert, eds. 1977. Authoritarianism in Mexico. Phila¬ delphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. Ropp, Steve. 1989. “Government and Politics: Central America.” In Dolores M. Martin, ed., Handbook of Latin American Studies 49. Austin: University of Texas Press. Rosenberg, Mark B. 1984. “Honduras: Bastion of Stability or Quagmire?” In Donald E. Shulz and Douglas H. Graham, eds.. Revolution and Counterrevolution in Central America and the Caribbean. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Schmitter, Philippe C., ed. 1973. Military Rule in Latin America: Function, Consequences and Perspectives. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Selcher, Wayne A., ed. 1985. P olitical Liberalization in Brazil. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Silvert, Kalman H. 1966. The Conflict Society. New York: American Universities Field Staff. Snarr, D. Neil, and E. Leonard Brown. 1977. “An Analysis of Ph.D. Dissertations on Central America: 1960-1974.” Latin American Research Review 12, no. 2: 187-202. Stahler-Sholk, Richard. 1987. “Building Democracy in Nicaragua.” In George A. Lopez and Michael Stohl, eds ^Liberalization and Redemocratization in Latin America. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Stepan, Alfred, ed. 1973. Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies and Future. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Tulchin, Joseph S. 1983. “Emerging Patterns of Research in the Study of Latin America. ” Latin American Research Review 18, no. 1: 85-94. Valenzuela, Arturo. 1988. “Political Science and the Study of Latin America.” In Christopher Mitchell, ed., Changing Perspectives in Latin American Studies: Insights from Six Disciplines. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Introduction

/

21

Wiarda, Howard J. 1978. “Corporatist Theory and Ideology: A Latin American Devel¬ opment Paradigm.” A Journal of Church and State 20, no. 1 (Winter): 29-56. Wiarda, Howard J., ed. 1980. The Continuing Struggle for Democracy in Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Part I Comparative Politics: Countries and Regions

2 MEXICO Roderic A. Camp

The last three decades have witnessed a tremendous expansion in scholarship on Mexican politics. Not only has the level of scholarship become more so¬ phisticated, but its focus, geographically and substantively, has shifted frequently since 1960. One of the interesting facets of political science research on Mexico is that many scholars found themselves either responding to the behavior of certain governmental institutions (or processes) or merely reacting to wellestablished intellectual trends in vogue at the time. Nevertheless, the research that was done in the late 1950s was important to political science scholarship because it provided a critical transition from essen¬ tially descriptive literature, to more critical analytical interpretations of political functions and their consequences. A prime example of this transitional schol¬ arship is William P. Tucker, The Mexican Government Today (1957), which, despite its analytical limitations, is an excellent piece of scholarship and still useful to research from that period. The research that was done in this early period helped to spawn a generation of graduate students in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in Mexico and encouraged investigations in a variety of previously unexplored areas, culminating in major works on decision making, elites, the state, and the political role of various interest groups such as labor, peasants, intellectuals, and urban marginals. The failure of the three most prominent scholars in the field at the time— Robert C. Scott (Mexican Government in Transition, 1959), Frank Brandenburg (The Making of Modern Mexico, 1964), and L. Vincent Padgett (The Mexican Political System, 1966)—to follow up their works, providing a body of literature over time, left the field adrift, with little theoretical direction or continuity.1 Consequently, topical political analyses erupted rather unpredictably, as younger scholars took over in an effort to fill this intellectual space.

26

/

Comparative Politics

Because of space limitations, some of the relevant political science research on Mexico cannot be cited in this chapter. Preference is given to books over articles, to literature frequently cited by others, to analyses by political scientists (even though historians and economists have made important political contri¬ butions), and to English language publications by Mexicans if their work is translated.

THEORY DEVELOPMENT Theoretical issues are the most important focus of Mexican research, but not in published monographs. In the single most important article in this subject area, Carolyn Needleman and Martin Needleman, “Who Rules Mexico? A Critique of Some Current Views of the Mexican Political Process” (1969), assess all prior literature and lay out differing interpretations in a clear and readable fashion. Martin Needier, “The Political Development of Mexico” (1961), of¬ fered one other theoretical interpretation which influenced much of the work on Mexican politics until authoritarianism came into vogue in the 1970s. The seminal article to appear on this is Susan Kaufman Purcell’s “Decision-Making in an Authoritarian Regime: Theoretical Implications from a Mexican Case Study” (1973); two equally important articles are by Mexican political scientists Lorenzo Meyer and Julio Labastida Martin del Campo: “Continuidades e innovaciones en la vida politica mexicana del siglo xx, el antiguo y el nuevo regimen” (1975), and “Algunas hipotesises sobre el modelo politico mexicano y sus perspectivas” (1974). Further interest in this subject was reflected in a collection of essays by Jose Luis Reyna and Richard Weinert, edsAuthoritarianism in Mexico (1977), which offers valuable theoretical insights into power and rule in Mexico. Complementary to the theoretical interest in authoritarianism is corporatist theory. John M. Sloan, “The Mexican Variant of Corporatism” (1981), suggests a Mexican version to explain patterns of rule; and Rose J. Spalding, “State Power and Its Limits: Corporatism in Mexico” (1985), sees the bureaucracy itself as a major role player in decision making. Mexicanists also have been interested in the subject of policy cycles, first introduced by Martin Needier in the 1960s. Two excellent pieces of this type of research in the 1980s are the quantitative analyses offered by Dale Story, “Policy Cycles in Mexican Politics” (1985), and by Steven Sanderson, “Presidential Succession and Political Ra¬ tionality in Mexico” (1983). Beginning in the late 1970s, scholars became interested in technocracy, an idea explored in relation to the larger political system by Merilee S. Grindle, “Power, Expertise and the ‘Tecnico’: Suggestions from a Mexican Case Study” (1977), and by Roderic A. Camp, “The Political Technocrat and the Survival of the Political System” (1985). Mexicans also began to take an interest in these subjects in the 1980s. For example, Sergio Zermeno, “De Echevema a De la Madrid: hacia un regimen burocratico-autoritario” (1983), explored the bureaucratic model using the Mex¬ ican case. However, the broadest overview of these many theories is found in

Mexico

/

27

Miguel Basanez’s La lucha por la hegemoma en Mexico (1982). Recent schol¬ arship, increasingly concerned with political instability in Mexico, has focused on nonviolent change, including the review by Kevin Middlebrook, “Dilemmas of Change in Mexican Politics” (1988), and an excellent theoretical argument by Van R. Whiting, Jr., “State Strength and Regime Resilience: Sources of Mexico’s Endurance” (1988).

COUNTRY AND COMPARATIVE STUDIES The scholarship of the 1960s neglected many important political topics and governmental institutions, but, interestingly, there has never been a more prolific or significant decade since in terms of broad, comprehensive monographs in¬ terpretative of the Mexican political system. The three most important studies— Scott (1959), Brandenburg (1964), and Padgett (1966)—served as a benchmark for comparative political research for at least a decade after they were written. However, Brandenburg received the most attention, primarily because he offered a critical and provocative view, arguing that the Party of the Institutionalized Revolution (PRI) played an insignificant policy-making role. In contrast, Scott suggested that the party was extremely significant to the entire political model. Padgett, in part because he had the advantage of assessing the earlier works of Scott and Brandenburg, presented a more balanced view of the PRI and offered some important insights into local politics. The next generation of Mexicanists was more inclined toward Brandenburg’s interpretation of the Mexican power structure, although, by the 1980s, Padgett’s more balanced view—somewhere between Scott and Brandenburg—came closer to the mark. In Mexico, the only general analysis, a classic in that country, was offered by Pablo Gonzalez Ca¬ sanova, La democracia en Mexico (1965; published in English in 1975), who was the first Mexican to question democracy using empirical data. The 1960s produced another important trend, an examination of local politics. The first of these was an insightful comparative analysis of conflicts between the PRI and the National Action Party (PAN) in Ciudad Juarez: William V. D’Antonio and William H. Form, Influentials in Two Border Cities: A Study in Community Decision-Making (1965). This was followed a few years later by Lawrence S. Graham’s Politics in a Mexican Community (1968), which dealt with local politics in Guanajuato. This same trend continued until the early 1970s, during which time the two best studies on Mexican local politics appeared: Richard R. Fagen and William Tuohy, Politics and Privilege in a Mexican City (1972), and Antonio Ugalde, Power and Conflict in a Mexican Community: A Study of Political Integration (1970). The work by Fagen and Tuohy is a so¬ phisticated analysis of Jalapa, and Ugalde’s study is a perceptive interpretation of PAN and PRI conflicts in Baja California Norte. What is remarkable is that no such monographs dealing with power and local politics have been produced by North American scholars since 1972. Mexicans have filled this void, but nearly all their work has been published as articles or in collections. State level

28

/

Comparative Politics

scholarship is even more neglected. The one exception is Roger C. Anderson’s doctoral dissertation, “The Functional Role of Governors and Their States in the Political Development of Mexico, 1940—1964’’ (1971), the only examination of contemporary governors in existence. The only general analysis to appear in the 1970s was Kenneth F. Johnson’s Mexican Democracy: A Critical View (1971), a highly critical, and controversial, account relying heavily on oppposition literature and interviews. Academics perceived Johnson’s (1971) work as unobjective, but its many reservations were taken up by more traditional scholarship in the 1980s. Octavio Paz, The Other Mexico: Critique of the Pyramid (1972), offered an equally critical view of the Mexican model, and, because of his intellectual status and lack of reliance on PAN sources, the book had much more impact—it was used widely in the classroom and scholarship—than Johnson’s work. At the end of the decade, Judith Heilman, Mexico in Crisis (1978), provided a critical but more scholarly and balanced view of the Mexican system than was evident in either the study by Johnson (1971) or by Paz (1972). With the exception of the Heilman (1978) book, a fresh general analysis was not published until Daniel Levy and Gabriel Szekely’s Mexico: Paradoxes of Stability and Change (1983), a work which incorporates much of the new schol¬ arship from the 1970s and early 1980s and offers a modified view of the Mexican model as semiauthoritarian. What is interesting about the Levy and Szekely book is that it is the first general analysis that combines Mexican and North American views. Finally, an interdisciplinary collection of essays appeared toward the end of the 1980s—Roderic A. Camp, ed., Mexican Political Stability: The Next Five Years (1986)—in which North American scholars assess the current political situation in Mexico with an eye toward major consequences likely to appear by the 1990s.

ECONOMIC ISSUES In the field of political economy, distinct from orthodox economic analysis, two significant works appeared in 1963 that were prescient about such issues as technocratic leadership and provided an interpretative overview of government economic decision making: Raymond Vernon, The Dilemma of Mexico’s De¬ velopment (1963), and Charles W. Anderson and William P. Glade, The Political Economy of Mexico (1963). These were followed by an equally significant study—Roger Hansen’s The Politics of Mexican Development (1971)—which was used widely as the authoritative text on Mexican development issues for years after it was written. Again, as was true of the political scientists who did country studies in the 1960s, none of the authors (with the exception of Glade) continued their work on Mexico, and the 1970s reflected that research void. The 1970s focused on businessmen specifically and their organizations and relations to the government. The best work during this period was produced by Flavia Derossi, The Mexican Entrepreneurs (1971), a valuable study, because

Mexico

/

29

of its grounding in empirical survey research, often used later by political analysts for comparisons with politicians. This work was followed by organization studies by Robert J. Shafer, Mexican Business Organizations (1973), and by Ricardo Tirado Segura, Las organizaciones empresariales mexicanas: perfil y control durante las sesentas (1979), who updated Shafer’s analysis for the the 1970s. The only work which takes up where Vernon (1963) and Anderson and Glade (1963) left off is that by John F. Purcell and Susan K. Purcell, ‘ ‘Mexican Business and Public Policy,” in James Malloy, ed., Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America (1977), which examines decision making. Unfortunately, the Purcells abandoned their field research, and the topic was ignored for another decade. The relationship between economics and politics received much stronger treat¬ ment in the 1980s, due in large part to the debt crisis that hit Mexico and other Latin American countries. The first of four major studies—Roberto Newell and Luis Rubio, Mexico’s Dilemma, the Political Origins of Economic Crisis (1984)—updated the developmental genre and provided a provocative collabo¬ ration between a political scientist and an economist heavily critical of state intervention in the Mexican economy. The book and article by Dale Story, Industry, the State, and Public Policy in Mexico (1986), and “Industrial Elites in Mexico: Political Ideology and Influence” (1983), provided a sophisticated analysis of industrialists’ attitudes, ideology, and behavior, and their impact on public policy, taking up where Derossi (1971) left off. A third work, offering new theoretical postulates, was Douglas C. Bennett and Kenneth E. Sharpe’s Transnational Corporations Versus the State, the Political Economy of Mexican Auto Industry (1985), an excellent analysis of the impact of transnational cor¬ porations, using the automobile industry as a case study of economic decision making. Finally, in the tradition of Raymond Vernon, Roderic A. Camp’s En¬ trepreneurs and Politics in Twentieth Century Mexico (1989) offered a broad interpretation of the political relationship between domestic entrepreneurs and politicians, describing characteristics of entrepreneurs and their impact on the state. Mexican research in the 1980s focused more narrowly on groups and limited time periods; among the best were Carlos Arriola’s studies on entrepreneurial relations including Las organizaciones empresariales y el estado (1981). By the end of the 1980s, Sylvia Maxfield, ed., Government and the Private Sector in Contemporary Mexico (1987), produced the first binational collection on the subject following a workshop at the Mexico-U.S. Studies Center at the University of California, San Diego in La Jolla.

GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS An entirely separate literature on public administration exists in Mexico but is not considered here; this section explores works dealing with policy-making. This type of analysis did not come to fruition for Mexico until 1970, with the

30

/

Comparative Politics

simultaneous appearance of two excellent case studies. The first, by Guy Benveniste, Bureaucracy and National Planning, A Sociological Case Study in Mexico (1970), analyzed education policies, revealing many characteristics about interagency policy-making; the second, by Martin H. Greenberg, Bureaucracy and Development: A Mexican Case Study (1970), focused on the secretariat of the hydraulic resources agency, describing many characteristics about the for¬ mation of political cliques. The most important policy-making study, because of its theoretical assessments of authoritarianism in the Mexican model, was Susan Kaufman Purcell’s The Mexican Profit-Sharing Decision, Politics in an Authoritarian Regime (1975). The first study to examine how government dealt with dissenters, and its use of coercion and censorship, was Evelyn P. Stevens’s Protest and Response in Mexico (1974). Peasants also received some attention from a decision-making perspective in Merilee S. Grindle’s Bureaucrats, Politicians, and Peasants in Mexico: A Case Study in Public Policy (1977). Toward the end of the 1970s, Grindle and other political scientists became interested in political elites—among them national bureaucrats—and she produced a much-cited article on bureaucratic and career networks: “Patrons and Clients in the Bureaucracy: Career Networks in Mexico” (1977). More recently, John Bailey has written most of the work on bureaucracy, combining an administrative and policy-making approach in his Governing Mex¬ ico, the Statecraft of Crisis Management (1988). A Mexican specialist, Diego G. Lopez Rosado, published La burocracia en Mexico (1980), a four-volume work with valuable statistical information on the Mexican bureaucracy.

LEADERS With the exception of James D. Cochrane’s “Mexico’s ‘New Cientfficos’: The Dfaz Ordaz Cabinet” (1967), which explored the characteristics of the 19641970 presidential cabinet, leadership studies attracted very little scholarly atten¬ tion in the 1960s. Mexicans also ignored this topic, focusing most of their concerns on the presidency. Scholarly attention changed during the 1970s when leadership studies attracted more attention than in any period since 1960. Daniel Cosfo Villegas, a leading intellectual, gave this subject a boost in his series of best-selling books, among them El estilo personal de gobernar (1974). In ad¬ dition, Mexican scholars such as Edmundo Gonzalez Llaca, “El presidencialismo o la personalization del poder” (1975), offered important theoretical arguments to explain leadership style and the exercise of power. While Mexicans devoted their research to the presidency, North Americans, fascinated by elite theories of recruitment and circulation, applied survey research to Mexican politicians. Interestingly, the first published monograph—Roderic Camp’s Mexican Political Biographies, 1935-1981 (1982)—was a reference book which contained biographical data used in subsequent analytical studies of the subject. Two analytical works followed in the late 1970s. The first, a major

Mexico

/

31

study by Peter H. Smith, Labyrinths of Power: Political Recruitment in Twentieth Century Mexico (1979), examined leadership trends and theories of recruitment for the 1900-1970 period, including an exploration of the power elite thesis developed by C. Wright Mills. The second, by Roderic A. Camp, Mexico’s Leaders, Their Education and Recruitment (1980), focused on the relationship between education and political recruitment from the mid-1930s through the mid1970s. In a second monograph on elite socialization, Roderic A. Camp, The Making of a Government, Political Leaders in Modern Mexico (1984), continued this subject of investigation into the 1980s. This was followed by an exploration of decisive political generations in Roderic A. Camp’s “Las generaciones pollticas en Mexico” (1986). Although Smith’s book (1979) included a chapter on Mexican legislators, the Chamber of Deputies has been largely ignored, with the exception of Rudolph O. de la Garza’s unpublished doctoral dissertation, “The Mexican Chamber of Deputies and the Mexican Political System” (1972), which offers important information on the topic.

PARTIES, GROUPS, AND ELECTIONS Given the unusual role of the PRI in Mexico, surprisingly few important monographs have been written about the government party. The Mexican Com¬ munist Party, an insignificant organization in Mexican politics, was studied first in Karl Schmitt’s monograph, Communism in Mexico Today (1965). Several years later the PAN (Mexico’s major opposition party) received the most serious attention by historian Donald Mabry, Mexico’s Accion Nacional: A Catholic Alternative to Revolution (1973), although little follow-up work has been done since. Political scientists ignored political parties altogether, except in the country studies, until Dale Story, The Mexican Ruling Party (1986), produced a short monograph on the PRI in the mid-1980s. However, the best comprehensive analysis to date remains the historical work by Luis Javier Garrido, El partido de la revolucion institucionalizada: medio siglo de poder politico en Mexico (1982), although he covers only the period from 1928 to 1945. The most important groups in Mexican politics—military, church, entrepre¬ neurs, and organized labor—are discussed elsewhere in this chapter. The the¬ oretical literature on groups is negligible, and only Merle Kling, A Mexican Interest Group in Action (1961), has explored interest group theory. Specific groups have received limited attention, mostly from Mexicans, the most im¬ portant of which are intellectuals, who share characteristics with other groups in their relationship with the state. For example, Gabriel Careaga, Los intelectuales y la politico en Mexico (1972), explored their political role in the early 1970s. A more detailed and comprehensive study of intellectuals and their re¬ lationship to the state appeared in the mid-1980s in Roderic A. Camp’s Intel¬ lectuals and the State in Twentieth Century Mexico (1985). Another amorphous group, attracting sociological analysis, were the middle and upper classes. In

32

/

Comparative Politics

the only major examination of these Mexicans, Juan Felipe Leal, La burguesia y el estado mexicano (1972), studies the political behavior of the Mexican bourgeoisie. The most important topics neglected at the beginning of the 1960s were elections and electoral analysis. The nature of the one-party elections explains this neglect to some degree, but the lack of survey research and public opinion polls deprived scholars of important longitudinal trends. The only study in the 1960s was a descriptive account of female suffrage in Mexico by Ward Morton, Woman Suffrage in Mexico (1962). The first significant study of election data, using statistical analysis, was Barry Ames’s “Bases of Support for Mexico’s Dominant Party” (1970). The field of electoral analysis was essentially ignored in the 1970s, except for Kenneth M. Coleman and Charles L. Davis, “Diffuse Support in Mexico: The Potential for Crisis” (1976), who produced some of the best analysis of voter attitudes and trends. Election analysis did not attract scholarship until the 1980s, and the Mexicans, not the North Americans, were the first to follow Ames’s (1970) lead. Charles L. Davis and Kenneth M. Coleman, “Electoral Change in the One-Party Dom¬ inant Mexican Polity, 1958-1973, Evidence from Mexico City” (1982), pub¬ lished an important study of PAN and PRI voter support in 1982, but the first book-length work is by Jorge Alonso, El pueblo ante las elecciones (1982), on local election data. Three years later Alonso edited another sophisticated ex¬ amination of election trends for the Mexican polity: Las elecciones en Mexico: evolucion y perspectivas (1985). Other Mexicans contributed a series of valuable articles, especially two seminal articles, one by Juan Molinar Horcasitas and Volker G. Lehr, “Bipartidismo en Mexico” (1985), and one by Volker G. Lehr, Manual biografico del Congreso de la Union, LII legislatura (1984). An im¬ portant but little known monograph published by the University of Nuevo Leon_ Enrique Garza Ramirez, et al., Nuevo Leon, 1985 (1985)—provided a combined analysis of election data and voter survey results at the state level, one of the first studies of this type to be published in Mexico. Belatedly, North Americans took up election research, publishing two important collections of Mexican and North American research: Judith Gentleman, Mexican Politics in Transition (1987), and Arturo Alvarado, ed., Electoral Patterns and Perspectives in Mexico (1987). The latter offers an excellent collection of articles dealing with local politics and the media.

AGRARIAN ISSUES Considering the importance of agrarian reform to Mexico’s development in the post-revolutionary period, the political science literature on this subject is paltry. A survey of bibliographic sources demonstrates that anthropologists, historians, and economists have provided most of this scholarship. Illustrative of this neglect is the fact that no major analysis of agrarian issues by a political scientist exists for the decade of the 1960s. Agrarian unions were given some

Mexico

/

33

attention by country studies, but they omitted agricultural issues as a whole. However, in 1973, David F. Ronfeldt, Atencingo, the Politics of Agrarian Strug¬ gle in a Mexican Ejido (1973), provided an excellent case study focusing on relationships between local and national leaders, capturing how decisions af¬ fecting the community’s welfare were reached. North Americans did not follow up on this study, and Mexicans, who have produced the most work in this field, have chosen to publish in article form. For example, Roger Bartra, et al., Caciquismo y poder politico en el Mexico rural (1975), using neo-Marxist theory, collected numerous studies on political bossism and political power in rural Mexico. One of Mexico’s leading anthropologists, Arturo Warman, We Come to Object, the Peasants of Morelos and the National State (1980), did for Morelos as a whole what Ronfeldt (1973) accomplished for a single community. Mexicans continued to publish case studies on agrarian issues in the 1980s, an excellent example of which is Beatriz Camaval Cristiani’s, “El movimiento campesino en Sonora, 1970-1982” (1983), an analysis of peasant movements in Sonora. Steven Sanderson, in Agrarian Populism and the Mexican State (1981), incorporated theories of agrarian populism in his analysis and provided a provocative overview of national agricultural politics. His book was followed in the mid-1980s by an important work by Susan Walsh Sanderson, Land Reform in Mexico: 1910-1980 (1984), which incorporated an empirical evaluation of land reform programs and offered interesting interpretations of land use and immigration.

ARMED FORCES Whereas political scientists have shown little interest in agrarian issues, they have long been interested in the Mexican military, largely because the military is potentially one of the most influential interest groups—the military dominated political leadership until the 1940s—and the military has not intervened directly in politics as has been the case so frequently in other Latin American countries. It is ironic, therefore, that for the entire decade of the 1960s, political scientists neglected the topic. The most important book-length study of the military to date is the late Edwin Lieuwen’s Mexican Militarism (1968). Lieuwen, a his¬ torian, offers many convincing arguments which explain, up through the 1940s, what kept the military out of politics. Shortly thereafter, Jorge Alberto Lozoya’s El ejercito mexicano (1970) brought Lieuwen’s analysis further up to date through the 1960s. It was not until the 1970s that the first serious political analysis of the military’s role was produced by Franklin D. Margiotta’s updated master’s thesis: “Civilian Control and the Mexican Military: Changing Patterns of Political Influence,” in Claude E. Welch, Jr., ed., Civilian Control of the Military: Theories and Cases from Developing Countries (1976). Margiotta, in a highly original analysis, argued that civilian superiority was maintained by a limited but constant rep¬ resentation of the military in the political leadership. Simultaneously, a brief

34

/

Comparative Politics

essay by David F. Ronfeldt, published by the Rand Corporation and widely circulated and cited, provided some exciting observations about “residual po¬ litical roles” which the military might still be playing. Later, Ronfeldt’s article appeared as “The Mexican Army and Political Order since 1940,” in Abraham F. Lowenthal, ed., Armies and Politics in Latin America (1976). The broadest work to appear in the 1970s was that of Guillermo Boils, whose study, Los militares y la politica en Mexico, 1914-1974 (1975), included some previously unpublished military data to evaluate leadership trends and recruit¬ ment. Using unpublished collective biographical data, Roderic A. Camp, “Mex¬ ican Military Leadership in Statistical Perspective since the 1930s,” in James W. Wilkie and Peter Reich, eds., Statistical Abstract of Latin America (1980), suggested some statistical analysis of trends among career military and politicalmilitary leadership. Serious analysis of the military received a boost from the U.S.-Mexico Center at San Diego, which, under the leadership of William Ackroyd, sponsored the first symposium ever on the Mexican military. The resulting collection, edited by David F. Ronfeldt, The Modern Mexican Military (1984), contains the first original scholarship published on the military dealing with its socialization, recruitment, and policy-making role.

CHURCH AND STATE The two most important institutions in Mexico, other than the state, are the military and the Catholic Church. Political scientists have neglected the church even more than the military. This neglect has been most unfortunate since the relationship is informal, continuous, tense, and increasingly significant. The church was essentially ignored by social scientists in the 1960s, with the exception of an article by Frederick C. Turner, “The Compatibility of Church and State in Mexico” (1967). No political analysis of the church appeared from 1960 until 1981 when Claude Pomerlau published the first of several articles based on his doctoral dissertation. In “The Changing Church in Mexico and Its Challenges to the State” (1981), Pomerlau outlined important and potential conflicts between the state and church, conflicts which have become more apparent since President Salinas took office in late 1988. Theoretically, borrowing from the corporatist literature popularized in the 1970s, Karl Schmitt offered an excellent, provocative overview of the roots of church-state relations in his “Church and State in Mexico: A Corporatist Re¬ lationship” (1984). On the Mexican side, only one political analyst—Soledad Loaeza—deigned to examine this topic in several articles in Mexican journals: “La iglesia Catolica mexicana y el reformismo autoritario” (1984), and “La iglesia y la democracia en Mexico” (1985). Both of these works provide a helpful interpretation of the church’s political role and its facilitation of or opposition to democracy in Mexico. A briefer, but more recent view, was offered by Dennis M. Hanratty’s “The Church,” in George W. Grayson, edProspects for Mexico (1988), a study based on current doctoral research in Mexico. Much

Mexico

/

35

more work remains to be accomplished with the church from a comparative and institutional perspective.

EDUCATION Considerable research has been undertaken on educational development, but the level of investigation on student political attitudes, state-university relations, and the political importance of educational socialization has been rather sparse. These topics were neglected altogether in the 1960s, but the student strike and the massacre at Tlatelolco eventually led to a scholarly interest in student politics. What followed was a short monograph on the student movement by William S. Tuohy and Barry Ames, Mexican University Students in Politics: Rebels without Allies? (1970), and a much broader and important study by Rosalio Wences Reza, El movimiento estudiantily losproblemas nacionales (1971). Inexplicably, the latter is still the only political analysis of student opinions based on survey research. A major work, which also used empirical survey research, but among primary school children, was Rafael Segovia’s outstanding analysis of education’s influ¬ ence on urban students in Mexico City, Lapolitizacion del niho mexicano (1975), a work that needs duplication in the 1990s in the capital and in the provinces. Others interested in this subject looked at the socialization of preparatory and higher education, but only for political leaders (see the section on leaders). Larissa Lomnitz provided the first theoretical analysis of decision making within the National University, in her important contribution on “Conflict and Mediation in a Latin American University” (1977). In the 1980s, students and university politics continued to dominate educational studies in politics. The first broad study of this subject—Donald Mabry, The Mexican University-State Conflict: UNAM Students, 1910-1971 (1982)—ana¬ lyzed the National University focusing on student movements and political strife. In a major theoretical study, Daniel C. Levy, University and Government in Mexico: Autonomy in an Authoritarian Regime (1980), provides a basis for comparing state relations with other studies. He followed this with Higher Ed¬ ucation and the State in Latin America (1986), an important comparative study of Mexico and other Latin American countries emphasizing the much neglected subject of private education. Peter Cleaves’s Professions and the State: The Mexican Case (1987) approached education more broadly, offering an interesting investigation of professions and their influence on political leadership.

VALUES For those approaching politics from a cultural perspective, an important genre among Mexican intellectuals, a major empirical study, although flawed, was Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba’s Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and De¬ mocracy in Five Nations (1963). Unfortunately, this survey was never followed

36

/

Comparative Politics

up, but two decades later, Enrique Alduncfn produced a complementary ex¬ amination in his superb Los valores de los mexicanos (1986). The next year a group of Mexicans—Alberto Hernandez Medina, et al., Como somos los mex¬ icanos (1987)—published a self-portrait of Mexican political attitudes. About this same time, two North American scholars, John A. Booth and Mitchell A. Seligson, using more sophisticated survey research techniques, took a more critical look at the existence of authoritarian political values among working Mexicans in “The Political Culture of Authoritarianism in Mexico” (1984). Another social scientist, Evelyn P. Stevens, “Mexican Machismo: Politics and Value Orientations” (1965), was one of the first to study values from a psychological point of view and the only political scientist to give serious at¬ tention to machismo and marianismo. A decade later, William Tuohy, “Psy¬ chology in Political Analysis: The Case of Mexico” (1974), carried out an important critique of the subjective literature on this topic of investigation. This study was followed by a purely psychological study—Raul Bejar Navarro, El mexicano, aspectos culturales y psicosociales (1981)—of values but one of considerable help to those involved in political science research. Interestingly, although Mexicans are often described as highly nationalistic, the only study of contemporary political values and the roots of nationalism is found in Frederick C. Turner’s The Dynamics of Mexican Nationalism (1968), a particularly in¬ sightful analysis that is now much outdated.

URBAN ISSUES AND LABOR POLITICS In the late 1960s, policymakers became interested in the relationship between the urban poor and political stability. This led to a spate of scholarship on urban marginals, the result of which were two major books on Mexico City by North American scholars: Wayne Cornelius, Politics of the Migrant Poor in Mexico City (1975), and Susan Eckstein, The Poverty of Revolution, the State and the Urban Poor in Mexico (1977). The work on this subject that was done in the 1970s, how¬ ever, was not followed up by major studies elsewhere, probably because they were found not to be prone toward political violence. Our knowledge of the attitudes of the urban and rural poor in Mexico today is severely limited. Whereas the urban poor received some attention in the 1970s, organized labor was ignored altogether during the 1960s and 1970s, with the exception of a few doctoral dissertations. Remarkably, no broad study of the labor movement exists; most of the work that has been done merely examines individual unions as a basis for understanding larger political issues. The three most important mono¬ graphs on this subject, all done in the 1980s, are Ian Roxborough, Unions and Politics in Mexico: The Case of the Automobile Industry (1986); Silvia Gomez Tagle, Insurgenda y democrada en los sindicatos electricistas (1980); and Rene Millan, et al., Sindicalismo y politico en Mexico (1986). All three works analyze important unions using a case study approach and emphasizing union conflict, factionalism, and the political power of the Mexican trade unions. In George

Mexico

/

37

W. Grayson’s The Politics of Mexican Oil (1980), important insights are offered with regard to the politics of the petroleum union. Several article-length works that were done in the mid-1970s suggest some provocative theoretical perpectives on labor issues. The first of this type—How¬ ard Handelman, “Oligarchy and Democracy in Two Mexican Labor Unions: A Test of Representational Theory” (1977)—examined the difference between independent and coopted union leadership in Mexico. Handelman’s important work was followed in the 1980s by three notable studies of unions and statelabor relations in Mexico: Raul Delarbe, “Disparidades y dilemas en el sindicalismo mexicano” (1985); Kevin Middlebrook, “The Political Economy of State-Labor Relations in Mexico” (1982); and Kenneth M. Coleman and Charles L. Davis, “Preemptive Reform and the Mexican Working Class” (1983). In partial response to this void, George W. Grayson completed a brief, general interpretation in his “The Mexican Labor Machine: Power, Politics, and Pa¬ tronage” (1989). Clearly, more systematic research on labor politics is called for in Mexico, combined with comparative work with similar issues in other Latin American and Caribbean countries.

THE STATE AND FUTURE OF POLITICAL RESEARCH Research on Mexican politics has been blessed by a large volume of literature compared to most other Latin American and Caribbean countries, but an as¬ sessment of trends since 1960 suggests, overall, a lack of direction and cohesion to that scholarship. Most of the theoretical literature has been provided by in¬ dividuals—the Needlemans, Susan K. Purcell, and John Sloan—who have not followed through with their own empirical studies. The work done on Mexico has not been comparative, in fact, only a handful of studies have focused squarely on comparing Mexico with other countries. The best of this was a developmental analysis presented in Sylvia A. Hewlett and Richard S. Weinert, eds., Brazil and Mexico: Patterns in Late Development (1982), which contrasts Mexico with Brazil. As suggested above, beginning in the 1960s, the major students of Mexican politics did not continue producing original or theoretical works, providing a thematic body of literature over time. Even Pablo Gonzalez Casanova, their Mexican counterpart, who continues to edit works on the role of the state and electoral politics, has not provided a fresh general analysis, revising his own classic work. Consequently, subsequent authors have nibbled individually on various pieces of the Mexican political puzzle, and only accidentally have some of them fitted together. Significant progress has been made in understanding Mexican government and politics. First, the number of original monographs grounded in sophisticated theory has increased. The most insightful trend in this respect—decision-making theory and analysis-—require further development. Numerous case studies are needed to fill in the larger picture, but Mexicans themselves have neglected this

38

/

Comparative Politics

topic entirely, whereas non-Mexican scholars, such as Peter Ward, Welfare Politics in Mexico: Papering over the Cracks (1986), have tended to examine policy trends. Judith A. Teichman’s recent analysis, Policymaking in Mexico: From Boom to Crisis (1988), picks up where Susan K. Purcell (1975) left off, and hopefully will stimulate future research on this subject. Second, election analysts have finally realized that voter intentions, measured through public opinion surveys, are far more useful than analyses of allegedly fraudulent voting statistics. A disproportionate amount of Mexican research is presently focused on this topic, a trend likely to continue well into the 1990s. Third, Mexican political scientists have replaced intellectuals as leading analysts of domestic politics, reflected in the improved empirical quality of their research. Finally, much more scholarly exchange has taken place between North American and Mexican researchers, and joint collections abound, for example, those edited by Sylvia Maxfield (1987) and Judith Gentleman (1987). Nevertheless, serious original studies need to be pursued jointly, since bibliographies reveal that many studies still ignore the other country’s scholarship. Despite these positive achievements in political science research on Mexico, much remains to be accomplished. A serious dearth of scholarship still exists concerning the political attitudes and activities of the masses. Politically speak¬ ing, we know much more about elites than we know about ordinary Mexicans, working or middle class, rural or urban. We also have much more information about national than about state or local politics. In fact, we essentially are ignorant about state politics, the role of governors, or the interactions among state, local, and national institutions in Mexico. At the national level, our understanding of the judicial and legislative process is negligible, and we do not understand those who lead these political institutions. Mexican political scholarship has also neglected leading institutions or interest groups in Mexico. Book-length studies are needed about the Mexican Federation of Labor (CTM), the National Peasant Federation (CNC), the Catholic Church, and the army. These subjects need to be explored in the context of state theory and compared to other groups and institutions about which we have a clearer understanding, including businessmen, the National University, and intellectuals. Because of recent political developments, more attention must be given to po¬ litical parties, particularly the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD), and the PRI itself as it struggles to maintain its hegemony within the Mexican political system. In the next decade, the focus of political scholarship is likely to be on elections, public opinion polls, political economy, elites, and the role of the state. Also, some monographs on urban labor should emerge from the many article-length works by Mexicans and North Americans. The analysis of domestic Mexican politics, however, is likely to suffer from the attention being paid to MexicanUnited States relations, where both funding and the policy community’s interest have lured scholars away from domestic political scholarship (see Chapter 16). Theoretically, scholarship will continue to pursue state theory, where cultural

Mexico

/

39

and structural explanations need further integration; elite theory, where rapidly changing recruitment trends and leadership orientations deserve further explo¬ ration; and decision-making theory, where research needs to go beyond policy trends and to delve deeply into how the decisions are made. On the basis of what has been accomplished over the past three decades, the 1990s will be an exciting period in Mexican political scholarship.

NOTE 1. All later works owe an intellectual debt to these three scholars for their efforts to understand Mexican politics even though they created an intellectual vacuum, one that stands in stark contrast to the continuity and theoretical direction provided by other Latin Americanists such as John D. Martz (Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela), Howard J. Wiarda (Dominican Republic), and James M. Malloy (Bolivia). Only Padgett revised his original work, publishing a second edition in 1976. After writing several articles in the late 1960s, Brandenburg made no further contributions to the field. Scott, who contributed a section in the Little-Brown series on political culture, also made no further published contributions. This pattern is not unique to Mexico, however, as many scholars tend to follow trends in subjects of investigation, theoretical focus, and geographical areas that offer more in the way of publication opportunities.

REFERENCES Alduncfn, Enrique. 1986. Los valores de los mexicanos. Mexico City: Fomento Cultural Banamex. Almond, Gabriel, and Sidney Verba. 1963. Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and the Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Alonso, Jorge. 1982. El pueblo ante las elecciones. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Anthropologfa Social. -. 1985. Las elecciones en Mexico: evolucion y perspectivas. Mexico City: Siglo XXL Alvarado, Arturo, ed. 1987. Electoral Patterns and Perspectives in Mexico. La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Mexico-United States Studies Center. Ames, Barry. 1970. “Bases of Support for Mexico’s Dominant Party.” American Po¬ litical Science Review 64 (March): 153-67. Anderson, Charles W., and William P. Glade. 1963. The Political Economy of Mexico. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Anderson, Roger C. 1971. “The Functional Role of Governors and Their States in the Political Development of Mexico, 1940-1964.” Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin. Arriola, Carlos. 1981. Las organizaciones empresariales y el estado. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica. Bailey, John. 1988. Governing Mexico, the Statecraft of Crisis Management. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Bartra, Roger, et al. 1975. Caciquismo y poder politico en el Mexico rural. Mexico City: Siglo XXL Basanez, Miguel. 1982. La lucha por la hegemonia en Mexico. Mexico City: Siglo XXL

40

/

Comparative Politics

Bejar Navarro, Raul. 1981. El mexicano, aspectos culturales y psicosociales. Mexico City: UNAM. Bennett, Douglas C., and Kenneth E. Sharpe. 1985. Transnational Corporations versus the State, the Political Economy of the Mexican Auto Industry. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Benveniste, Guy. 1970. Bureaucracy and National Planning, a Sociological Case Study in Mexico. New York: Praeger. Boils, Guillermo. 1975. Los militares y la politico en Mexico, 1914-1974. Mexico City: El Caballito. Booth, John A., and Mitchell A. Seligson. 1984. “The Political Culture of Authoritar¬ ianism in Mexico.” Latin American Research Review 19, no. 1: 106—24. Brandenburg, Frank. 1964. The Making of Modern Mexico. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Camp, Roderic A. 1980. “Mexican Military Leadership in Statistical Perspective since the 1930s.” In James W. Wilkie and Peter Reich, eds., Statistical Abstract of Latin America 20. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Latin American Center. -. 1980. Mexico’s Leaders, Their Education and Recruitment. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. -. 1982. Mexican Political Biographies, 1935-1981. Second Edition. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. -. 1984. The Making of a Government, Political Leaders in Modern Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. -. 1985 Intellectuals and the State in Twentieth Century Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press. -. 1985. “The Political Technocrat and the Survival of the Political System.” Latin American Research Review 20, no. 1: 97-118. -. 1986. “Las generaciones polfticas en Mexico.” Vuelta 11 (October): 30-36. -. 1989. Entrepreneurs and Politics in Twentieth Century Mexico. New York: Oxford University Press. Camp, Roderic A., ed. 1986. Mexican Political Stability: The Next Five Years. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Careaga, Gabriel. 1972. Los intelectuales y la politico en Mexico. Mexico City: Extemporaneos. Camaval Cristiani, Beatriz. 1983. “El movimiento campesino en Sonora, 1970-1982.” Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Politicos 28, nos. 113-114 (julio-diciembre)67-98. Cleaves, Peter. 1987. Professions and the State: The Mexican Case. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Cochrane, James D. 1967. “Mexico’s ‘New Cientfficos’: The Diaz Ordaz Cabinet.” Inter-American Economic Affairs 21 (Summer): 61-72. Coleman, Kenneth M., and Charles L. Davis. 1976. “Diffuse Support in Mexico: The Potential for Crisis. ’ ’ Sage Professional Papers in Comparative Politics 5. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. -. 1983. “Preemptive Reform and the Mexican Working Class.” Latin American Research Review 18, no. 1: 3-31. Cornelius, Wayne. 1975. Politics of the Migrant Poor in Mexico City. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Mexico

/

41

Cosio Villegas, Daniel. 1974. El estilo personal de gobernar. Mexico City: Joaquin Mortiz. D’Antonio, William V., and William H. Form. 1965. Influential in Two Border Cities: A Study in Community Decision-Making. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press. Davis, Charles L., and Kenneth M. Coleman. 1982. “Electoral Change in the One-Party Dominant Mexican Polity, 1958-1973, Evidence from Mexico City.” Journal of Developing Areas 16 (July): 511-21. de la Garza, Rudolph O. 1972. “The Mexican Chamber of Deputies and the Mexican Political System.” Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona. Delarbe, Raul. 1985. “Disparidades y dilemas en el sindicalismo mexicano.” Revista Mexicana de Sociologla 47, no. 1 (enero-marzo): 139-60. Derossi, Flavia. 1971. The Mexican Entrepreneurs. Paris: Development Center of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Eckstein, Susan. 1977. The Poverty of Revolution, the State and the Urban Poor in Mexico. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Fagen, Richard R., and William Tuohy. 1972. Politics and Privilege in a Mexican City. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Garrido, Luis Javier. 1982. El partido de la revolucion institucionalizada: medio siglo de poder politico en Mexico. Mexico City: Siglo XXI. Garza Ramirez, Enrique, et al. 1985. Nuevo Leon. 1985. Monterrey, Mexico: Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon. Gentleman, Judith, ed. 1987. Mexican Politics in Transition. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Gomez Tagle, Silvia. 1980. Insurgencla y democracla en los sindicatos electricistas. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico. Gonzalez Casanova, Pablo. 1965. La democracia en Mexico. Mexico City: ERA. Gonzalez Llaca, Edmundo. 1975. “El presidencialismo o la personalization del poder.” Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pollticas 21 (abril-junio); 35-42. Graham, Lawrence S. 1968. Politics in a Mexican Community. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Grayson, George W. 1980. The Politics of Mexican Oil. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. -. 1989. “The Mexican Labor Machine: Power, Politics, and Patronage.” Center for Strategic and International Studies Monograph Series 2, no. 3. Greenberg, Martin H. 1970. Bureaucracy and Development: A Mexican Case Study. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath. Grindle, Merilee S. 1977. Bureaucrats, Politicians, and Peasants in Mexico: A Case Study in Public Policy. Berkeley: University of California Press. -. 1977. “Patrons and Clients in the Bureaucracy: Career Networks in Mexico.” Latin American Research Review 22, no. 1: 37-66. -. 1977. “Power, Expertise and the ‘Tecnico’: Suggestions from a Mexican Case Study.” Journal of Politics 36 (May):399-426. Handelman, Howard. 1977. “Oligarchy and Democracy in Two Mexican Labor Unions: A Test of Representational Theory.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 30, no. 2 (January): 205-18. Hanratty, Dennis M. 1988. “The Church.” In George W. Grayson, ed., Prospects for Mexico. Washington, D.C.: Foreign Service Institute.

42

/

Comparative Politics

Hansen, Roger. 1971. The Politics of Mexican Development. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Heilman, Judith. 1978. Mexico in Crisis. New York: Holmes and Meier. Hernandez Medina, Alberto, et al. 1987. Como somos los mexicanos. Mexico City: Centro de Estudios Educativos. Hewlett, Sylvia A., and Richard S. Weinert, eds. 1982. Brazil and Mexico: Patterns in Late Development. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. Johnson, Kenneth F. 1971. Mexican Democracy: A Critical View. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Kling, Merle. 1961. A Mexican Interest Group in Action. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Leal, Juan Felipe. 1972. La burguesia y el estado mexicano. Mexico City: El Caballito. Lehr, Volker G. 1984. Manual biografico del Congreso de la Union, LII legislatura. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica. Levy, Daniel C. 1980. University and Government in Mexico: Autonomy in an Author¬ itarian Regime. New York: Praeger. -. 1986. Higher Education and the State in Latin America. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. Levy, Daniel, and Gabriel Szekely. 1983. Mexico: Paradoxes of Stability and Change. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Lieuwen, Edwin. 1968. Mexican Militarism. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Loaeza, Soledad. 1984. “La iglesia Catolica mexicana y el reformismo autoritario.’’ Foro Internacional 25, no. 2 (octubre-diciembre): 138-65. -. 1985. “La iglesia y la democracia en Mexico.” Revista Mexicana de Sociologia 47, no. 1 (enero-marzo): 161-68. Lomnitz, Larissa. 1977. “Conflict and Mediation in a Latin American University.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 19 (August): 315-38. Lopez, Rosado Diego G. 1980. La burocracia en Mexico. Mexico City: Secretarla de Comercio. Lozoya, Jorge Alberto. 1970. El ejercito mexicano. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico. Mabry, Donald. 1973. Mexico’s Accion Nacional: A Catholic Alternative to Revolution. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. -. 1982. The Mexican University-State Conflict: UN AM Students, 1910-1971. College Station: Texas A&M Press. Margiotta, Franklin D. 1976. “Civilian Control and the Mexican Military: Changing Patterns of Political Influence.” In Claude E. Welch, Jr., ed., Civilian Control of the Military: Theories and Cases from Developing Countries. Albany: State University of New York Press. Maxfield, Sylvia, ed. 1987. Government and the Private Sector in Contemporary Mexico. La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Mexico-U.S. Studies Center. Meyer, Lorenzo, and Julio Labastida Martin del Campo. 1974. “Algunas hipotesises sobre el modelo politico mexicano y sus perspectivas.” Revista Mexicana de Sociologia 36 (julio-septiembre): 629-42. -• 1975. “Continuidades e innovaciones en la vida polftica mexicana del siglo xx, el antiguo y el nuevo regimen.” Foro Internacional 16 (julio-septiembre):37-63. Middlebrook, Kevin. 1982. “The Political Economy of State-Labor Relations in Mex-

Mexico

/

43

ico. ” Paper presented at the National Latin American Studies Association (LAS A), Washington, D.C. -. 1988. “Dilemmas of Change in Mexican Politics.” World Politics 41 (October)120-41. Millan, Rene, et al. 1986. Sindicalismo y politico en Mexico. Mexico City: UNAM. Molinar Horcasitas, Juan, and Volker G. Lehr. 1985. “Bipartidismo en Mexico.” Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Politicos y Sociales 31, no. 120 (abril-junio): 79-101. Morton, Ward. 1962. Woman Suffrage in Mexico. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Needleman, Carolyn, and Martin Needleman. 1969. “Who Rules Mexico? A Critique of Some Current Views of the Mexican Political Process.” Journal of Politics 31 (November): 1011-134. Needier, Martin. 1961. “The Political Development of Mexico.” American Political Science Review 55 (June): 308-12. Newell, Roberto, and Luis Rubio. 1984. Mexico’s Dilemma, the Political Origins of Economic Crisis. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Padgett, L. Vincent. 1966. The Mexican Political System. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Paz, Octavio. 1972. The Other Mexico: Critique of the Pyramid. New York: Grove Press. Pomerlau, Claude. 1981. “The Changing Church in Mexico and Its Challenges to the State.” Review of Politics 43, no. 4 (October): 540-59. Purcell, John F., and Susan K. Purcell. 1977. “Mexican Business and Public Policy.” In James Malloy, ed., Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America. Pitts¬ burgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Purcell, Susan Kaufman. 1973. “Decision-Making in an Authoritarian Regime: Theo¬ retical Implications from a Mexican Case Study.” World Politics 26 (October)28-54. -. 1975. The Mexican Profit-Sharing Decision, Politics in an Authoritarian Regime. Berkeley: University of California Press. Reyna, Jose Luis, and Richard Weinert, eds. 1977. Authoritarianism in Mexico. New York: ISHI Press. Ronfeldt, David F. 1973. Atencingo, the Politics of Agrarian Struggle in a Mexican Ejido. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. -. 1976. “The Mexican Army and Political Order since 1940.” In Abraham F. Lowenthal, ed., Armies and Politics in Latin America. New York: Holmes and Meier. Ronfeldt, David F., ed. 1984. The Modern Mexican Military. La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, U.S.-Mexico Studies Center. Roxborough, Ian. 1986. Unions and Politics in Mexico: The Case of the Automobile Industry. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Sanderson, Steven. 1981. Agrarian Populism and the Mexican State. Berkeley: University of California Press. -. 1983. “Presidential Succession and Political Rationality in Mexico.” World Politics 35 (April): 315-34. Sanderson, Susan Walsh. 1984. Land Reform in Mexico: 1910-1980. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press. Schmitt, Karl. 1965. Communism in Mexico Today. Austin: University of Texas Press. -. 1984. “Church and State in Mexico: A Corporatist Relationship.” The Americas 40 (January): 349-76.

44

/

Comparative Politics

Scott, Robert C. 1959. Mexican Government in Transition. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Segovia, Rafael. 1975. La politizacion del nino mexicano. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico. Shafer, Robert J. 1973. Mexican Business Organizations. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. Sloan, John M. 1981. “The Mexican Variant of Corporatism.” Comparative Political Studies 14, no. 2 (July): 139-61. Smith, Peter H. 1979. Labyrinths of Power: Political Recruitment in Twentieth Century Mexico. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Spalding, Rose J. 1985. “State Power and Its Limits: Corporatism in Mexico.” InterAmerican Economic Affairs 38, no. 4: 3-18. Stevens, Evelyn P. 1965. “Mexican Machismo: Politics and Value Orientations.” West¬ ern Political Quarterly 18 (December): 848-57. -. 1974. Protest and Response in Mexico. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Story, Dale. 1983. “Industrial Elites in Mexico: Political Ideology and Influence.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 25, no. 3: 351-75. -. 1985. “Policy Cycles in Mexican Politics.” Latin American Research Review 3:139-61. -. 1986. Industry, the State, and Public Policy in Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press. -. 1986. The Mexican Ruling Party. New York: Praeger. Teichman, Judith A. 1988. Policymaking in Mexico: From Boom to Crisis. Boston: Allen and Unwin. Tirado Segura, Ricardo. 1979. Las organizaciones empresariales mexicanas: perfil y control durante las sesentas. Mexico City: UNAM, Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales. Tucker, William P. 1957. The Mexican Government Today. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Tuohy, William. 1974. “Psychology in Political Analysis: The Case of Mexico.” Western Political Quarterly 27 (June): 289-307. Tuohy, William S., and Barry Ames. 1970. Mexican University Students in Politics: Rebels without Allies? Denver: University of Colorado Management Series in World Affairs. Turner, Frederick C. 1967. “The Compatibility of Church and State in Mexico.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 9 (October): 591-602. -. 1968. The Dynamics of Mexican Nationalism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Ugalde, Antonio. 1970. Power and Conflict in a Mexican Community: A Study of Political Integration. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Vernon, Raymond. 1963. The Dilemma of Mexico’s Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Ward, Peter. 1986. Welfare Politics in Mexico: Papering over the Cracks. London: Allen and Unwin. Warman, Arturo. 1980. We Come to Object, the Peasants of Morelos and the National State. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Wences Reza, Rosalio. 1971. El movimiento estudiantil y los problemas nacionales. Mexico City: Editorial Nuestro Tiempo.

Mexico

/

45

Whiting, Van R., Jr. 1988. “State Strength and Regime Resilience: Sources of Mexico’s Endurance.” Occasional Papers in Latin American Studies, University of Connecticut. Zermeno, Sergio. 1983. “De Echeverrfa a De la Madrid: hacia un regimen burocraticoautoritario.” Revista Mexicana de Sociologia 45, no. 2 (abril-junio): 473-506.

.

3 CENTRAL AMERICA Robert H. Trudeau

Political science research on Central America has followed the thrust of historical events, political change, and the nature of U.S. policy toward the region. Until 1978-1979, most of the research attention on Central America focused on Costa Rica and Guatemala and reflected the traditions of the behavioral revolution in comparative politics. Scholars were interested in Costa Rica because it was accessible, stable, and a good case in which to test one’s comparative hypotheses. In Guatemala most of the research attention reflected the interests of other dis¬ ciplines, especially anthropology. Political scientists who did venture into Gua¬ temala were interested in either political violence or the superficial elections that periodically brought in civilian governments but rarely altered the dominant position of the Guatemalan military. El Salvador and Honduras remained back¬ waters which were almost totally ignored by political scientists interested in Central America. Since 1980, the level of research attention has increased significantly in those nations most directly affected by U.S. policy and the political crises of the region: Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, in that order. In the two cases of Nicaragua and El Salvador, research attention is driven by revo¬ lution, internal war, counterrevolution, and U.S. policy. A few scholars have begun to examine the politics of Honduras, particularly over the past decade, but it is still neglected apparently because it has neither political crisis nor extreme economic inequality. Except for the brief period when the Carter-Torrijos treaties were debated and ratified in the late 1970s, Panama was generally neglected until the late 1980s, when hemispheric drug trafficking catapulted General Man¬ uel Antonio Noriega, Panama’s jefe maxima, into the nation’s attention and continued to befuddle American policymakers until the United States invaded in December 1989. What research does exist on Panama tends to focus on features

48

/

Comparative Politics

and events—the Panama Canal, the zone, and the Carter-Torrijos treaties of 1978—that often tell us little about Panamanian politics. While there are rela¬ tively few political studies of Belize, several are well grounded in empirical theory and comparative techniques. In sum, the inconstant attention paid to Central America has led to a body of literature that tends to have relatively little historical perspective and is plagued by uncertainties about how to integrate Costa Rica and Panama into the research paradigms of the subfield. Costa Rica and Guatemala continue to provide the most interesting theoretical work and suffer less from the criticism of fickle and variable research attention. Although there is a tendency to criticize scholars for the lack of research attention devoted to the area before 1980, it can be argued that many quality pieces of research do exist from that period, but were little appreciated due to the general neglect of the region. Once the flood of new research began after 1979, new criticisms emerged, particularly the spotty and inconsistent attention, the lack of continuity and historical perspective, the lack of empirical theory, the inadequate level of comparativeness, and the literature’s polemic quality. Those who make the polemic argument frequently stress the tendency of scholars to serve as advocates for a desired political or social outcome and to allow research agendas to be shaped by ideological perspectives. In this effort to synthesize the political science research on Central America over the past three decades, each of the above criticisms is discussed, and both excellent and relatively weak examples of research are emphasized. The con¬ cluding section argues that in spite of the criticisms made of much of the extant research on Central American politics, there are indeed some outstanding schol¬ arly contributions which can provide models for new directions in the discipline. For example, some of the existing works often described as “polemic” offer valuable paradigmatic lessons for political science research. What follows is an examination of the body of political science research on Central America (including Belize and Panama) emphasizing such subjects of investigation as comprehensive country and comparative studies; agricultural issues; armed forces; economic issues; education; leaders and elites; parties, groups, and elections; revolutionary issues; political theory; urban issues and labor politics; human rights and state terrorism; and general, policy-oriented studies. The final part of this chapter addresses the criticisms leveled at the quality of political science research and concludes with four suggestions for future research on the region.

COMPREHENSIVE COUNTRY AND COMPARATIVE STUDIES Prior to 1980, the number of comprehensive country and comparative studies that focused on national level research in Central America was small. Of these, Gary W. Wynia’s Politics and Planners: Economic Development Policy in Cen¬ tral America (1972) studies public policy in each of the five countries in the

Central America

/

49

region, focusing on the frequent tension between the agendas of sitting presidents and the technocrats in their planning and development agencies. Since both of these political actors, at least in theory, pursue development they should be cooperating to achieve a variety of development goals. Finding more conflict than cooperation in the political arena, Wynia argues that the overall economic and political context constitutes the major factors affecting the success of de¬ velopment efforts in the region. According to Wynia (1972:197), “[Ejach na¬ tional political structure confronted its leaders with a set of conditions which shaped their policy choices.” In contrast, Thomas P. Anderson’s Politics in Central America: Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua (1982), an oft-cited comparative survey of four nations in the region, contains little empirical theory beyond an implicit cultural model centering on machismo, a culture of violence, and the historical need for caudillo-style leaders. Although Anderson’s volume is comparative, it lacks a coherent framework of analysis which reduces its research value considerably. Although there are few examples of original comparative research of national systems, edited compilations are much more common since 1980. Few are comparative in theoretical framework, however, and for the most part they leave the synthesis to the reader. Perhaps because Guatemala has been such a cauldron for revolutionary events, as well as a laboratory for U.S. foreign policy, there has been more work published on Guatemala than on any other nation in the region. Moreover, the work on Guatemala has profited from the broader range of disciplinary and theoretical points of view, as well as the consistency of research attention since 1960. For example, the intervention of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Guatemala in 1954 inspired publications such as Ronald M. Schneider’s Com¬ munism in Guatemala, 1944, 1954 (1958), Guillermo Toriello Garrido’s Gua¬ temala: Mas de 20 ahos de traicion (1979), and Eduardo Galeano’s Guatemala: Occupied Country (1969). The two major works from this period, Richard N. Adams’s Crucifixion by Power: Essays on Guatemalan National Social Structure, 1944-1966 (1970) and Susanne Jonas and David Tobis’s Guatemala (1974), both stress the impact of international actors, especially the United States, on Guatemala’s politics and development. By combining the approaches of anthro¬ pological and sociological group theories with political data, Adams shows the impact of U.S. policy on both the domestic power structure and the Guatemalan masses, including the Indian majority. Jonas and Tobis are oriented more toward data on direct economic and political intervention, and they use a dependency approach to study the period from the 1954 invasion up through the early 1970s, when the repression of the Guatemalan military began to consolidate itself as a form of state terrorism. This study, often cited because of its thorough docu¬ mentation, focuses on the international constraints on domestic policy-making as well as on the structure of domestic power elites. Since the late 1970s, few country studies on Guatemala offer major contri¬ butions to the development of theory, although many provide sound empirical

50

/

Comparative Politics

information. The studies in this category would include the books by Roger Plant, Guatemala: Unnatural Disaster (1987), Jim Handy, Friend of the Devil: A History of Guatemala (1984), James Painter, Guatemala, False Hope, False Freedom: The Rich, the Poor, and the Christian Democrats (1987), Jean-Marie Simon, Guatemala: Eternal Spring—Eternal Tyranny (1987), and Georges A. Fauriol and Eva Loser, Guatemala’s Political Puzzle (1988). Plant’s study, for example, is a comprehensive expose of violence and social oppression in Gua¬ temala after 1954. Handy provides an excellent historical overview, covering political events of the past twenty years. Painter describes recent declining po¬ litical and economic conditions since about 1976, stressing the frustration of popular organizations faced with a “centrist” government (after 1985) that can¬ not deliver on social reform. Although Painter does not integrate theory with data, his informed (if not explicitly theoretical) pessimism about Guatemala’s future seems more reasonable, for example, than the optimistic tone in Fauriol and Loser, who consider recent changes in political structure (including recent elections) a harbinger of potential progress toward democracy in Guatemala. Simon, in a book lavishly illustrated with photographs, focuses on the issues of human rights and state terrorism in recent Guatemalan politics, subjects Fauriol and Loser tend to either downplay or ignore. No noteworthy national case studies of El Salvador existed prior to the surge of violence in the late 1970s, but there have been several case studies since then, each with slightly different emphases. Philip L. Russell’s El Salvador in Crisis (1984) provides historical background to the current upheaval in El Salvador, including detailed descriptions of some of the historical context that is sympa¬ thetic to the insurgency. James Dunkerly’s The Long War: Dictatorship and Revolution in El Salvador (1982) provides more information on recent economic conditions along with extensive historical background data. Like Dunkerly, Cyn¬ thia Amson, in El Salvador: A Revolution Confronts the U.S. (1982), emphasizes recent data and the international context of the current situation, but with less historical perspective. Three other works also focus on political events, but with more of an attempt at analysis within theoretical perspectives familiar to political science. Robert Armstrong and Janet Shenk’s El Salvador: The Face of Revolution (1982) and Tommie Sue Montgomery’s Revolution in El Salvador: Origins and Evolution (1982) both provide detailed narrations of the events around the 1979 “reformist” coup in El Salvador and the subsequent cycles of popular organizing and state repression. Of the two, Montgomery focuses more on the church as the vehicle of popular mobilization. Finally, in El Salvador in Transition (1982), Enrique A. Baloyra hypothesizes that the role of elites in preventing social reform can be attributed to the need for competitiveness in the international capitalist market. Given this obstacle, he further suggests that although capitalism and democracy are not necessarily incongruous—once the question of social redistribution is settled so as to produce social peace—this process will be extremely difficult to implement in El Salvador. Baloyra’s work is the single best analysis of El

Central America

/

51

Salvador: The overall framework is based on critical questions of political econ¬ omy, and these elements are confronted explicitly throughout the volume. There have been even fewer national case studies on Honduras, and these— Gregorio Selser’s Honduras, republica alquilada (1983), James A. Morris’s Honduras: Caudillo Politics and Military Rulers (1984), Richard Lapper and James Painter’s Honduras: State for Sale (1985), Mark B. Rosenberg and Philip L. Shepherd’s, eds., Honduras Confronts Its Future: Contending Perspectives on Critical Issues (1986), and Alison Acker’s Honduras: The Making of a Banana Republic (1988)—appeared only after the massive buildup of U.S. military forces there. All reflect a serious concern with the nature and results of that buildup. Selser’s book is a compilation of short pieces, journalistic but with great insight and perspective. Acker’s volume is essentially a history of the political economy, with emphasis on opposition to current domestic politics and to U.S. policy in the region. It is more descriptive than explicitly theoretical, and its implicit approach will please opponents more than supporters of current U.S. policy. Lapper and Painter also focus on the political economy and public policy pro¬ cesses, with less historical focus and more detail on recent events than Acker. Implicit is a theory of revolution/instability that focuses on the relationship between socioeconomic needs and the capacity of the system to provide reforms to satisfy demands. A major variable in the implicit model is the corruption of elites, best illustrated in their section on agrarian policies in Honduras over the past thirty years. Again, though, theory is not explicit, and the overall impression of the work is “informed advocacy.” Morris’s (1984) work, by far the most comprehensive of the case studies on Honduras, describes the overall functions of the political system itself but pays appropriate attention to the economic and military context. Like many others, Morris notes both Honduras’s relative (in the Central American context) lack of horrendous economic inequalities and the “absence of an isolated, retrograde oligarchy” (p. 129), but he does not come to grips with the class-based model of analysis these observations suggest. Indeed, while appearing more “reason¬ able” than some of the more polemic works cited above, this book shares with these the lack of a clear theoretical approach. Morris’s theory is a circular truism: Political frustration results from unsolved social and economic problems; these, in turn, fragment society and prevent the resolution of these problems by political institutions, producing political frustration. Rosenberg and Shepherd’s edited volume has several excellent contributions but suffers from inconsistency in quality. The overall theme is democracy, but it includes human rights and national security as variables affecting the quality of democracy. Although the conceptual foci are explicit, the theory explaining the variation on these themes is less clear. Their explanation of the democratic transition in Honduras seems to focus on three variables: the need for “an enduring political order,” the need to improve the economy, and “the effort to establish an independent regional role free of external intervention” (1986:16). In effect, this implies a model of political analysis that incorporates both the

52

/

Comparative Politics

historical context and the constraints and opportunities for policy choice by elites. This is an appropriate model, but in the body of the book, the allusions to it are too vague and undeveloped. During the Somoza era, Nicaragua received even less attention in terms of book-length works. Over the past decade the bulk of the work has focused on issues surrounding the Sandinista revolution and the efforts of the Nicaraguan government since then. Of that work, John A. Booth’s The End and the Begin¬ ning: The Nicaraguan Revolution (1982) and Dennis Gilbert’s Sandinistas: The Party and the Revolution (1988) are outstanding contributions to the literature. (These and other works are discussed later under revolutionary issues.) In contrast to the avalanche of literature on El Salvador and Nicaragua, Costa Rica has not experienced a surge of national case studies since 1980. Perhaps the best piece from before 1980 is Charles F. Denton’s Patterns of Costa Rican Politics (1971), a systems analysis approach to the study of Costa Rican politics which focuses heavily on the role of education as a socializing agent used to promote system stability. Since 1980, two works, Charles D. Ameringer’s De¬ mocracy in Costa Rica (1982) and Jose Luis Vega Carballo’s Poder politico y democracia en Costa Rica (1982), have studied Costa Rica’s ability to survive as a democracy in a hostile region. Ameringer offers a cautiously optimistic description of recent events and possibilities in Costa Rica, focusing primarily on cultural variables. His thesis is that Costa Rican political institutions enjoy high levels of legitimacy and that its political culture is supportive, but that economic conditions could jeopardize political stability. On Panama, Steve C. Ropp’s Panamanian Politics: From Guarded Nation to National Guard (1982), like Morris’s (1984) work on Honduras, uses a good conceptual framework to help the reader make sense of the material, but it has little reference to empirical theory. It provides good historical background and insightful commentary on recent events, but it stands out because there are so few political scientists writing on Panama. Few country studies and little theo¬ retical analysis have been done on Belize. A. R. Gregg’s British Honduras (1968) provides an early description with very little analysis, but there is not much else on Belize of that period. William David Setzerkom’s Formerly British Honduras: A Profile of the New Nation of Belize (1981) is a history and de¬ scription of events, again with little theory. O. Nigel Bolland’s Belize, a New Nation in Central America (1986) is a more recent work, one which offers a descriptive overview but, like the rest, a description that does not include em¬ pirical theoretical analysis.

AGRARIAN ISSUES AND THE PEASANTRY Given the nature of the political economy of Central America, it is not sur¬ prising that agrarian issues have received a considerable amount of attention over the years, both before and after the events of 1979. This topical area includes some of the best research on Central America, including early studies that used

Central America

/

53

models based on social class and public policy processes. These research efforts are interesting because they focus on social outcomes, especially for the poorer sectors of society. Among the valuable works that deal with social outcomes, especially the impoverished sectors of society, are Thomas and Marjorie Mel¬ ville’s Guatemala: The Politics of Land Ownership (1971), Mitchell A. Seligson’s “Agrarian Policies in Dependent Societies: Costa Rica” (1977), Stephen Gudeman’s The Demise of a Rural Economy: From Subsistence to Capitalism in a Latin American Village (1978), Robert G. Williams’s Export Agriculture and the Crisis in Central America (1986), and Charles D. Brockett’s Land, Power, and Poverty: Agrarian Transformation and Political Conflict in Central America (1988). Agrarian issues have received the most attention in Guatemala and Costa Rica. The Melvilles (1971) provide an excellent contribution by integrating agricultural data with public policy and by focusing on the violence that accompanied rural change and attempts at reform during the 1960s in Guatemala. On Costa Rica, Mitchell A. Seligson’s P easants of Costa Rica and the Development of Agrarian Capitalism (1980) also studies the interaction between micro-level agriculture and the larger political economy. Gudeman (1978) describes his work as “eco¬ nomic anthropology,” and in an excellent study of agriculture in a Panamanian village, offers an interesting longitudinal micro-level analysis that is very well grounded in empirical theory. There have been good comparative works as well. For historical background on agriculture and the impact of an export orientation, the best piece is Williams (1986). While Williams organizes his research around particular commodities, Brockett (1988) makes national level comparisons in his study of the impact of an export-oriented economy on land tenure and in turn on the basic quality of life throughout the region. These two excellent studies illustrate the value of both original documentary research and synthesis using policy-based frameworks.

ARMED FORCES AND THE GOLPE DE ESTADO The military is so centrally important in understanding Central American politics that no comprehensive text can ignore it. Ironically, this leaves relatively few works that focus exclusively on the military in the region. Moreover, the history of Central American armed forces cannot be separated from international politics, and the bulk of the work on this topic reflects this. Nevertheless, many international relations works also provide good empirical information about the domestic political activities of military institutions. A good comparative work of this type is Don L. Etchison’s The United States and Militarism in Central America (1975). The bulk of the text is about U.S. policy and assistance to Central American militaries, but the early part describes the structures and po¬ litical activities of the military institutions in six nations of the isthmus. Most national level research on the military comes from Guatemala. Richard

54

/

Comparative Politics

N. Adams’s “The Development of the Guatemalan Military” (1968) is an early effort to study the Guatemalan military. In Caesar D. Sereseres’s “Military Development and the United States Military Assistance Program for Latin Amer¬ ica: The Case of Guatemala, 1961-1969” (1972), the main theme is the effect of U.S. military assistance on the Guatemalan armed forces, but his research also reveals a good deal about the Guatemalan military itself. George Black, Milton Jamail, and Norma Stoltz Chinchilla’s Garrison Guatemala (1984) reveals still more, including the expansion of the Guatemalan military into political and economic life in the past thirty years and its liberal use of violence to help pave the way. On El Salvador, Fernando Flores Pinel’s “El estado de seguridad nacional en El Salvador: un fenomeno de crisis hegemonica” (1980) is a good analysis of the impact of national security ideology in El Salvador and elsewhere in Latin America. Other good comparative works include Ronald H. MacDonald’s “CivilMilitary Relations in Central America: The Dilemmas of Political Institution¬ alization, in Howard J. Wiarda, ed., Rift and Revolution: The Central American Imbroglio (1984), a description of civil-military relations in the isthmus, and Milton Jamail and Margo Gutierrez’s It’s No Secret: Israel’s Military Involvement in Central America (1986), which focuses on the impact of Israeli military assistance in the region. Ron Seckinger’s “The Central American Militaries: A Survey of the Literature” (1981) is an excellent bibliographic survey of research on the militaries of Central America.

ECONOMIC ISSUES There is a good deal of work on economic issues that affect politics in Central America, some of it excellent, including several comparative studies. One of the few events that attracted scholarly attention to the region before 1980 was Central America’s attempt at regional integration in the Central America Com¬ mon Market. Joseph Nye, “Central American Regional Integration” (1967), provides an early look at this phenomenon. Two later studies of that process are Isaac Cohen’s Regional Integration in Central America (1972) and Royce Q. Shaw’s Central America: Regional Integration and National Political Devel¬ opment (1978). Shaw focuses on regional integration, but his thesis is that neither orthodox economic theory nor integration theory explains the history of the regional integration process in Central America. Alternatively, he proposes that national political conditions are a key variable, and his research focuses on that dimension, making this a good comparative study of political behavior and public policy in the region. Cohen’s shorter study, by comparison, is more of an orthodox economic interpretation of the same period. The crisis after 1979 was followed by renewed interest in Central American economics, resulting in several excellent works. In The Political Economy of Central America since 1920 (1987), Victor Bulmer-Thomas provides an excellent comparative analysis including a wealth of information going back to the 1920s.

Central America

/

55

Isaac Cohen and Gert Rosenthal’s “The Dimensions of Economic Policy Space in Central America,” in Richard R. Fagen and Olga Pellicer, eds., The Future of Central America: Policy Choices for the U.S. and Mexico (1983), a com¬ parative study of economic policy in Central America, is a good example of an approach based on concepts of public policy and the effect of context on policy opportunities and choices. John Weeks’s The Economies of Central America (1985) is the single best overall comparative analysis of economic conditions in the region: a successful integration of data on economic conditions and policies with major political events in isthmian history. John McCamant’s The Economies of Central America (1985) is another com¬ parative study of economic conditions in Central America, which gives historical background on development assistance, including good descriptions of recent conditions on many aspects of socioeconomic life. McCamant’s concluding chap¬ ter theorizes about the difficulties and complexities of public economic policy decisions (versus market decisions by individuals) in a context of political insta¬ bility. International development assistance aids this process, but it has less than the maximum impact on development because of this political context. Never¬ theless, McCamant notes that this aid points in the right direction, inasmuch as development depends on the public sectors’s becoming able to make decisions for the common good. Although there is a wealth of national case studies that are economically oriented, one especially worth citing is Norman Ashcraft’s Colonialism and Underdevelopment: Processes of Political Economic Change in British Honduras (1973), an early, anthropologically oriented study of underdevelopment in Belize. Ashcraft’s thesis is that Belize’s internationally oriented political economy pro¬ vides an essential part of the context of domestic adaptation in small nations. As demonstrated in this excellent study, adaptive behavior is an excellent in¬ dicator of the context as well as of the individuals involved. This book is well grounded in theory and explicitly seeks to raise the case study to the level of generalization by integrating data with theory. It is an example of an appropriate integration of both international and domestic data, a style still too rarely invoked in more recent work.

EDUCATION Relatively little work has been done on education within the purview of political science, and that work comes in two sets. The first, on Costa Rica, reflects the use of mainstream comparative empirical political frameworks, in¬ cluding Daniel Goldrich’s Sons of the Establishment: Elite Youth in Panama and Costa Rica (1966), an early comparative study of political socialization; John T. McNelly and Eugenio Fonseca’s “Media Use and Political Interest at the University of Costa Rica” (1964), which measures the relationship between exposure to news media and “political awareness and participation” among Costa Rican university students; and Denton (1971).

56

/

Comparative Politics

The second type of educational study focuses on recent events in Nicaragua, beginning with the revolution and its aftermath. Robert F. Amove’s Education and Revolution in Nicaragua (1986) is probably the best book-length example of this type of analysis. Interestingly, sympathy with the Nicaraguan revolution channels this and other such studies into focusing on the role of social institutions in building support for the new political system—that is, these works share a focus on the conservative or stability-producing aspects of education. Yet, the later works on Nicaragua tend not to show as much explicit concern for theory as does, for example, Denton’s work on Costa Rica.

LEADERS AND ELITES Relatively few studies focus solely on Central American elites, but works in other categories often include major segments on these important political actors. Goldrich’s (1966) early study of Costa Rican and Panamanian elite youth still stands as a virtually unique piece of research in its efforts to test mainstream socialization theories using an explicitly comparative research design. Joel G. Vemer’s two pieces, “Characteristics of Administrative Personnel: The Case of Guatemala” (1970) and “Socialization and Participation in Legislative Debates: The Case of the Guatemalan Congress” (1971), provide shorter examples of socialization studies applied to elite groups in Guatemala. Studies of this variety have been rare over the past decade, and there is a distinct gap in the literature on elites. One recent study focusing on leaders and their “political culture” is Enrique A. Baloyra’s “Reactionary Despotism in Central America” (1983), an attitudinal study of Central America’s crisis. Although Jennifer Schirmer’s Rule of Law or Law of Rule?: Law, Human Rights, and National Security in Guatemala (forth¬ coming) promises to present data on the ideology of Guatemala’s ruling military elite, there is far too little research on the current political thought of non-left thinkers in the region. Theory-oriented political biography, for example, has not yet appeared in the studies of the region. Elizabeth Burgos-Debray’s, ed., /. . . Rigoberta Menchu: An Indian Woman in Guatemala (1984) provides a rare example of an autobio¬ graphical account of the consciousness-raising process in the life of a Guatemalan leader of popular movements, but she includes no empirical theory. There are several edited volumes of documents which aim to be political overviews of the cases they study but which are perhaps more useful, in the long run, as a source for basic data on elites that could provide grist for future studies of the region’s elites.2

PARTIES, GROUPS, AND ELECTIONS Although the nature of Central America’s political economy properly has led to the production of much outstanding work on agriculture and agricultural public

Central America

/

57

policy, the traditional scope of comparative political theory has meant more work on parties, groups, and elections than on most other topics. Within this category, there has been more research on elections and less work on parties and groups. This is not surprising, given the difficulties of conducting research in the region over the past two decades and given the observation that repressive elites who might object to the mobilization of parties and groups might still welcome elections as demonstrations of their democratizing intentions. On political parties, Thomas W. Walker’s The Christian Democratic Move¬ ment in Nicaragua (1970) is one of the few studies to describe a political party in pre-Sandinista Nicaragua. Stephen Webre’s Jose Napoleon Duarte and the Christian Democratic Party in Salvadoran Politics, 1960-1972 (1979) is a welldocumented and thorough description of the Christian Democratic party as it has developed and adapted to changing political conditions in El Salvador. Again, this is informed description—no theory is used to connect these data with any of the literature on political parties, other than the literature on Christian Dem¬ ocratic movements and parties in other nations. By contrast, Burt English’s Liberacion Nacional in Costa Rica: The Development of a Political Party in a Transitional Society (1971) not only provides historical detail and access to documents in his Costa Rican study, but also seeks to connect the material to mainstream empirical theory on parties in developing societies. Research on groups is not well developed in Central American studies. Herman D. Lujan’s, ed., “The Structure of Political Support: The Case of Guatemala’’ (1974) is a behavioral study of political support in Guatemala that examines the effects of the political community as a variable in explaining levels of political support during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Although there is some work on labor politics, as described below, much remains to be investigated in the area of group studies; Adams’s (1970) study of Guatemala remains as perhaps the best research effort on groups, but overall the topic is woefully neglected in the literature. Research on political participation in Central America has rarely been based on empirical theory, and extant research tends to be organized around the evo¬ lution of a particular sector or group, such as labor. A few conceptually interesting and theoretically based studies concerned with comparison are rare, but a few notable exceptions would include John A. Booth’s “Are Latin Americans Po¬ litically Rational?: Citizen Participation and Democracy in Costa Rica,” in John A. Booth and Mitchell A. Seligson, eds., Political Participation in Latin Amer¬ ica: Citizen and State (1978); Mitchell A. Seligson’s “Development and Par¬ ticipation in Costa Rica: The Impact of Context,” in Booth and Seligson, eds. (1978); and Mitchell A. Seligson and John A. Booth, “Structure and Levels of Political Participation in Costa Rica: Comparing Peasants with City Dwellers,” in Booth and Seligson, eds., Political Participation in Latin America: Politics and the Poor (1978), all of which focus on Costa Rica. Election studies are rather weak in Central America because this aspect of the political process is often treated as some kind of supporting role in elections or

58

/

Comparative Politics

as in-depth journalism. Recently, however, psephology has become more inter¬ esting, as Central American political events have forced observers to wonder not only about the conduct of elections and campaigns but also to study the role of electoral structures in larger systems and as components of ideological (and hence variable) approaches to political life. Gabriel Aguilera Peralta’s “La tragicomedia electoral de la burguesfa: un analisis sociologico del proceso electoral del 5 de marzo de 1978” (1978) analyzes elections using a class-based model and, consequently, is quite relevant to the social reality of the region. Booklength works that have contributed by expanding the scope of analysis in this area are Edward S. Herman and Frank Brodhead’s Demonstrations Elections: U.S.-Staged Elections in the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, and El Salvador (1984) and John A. Booth and Mitchell A. Seligson’s, eds., Elections and Democracy in Central America (1989). Although only partly about Central Amer¬ ica, Herman and Brodhead’s comparative study is valuable in that it systemat¬ ically seeks to measure the impact of the political context on the study of elections themselves. Booth and Seligson’s (1989) compilation is a comparative volume that studies elections in terms of a larger public policy reality and in terms of the debate as to whether Central American elections automatically mean democracy. Some of the contributions to that volume explicitly see elections as part of broader con¬ figurations of social power and not merely as exercises in the recruitment of new officials. Amongst current scholars in Central America, Hector Rosada Granados, certainly Guatemala’s and perhaps the region’s leading current scholar in the area of parties and elections, provides two detailed and well-documented studies of Guatemala s 1984 and 1985 elections: Guatemala 1984: elecciones para Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (1985) and Guatemala 1985: elecciones gen¬ erates (1986).

REVOLUTIONARY ISSUES Two categories of research emerge in this topical area. The first focuses on the study of revolutionary activity, including political instability and mass mo¬ bilization as precursors of revolution. The second examines what happens after a successful seizure of power aimed at social revolution, namely Nicaragua since 1979. In the first category, relatively little valuable work has been done by political scientists. The best source for a historical perspective is Walter LaFeber’s Inevitable Revolutions (1983). Two works by Gabriel Aguilera Peralta, “El estado, la lucha de clases y la violencia en Guatemala” (1980) and Aguilera Peralta, et al., Dialectica del terror en Guatemala (1981), provide the best analysis of revolutionary trends in the region during this period. Douglas E. Brintnall’s “The Birth of Political Activism in Western Guatemala” (1976) is another good piece. First-person accounts of revolutionary activities include Mario Payeras’s Days of the Jungle (1983) and J. Guadalupe Carney’s To Be a Revolutionary (1985). Concerned Guatemala Scholars’ Guatemala: Dare to

Central America

/

59

Struggle, Dare to Win (1981) is another example in which knowledge about social conditions and theory is applied in a real context, but for advocacy pur¬ poses, not for purposes of building empirical theory. SC A AN’s Revolution in Central America (1983) is a useful edited volume providing a comparative over¬ view of many revolutionary issues. Works that seek to explain revolutionary threats, coming from particular events, which more sophisticated (in theory terms) research might see as catalysts rather than causes, are common in the literature. Thomas P. Anderson’s “The Roots of Revolution in Central America,” in Howard J. Wiarda, ed., Rift and Revolution: The Central American Imbroglio (1984), for example, cites poverty and Central America’s lack of competitiveness in the international arena as the fundamental sources of instability in Central America. Richard L. Millett’s “The Central American Region,” in Jan Knippers Black, ed., Latin America: Its Problems and Its Promise (1984), concludes with several hypotheses, including the effects of economic crises and political party weakness on the rise of social conflict in the region. In a different volume, Millett uses some of the same hypotheses as the basis for his analysis of the decline of the Somoza regime in Nicaragua in “From Somoza to the Sandinistas: The Roots of Revolution in Nicaragua,” in Wolf Grabendorff, Heinrich-W. Krumwiede, and Jorg Todt, eds., Political Change in Central America: Internal and External Dimensions (1984). The second category, revolutionary issues in Nicaragua, is a large body of research from which emerge four discernible themes. The first is an attempt to explain the downfall of the Somoza regime and to describe the events surrounding the Frente Sandinista de Liberation Nacional (FSLN) takeover in 1979. Richard L. Millett’s Guardians of the Dynasty (1977), a history and analysis of Nica¬ ragua’s National Guard, is notable as one of the few books of this type written before the revolution. Millett’s pre-Sandinista study explores the possibilities of Somoza’s overthrow without the benefit of the historical hindsight available to other authors. Booth’s (1982) volume on the Nicaraguan Revolution is an excellent departure from the usual descriptive work characteristic of studies of the region. It describes the history of political developments leading up to the 1979 victory of the FSLN, with some description (more in a later revision) of the early stages of the post1979 policies of the Nicaraguan government. The major value of Booth’s work is that he interprets the descriptive data within the context of revolutionary theory, using Ted Gurr’s concept of “relative deprivation.” Scholars more disposed to other theories of revolution may not agree with Booth’s explanation, but his is the earliest full-length treatment by a political scientist of the 1979 revolution with any explicit theoretical framework derived from contemporary political science. By contrast, Thomas W. Walker’s, ed., Nicaragua: The Land of Sandino (1986), Henri Weber’sNicaragua: The Sandinist Revolution (1981), and Bernard Diederich’s Somoza and the Legacy of U.S. Involvement in Central America

60

/

Comparative Politics

(1981) all provide excellent descriptive material on the periods before and after the 1979 transfer of state power, but they are deficient in theoretical orientation. Walker introduces the notion of “modified dependence” and its human and social consequences at the outset of his work, but the bulk of the work is descriptive and consequently not integrated with these concepts. Weber’s volume is a sympathetic description of events, but it has little theory. One of the more interesting analyses of the fall of the Somoza dynasty is Alfred G. Cuzan and Richard J. Heggen’s “A Micro-Political Explanation of the 1979 Nicaraguan Revolution” (1982), which suggests that the regime fell because it overtaxed its own resources. Again, there is a notable absence of theory for understanding revolutionary change. The second theme in recent Nicaraguan research is the question of the ideo¬ logical character of the revolutionary regime. Carlos Maria Vilas’s The Sandinista Revolution: National Liberation and Social Transformation in Central America (1986) focuses on economic conditions and education in his sympathetic study of public policy since 1979. Vilas argues that the new state is more agrarian, populist, and national than socialist and proletarian. David H. Close’s Nicaragua: Politics, Economics, and Society (1988) examines FSLN ideology and public policy, using Western political thought as a standard of judgment, and concludes that Nicaragua is neither Leninist nor a Social Democracy, but a unique variant of a Marxist system. Close, who agrees with Vilas on this point, finds this a surprising outcome, given the ideology of the FSLN before the revolution. Close (1988:186) sorts out the FSLN ideology by claiming that the leadership is def¬ initely Marxist “but politics are not Leninist. . . [and the] official doctrine em¬ braces Christian principles.” By contrast, David Nolan’s The Ideology of the Sandinistas and the Nicara¬ guan Revolution (1984: 106-110) sees both theory and practice in Nicaragua as Leninist and uses documents and statements of leading figures in the revolution to support his argument. Donald C. Hodges’s Intellectual Foundations of the Nicaraguan Revolution (1986) integrates current practice in Nicaragua not only with the history of Marxist thought but also with the political thought of Sandino, whose philosophy Hodges describes as an “anarchist version of communism’’ (p. 293). Therefore, Hodges concludes that the Sandinistas are a good deal more authoritarian than, and hence to the right of, Augusto Sandino. Another excellent work is Gilbert’s (1988) for it not only uses documents to uncover ideology, but it also analyzes the Nicaraguan government’s dealings with political groups and the new government’s policy performance. Like Hodges’s book, this work is well grounded in normative political theory and documentation; like Close’s volume it has some emphasis on public policy. Gilbert’s study is the most comprehensive of the recent texts on Nicaraguan ideology. A third major theme in research on post-revolutionary Nicaragua focuses on the economic conditions and policy approaches of the new Nicaraguan state. Forrest D. Colburn’s Post-Revolutionary Nicaragua: State, Class, and the Di¬ lemma of Agrarian Policy (1986) is an excellent study, with its focus on the

Central America

/

61

dilemma between a commitment to improving the quality of life for the masses and the need to adopt agrarian policies to increase production, including export production. His thesis is that the post-revolutionary change in Nicaragua has resulted in a deterioration in the quality of life because of poor macroeconomic policies. Colburn’s study is doubly valuable in that it integrates these data with post-revolutionary experiences of other nations. Two edited volumes are especially useful because of the scope and quality of the research contributions: Rose J. Spalding, ed., The Political Economy of Revolutionary Nicaragua (1987), and Michael E. Conroy, ed., Nicaragua: Pro¬ files of the Revolutionary Public Sector (1987). Conroy’s volume, for example, consists of original pieces of research, each of which focuses on a different dimension of public policy in Nicaragua. This is an excellent study that should be replicated in other nations of the region. The analytical framework is useful for other comparative studies on single policy issues. A fourth theme in the study of the Nicaraguan revolution centers on the question of mass organizations and democracy. Gary Ruchwarger’s People in Power: Forging a Grassroots Democracy in Nicaragua (1987) provides a de¬ tailed description of efforts to build a participatory democracy. Jose Luis Coraggio’s Nicaragua: Revolution and Democracy (1985) is a more abstract and theoretical work on the same topic, which adds an interesting dimension to the debate. Amove (1986) centers his sympathetic analysis on educational policies and changes. Laura Nuzzi O’Shaughnessy and Luis H. Serra’s The Church and Revolution in Nicaragua (1986) stresses the tension between the post¬ revolutionary efforts to democratize daily life and the increasingly authoritarian tendencies with the church hierarchy. Despite the interesting analytic question posed in this work, there is no effort to place the analysis within a theoretical framework.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS Ironically, North American political scientists have been weak in the area of theoretical analysis in contrast with political scientists in Central America. Edelberto Torres-Rivas is probably the leading Central American who has been applying class-based models to the region since the 1970s. This type of theoretical effort is evident in his Interpretacion del desarrollo social Centroamericano (1971) and Crisis del poder en Centroamerica (1981). Coming from a contrasting tradition, a booklet by Jorge E. Torres Ocampo, Reflexion, analisis, critica y autocritica de la situacion politica de Guatemala (1980), is unusual in that it is an unabashedly right-wing analysis of the Guatemalan situation of the late 1970s. His thesis is that the Guatemalan crisis of the late 1970s was due to a combination of dependence on the United States and corruption and malfeasance in the Gua¬ temalan armed forces—guardians of the public’s trust who should be superior in their conduct. This militant right-wing approach to dependence theory—rare

62

/

Comparative Politics

in the literature from other Latin American countries—is a common strain in Guatemalan nationalist thought. Although the lack of systematic and careful reference to normative and con¬ ceptual literature is a shortcoming of much of the research on Central America by North American social scientists, there are a few exceptions. Among the better works is John Weeks’s “An Interpretation of the Central American Crisis” (1986). He builds on Baloyra’s (1983) concept of “reactionary despotism,” showing that the elites of Central America are reactionary even on the level of political culture and ideology. He argues that these elites have not even accepted the niceties of Western liberal ideology, including such tenets as civil equality of citizens or of popular sovereignty. The crisis today, with its violence, insta¬ bility, continuing poverty, and oppression, is at least partially due to intransigent elite attitudes. For Weeks, the system of elite dominance has “persisted because the landed oligarchy in Central America was extraordinarily successful in pre¬ venting the development of economic power divorced from property in land” (1986: 47-48). John Peeler’s Latin American Democracies: Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela (1985) is another example of a valuable theoretical study because it does ground its key concepts—liberalism and democracy—in Western thought. By contrast, as I discuss more fully later, much of the “transition to democracy” literature ignores normative thought in favor of an implicit acceptance of proceduralism.

URBAN ISSUES AND LABOR POLITICS As in other topical areas, urban and labor issues are often treated within the context of larger studies. Studies focusing just on these issues are relatively rare and either are purely descriptive (although valuable for that alone) or are apologies by advocates. Two studies are worth citing as examples of good empirical data presented in some theoretical framework. Robert MacCameron’s Bananas, La¬ bor, and Politics in Honduras, 1954-1963 (1983) is an excellent treatment of the labor movement in Honduras, specifically the banana industry in the north coast area. MacCameron’s high level of quality research is unfortunately too rare in most of the literature on the region. Henry Frundt’s work on labor activities in Guatemala—Refreshing Pauses: Coca-Cola and Human Rights in Guatemala (1987)—provides a number of good insights into the impact of one major com¬ pany on human rights conditions in the labor movement. In part, the scarcity of good research on labor reflects the human rights situation in much of the region and the concomitant dangers involved in undertaking research in this area.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND STATE TERRORISM Perhaps more than any other subregion in the hemisphere, Central America has “contributed” more data on human rights and state terrorism, with a con¬ sequent surge of academic interest by researchers. Much of the published research

Central America

/

63

is inspired by normative concerns about human rights and is descriptive, yet valuable in spite of the lack of empirical theory. A few works—Aguilera Peralta et al. (1981)—do seek to ground human rights data in larger theories of political behavior, but this is rare in political science literature. As in many other topical areas in this chapter, there is more human rights research on Guatemala than on other nations in the region. Kenneth F. Johnson’s “On the Guatemalan Political Violence’’ (1973), Gabriel Aguilera Peralta’s La violencia en Guatemala como fendmeno politico (1971), and John A. Booth’s “A Guatemala Nightmare: Levels of Political Violence, 1966-1972” (1980) are all systematic analyses of Guatemalan political violence at different historical moments before the most recent upsurge in the 1980s. Amnesty International’s A Government Program of Political Murder (1981) documents government ac¬ tions to assassinate dissidents in the late 1970s and early 1980s, during the regime of General Romeo Lucas Garcia. Shelton H. Davis and Julie Hodson’s Witnesses to Political Violence in Guatemala: The Suppression of a Rural De¬ velopment Movement (1982) focuses on state violence, although at a more micro level. This short work chronicles the suppression of development programs in rural Guatemala in the early 1980s, part of the government’s counterinsurgency efforts. It is one of the most graphic narrations of the consequences of state terrorism available in the literature. Americas Watch’s Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners (1984) is a thorough description of the depressing social and economic conditions and the political repression of the army in highland Guatemala as part of its counterinsurgency campaign. Chris Krueger and Kjell Enge’s Security and Development Conditions in the Guatemalan Highlands (1985) and Beatriz Manz’s Refugees of a Hidden War: The Aftermath of a Counterinsurgency in Guatemala (1988) are excellent analyses of the effects on highland Indians and refugees, respectively, of the Guatemalan government’s counterinsurgency cam¬ paign of the 1980s. Finally, Robert M. Carmack’s, ed., Harvest of Violence: The Maya Indians and the Guatemalan Crisis (1988) is a dramatic and careful analysis of the consequences of years of political violence and repression. On other Central America nations, Reed Brody’s Contra Terror in Nicaragua: Report of a Fact-Finding Mission (1985) documents contra violence in Nica¬ ragua, and Michael McClintock’s The American Connection (1985), a twovolume study of state terrorism, focuses on both Guatemala and El Salvador. Elizabeth G. Ferriss’s The Central American Refugees (1987) is one of the few comparative studies that integrates data about refugees with information on the domestic political situation in each of the nations studied.

POLICY-ORIENTED STUDIES Policy-oriented research on Central American issues has not caught on as it has in other parts of Latin America. Although a few exceptional examples were cited earlier, especially in the sections on revolutionary Nicaragua and agricul¬ tural studies, good policy research is relatively rare. Some of the better works

64

/

Comparative Politics

in the policy area would include Mark B. Rosenberg’s “Social Security PolicyMaking in Costa Rica: A Research Report’’ (1979) and “Social Reform in Costa Rica: Social Security and the Presidency of Rafael Angel Calderon (1981), both studies of social security policy in Costa Rica. Washington Office on Latin America s (WOLA) Who Pays the Price?: The Cost of War in the Guatemalan Highlands (1988) is a thorough analysis of the costs of a counterinsurgency campaign in highland Guatemala, precisely the sort of analysis that political researchers should undertake in order to discover who receives the benefits and who pays the costs of public policy. The Nicaraguan revolution has been the focus of some of the best policy studies, including some that might not seem to fit the common definitions of political’’ research. Amove’s (1986) volume, for example, is a book about education, but with a heavy emphasis on public policy. Similarly, John M. Donahue’s The Nicaraguan Revolution in Health: From Somoza to the Sandinistas (1986) is not a book primarily about politics, but about health care. His research focuses not only on policy processes but on outcomes of social policy as well, an improved scope for comparative politics.

CONFRONTING THE CRITICS OF THE LITERATURE In the introduction to this chapter, I pointed out several criticisms of the literature on Central American politics, including the inconsistent levels of at¬ tention, the nontheoretical nature of much of the work and its consequent lack of comparativeness, and its polemic, ideological quality. This section addresses these criticisms. The final section offers several recommendations about new directions for political science research in the Central American region.

Lack of Theory in Research Designs Although it is common to hear social scientists complain that the political science research on Central America suffers from poor theoretical quality and empirical precision, the bulk of this chapter shows that many valuable works do exist. In the conventional sense of quality empirical theory, the best examples tend to center on Costa Rica, but, as I argue below, in the section on “polemic research,’’ comparative politics needs to transcend this paradigm.

Lack of Comparability in Research Besides the problems of inconsistency and lack of empirical theory in research, a third criticism is the lack of comparative studies. Paradoxically, this criticism prevails despite the relatively high potential for comparability in Central Amer¬ ican research: Many cultural and historical variables are fairly constant in the region, and political and economic variables (reliance on international trade for example) are also reasonably similar. Approaches to the explanation of cross-

Central America

/

65

national variance should be fruitful under these conditions, but as the country and comparative studies category shows earlier in this chapter, most of the explicitly comparative studies at the national level are edited compilations that generally leave the task of specifying a theoretical framework for comparison to the reader. While there are a few exceptions to the absence of comparative studies—Booth and Seligson, eds. (1989) and Brockett (1988)—this is indeed a valid criticism of the political studies being done in the region. Yet the criticism of lack of comparativeness should be kept in perspective. Carefully crafted case studies need not be relegated to the dustbin. Studies using theoretical concepts can be just as contributory as comparative studies. MacCameron’s (1983) volume on Honduran labor and politics in its banana export industry, Baloyra’s (1982) study of El Salvador, and Booth’s (1982) review of the early phases of the Nicaraguan revolution are all examples of case studies that use theoretical concepts that can facilitate comparison. Moreover, compar¬ ative studies are not necessarily of sufficiently high quality to make them au¬ tomatically preferable to case studies grounded in empirical theory. Descriptive narratives, such as Anderson (1982), provide basic information but do not sys¬ tematically compare.

Polemic Political Research Another criticism, in some ways the most serious, is the “polemic,” or “advocacy” nature of much of the published material on Central American politics since 1980. Rightly or wrongly, many researchers transcend conventional behavioral frameworks in their work on Central America. One way of examining this charge is to ask the questions: Why is so much research “engage” (Joseph S. Tulchin, “Emerging Patterns of Research in the Study of Latin America,” 1983: 89), and what can we learn about comparative political research from this fact? In the 1960s, mainstream comparative politics urged researchers studying Latin America to focus on structures and their functions, on political systems and their capacities and component subsystems, and on development and stability. These approaches were conceptualized in terms that reflected only slightly less paro¬ chialism than the legalistic, formalistic models of traditional political science, but they did reflect more scientific attention to methodology. Yet when applied, these approaches seem to have been much more applicable in stable nations than in crisis situations, as illustrated by the research on Costa Rica cited above. In contrast to the prevailing criticism of the political science research on Central America, I will argue that the post-behavioral research on Central America is especially valuable and important. The ascendance of behavioral comparative political theory is the result of empirical flaws in earlier research frameworks: Researchers developed ap¬ proaches in order to transcend the inherent weaknesses in traditional research, as indicated in James A. Bill and Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr., Comparative Politics:

66

/

Comparative Politics

The Quest for Theory (1973: 2): “configurative description, formal-legalism, parochialism, conservatism, nontheoretical emphases, and methodological in¬ sensitivity.” But comparative politics theory in the United States has never been a neutral science. Its models, even in quieter decades, have always leaned toward particular social goals, and these were usually conservative and parochial. The tendency to label research as polemic, “propagandistic,” or as mere advocacy needs more in-depth treatment, for the polemic criticism itself emerges from ideologically compromised quarters. The apparent inapplicability of objective political science in Central America can be explained by a combination of two principal factors. First, historical events—major regime change, the rise and decline of the Central American Common Market, the transformation of militaries into economic as well as political actors, the availability of the transistor radio, the democratization of political mobilization, waves of human rights violations and state terrorism, and the repeated failures of U.S. policy—clearly altered the scope of political research in the region. As in earlier periods in the development of comparative politics theory and methods, objective research no longer accounts for the obvious real¬ ities of political life in Central America. The second factor explaining the relative absence of mainstream empirical theory in research on Central America is the source of the models researchers use. That is, the dichotomy is not simply between objective and polemic research; the question is the origin of the approach. Behavioral researchers have tended to import their models into the Central American arena, have sought out the data required by those techniques, and have reached deductive conclusions about both the politics of the region and the usefulness of their approaches. Alternatively, contemporary scholars have tended to begin with their global experience in the region, using this as their basis for generating models for their work, and then using sophisticated empirical techniques as tools, not as required components. Simply illustrated, mainstream models might not raise questions of human rights or state terrorism, whereas researchers beginning their study from the experiential base of the region would tend to assert that any approach not centered on human rights abuses could well be meaningless, regardless of methodological sophis¬ tication. In essence, experientially inspired research is to comparative politics what liberation theology has been to missionary work. The scope of activity has expanded beyond the legitimate” bounds imposed by mainstream institutions. Research conducted within this new paradigm can easily be considered polemic by scholars who prefer to adhere to what is now the “traditional” in comparative politics research, the so-called objective approaches. In response, in many cases, mainstream institutions (and sometimes scholars) have become obstructionist and hidebound. Research on Guatemala illustrates these dynamics better than any other single nation’s body of literature. Armed with hindsight, we can see today that theo¬ retically sound work on the Guatemalan Congress by Vemer (1971), for example,

Central America

/

67

has turned out to be less useful in understanding current politics in Guatemala than, say, the various works by Gabriel Aguilera Peralta on state terrorism and political repression. Moreover, because of their extensive field experience with real people, it is no coincidence that, up to the late 1970s, almost all of the good work on Guatemala was done by anthropologists, particularly those concerned with political issues. In sum, ironically enough, the allegation that research on Central American politics is polemic and hence less valuable obscures a more important facet. More than in any other subregion in the field of comparative politics Central America has led to an improved political science—although this is clearly not the perception of mainstream.political science. What has happened is that the major body of comparative political theory became less relevant because it restricted the scope of political analysis. Experiential models, especially those focusing on public policy analysis, have allowed the subfield to begin transcend¬ ing the limits imposed by behavioralism. To seek to redeem polemic research is not to magically christen all advocacy research as useful or valuable. On the contrary, too much recent work is jour¬ nalistic, or polemic in the sense of advocating particular social outcomes or political strategies that might achieve those outcomes. Often, works that ignore historical perspectives are simply wrong in their conclusions. Because these works eschew scientific objectivity, it is tempting, to some, to lump together all research that broadens the conceptual scope beyond the limits of traditional empirical theory. But political science theories inherited from the behavioral revolution will become increasingly irrelevant as more of the world becomes less stable and moderate. The best works are scientific and comparative, to be sure, but they are also normative, committed, and “engaged,” even passionate.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Where do political scientists go from here? In his “Trends and Priorities for Political Science Research on Latin America,” in Trends and Priorities for Research on Latin America in the 1980s (1980: 39), Robert R. Kaufman could accurately complain in the late 1970s of “our appalling collective ignorance about Central America, ’ ’ but that is no longer the case. Based on the observations and judgments made in this chapter, and on the progress researchers have made since Kaufman’s reproach a decade ago, the future research agenda should include the following recommendations.

Better Analytic Methods and Theory Over the past three decades, there have been regular calls for more rigorous analysis. Although traditional behavioral empirical theory may have produced models and hypotheses that have come to be less relevant to Central American political life, there is no need to abandon these methods and theories. The

68

/

Comparative Politics

techniques of the scientific method are valuable tools if they can be integrated into research based on sound foundations, including situationally relevant values. Moreover, although an ample body of excellent theoretical literature exists in social science, relatively little of the research on Central America has been integrated into it. If a decade ago the mission was simply to collect as much information as possible, now the task is to build empirical theories based on the information collected. What must be emphasized are careful, systematic, and thorough techniques for collecting and analyzing data.

Better Conceptual Scope, Including New Units of Analysis If we have not learned it elsewhere, we surely learn from Central America that an art for art’s sake approach to political research is unacceptable. What is needed in the study of Central American politics is a change in the scope of analysis including better research questions, concepts, and even units of analysis. This should be accompanied by a dedicated focus on public policy and the social outcomes of those policy decisions. In short, it matters little how sophisticated the research techniques are if the questions being studied are inconsequential. The point is not that researchers should ignore institutions and structures of “normal” politics (such as elections, parties, and bureaucracies), but that data about these institutions should be part of models that focus on the social outcomes of these political processes and actors. For example, we should not ask simply who won election X and why, we should study how election X affects the distribution of rewards and sanctions in society. Using new units of analysis is a concomitant avenue to achieve better research understanding of the phenomena under investigation. For example, political scientists might follow the lead in Elizabeth Anne Kuznesof’s “The History of the Family in Latin America: A Critique of Recent Work” (1989), in which the family is conceptualized as a critical unit of analysis, a locus upon which many other social institutions act and produce effects. Why not apply this unit of analysis to the study of politics? Research might study a government’s family policy, human rights violations, militarization, economic development, even elections and campaigns, in terms of the effects on families. Can data on mi¬ gration, orphans, marriage patterns, and so on be treated as valid indicators not only of social justice but also of future prospects for political and economic stability? The crux of this issue is to expand the discipline’s definitions of appropriate units of analysis in order to learn more about political processes.

Cautiously Confront Research Fads Kaufman (1980:38-39) properly cautioned researchers that comparative pol¬ itics can be a faddish field, one in which a new fad often produces a boomlet of research activity. This often results in useful information, but then subse¬ quently produces paradigmatic fetishes that quickly stagnate as events outstrip

Central America

/

69

theory. In Central American research, the most recent example is the emphasis on themes related to the “transition to democracy,” an illusory subject and a rather shortsighted paradigm. Societies and their political processes are always in flux, so there is always a transition taking place. Moreover, there is little in the bulk of this literature that seriously confronts the body of normative and empirical theory on the concept of democracy. Those who utilize the transition to democracy approach often seem to endorse a kind of moderate procedural democracy, with less regard for social outcomes. The current crises in Central America provoke journalistic attention and ac¬ ademic interest, but they also contribute to official pronouncements and politi¬ cally motivated analysis by the U.S. government. Scholars need to challenge, not swallow verbatim, the premises and data behind such “official” analyses of politics and policy in the region. One of comparative politics’ best tools for maintaining an intellectual perspective is the normative political theory literature. Unfortunately, fads tend to dilute this perspective by ignoring normative thought in favor of the premises foisted on the debate by interested political leaders. Fauriol and Loser’s (1988) survey of recent Guatemalan politics illustrates the tendency to clutch at events and dynamics in order to show that a transition to democracy is occurring, while ignoring the underlying dynamics that should lead to less optimistic conclusions. Enrique A. Baloyra’s “Democracy Despite De¬ velopment” (1987) provides a different example, in which Baloyra explicitly conceptualizes democracy as a procedure with (in theory) any outcome deemed acceptable. Yet, as Jorge Nef recommends in his “The Trend toward Democ¬ ratization and Redemocratization in Latin America: Shadow and Substance” (1988), more attention should be paid to underlying social conditions rather than to what may be superficial changes in the institutional superstructure. According to Nef, “The fundamental issue in Central America seems to be less a matter of making the region safe for democracy than of creating a safe and genuine economic, social, and political democracy for its people” (1988: 151). The real issue when it comes to political change is social justice, not the transition to democracy. In Central America, the urgent issues for political investigation are social justice and civil tranquility, the political thought of the right, the effects of violence and disruption of basic cultural structures and family units, and the overall role of political institutions in social systems marked by gross inequality and violence. Excessive attention to changes in institutional superstructures may simply function as smokescreens that divert the attention of unwitting scholars away from more important social processes. Faddishness in the discipline must be treated carefully.

Continue the Engage Style of Research in Search of Policy Models Amidst surface signs of institutional stability in the region, social problems are worsening in Central America, not improving. The commitment to expe-

70

/

Comparative Politics

rientially based research on Central America, what some call polemic, has raised new and fundamentally more important questions than those stressed by objective social science. This trend should continue, for the culmination of these dynamics is the welcome shift from system stability-oriented models toward policy studies. If politics is the study of “who gets what, when, and how,” then the scope of research should be whatever are the most important dimensions of social life. In comparative politics, this means focusing on the outcomes of these policies. Once a policy approach is adopted, there is no limit on the boundaries of political research. The scope of research should no longer be solely the study of the state, the government, the system, or the political process per se, but needs to shift to social outcomes. In Central America, this means studying the patterns of control over agricul¬ tural resources, access to markets, and state assistance to elites in these areas. Public policy research means new topics: human rights, repression and state terrorism, questions of land tenure and nutrition, anthropological issues involving cultural survival and adaptation, and questions of foreign intervention and of dependence, to name a few. Research should focus on policy choices that affect conditions traditionally beyond political science, such as decisions that lead to deforestation or to other ecological conditions that affect and reduce the quality of life. Issues of migration and refugees, pervasive social violence, breakdowns in traditional cultural structures, continuing economic pressures, and many other serious social conditions merit continuing analysis.3

CONCLUSION Comparative political research has come a long way in Central America since the 1960s when political science paid little attention to the region. Since 1980, however, the region has been at the center of the discipline’s spotlight, producing a dramatic increase in the amount of work published, an increase in the number of high-quality works, a remarkable increase in the level of criticism of that work—some of it justified—and several lessons for comparative political research for the decade of the 1990s. This last development—lessons for political research—is exciting; it heralds a potential new direction for the field of comparative political research. Review¬ ing the literature on Central America, we see that rigid theoretical approaches imported to the study of the region, whether these be derived from the Marxist tradition or from the Liberal-Developmentalist tradition of the behavioral rev¬ olution, have contributed neither to improvements in theory nor to improved conditions for Central Americans. Conversely, research inspired by quality of life questions and the role of public policy decisions on quality of life has contributed as much, if not more, than the rigid conventional approaches to the quality of social life. Because these recent approaches are based on real social conditions, better empirical theory will result in the long run, provided that researchers maintain contact with normative thought and with conceptual re-

Central America

/

71

finements. The study of Central American politics may well lead the field of comparative politics into a new paradigmatic era.

NOTES I am grateful to David M. Sylvia and Donald J. Donegan, Jr., for their assistance in preparing this chapter. David W. Dent was helpful throughout the process. 1. Because of space limitations, many excellent works not easily available to North Americans had to be omitted from this chapter. The absence of these sources should not be construed as a failure to recognize the worth of those efforts. I recognize this and apologize “de antemano.” 2. These works include Fried et al., eds. (1983); Gettelman et al., eds. (1981); Peckenham and Street, eds. (1985); Borge et al. (1982); and Rosset and Vandermeer, eds. (1983 and 1986). 3. For other lists of recommended topics for future research, consult the introduction to Rosenberg, ed. (1988) and the suggestions by Rodrigo Fernandez in “Comments on the Mandate of the SSRC Expert Group” in the same volume.

REFERENCES Acker, Alison. 1988. Honduras: The Making of a Banana Republic. Boston: South End Press. Adams, Richard N. 1968. “The Development of the Guatemalan Military.” Studies in Comparative International Development 4, no. 5 (1968-1969): 91-110. -. 1970. Crucifixion by Power: Essays on Guatemalan National Social Structure, 1944-1966. Austin: University of Texas Press. Aguilera Peralta, Gabriel. 1971. La violencia en Guatemala como fenomeno politico. Mexico City: CIDOC, Cuademo no. 61. -. 1978. “La tragicomedia electoral de la burguesfa: un analisis sociologico del proceso electoral del 5 de marzo de 1978.” Politico y Sociedad (San Carlos University). 2, no. 5 (enero/junio): 159-71. -. 1980. “El estado, la lucha de clases y la violencia en Guatemala.” Revista Mexicana de Sociologla 42, no. 2 (abril/junio): 525-58. Aguilera Peralta, Gabriel, J. Romero Imery, G. Monzon Paz, and R. Galindo Gallardo. 1981. Dialectica del terror en Guatemala. San Jose, Costa Rica: Editorial Universitaria Centroamericana (EDUCA). Americas Watch. 1984. Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners. New York: Americas Watch Committee. Ameringer, Charles D. 1982. Democracy in Costa Rica. New York: Praeger. Amnesty International. 1981. A Government Program of Political Murder. London: Amnesty International Publications. Anderson, Thomas P. 1982. Politics in Central America: Guatemala, El Salvador, Hon¬ duras, and Nicaragua. New York: Praeger. -. 1984. “The Roots of Revolution in Central America.” In Howard Wiarda, ed., Rift and Revolution: The Central American Imbroglio. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

72

/

Comparative Politics

Armstrong, Robert, and Janet Shenk. 1982. El Salvador: The Face of Revolution. Boston: South End Press. Amove, Robert F. 1986. Education and Revolution in Nicaragua. New York: Praeger. Amson, Cynthia. 1982. El Salvador: A Revolution Confronts the U.S. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Policy Studies. Ashcraft, Norman. 1973. Colonialism and Underdevelopment: Processes of Political Economic Change in British Honduras. New York: Columbia University, Teach¬ er’s College Press. Baloyra, Enrique A. 1982. El Salvador in Transition. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. -. 1983. “Reactionary Despotism in Central America.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 15, no. 2 (November): 295-319. -. 1987. “Democracy Despite Development.” World Affairs 150, no. 2 (Fall): 73-92. Bill, James A., and Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr. 1973. Comparative Politics: The Quest for Theory. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill. Black, George, with Milton Jamail and Norma Stoltz Chinchilla. 1984. Garrison Gua¬ temala. New York: Monthly Review Press. Bolland, O. Nigel. 1986. Belize, a New Nation in Central America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Booth, John A. 1978. “Are Latin Americans Politically Rational?: Citizen Participation and Democracy in Costa Rica.” In John A. Booth and Mitchell A. Seligson, eds., Political Participation in Latin America: Citizen and State. New York: Holmes and Meier. -. 1980. “A Guatemala Nightmare: Levels of Political Violence, 1966-1972.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 22, no. 2: 195-225. -. 1982. The End and the Beginning: The Nicaraguan Revolution. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Booth, John A., and Mitchell A. Seligson, eds. 1989. Elections and Democracy in Central America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Borge, Tomas, et al. 1982. Sandinistas Speak. New York: Pathfinder Press. Brintnall, Douglas E. 1976. “The Birth of Political Activism in Western Guatemala.” Katunob: A Newsletter-Bulletin on Mesoamerican Anthropology. Greeley, Colo.: University of Northern Colorado Museum of Anthropology 9, no. 1 (March): 7177. Brockett, Charles D. 1988. Land, Power, and Poverty: Agrarian Transformation and Political Conflict in Central America. Boston: Allen and Unwin. Brody, Reed. 1985. Contra Terror in Nicaragua: Report of a Fact-Finding Mission. Boston: South End Press. Bulmer-Thomas, Victor. 1987. The Political Economy of Central America since 1920. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Burgos-Debray, Elizabeth, ed. 1984. I... Rigoberta Menchu: An Indian Woman in Gua¬ temala. London: Verso Editions. Carmack, Robert M., ed. 1988. Harvest of Violence: The Maya Indians and the Gua¬ temalan Crisis. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Carney, J. Guadalupe. 1985. To Be a Revolutionary. San Francisco: Harper and Row. Close, David H. 1988. Nicaragua: Politics, Economics, and Society. London: Pinter Publishers.

Central America

/

73

Cohen, Isaac. 1972. Regional Integration in Central America. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath. Cohen, Isaac, and Gert Rosenthal. 1983. “The Dimensions of Economic Policy Space in Central America.” In Richard R. Fagen and Olga Pellicer, eds., The Future of Central America: Policy Choices for the US and Mexico. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Colburn, Forrest D. 1986. Post-Revolutionary Nicaragua: State, Class, and the Dilemma of Agrarian Policy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Concerned Guatemala Scholars. 1981. Guatemala: Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win. Brook¬ lyn, N.Y.: Concerned Guatemala Scholars. Conroy, Michael E., ed. 1987. Nicaragua: Profiles of the Revolutionary Public Sector. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Coraggio, Jose Luis. 1985. Nicaragua: Revolution and Democracy. Boston: Allen and Unwin. Cuzan, Alfred G., and Richard J. Heggen. 1982. “A Micro-Political Explanation of the 1979 Nicaraguan Revolution.” Latin America Research Review 17, no. 2156-70. Davis, Shelton H., and Julie Hodson. 1982. Witnesses to Political Violence in Guatemala: The Suppression of a Rural Development Movement. Boston: OXFAM-America. Denton, Charles F. 1971. Patterns of Costa Rican Politics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Diederich, Bernard. 1981. Somoza and the Legacy of U.S. Involvement in Central Amer¬ ica. New York: Dutton. Donahue, John M. 1986. The Nicaraguan Revolution in Health: From Somoza to the Sandinistas. South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin and Garvey. Dunkerly, James. 1982. The Long War: Dictatorship and Revolution in El Salvador. London: Verso Editions. English, Burt. 1971. Liberacion Nacional in Costa Rica: The Development of a Political Party in a Transitional Society. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Etchison, Don L. 1975. The United States and Militarism in Central America. New York: Praeger. Fauriol, Georges A., and Eva Loser. 1988. Guatemala’s Political Puzzle. New Bruns¬ wick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Fernandez, Rodrigo. 1988. “Comments on the Mandate of the SSRC Expert Group.” In Mark B. Rosenberg, ed., Central American Studies: Toward a New Research Agenda. Miami: Florida International University, Latin American and Caribbean Center, Dialogue no. 110 (July) (Social Science Research Council, Working Group on Central America). Ferriss, Elizabeth G. 1987. The Central American Refugees. New York: Praeger. Flores Pinel, Fernando. 1980. “El estado de seguridad nacional en El Salvador: un fenomeno de crisis hegemonica.” Foro Internacional (Colegio de Mexico) 20, no. 4 (abril/junio): 575-600. Fried, Jonathan L., M. E. Gettleman, D. T. Levenson, and N. Peckenham, eds. 1983. Guatemala in Rebellion: Unfinished History. New York: Grove Press. Frundt, Henry. 1987. Refreshing Pauses: Coca-Cola and Human Rights in Guatemala. New York: Praeger. Galeano, Eduardo. 1969. Guatemala: Occupied Country. New York: Monthly Review Press.

74

/

Comparative Politics

Gettelman, Marvin, et al., eds. 1981. El Salvador: Central America in the New Cold War. New York: Grove Press. Gilbert, Dennis. 1988. Sandinistas: The Party and the Revolution. New York: Basil Blackwell. Goldrich, Daniel. 1966. Sons of the Establishment: Elite Youth in Panama and Costa Rica. Chicago: Rand McNally. Gregg, A. R. 1968. British Honduras. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. Gudeman, Stephen. 1978. The Demise of a Rural Economy: From Subsistence to Cap¬ italism in a Latin American Village. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Handy, Jim. 1984. Friend of the Devil: A History of Guatemala. Boston: South End Press. Herman, Edward S., and Frank Brodhead. 1984. Demonstrations Elections: U.S.-Staged Elections in the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, and El Salvador. Boston: South End Press. Hodges, Donald C. 1986. Intellectual Foundations of the Nicaraguan Revolution. Austin: University of Texas Press. Jamail, Milton, and Margo Gutierrez. 1986. It’s No Secret: Israels Military Involvement in Central America. Belmont, Mass.: Association of Arab-American University Graduates. Johnson, Kenneth F. 1973. “On the Guatemalan Political Violence.’’ Politics and Society 4, no. 1: 55-82. Jonas, Susanne, and David Tobis. 1974. Guatemala. New York: NACLA. Kaufman, Robert R. 1980. Trends and Priorities for Political Science Research on Latin America. ” In Trends and Priorities for Research on Latin America in the 1980s. Working paper no. 111. Washington, D.C.: Latin American Program of the Woodrow Wilson International Center, 37-46. Krueger, Chris, and Kjell Enge. 1985. Security and Development Conditions in the Guatemalan Highlands. Washington, D.C.: Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). Kuznesof, Elizabeth Anne. 1989. “The History of the Family in Latin America: A Critique of Recent Work.” Latin American Research Review 24, no. 2: 168-86. LaFeber, Walter. 1983. Inevitable Revolutions. New York: Norton. Lapper, Richard, and James Painter. 1985. Honduras: State for Sale. London: Latin American Bureau. Latin American Perspectives. 1980. “Central America: The Strongmen Are Shaking.” Latin American Perspectives 7, nos. 2,3 (Spring/Summer). Lujan, Herman D., ed. 1974. “The Structure of Political Support: The Case of Guate¬ mala.” American Journal of Political Science 18, no. 1 (February): 23-44. McCamant, John. 1985. The Economies of Central America. New York: Holmes and Meier. MacCameron, Robert. 1983. Bananas, Labor, and Politics in Honduras, 1954-1963. Syracuse, N.Y.: Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. McClintock, Michael. 1985. The American Connection, vol. 1: State Terror and Popular Resistance in El Salvador, vol. 2: State Terror and Popular Resistance in Gua¬ temala. London: Zed Books. MacDonald, Ronald H. 1984. “Civil-Military Relations in Central America: The Dilem¬ mas of Political Institutionalization. ’ ’ In Howard Wiarda, ed., Rift and Revolution:

Central America

/

75

The Central American Imbroglio. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute. McNelly, John T., and Eugenio Fonseca. 1964. “Media Use and Political Interest at the University of Costa Rica.” Journalism Quarterly 41, no. 2 (Spring): 225-31. Manz, Beatriz. 1988. Refugees of a Hidden War: The Aftermath of Counterinsurgency in Guatemala. Albany: State University of New York Press. Melville, Thomas, and Marjorie Melville. 1971. Guatemala: The Politics of Land Own¬ ership. New York: The Free Press. Millett, Richard L. 1977. Guardians of the Dynasty. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books. -. 1984. “The Central American Region.” In Jan Knippers Black, ed., Latin America: Its Problems and Its Promise. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. . 1984. From Somoza to the Sandinistas: The Roots of Revolution in Nicaragua. ’ ’ In Wolf Grabendorff, Heinrich-W. Krumwiede, and Jorg Todt, eds., Political Change in Central America: Internal and External Dimensions. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Montgomery, Tommie Sue. 1982. Revolution in El Salvador: Origins and Evolution. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Morris, James A. 1984. Honduras: Caudillo Politics and Military Rulers. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Nef, Jorge. 1988. “The Trend toward Democratization and Redemocratization in Latin America: Shadow and Substance.” Latin American Research Review 23 no 3' 131-53. Nolan, David. 1984. The Ideology of the Sandinistas and the Nicaraguan Revolution. Coral Gables, Fla.: Institute of Inter-American Studies. Nye, Joseph. 1967. “Central American Regional Integration.” International Concilia¬ tion. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, no. 562 (March). O’Shaughnessy, Laura Nuzzi, and Luis H. Serra. 1986. The Church and Revolution in Nicaragua. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Monographs in International Studies. Painter, James. 1987. Guatemala, False Hope, False Freedom: The Rich, the Poor, and the Christian Democrats. London: Latin American Bureau. Payeras, Mario. 1983. Days of the Jungle. New York: Monthly Review Press. Peckenham, Nancy, and Annie Street, eds. 1985. Honduras: Portrait of a Captive Nation. New York: Praeger. Peeler, John. 1985. Latin American Democracies: Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Plant, Roger. 1987. Guatemala: Unnatural Disaster. London: Latin American Bureau. Ropp, Steve C. 1982. Panamanian Politics: From Guarded Nation to National Guard. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Ropp, Steve C., and James A. Morris, eds. 1984. Central America: Crisis and Adaptation. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Rosada Granados, Hector. 1985. Guatemala 1984: Elecciones para Asamblea Nacional Constituyente. San Jose, Costa Rica: Centro de Asesorfa y Promotion Electoral (CAPEL), Cuademos de CAPEL, no. 2. -. 1986. Guatemala 1985: Elecciones Generales (Guatemala: Asociacion de In¬ vestigation y Estudios Sociales (ASIES). Rosenberg, Mark B. 1979. “Social Security Policy-Making in Costa Rica: A Research Report.” Latin American Research Review 14, no. 1: 116-33. -. 1981. “Social Reform in Costa Rica: Social Security and the Presidency of

76

/

Comparative Politics Rafael Angel Calderon.” Hispanic American Historical Review 61, no. 2 (May): 278-96.

Rosenberg, Mark B., ed. 1988. Central American Studies: Toward a New Research Agenda. Miami: Florida International University, Latin American and Caribbean Center, Dialogue no. 110 (July) (Social Science Research Council, Working Group on Central America). Rosenberg, Mark B., and Philip L. Shepherd, eds. 1986. Honduras Confronts Its Future: Contending Perspectives on Critical Issues. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Rosset, Peter, and John Vandermeer, eds. 1983. The Nicaragua Reader: Documents of a Revolution under Fire. New York: Grove Press. -. 1986. Nicaragua: Unfinished Revolution: The New Nicaragua Reader. New York: Grove Press. Ruchwarger, Gary. 1987. People in Power: Forging a Grassroots Democracy in Nica¬ ragua. South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin and Garvey. Russell, Philip L. 1984. El Salvador in Crisis. Austin, Tex.: Colorado River Press. SCAAN (The Stanford Central America Action Network), eds. 1983. Revolution in Central America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Schirmer, Jennifer. (Forthcoming). Rule of Law or Law of Rule?: Law, Human Rights, and National Security in Guatemala. Schneider, Ronald M. 1958. Communism in Guatemala, 1944, 1954. New York: Praeger. Seckinger, Ron. 1981. “The Central American Militaries: A Survey of the Literature.” Latin American Research Review 16, no. 2: 246-58. Seligson, Mitchell A. 1977. “Agrarian Policies in Dependent Societies: Costa Rica.” Journal of Inter-American Studies 19, no. 2 (May): 201-32. -. 1978. “Development and Participation in Costa Rica: The Impact of Context.” In John A. Booth and Mitchell A. Seligson, eds., Political Participation in Latin America. New York: Holmes and Meier. -. 1980. Peasants of Costa Rica and the Development of Agrarian Capitalism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Seligson, Mitchell A., and John A. Booth. 1978. “Structure and Levels of Political Participation in Costa Rica: Comparing Peasants with City Dwellers.” In John A. Booth and Mitchell A. Seligson, eds., Political Participation in Latin America: Politics and the Poor. New York: Holmes and Meier. Selser, Gregorio. 1983. Honduras, republica alquilada. Mexico City: Mex-Sur Editorial. Sereseres, Caesar D. 1972. “Military Development and the United States Military As¬ sistance Program for Latin America: The Case of Guatemala, 1961-1969.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Riverside. Setzerkom, William David. 1981. Formerly British Honduras: A Profile of the New Nation of Belize. Athens: Ohio University Press. Shaw, Royce Q. 1978. Central America: Regional Integration and National Political Development. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Simon, Jean-Marie. 1987. Guatemala: Eternal Spring—Eternal Tyranny. New York: Norton. Spalding, Rose J., ed. 1987. The Political Economy of Revolutionary Nicaragua. Boston: Allen and Unwin. Stokes, William S. 1950. Honduras: An Area Study in Government. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

Central America

/

77

Toriello Garrido, Guillermo. 1979. Guatemala: mas de 20 ahos de traicidn. Guatemala City: Editorial Universitaria. Torres Ocampo, Jorge E. 1980. Reflexion, andlisis, crltica y autocritica de la situacion polltica de Guatemala. Guatemala City: n.p. Torres-Rivas, Edelberto. 1971. Interpretacion del desarrollo social centroamericano. San Jose, Costa Rica: EDUCA. -. 1981. Crisis del poder en Centroamerica. San Jose, Costa Rica: EDUCA. Tulchin, Joseph S. 1983. “Emerging Patterns of Research in the Study of Latin America.” Latin American Research Review 18, no. 1: 85-94. Vega Carballo, Jose Luis. 1982. Poder politico y democracia en Costa Rica. San Jose, Costa Rica: Editorial Porvenir. Vemer, Joel G. 1970. “Characteristics of Administrative Personnel: The Case of Gua¬ temala.” Journal of Developing Areas 5, no. 1 (October): 73-85. -. 1971. “Socialization and Participation in Legislative Debates: The Case of the Guatemalan Congress.” Caribbean Studies 11, no. 2 (July): 45-73. Vilas, Carlos Maria. 1986. The Sandinista Revolution: National Liberation and Social Transformation in Central America. New York: Monthly Review Press. Walker, Thomas W. 1970. The Christian Democratic Movement in Nicaragua. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. . 1981. Nicaragua, the Land of Sandino. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Walker, Thomas W., ed. 1982. Nicaragua in Revolution. New York: Praeger. -. 1985. Nicaragua: The First Five Years. New York: Praeger. -. 1986. Nicaragua: The Land of Sandino. 2nd ed. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), eds. 1988. Who Pays the Price?: The Cost of War in the Guatemalan Highlands. Washington, D.C.: WOLA. Weber, Henri. 1981. Nicaragua: The Sandinist Revolution. London: Verso Editions. Webre, Stephen. 1979. Jose Napoleon Duarte and the Christian Democratic Party in Salvadoran Politics, 1960-1972. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Weeks, John. 1985. The Economies of Central America. New York: Holmes and Meier. -. 1986. “An Interpretation of the Central American Crisis.” Latin American Research Review 21, no. 3: 31-54. Wiarda, Howard J., ed. 1984. Rift and Revolution: The Central American Imbroglio. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Williams, Robert G. 1986. Export Agriculture and the Crisis in Central America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Wynia, Gary W. 1972. Politics and Planners: Economic Development Policy in Central America. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

4 CUBA Julie Marie Bunck This chapter examines the major contributions to political science research on Cuba in the past thirty years. The single most important event affecting the content and orientation of scholarship on contemporary Cuba is the revolutionary government, an elitist mobilization system, created by Fidel Castro in 1959. Other features of the Cuban political system—its relationships with the United States and the Soviet Union, its sugar-based command economy, and its vigorous nationalism—have also contributed to the direction and orientation of the political science literature on Cuba. Unlike other Latin American cases, such as Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela, the literature on Cuba is dominated by North American and European political scientists. Scholars who study Cuba are caught between the difficulties of doing any field work on the island and the one-million-strong exile community which is vocally critical of any effort to assess the nature of political life in Cuba. In analyzing the post-revolutionary literature on Cuba, I have explored five broad questions related to the major debates and issues surrounding the politics of Cuba. What makes the Cuban political system distinct from other Latin American governments and political systems? How has Castro’s 1959 revolution affected the nature and quality of scholarship on Cuba? What are the strengths and weaknesses in the theoretical and empirical works dealing with Cuba? What are the major topics of political science research on Cuba in the past thirty years? Finally, with Fidel Castro destined to be at the helm for most, or part, of the 1990s, what direction will political science research take in the next decade? In order to synthesize the findings of the major works during this period (19601990) and to identify the major trends in political science research, I have divided the literature in the following manner. In the discussion that follows, studies of a historical nature—the roots of the 1959 revolution, the insurrectionary period

80

/

Comparative Politics

(1953-1959), the first decade of the revolution (1959-1969), and the institu¬ tionalization of the revolution beginning in 1970—are analyzed for their con¬ tribution to an understanding of Cuban politics. This is followed by more comprehensive studies designed to provide an understanding of Cuba’s politics either on its own terms or in a comparative perspective. The final part of this chapter examines specialized studies dealing with political culture, leaders, eco¬ nomic policy, the armed forces, women, labor, youth and education, and other topics of interest to political scientists. In analyzing the voluminous literature on Cuba in this relatively brief chapter, I give preference to books over articles, to analyses by political scientists, and to English-language publications. Although the majority of the literature under examination stems from the post-revolutionary period, the next section is devoted to works that attempt to explicate the pre-revolutionary roots—political, eco¬ nomic, and social—of Cuba’s distinct political model of development.

HISTORICAL STUDIES OF CUBAN POLITICS Recent historical studies on Cuba have been generally confined to four periods: the pre-revolutionary period in which the roots of the revolution are examined; the pre-revolutionary period in which the insurrection itself is analyzed; the first post-revolutionary decade; and the institutionalization of the revolution that oc¬ curred in 1970. Few scholars have written significant historical studies limited strictly to the post-institutionalization period, due largely to the nature of the craft and the lack of solid archival materials.

The Roots of the Castro Revolution Many scholarly works delve into an explanation of the roots of the Cuban Revolution using various kinds of historical analysis. Many of these studies focus on how the United States affected types of Cuban nationalism and the nature and direction of political development on the island. Historians with an interest in Cuba have made noteworthy contributions in this area. For example, Cuba between Empires, 1878-1902 (1983) by Louis A. Perez, Jr., is a valuable ex¬ amination of Cuba’s struggle for political and economic independence from Spain (after almost 400 years) and from the U.S. military occupation from 1898 to 1902. Similarly, in Cuba under the Platt Amendment, 1902-1934 (1986), Perez examines the impact of the United States on early Cuban politics, culture, eco¬ nomics, and society. Luis E. Aguilar and Ramon Eduardo Ruiz, both Cuban emigre historians, have also written notable studies of pre-revolutionary Cuban politics. Aguilar’s Cuba 1933: Prologue to Revolution (1972) analyzes the upheavals in the trun¬ cated revolution of 1933. In this thorough and perceptive study, Aguilar identifies not only the significant link between the 1933 and 1959 revolutions, but also the role of rising expectations prior to 1933 that led to the intensification of

Cuba

/

81

conflicting demands of Communists and students, labor and business, and in¬ tellectuals and politicians. Aguilar’s study is also important for its depiction of the meddlesome role of North American political and economic elites in the failure of the 1933 revolution. This Yankee involvement played a key role in anti-American forces of nationalism that helped to propel the Castro revolution in the 1950s. Ruiz’s Cuba: The Making of a Revolution (1968) argues that the Cuban Rev¬ olution can be properly understood only by examining Cuba’s vigorous nation¬ alism. Ruiz believes that this nationalism was a product both of Cuba’s unequal and inadequate economy and of a Cuban inferiority complex brought on prior to 1959 by politically insensitive, intolerant, and selfish Americans. Ruiz’s study is particularly valuable in exploring the importance of the apathetic and disin¬ terested Cuban middle class in the triumph of the revolution. Lowry Nelson’s Rural Cuba (1950) and Cuba: The Measure of a Revolution (1972) both provide accurate and useful analyses of pre-revolutionary Cuba, emphasizing the economic, social, and political status of Cuba under pre-Castro politicians such as Ramon Grau San Martin, Carlos Prio Socarras, and Fulgencio Batista. In Cuba: The Measure of a Revolution (1972), Nelson examines both pre-1959 Cuba and the impact of the revolution on many aspects of Cuban life, including education, economics, agriculture, family, labor, religion, and the press.

The Rebel Insurrection: 1953-1959 Scholarship on the insurrection period, which began with the 1953 attack on the Moncada Army Barracks in Santiago and ended with the overthrow of Batista in 1959, has produced a fair number of notable works on the tactics, leaders, and objectives of the guerrilla war. Samuel Farber’s Revolution and Reaction in Cuba, 1933-1960 (1976) is one of the more sophisticated studies of Cuba in the 1950s. Farber contends, as does Luis Aguilar, that Castro’s revolution continued the 1933 revolution and formed part of a lengthy process to create a new class structure. In Farber’s view, General Batista, the emergent leader of the 1930s crisis, and Castro, the emergent leader of the 1959 revolution, responded sim¬ ilarly to comparable crises in pre-revolutionary Cuban society. In a more recent article, “The Cuban Communists in the Early Stages of the Cuban Revolution: Revolutionaries or Reformists?” (1983), Farber discusses the tension early in the revolution between the long-established, orthodox Com¬ munist party and the radical revolutionary leadership associated with Castro’s 26th of July Movement (M-26-7). Because of its relatively conservative and cautious orientation, the Communist party kept a distance from Castro at the beginning of the revolution and hence played a minor role in establishing the Marxist-Leninist system that was to emerge later. Farber believes that the Castro regime’s unorthodox economic and social radicalism accounts for the political success of communism in Cuba. For example, in the early 1960s, the Castro

82

/

Comparative Politics

regime, not the Cuban Communist party, called for the eradication of material incentives and money, for the abolition of the Catholic Church, and for gov¬ ernment ownership of all property. The best study of the reasons for the decline of the Batista regime is found in John Dorschner and Roberto Fabricio, The Winds of December (1980). Thor¬ oughly documented, this historical account of the armed struggle explores nearly every aspect of Castro’s triumph and the fall of Batista’s army. Mario Llerena’s The Unsuspected Revolution (1978) is also a valuable first-person account of the successful armed struggle against Batista. The most significant part of Llerena’s work is his discussion of the disagreements among the many rebel groups in¬ volved in the conflict. Ultimately, the insurrectionary movement splintered as Castro’s 26th of July movement took charge and gradually eliminated the opposition. Ramon L. Bonachea and Marta San Martin’s work. The Cuban Insurrection, 1952-1959 (1973), provides a substantial amount of information on the early revolutionary process. Contrary to what most scholars have written, the authors propose that the urban underground, not the rural peasants, was the dominant factor in the rebel triumph. This study is buttressed by Andres Suarez’s analytical article, “The Cuban Revolution: The Road to Power” (1972), and by Edward Gonzalez’s Cuba under Castro: The Limits of Charisma (1974). Both provide well-written analyses of the revolutionary process and the early years of Castro’s rule. A Polish perspective is provided in K. S. Karol’s Guerrillas in Power: The Course of the Cuban Revolution (1970), a rich, well-documented account of the creation of the Castro movement, its victory, and the early years of the Com¬ munist government. Finally, James O’Connor’s The Origins of Socialism in Cuba (1970) is a seminal work on economic conditions during the final years of the Batista government and the early years of the revolutionary regime. The most important theoretical works on the armed struggle are Ernesto Che Guevara’s La guerra de guerrillas (1960) and Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War (1968), and Regis Debray’s treatment of the subject in Rev¬ olution in the Revolution? (1967). Jose A. Moreno’s enlightening work, “Che Guevara on Guerrilla Warfare: Doctrine, Practice, and Evaluation” (1970), pro¬ vides an important analysis of a topic largely neglected in the literature on the insurrection.

The First Post-Revolutionary Decade The first tumultuous decade after the revolution witnessed an erratic and unpredictable chain of events: the emergence of a “humanist stage” of devel¬ opment (1959-1961), the severing of U.S.-Cuban relations, the declaration of socialism, and the adoption of Marxist-Leninist objectives and policies. These events were followed by a lively internal policy debate between Che Guevara and his followers and orthodox Marxists. The Guevaristas advocated eliminating market forces, such as material incentives and money, in favor of moral incen-

Cuba

/

83

tives. The more practical orthodox Marxists endorsed more pragmatic econom¬ ically oriented policies. Although Che Guevara initially won the support of Fidel Castro, by the middle of the decade his influence had waned owing to the failure of his economic policies in Cuba and his inability to foster revolutionary change in Africa and Latin America. Che was killed in 1967 by Bolivian Rangers, trained by the Central Intelligence Agency, while trying to start a revolution in the eastern jungles of Bolivia. The political events of the first post-revolutionary decade provided a great deal of valuable material for North American and European scholars—fascinated by Castro and Latin American revolutions—in the rapidly expanding area of Latin American studies. Andres Suarez’s Cuba: Castroism and Communism, 1959-1966 (1967) is noteworthy in explaining how the revolution swiftly turned to socialism and how a variety of domestic and international forces prepared the ground for Castro s elitist Marxist-Leninist system. Maurice Halperin wrote two volumes on the Cuban Revolution over the span of a decade which detail the emergence of socialism and the development and many failures of Castro’s policies: The Rise and Fall of Fidel Castro (1972) and The Taming of Fidel Castro (1981). Halperin also emphasizes Cuba’s erratic and at times difficult relationship with the Soviet Union. In The Theory of Moral Incentives in Cuba (1971) Robert M. Bernardo pro¬ vides a perceptive account of the Cuban government’s use of moral incentives during the first decade of the revolution. Bernardo argues that the regime used moral incentives as a means to bring about both a cultural transformation—the creation of a new Cuban man and woman—and economic development. Two other studies of this period warrant mention. Leo Huberman and Paul M. Sweezy, in Cuba: Anatomy of a Revolution (1960), provide an interesting, though unduly sympathetic, analysis of the first year of the revolution. Also, Edwin Stein’s Cuba, Castro and Communism (1962) is a significant addition to the literature during the early years of the revolution.

Institutionalization of the Revolution The revolution’s first decade ended with great disappointment when the effort to produce ten million tons of sugar in the 1970 harvest fell short of its goal and cultural transformation did not take hold. To make matters worse, the failed crusade resulted in profound economic dislocation throughout many parts of the island. Government policies designed to transform Cuban culture could create neither the “new Cuban man’’ nor the revolutionary behavior that the regime believed would bring about a more equal and productive anticapitalist devel¬ opment. By 1970, revolutionary discontent could be observed in labor absen¬ teeism, a flourishing black market, and a dramatic increase in truancy, vagrancy, prescriptive drug abuse, and juvenile delinquency (particularly theft). The gov¬ ernment’s repeated demands for citizen discipline, self-denial, volunteer work, and economic belt-tightening for the sake of the revolution fell on deaf ears as

84

/

Comparative Politics

satisfaction with regime performance continued to dissipate. The Cuban gov¬ ernment could not escape depriving citizens of material goods—strict rationing and severe shortages-—which in turn led to the decline in the badly needed support and cooperation of Cuban citizens. On the verge of a complete breakdown in Cuban society, Fidel Castro had little choice but to admit mistakes and change his approach. Indeed, by 1970 these failures contributed to decisions by the revolutionary elite to institute Sovietstyle government reforms designed to institutionalize the revolution. This abrupt shift in policy and in revolutionary goals attracted substantial attention and provided the source for several valuable pieces of scholarship. The most thorough analysis of this period of centralization of political power, in which revolutionary groups were turned into Soviet-type government bureau¬ cracies, is Carmelo Mesa-Lago’s Cuba in the 1970s: Pragmatism and Institu¬ tionalization (1974). Mesa-Lago discusses the stages and failures of the first decade of the revolution and the subsequent turning point when the government instigated strict repression of workers, students, delinquents, and all so-called antisocial elements in Cuban society. In this valuable contribution to the liter¬ ature, Mesa-Lago examines the restructuring of mass organizations, the new role of labor unions, the introduction of material incentives, the economic diversi¬ fication programs, and the establishment of channels for popular participation. This political restructuring was examined a few years later by J. David Edwards in “The Consolidation of the Cuban Political System” (1976). Edwards argues that the institutionalization of the revolution can be seen in the shift after 1970 from the revolutionary political ideals of morality, revolutionary zeal, loyalty, and sacrifice to an emphasis on material incentives to raise production levels, political and administrative stability, and economic growth. In his analysis, Edwards discusses the development and leadership role of the Cuban Communist party, the creation of the 1976 constitution, and the role of the Cuban armed forces. At about the same time that Edwards’s (1976) article appeared, Nelson P. Valdes wrote “Revolution and Institutionalization in Cuba” (1976), which dis¬ cusses the gradual process of institutionalization between 1959 and 1970. A few years later, Max Azicri, in “The ‘Institucionalizacion’ of Cuba’s Revolution” (1978), expanded on Valdes’s ideas by examining the regime’s use of mass mobilization to rally Cuban workers to put in long hours so that the revolution might survive. Azicri, like Mesa-Lago (1974), maintained that institutionaliza¬ tion took place rapidly once the regime realized that the 1970 sugar production target was unattainable and that the revolution was not secure because of extreme economic instability.

COMPREHENSIVE COUNTRY STUDIES Not until the 1970s, the second decade of the revolution, did the first com¬ prehensive studies of Cuban politics and political history appear. In Cuba, the

Cuba

/

85

Pursuit of Freedom (1971), Hugh Thomas, a British historian, provides a lengthy historical treatment of the political history of Cuba. Seven years later, Thomas’s detailed treatment of the political history of Cuba was followed by Jorge I. Dominguez s Cuba. Order and Revolution (1978). Dominguez’s book analyzes the armed forces, political culture, and Cuban foreign policy in considerable detail, offering vast amounts of empirical substantiation of his analysis. With a bibliography running over fifty pages, Dominguez’s exceptionally thorough work is an indispensable reference work on the post-revolutionary period. Juan M. del Aguila s Cuba: Dilemmas of a Revolution (1984), a much shorter compre¬ hensive study of the impact of the revolution on Cuban society, provides an especially valuable discussion of Cuban culture. According to del Aguila, tra¬ ditional beliefs, opinions, attitudes, and values of Cuban citizens remain virtually unchanged despite efforts of the revolutionary elite to create a new Cuban iden¬ tity. His brief, but judicious, analysis of the failures and successes of the rev¬ olution offer a rather painful picture of the state of Cuba’s socialist economic system.

SPECIALIZED SUBJECTS OF INVESTIGATION The historical studies and highly charged ideological tracks that dominated much of early post-revolutionary scholarship on Cuba have largely given way in the last two decades to more specialized studies on particular features of Cuban political life and social change. The analysis of the scholarly literature that follows—in order of research attention—begins with an examination of the ques¬ tion of leaders and leadership in Cuba’s elitist mobilization system.

Leadership and the Jefe Maximo Ever since Fidel Castro captured the imagination of the American public through the interviews in the Sierra Maestra with New York Times reporter Herbert Matthews, scholars have taken an abiding interest in Cuba’s jefe mdximo. Indeed, Matthews himself contributed one of the early bibliographic studies of the Cuban leader and the early phase of the revolution in Fidel Castro (1969). Two more recent biographies of Fidel Castro—Tad Szulc’s Fidel: A Critical Portrait (1986) and Peter G. Bourne’s Fidel: A Biography of Fidel Castro (1986)—although somewhat superficial and designed for a popular audience, are the only books written specifically on Fidel Castro. These two portraits, of particular interest when read together, come to quite different conclusions re¬ garding the ideological roots of Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution. For example, the authors vigorously disagree on the roots of communism in Castro’s revolution and the basis for the complete breakdown of U.S.-Cuban relations. Szulc argues in an engaging fashion that Castro was “almost a Communist” as early as 1948 and that he had decided by 1958, long before any pressure from abroad, that Cuba would be a Communist society. Hence, Castro’s embrace of

86

/

Comparative Politics

communism was an inherent part of the revolution and not a desperate effort to save his revolution from American hostility. Bourne refutes this assertion and maintains that Castro was neither a Com¬ munist nor an ideologue at all, but instead was a pragmatic opportunist. Ac¬ cording to Bourne, Castro turned to communism as the only answer to a difficult question: How does the leadership reject ties to the United States and still survive in the international arena? What makes Bourne’s book of particular interest is his training in psychiatry and psychoanalysis, which he used to examine Castro’s personality and actions. Unfortunately, few scholars have moved beyond studying Fidel Castro to examining Cuban elites in general. One exception, however, is the work on Cuban political elites by William M. LeoGrande. In “Continuity and Change in the Cuban Political Elite’’ (1978), he discusses the composition of the Central Committee and explores the shifting patterns of institutional relationships among the political leaders throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Little has been done in the last decade to explore the question of elite transformation and legitimacy in a post-Castro Cuba.

Political Culture With the publication of Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba’s The Civic Culture (1963), followed by Lucian W. Pye and Sidney Verba’s, eds., Political Culture and Political Development (1965), new ground was broken in the study of comparative politics. Until the 1960s, political culture—defined as the atti¬ tudes, ideas, values, beliefs, and customs that grow out of historical experience— was an unexamined component of political change. Richard R. Fagen’s The Transformation of Political Culture in Cuba (1969), building on these earlier theoretical works, was the first political culture study on Cuba. By examining three elements of revolutionary mobilization—the literacy campaign, the schools of revolutionary instruction, and the establishment of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDRs)—Fagen found that the Castro government was authentically transforming Cuban culture by successfully eradicating tra¬ ditional attitudes, values, and ideas and by replacing them with more “appro¬ priate” revolutionary ones. However, from today’s perspective, it is increasingly apparent that Fagen’s thesis concerning the successful transformation of Cuba’s political culture is incorrect. Unfortunately, no follow-up books on this subject have yet been written. However, on the basis of an exhaustive study of attitude change and social transformation over a span of thirty years, this author’s recent study indicates that Cuban attitudes have not changed as the Cuban leaders had hoped. The details of this analysis can be found in Julie Marie Bunck, “Cultural Change in Revolutionary Cuba” (1988) and “The Political Use of Sports by Revolutionary Cuba” (1990). Other aspects of cultural change and revolutionary politics are examined in Luis Salas’s Social Control and Deviance in Cuba (1979), an excellent study

Cuba

/

87

of social deviance including juvenile delinquency, homosexuality, truancy, sui¬ cide, and crime in revolutionary Cuba. Salas argues that much crime in Cuba is caused by the revolutionary leadership’s attempts to force cultural change on a society that has not and will not rapidly and markedly change. Thus, Salas’s argument differs from Fagen’s in that, even after two decades of relentless effort by the Cuban government in exerting unprecedented control in the schools, the work place, the home, and in all mass organizations, Salas does not find evidence of cultural change among the Cuban people. Despite government efforts to create “an extensive order maintenance apparatus,” made up of such control agents as the military, the women’s organizations, and the CDRs, efforts to supervise the moral, academic, and political socialization of every citizen from early childhood to adulthood has brought about little in the way of attitudinal change.

Economic Policy and Performance Analysis The best works on the Cuban economy are Carmelo Mesa-Lago’s The Economy of Socialist Cuba: A Two-Decade Appraisal (1981), Claes Brundenius’s Revo¬ lutionary Cuba: The Challenge of Economic Growth with Equity (1983), and Jorge F. Perez-Lopez’s Measuring Cuban Economic Performance (1987), in which each author analyzes the performance of the socialist economy throughout the first two decades of the revolution. Mesa-Lago explores the mid-1960s eco¬ nomic collapse brought on by American economic sanctions, the ineptitude and personalist nature of Cuban leadership, and the official, short-sighted emphasis on the 1970 sugar harvest. Mesa-Lago finds the major cause of Cuba’s economic woes in basic government incompetence, the inability to create feasible incentives to improve levels of worker productivity, a lack of central planning, and fun¬ damental mismanagement. Indeed, he concludes that by the end of the 1960s the economy had become so nonproductive that it could not meet the fundamental needs of the Cuban citizenry. With a shift to “realism” and government coercion in economic policy in the 1970s, including, most notably, the reestablishment of work quotas and material incentives, management training, and a decrease in the money supply, the Cuban economy clearly demonstrated signs of improvement in overall production. De¬ spite the economic gain, Mesa-Lago still is not sanguine about the future health of the Cuban economy given the problems of inefficiency, worker apathy, and chronic dependency on Soviet loans and subsidies. Brundenius (1983), on the other hand, is far more sympathetic with Castro’s objectives, and he tends to emphasize other causes, over most of which the Cuban leaders have had little or no control. For example, he sees the American economic sanctions as a more important cause of the early economic difficulties than does Mesa-Lago. Despite differing perspectives, these solid and wellresearched books complement each other and form a fundamental consensus on certain matters on the Cuban economy. Perez-Lopez’s (1987) work, perhaps the most valuable (and most technical)

88

/

Comparative Politics

assessment of the real economic growth of Cuba’s centrally planned economy, is critical of the island’s economic performance. Perez-Lopez claims that the Cuban economy expanded at a considerably slower pace than would be implied by the official data or estimates set forth by Brundenius. Indeed, Perez-Lopez contends that Cuba’s real economic growth rates are roughly one-half as large as those obtained from the official data or estimates made by Brundenius. A number of other writings on the state of the Cuban economy, including two articles comparing pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary Cuba, merit men¬ tion. In “Measuring Income Distribution in Pre- and Post-Revolutionary Cuba” (1979), Brundenius provides an insightful comparison of income distribution before and after the revolution. Ten years later, William M. LeoGrande, “Cuban Dependency: A Comparison of Pre-Revolutionary and Post-Revolutionary In¬ ternational Economic Relations” (1979), measured patterns of dependency in capitalist pre-revolutionary Cuba and in socialist post-revolutionary Cuba and found that because of Cuba’s economic integration with Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) countries, “the Cuban economy does not respond to exigencies of the Soviet economy” (p. 26). By the 1980s, this assertion needed to be revised as Cuba became increasingly dependent on the Soviets. Further efforts to understand specific economic topics can be found in the valuable studies by Nelson P. Valdes, “The Cuban Revolution: Economic Or¬ ganization and Bureaucracy” (1979), and Sergio Roca, Cuban Economic Policy and Ideology: The Ten Million Ton Sugar Harvest (1976). Valdes’s article stands as a thorough analysis of the various Cuban economic policies and organizations during the first two decades of the revolution. He focuses on the early institution¬ building stage, the phase of disagreement over the proper path toward communism, the revolutionary offensive and moral incentives, the economic breakdown, and the institutionalization of the revolution. Roca’s monograph is more specific and concise: the economic objectives and costs of the ten-millionton sugar harvest. In a perceptive study of the relationship between economic and ideological objectives, Carmelo Mesa-Lago, “Ideological Radicalization and Economic Policy in Cuba” (1969-1970), shows how ideological goals influence the creation and implementation of Cuban economic policies. Finally, Cuba’s Socialist Economy toward the 1990s (1987), edited by Andrew Zimbalist, is a useful compilation of articles on Cuban economics. The book’s contributors— generally sympathetic but also critical of the revolution—examine such topics as agricultural policy, patterns of economic development, gender issues in con¬ temporary tobacco farming, performance of the sugar industry, health care, power relations in the work place, and manufacturing.

Armed Forces The creation of a revolutionary government called for changes in the political organization and mission of the Cuban military, an institution that has gained considerable political influence after the 1933 upheaval. In a study of Cuba’s

Cuba

/

89

traditional army, Louis A. Perez, Jr., Army Politics in Cuba, 1898-1958 (1976), offers a detailed analysis of the weakness of the Cuban military under the bureaucratic-authoritarian regime of Fulgencio Batista. According to Perez, until its destruction by Castro’s rebel army, the Cuban army was created by and served U.S. interests. In “Civil-Military Relations in Cuba: Party Control and Political Socialization’’ (1978), William M. LeoGrande examines the relationship be¬ tween the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) and the Cuban Communist party (PPC). Neill Macaulay’s “The Cuban Rebel Army: A Numerical Survey” (1978) has analyzed extensive statistics on the size and composition of the guerrilla rebel army during the revolutionary war against Batista. He contends that the size of the revolutionary force has generally been underestimated and that it was much larger and made up of more peasants than previously assumed. Jorge Dominguez’s “Institutionalization and Civil-Military Relations in Cuba” (1976) examines the role of the FAR in the process of institutionalization during the early 1970s. “Civic soldiers” is the term Dominguez assigns to the members of the armed forces with their greatly expanded social, political, mil¬ itary, and economic roles. Finally, Irving Louis Horowitz’s “Military Origins and Outcomes of the Cuban Revolution,” in Irving Louis Horowitz, ed., Cuban Communism (1988), is an engaging and worthwhile analysis of the armed forces in revolutionary Cuba. The revolution, in Horowitz’s view, is more military than Communist, and Castro is more caudillo than ideologue. The militarization of Cuban society, he contends, was an inevitable outgrowth of Castro’s elitist military orientation, Cuba’s sugar-based economic woes, and the need to increase the level of mass participation.

Women and Politics Much of the literature on Cuban women is weak, incomplete, and superficial in nature. Margaret Randall’s Cuban Women Now (1974), Anna Ramos’s “Women and the Cuban Revolution” (1972), and Inger Holt-Seeland’s Women of Cuba (1982) present generally sympathetic but somewhat vacuous accounts of the condition of women in Cuba after the revolution. Randall’s Women in Cuba: Twenty Years Later (1981) assesses, in slightly more scholarly terms, two decades of changes in the status and condition of women in revolutionary Cuba. Susan Kaufman Purcell’s “Modernizing Women for a Modem Society: The Cuban Case,” in Ann Pescatello, ed., Female and Male in Latin America (1973), is perhaps the best study of the Cuban government’s attempt to change the attitudes toward and the behavior of women. In addition, Carollee Benglesdorf and Alice Hageman discuss the progress women in Cuba have allegedly achieved in many areas of life in their study, “Emerging from Underdevelop¬ ment: Women and Work” (1974). Finally, in a more recent article, Julie Marie Bunck, “The Cuban Revolution and Women’s Rights,” in Irving Louis Horo¬ witz, ed., Cuban Communism (1989), presents a critical assessment of the gains that Cuban women have made during the revolution. In light of the evidence

90

/

Comparative Politics

presented, Castro’s commitment to sexual equality must be questioned and re¬ evaluated. It now appears that Cuban attitudes toward gender have not changed to the extent normally assumed in writings on women in Cuba.

Labor The best works on Cuban labor are Maurice Zeitlin’s Revolutionary Politics and the Cuban Working Class (1970) and Marifeli Perez-Stable’s “Institution¬ alization and Worker’s Response’’ (1976). Zeitlin, in his work based on more than 200 interviews with workers on the island in 1962, concludes that the level of support among workers varied greatly. The workers most supportive of the revolution, as might be expected, tended to be those previously unemployed or underemployed. Those who had held steady jobs before the revolution were far less supportive of the Castro regime. Perez-Stable’s work, also based upon extensive interviews with Cuban workers, examines the relationship between the leaders and the workers as well as the role of local trade unions, incentives, and women in the work force. Also of importance is Carmelo Mesa-Lago’s seminal The Labor Force, Employment, Unemployment and Underemployment in Cuba, 1899-1970 (1972). This work provides a sophisticated analysis of the devel¬ opments in the labor force since Cuban independence.

Youth and Education Most of the scholarly activity on Cuban youth and education was done during the decade of the 1970s. Marvin Leiner’s Children Are the Revolution: Day Care in Cuba (1974) is one of the few books available on Cuban day care. In addition, Samuel Bowles’s “Cuban Education and Revolutionary Zeal’’ (1971) and Jonathan Kozol’s Children of the Revolution (1978) are interesting analyses of various levels of Cuban education. Also important is Carl J. Dahlman’s The Nationwide Learning System of Cuba (1978). Unfortunately, the findings in these studies are dated, suggesting that more scholarly attention needs to be devoted to the role of education in Cuba’s political system.

Other Topics of Research Ross Danielson’s Cuban Medicine (1979) is an interesting account of Cuban health services, which focuses mainly on the transformation of the practice of Cuban medicine since the revolution. In the area of sports, Julie Marie Bunck (1990) analyzes the relationship between politics (domestic and international) and sports in revolutionary Cuba. Finally, in “Salvation through Christ or Marx: Religion in Revolutionary Cuba,” in Daniel H. Levine, ed., Churches and Politics in Latin America (1980), Margaret E. Crahan offers one of the few studies that addresses the revolution’s effects on the Catholic Church in Cuba.

Cuba

/

91

CONCLUSION As the first Marxist-Leninist state in the Western Hemisphere, Cuba shares relatively few political characteristics with the other governments in Latin Amer¬ ica and the Caribbean. With the possible exception of Nicaragua between 1979 and 1990—which was never a Marxist-Leninist state—no other government in the region resembles that of Cuba under Fidel Castro. Some scholars claim that Cuba’s uniqueness stems from the timing of Cuban independence during the age of U.S. imperialism followed by the long period of U.S. domination, starting with the Platt Amendment in 1901. Others argue that Cuba’s sugar-based econ¬ omy and geostrategic position as the largest Caribbean island have made Cuban politics so distinctive. Virtually all scholars agree, however, that because of its 1959 revolution, Cuba is the first Latin American government to challenge effectively the hegemonic role of the United States in the region. Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution and the society and political system that resulted have provided political scientists with a fascinating number of investigative puzzles for understanding political development and social change in the Latin American context. Indeed, the Cuban regime’s attempt to create a socialist society by transforming the country’s institutions, creating a one-party political system, rapidly and completely altering Cuban culture, militarizing society, and con¬ ducting a far-flung foreign policy has raised important and confounding questions for the scholar of Latin American politics. As we have seen, in the thirty years since the revolution, scholars, journalists, popular writers, and emigres living in the United States have contributed a plethora of interpretations and analyses of the Cuba that Fidel Castro and his followers created. Ironically, despite the difficulties of doing first-hand research on the island, Cuba is one of the most studied governments of Latin America because of its revolutionary character. This was particularly true among North American scholars during the first decade of the revolution when the published literature reached avalanche proportions in contrast to other countries of interest to political scientists. The study of the Cuban Revolution and post-revolutionary Cuba is an inher¬ ently difficult enterprise. All scholars who set out to study revolutionary Cuba are abruptly confronted with three serious obstacles: the antagonistic relationship between the United States and Cuba, which restricts research access on the island; the highly charged and extremely passionate nature of studying anything related to Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution in the United States; and the eclectic nature of the collection of works written over the past three decades. Because of the tense and unfriendly relationship between the United States and Cuba (aggravated periodically by events like the Bay of Pigs invasion and the introduction of Radio and TV Marti), the Cuban government has not allowed U.S. scholars to carry out research freely in Cuba. Accurate statistics and survey research data have thus been scarce or nonexistent. Moreover, although the Cuban government allows archival research on pre-revolutionary events, it does not

92

/

Comparative Politics

allow such research on post-1959 activities. In addition, research on Cuba is inevitably distorted since information that is easily available is generally released by the government and thus suspect—factually dubious and virtually unverifiable. Most American scholars have been forced to rely on more accessible sources: U.S. Government documents, presidential and public libraries, and the personal papers of diplomats, businessmen, officers of the armed forces, and journalists. Plainly, these sources, although valuable and dense with information and in¬ sights, skew the direction of research and affect the conclusions because they reflect the sources that are available to scholars. The nature of this problem is examined in Louis A. Perez, Jr., “Sources and State of the Literature,” in Sando Halebsky and John M. Kirk, eds., Cuba, Twenty-Five Years of Revolution, 19591984 (1985). The scholarship also reflects the passionate tenor of the political debate on Cuba which is a result of the hostility in U.S.-Cuban relations and, also perhaps, of the fact that many scholars of Cuba are Cuban emigres living in the United States and Europe. Some are victims of the revolutionary process while others left at a young age with little first-hand impressions of the revolution. Many harbor strong antagonistic feelings toward Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolu¬ tion, which are often reinforced by living amongst the large Cuban exile com¬ munities in Florida, New Jersey, and New York. Carmelo Mesa-Lago argues in “Revolutionary Empathy vs. Calculated Detachment in the Study of the Cuban Revolution” (1981) that most scholarship on revolutionary Cuba is divided into one of two camps: the supporters (unabashedly sympathetic to Castro and the goals of the revolution) and the impugners (vehemently hostile to the revolution). I would add a middle ground: The critical sympathizers, scholars and others who recognize the revolution’s successes but are also painfully aware of its failures and the complex nature of the explanations for Cuba’s path to development. It is this final group—the critical sympathizers—who have contributed some of the most thoughtful, balanced analyses of the Cuban revolutionary experiment. In addition to the impassioned and polemical nature of scholarship on revo¬ lutionary Cuba, research has generally been eclectic. Scholars have tended to work in isolation, rarely expanding upon one another’s works. Joint research projects are almost nonexistent. As Tony Smith has accurately observed in “ ‘The Spirit of the Sierra Maestra’: Five Observations on Writings about Cuban Foreign Policy” (1988:99), “[Tjhere is little sense of a community of effort whereby a cumulative integration of understanding has emerged [therefore] discussions re¬ main parochial, seldom able either to borrow from or to contribute to comparative case studies.” Despite the volume of literature on Cuban politics, many studies also lack empirical precision or are weak methodologically. Some present very superficial conclusions about political life in Cuba. Most are descriptive rather than analytical or theoretical in approach. These characteristics, in turn, make it difficult to analyze trends in the scholarly research on Cuba. The paradox of political science research on Cuba is that, although useful books and articles on revolutionary Cuba abound, the literature

Cuba

/

93

as a whole has not yet moved in any one particular direction, and scholarly debates rarely take place. This is probably because of the highly politicized nature of the scholarship. Many of the works are written to make a political argument or to prove a political point, not to make comparisons, discover general truths, or share the findings of sophisticated, scientific research. After reviewing the extant political science research on Cuba, we can ask what direction is the research in the field of contemporary Cuba going? What kind of research trends can we expect in the future? There appear to be five areas that will dominate future political science research on Cuba. These areas concern Cuba’s foreign policy in a post-Cold War era, the Cuban regime’s “rectification” campaign, the rejuvenation of Che Guevara’s political ideas, the effects of Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika on Cuba, and the con¬ tagion effects of the recent earth-shaking liberation movements that have occurred in Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Romania. Is Castro’s Cuba next on the list of reformed people’s republics and diminishing one-party states? It is becoming increasingly clear that when studied alone, Cuban domestic politics are enigmatic without a sophisticated understanding of Cuba’s interna¬ tional objectives. Indeed, in many ways domestic policy has been subordinated to, and at times controlled by, foreign policy objectives. Thus, there appears to be an increasing interest in Cuban foreign policy as a means to better understand domestic policy. The best work to date in this area is Jorge I. Dominguez’s To Make a World Safe for Revolution: Cuba’s Foreign Policy (1989), a well-written analysis of Cuba’s role in the international arena. Dominguez examines the historic development of Cuba’s foreign policy, the manner in which policy is carried out, and the relationship between domestic and foreign policy. The author argues that the Cuban government has forfeited economic development in the name of international responsibilities. Indeed, the Cuban regime is more apt to engage in international hostilities—particularly with the United States and its allies—than to work toward an improved quality of life for its citizens. Moreover, Dominguez’s study illustrates the interconnection between comparative politics and international relations as he examines the relationship between domestic and foreign policy in contemporary Cuba. To understand Cuban politics adequately in the future will require more analysis of this type. Second, since the mid-1980s, Fidel Castro has instigated a “rectification” campaign in order to rid Cuban society of social and economic illnesses, to build a better communicative relationship between the leaders and the masses, to cleanse the government of corruption and cronyism, and to build a stronger base upon which to continue to build socialism. Part of this goal is apparent in the execution of top military officers in the summer of 1989. Certainly, a great deal of research in the next decade will seek to examine the rectification campaign and its effects on the economic and political fabric of Cuban society. Third, as part of the rectification campaign, the Cuban regime has stressed the importance of morality, sacrifice, dedication, and the need to work not for

94

/

Comparative Politics

material rewards but for moral incentives and personal moral satisfaction. Con¬ sequently, the writings and ideas of Che Guevara, who called for the creation of the “new man’’ in the early 1960s and constantly insisted on revolutionary morality and the elimination of the market and material incentives, have been resurrected and popularized once again in Cuba. This, in turn, has prompted a number of new works—revisionist analyses—on Che Guevara’s political thought. Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost, which has had such a marked impact on the events in Eastern Europe, may eventually spread to Cuba where it will effectuate important changes in the island’s economic relationship with the Soviet Union, Cuba’s military role in Africa and Central America, and Cuba’s rela¬ tionship with the United States. Research in this area will probably lag behind any significant changes that eventually take place in Cuba as a result of Gorbachev’s policies. As of 1990, Fidel Castro has been vehemently opposed to any Cuban version of glasnost or perestroika. Nevertheless, there are now a number of works under way that will appear in the early 1990s focusing on the changing economic and political relationship between the Soviet Union and Cuba and the consequences of these changes both in Cuba and throughout the world. Finally, the sweeping political changes taking place today in the Eastern bloc countries probably will affect the policies and objectives of the aging Cuban regime. We can expect to see works that will explore the relationship between the activities within the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China and the policies of the Cuban government. Studies of Cuban-Middle East relations and politics will also add to our understanding of the role of Cuba in the international political system. Where are the gaps in the literature? First, more work is needed in the area of post-revolutionary culture. Very little has been done on this aspect of the revolution. This is, in part, due to the inability of scholars to carry out survey research, a prerequisite when studying popular ideas and attitudes. Some of what has been accomplished in studying Cuban culture is based on the views of emigres, which, based on their experience with the revolution, may be biased. Also, works on Cuba as a model of Third World political change need to be placed into a broader context. For reasons discussed in this chapter, few scholars have carried out comparative studies of Cuba. How does Cuba fall into the larger orbit of Marxist-Leninist regimes—or elitist mobilization systems as Charles F. Andrain, Political Change in the Third World (1988), calls them—and in the process of political change in the Third World? Many important comparative questions have yet to be addressed in the study of Cuban politics. Scholars also need to examine and incorporate more theory, including both structural-cultural and elite decision-making theories. Much work remains to be done with regard to the association between economic theories and MarxistLeninist economic structure as well as Soviet-Cuban relations. Also, in the field of foreign policy, basic theories concerning “national interest” seem to be relevant but generally ignored.

Cuba

/

95

Revolutionary Cuba is constantly changing. In light of the failures of the Communist regimes in China and the Eastern bloc, the apparent easing of the political and economic strains between the United States and Cuba, the agreement to withdraw Cuban troops from Angola, the recent execution of top leaders in the Cuban military, and the search for peace in Central America, the future of the Cuban Revolution is unclear. The research questions that remain are many despite the fact that, over the past thirty years, a secure scholarly foundation has been laid. While scholars have contributed much to an understanding of Cuba since Castro’s revolution in 1959, the discovery of more powerful political theory and truth will no doubt have to wait for a more open society, less burdened by the pains of the past and the dominant role of the jefe maximo. REFERENCES Aguilar, Luis E. 1972. Cuba 1933: Prologue to Revolution. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Uni¬ versity Press. Almond, Gabriel A., and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Andrain, Charles F. 1988. Political Change in the Third World. Unwin and Hyman. Azicri, Max. 1978. “The ‘Institucionalizacion’ of Cuba’s Revolution.’’ RevistalReview Interamericana 8, no. 2 (Summer): 247-62. Benglesdorf, Carollee, and Alice Hageman. 1974. “Emerging from Underdevelopment: Women and Work.” Cuba Review 4, no. 3 (September): 3-12. Bernardo, Robert M. 1971. The Theory of Moral Incentives in Cuba. University: Uni¬ versity of Alabama Press. Bonachea, Ramon L., and Marta San Martin. 1973. The Cuban Insurrection, 19521959. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Bourne, Peter G. 1986. Fidel: A Biography of Fidel Castro. York: Dodd, Mead and Company. Bowles, Samuel. 1971. “Cuban Education and Revolutionary Zeal.” Harvard Education Review 41, no. 1 (November): 472-500. Brundenius, Claes. 1979. “Measuring Income Distribution in Pre- and Post-Revolutionary Cuba.” Cuban Studies 9, no. 2 (July): 29-44. -. 1983. Revolutionary Cuba: The Challenge of Economic Growth with Equity. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Bunck, Julie Marie. 1988. “Cultural Change in Revolutionary Cuba.” Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia. -. 1989. “The Cuban Revolution and Women’s Rights.” In Irving Louis Horowitz, ed., Cuban Communism. 7th ed. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. -. 1990. “The Political Use of Sports by Revolutionary Cuba.” Cuban Studies 20. Crahan, Margaret E. 1980. “Salvation through Christ or Marx: Religion in Revolutionary Cuba.” In Daniel H. Levine, ed., Churches and Politics in Latin America. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Dahlman, Carl J. 1978. The Nationwide Learning System of Cuba. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Danielson, Ross. 1979. Cuban Medicine. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.

96

/

Comparative Politics

Debray, Regis. 1967. Revolution in the Revolution? New York: Grove Press, del Aguila, Juan M. 1984. Cuba: Dilemmas of a Revolution. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Dominguez, Jorge I. 1976. “Institutionalization and Civil-Military Relations in Cuba.’’ Cuban Studies 6, no. 1 (January): 39-65. -. 1978. Cuba: Order and Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. . 1989. To Make a World Safe for Revolution: Cuba’s Foreign Policy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Dorschner, John, and Roberto Fabricio. 1980. The Winds of December. East Rutherford, N.J.: Coward, McCann, and Geoghegan. Edwards, J. David. 1976. “The Consolidation of the Cuban Political System.’’ World Affairs 139, no. 1 (Summer): 10-16. Fagen, Richard R. 1969. The Transformation of Political Culture in Cuba. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Farber, Samuel. 1976. Revolution and Reaction inCuba, 1933-1960. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press. -. 1983. “The Cuban Communists in the Early Stages of the Cuban Revolution: Revolutionaries or Reformists?” Latin American Research Review 18 no 1: 59-84. Gonzalez, Edward. 1974. Cuba under Castro: The Limits of Charisma. New York: Houghton-Mifflin. -. 1986. Castro, Cuba, and the World. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation. Guevara, Ernesto Che. 1960. La guerra de guerrillas. Havana, Cuba: Departmento de Instruction de MINFAR. -. 1968. Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War. New York: Monthly Review Press. Halperin, Maurice. 1972. The Rise and Fall of Fidel Castro. Berkeley: University of California Press. -. 1981. The Taming of Fidel Castro. Berkeley: University of California Press. Holt-Seeland, Inger. 1982. Women of Cuba. New York: Lawrence Hill. Horowitz, Irving Louis. 1988. “Military Origins and Outcomes of the Cuban Revolu¬ tion. In Irving Louis Horowitz, ed., Cuban Communism. 6th ed. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Huberman, Leo, and Paul M. Sweezy. 1960. Cuba: Anatomy of a Revolution. New York: Monthy Review Press. Karol, K. S. 1970. Guerrillas in Power: The Course of the Cuban Revolution. New York: Hill and Wang. Kozol, Jonathan. 1978. Children of the Revolution. New York: Delacorte Press. Leiner, Marvin. 1974. Children Are the Revolution: Day Care in Cuba. New York: Viking Press. LeoGrande, William M. 1978. “Continuity and Change in the Cuban Political Elite.” Cuban Studies 8, no. 2 (July): 1-31. . 1978, “Civil-Military Relations in Cuba: Party Control and Political Sociali¬ zation. Studies in Comparative Communism 11, no. 3 (Autumn): 278-91. -. 1979. “Cuban Dependency: A Comparison of Pre-Revolutionary and PostRevolutionary International Economic Relations.” Cuban Studies 9, no. 2 (July): 1—28.

Cuba

/

97

Llerena, Mario. 1978. The Unsuspected Revolution: The Birth and Rise of Castroism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Macaulay, Neill. 1978. “The Cuban Rebel Army: A Numerical Survey.” Hispanic American Historical Review 58, no. 2 (May): 284-95. Matthews, Herbert. 1969. Fidel Castro. New York: Simon and Schuster. Mesa-Lago, Carmelo. 1969—70. “Ideological Radicalization and Economic Policy in Cuba.” Studies in Comparative International Development 5, no. 10: 203-16. -. 1972. The Labor Force, Employment, Unemployment and Underemployment in Cuba, 1899-1970. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. . 1974. Cuba in the 1970s: Pragmatism and Institutionalization. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. . 1981. The Economy of Socialist Cuba: A Two-Decade Appraisal. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. -. 1981. “Revolutionary Empathy vs. Calculated Detachment in the Study of the Cuban Revolution.” Cuban Studies 11, no. 1 (January): 90-92. Moreno, Jose A. 1970. “Che Guevara on Guerrilla Warfare: Doctrine, Practice, and Evaluation.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 12, no. 2 (April): 114-33. Nelson, Lowry. 1950. Rural Cuba. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. -. 1972. Cuba: The Measure of a Revolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. O’Connor, James. 1970. The Origins of Socialism in Cuba. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Uni¬ versity Press. Perez, Louis A., Jr. 1976. Army Politics in Cuba, 1898-1958. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. -. 1983. Cuba between Empires, 1878-1902. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pitts¬ burgh Press. -. 1985. “Sources and State of the Literature.” In Sando Halebsky and John M. Kirk, eds., Cuba, Twenty-Five Years of Revolution, 1959-1984. New York: Praeger. -. 1986. Cuba under the Platt Amendment, 1902-1934. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Perez-Lopez, Jorge F. 1987. Measuring Cuban Economic Performance. Austin: Uni¬ versity of Texas Press. Perez-Stable, Marifeli. 1976. “Institutionalization and Worker’s Response.” Cuban Stud¬ ies 6, no. 2 (July): 31-54. Purcell, Susan Kaufman. 1973. “Modernizing Women for a Modem Society: The Cuban Case.” In Ann Pescatello, ed., Female and Male in Latin America. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Pye, Lucian W., and Sidney Verba, eds. 1965. Political Culture and Political Devel¬ opment. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Ramos, Anna. 1972. “Women and the Cuban Revolution.” Cuban Resource Center Newsletter 2, no. 1 (March): 3-11. Randall, Margaret. 1974. Cuban Women Now. Toronto, Ontario: Women’s Press. -. 1981. Women in Cuba: Twenty Years Later. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Smyrna Press. Roca, Sergio. 1976. Cuban Economic Policy and Ideology: The Ten Million Ton Sugar Harvest. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

98

/

Comparative Politics

Ruiz, Ramon Eduardo. 1968. Cuba: The Making of a Revolution. Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press. Salas, Luis. 1979. Social Control and Deviance in Cuba. New York: Praeger. Smith, Tony. 1988. “ ‘The Spirit of the Sierra Maestra’: Five Observations on Writings about Cuban Foreign Policy.” World Politics 41, no. 1 (October): 98-119. Stein, Edwin. 1962. Cuba, Castro and Communism. New York: McFadden Bartell. Suarez, Andres. 1967. Cuba: Castroism and Communism, 1959-1966. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. -. 1972. ‘‘The Cuban Revolution: The Road to Power.” Latin American Research Review 7, no. 3 (Autumn): 5-29. Szulc, Tad. 1986. Fidel: A Critical Portrait. New York: Morrow. Thomas, Hugh. 1971. Cuba, the Pursuit of Freedom. New York: Harper and Row. Valdes, Nelson P. 1976. ‘‘Revolution and Institutionalization in Cuba.” Cuban Studies 6, no. 1 (January): 1-37. -. 1979. ‘‘The Cuban Revolution: Economic Organization and Bureaucracy.” Latin American Perspectives 6, no. 1 (Winter): 13-37. -. 1979. ‘‘Reply to‘Revolution: A Review of the 1979 Literature.’ ” Cuban Studies 9, no. 2 (July): 81-84. Zeitlin, Maurice. 1970. Revolutionary Politics and the Cuban Working Class. New York: Harper and Row. Zimbalist, Andrew, ed. 1987. Cuba’s Socialist Economy toward the 1990s. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

5 THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Michael J. Kryzanek

Political science research on the Dominican Republic over the past three decades has been based on two contradictory perspectives. On the one hand, the Do¬ minican Republic is frequently viewed as a “minor player” on the Latin Amer¬ ican chessboard, and this in turn has generated the common perception that whatever research is done will add little to the general knowledge of the region. Yet despite this negative impression, the Dominican Republic’s political life and strategic role continue to attract a substantial (particularly for its size) amount of serious research attention by both North American and Latin American scholars. The political research on the Dominican Republic since 1960 is due mainly to the dramatic system changes that occurred in 1961, 1965, and 1978. The assassination of Rafael L. Trujillo in 1961, Latin America’s most complete dictator, set in motion the foreign policy events and the research interest that would continue for several decades. The intense political instability that followed Trujillo’s overthrow contributed to the U.S. military intervention in 1965, os¬ tensibly to prevent a second Cuba on America’s doorstep. After the 1965 civil war and the U.S. intervention, and especially since the 1978 upset victory of Antonio Guzman over Joaquin Balaguer in that year’s presidential elections, interest in Dominican affairs has grown in several areas of political inquiry: party behavior, elections, leadership, bureaucracy, and the process of democratization.

COUNTRY AND COMPARATIVE STUDIES In examining the research on the Dominican Republic, one is struck by the vast diversity of scholarly contributions, especially in the area of country and

100

/

Comparative Politics

comparative studies. Because the Dominican Republic has been a fertile ground for such studies, the description of these works must be approached by recog¬ nizing three distinct categories of analysis. The first category centers around the influence of Howard J. Wiarda on the research on the Dominican Republic over the past twenty years. Up until the mid-1960s the study of the Dominican Republic was limited to a few historical works such as Sumner Welles’s Naboth’s Vineyard: The Do¬ minican Republic, 1844-1924 (1928) and a number of critical biographies of the dictator Rafael Trujillo, including German Omes’s Trujillo: Little Caesar of the Caribbean (1958). With the publication of Howard J. Wiarda’s studies on the changing role of the Catholic Church (1965), civil-military relations (1965), and the emerging labor movement in the Dominican Republic (1966), the quality of research on the Dominican Republic turned the comer into a new age of careful, objective, and specialized analysis. Wiarda followed these shorter studies of interest group activity in the Dominican Republic with his first book-length examination of Dominican politics and society: Dictatorship and Development: The Methods of Control in Trujillo’s Dominican Republic (1968). In this im¬ portant study he applied the totalitarian models of rule developed by Carl Fried¬ rich and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (1956) to describe what many have called Latin America’s most complete dictatorship. Wiarda’s work on groups and Trujillo’s method of rule led to the first real country study of the Dominican Republic—The Dominican Republic: A Nation in Transition (1969)—which examined the full range of Dominican life and made sense of the conflict and controversy that hovered over the country from the death of Trujillo to the departure of the U.S. forces in 1965. This country study was followed by a massive three-volume work, Dictatorship, Development and Disintegration: Politics and Social Change in the Dominican Republic (1975), which explored in great detail the group dynamics and institution building that characterized the Dominican Republic after the fall of Trujillo. It is in this study that Wiarda’s views on applying Western liberal democratic models to Latin America began to take shape. Wiarda’s commitment to explore the Dominican Republic inspired others to develop other broad-based studies of Dominican politics. In this genre is Jan Knippers Black, The Dominican Republic: Politics and Development in an Un¬ sovereign State (1986), who offers a stinging critique of the emerging democratic system and the decline of the ruling Partido Revolucionario Dominicano (PRD) organization. In addition, Howard J. Wiarda and I collaborated on two separate country studies: The Dominican Republic: A Caribbean Crucible (1982), a tra¬ ditional overview of the nation, and The Politics of External Influence in the Dominican Republic (1988), a more specialized book that treats the impact of external forces (aid, investment, debt obligations, world prices for commodities, and strategic interests) on internal political conditions. Both Black’s (1986) study and Kryzanek and Wiarda’s (1988) volume help to focus attention on the eco¬ nomic challenges to democratic stability and the critical governing problems of party fragmentation, corruption, and bureaucratic centralization.

The Dominican Republic

/

101

A second category concerns the number of books that address the issue of the Dominican civil war in 1965 and the subsequent intervention by the United States. Of this subset of country studies, the best work on the civil war was done by academics primarily because these writers sought to examine not just the foreign policy aspects of the incident, but also the social and political un¬ derpinnings of the fighting. Piero Gleijeses’s The Dominican Crisis (1978) stands out as a work that successfully describes the forces in Dominican society that set the stage for the civil unrest. Gleijeses painstakingly examined all the major players in the war and identified their motivations in the conflict. The final category in this section on country studies is the important contri¬ butions of Dominican writers and scholars. Despite the fact that many Domin¬ icans who have analyzed their country seem trapped in the Trujillo era, there are those who have ventured forth into more comprehensive scholarship. The most effective study by a Dominican academic—Frank Moya Pons, Manual de historia dominicana (1977)—explores both the colonial and national periods of development in the Dominican Republic. Former president Juan Bosch has long been recognized as a bold analyst of Dominican political life. His revised edition of Composicion social dominicana: historia e interpretacion (1970) is often dismissed by North American scholars because of its impassioned leftist analysis. Yet Bosch’s analysis seeks to examine honestly the social forces at work in Dominican society and the sources of the heightening polarization that feed unrest. Finally, it is essential to comment on the writings of current president Joaquin Balaguer. In his most controversial political writing, La isla al reves: Haiti y el destino dominicano (1984), Balaguer compares the Dominican Re¬ public with neighboring Haiti, and he strongly suggests that the Dominican people are superior to the Haitians, a position that many observers feel was designed to strengthen his popularity among voters who now fear the rapid influx of Haitians into Dominican territory.

THE ARMED FORCES For most of its history the Dominican Republic has been a country with a pervasive authoritarian tradition; however, the armed forces, the natural imple¬ mented of harsh, dictatorial rule, have not received a great deal of scholarly attention. The 1965 civil war, which created further factions in the military, helped to shed light on the ideological divisions within the armed forces and the attitudes of the officer corps toward social change and foreign intervention. But despite the description of the military mind by the chroniclers of the civil war, a more contemporary analysis of the Dominican armed forces did not appear until G. Pope Atkins produced Arms and Politics in the Dominican Republic (1981). Atkins’s study addressed institutional issues such as military-executive rela¬ tions, conflicts between middle-level officers and the high command, and atti¬ tudes of the military toward critical public policy debates. Atkins also examined

102

/

Comparative Politics

the changing role of the military in the post-Civil War period emphasizing issues such as Balaguer’s constant shifting of his generals to solidify his grip on power, President Antonio Guzman’s efforts at depoliticization of the armed forces, the attitudes of the high command toward the democratic process, and the compe¬ tition between the various branches over budget matters. The relative absence of works on the Dominican military is a serious gap in the political science research on this Caribbean nation.

PARTIES, GROUPS, AND ELECTIONS Since the assassination of Rafael Trujillo, the Dominican Republic has been watched closely to determine whether Western style democracy can survive in a largely authoritarian climate. The brief experiment in democracy under Juan Bosch was explored in depth by John Bartlow Martin, former ambassador to the Dominican Republic, in Overtaken by Events: The Dominican Crisis from the Fall of Trujillo to the Civil War (1966). President Bosch himself dissected his nine-month presidency in The Unfinished Experiment: Democracy in the Do¬ minican Republic (1964). In two major articles done in the 1970s, I tried to explore the dangers of democratic opposition and the difficulties of maintaining a viable democratic form of government in the Dominican Republic: “Diversion, Subversion and Repression: The Strategies of Anti-Regime Politics in Balaguer’s Dominican Republic” (1977) and “Political Party Decline and the future of Liberal Democracy: The PRD in Dominican Politics” (1977). The critical election of 1978, when Balaguer faced a unified opposition led by the moderate Antonio Guzman, renewed interest in the democratic process in the Dominican Republic. Michael J. Kryzanek’s “The 1978 Election in the Dominican Republic: Opposition Politics, Intervention and the Carter Admin¬ istration” (1979) examines the roadblocks to democracy in the Dominican Re¬ public and the role of the United States in advancing democracy, especially the “passive intervention” of the Carter administration as it pressured then president Balaguer to respect the choice of the Dominican people or face a severing of U.S. aid ties. The recent text by Kryzanek and Wiarda (1988) updates the political struggles in the Dominican Republic and provides a comprehensive analysis of the various groups in the political system along with an evaluation of the appli¬ cability of the Western liberal model of democracy to modem day Dominican politics.

ECONOMIC ISSUES The relationship between the Dominican political system and the economic structure is a virtually unexplored area of research. Unlike most Latin American countries, there is no major work that addresses the issues of the Dominican political economy and the financial underpinnings of public policy. The study of the Dominican economy and its effect on political and public policy has been

The Dominican Republic

/

103

undertaken in large part by international institutions such as the Interamerican Development Bank and the World Bank. Yearly reports and monographs by these institutions present the current problems and future challenges for the Dominican economy. Almost all of these publications concentrate on the Do¬ minican sugar economy and the need to diversify the employment and revenue base. Not surprisingly, studies done by Dominicans and other Latin Americans on the political economy accent the effects of dependent trade and aid and investment relations with the United States, especially the yearly sugar quota, protectionist trade barriers, and the role of major multinational corporations such as Gulf and Western. One of the few examples of such research is Ruben Berrios Martinez’s “Dependent Capitalism and the Prospects for Democracy in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic,’’ in Paget Henry and Carl Stone, eds., The New Ca¬ ribbean: Decolonization, Democracy, and Development (1983), which employs a dependency model to critique the development process in both the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico.

LEADERS AND LEADERSHIP Since the formation of Dominican governing institutions was often limited by power-hungry caudillos interested in centralizing control, the Dominican Re¬ public became a nation that was forced to rely heavily on one-man rule. Although the thirty-year legacy of Trujillo comes to mind as proof of this reliance on personalism, even today, when democracy is more firmly established than at any other time in the country’s history, the Dominican attraction to its leaders rather than its institutions is critical for understanding the way in which the country works. As a result of the prominence of leaders, either authoritarian or democratic, much of the research on the Dominican Republic has centered on the men who have controlled the reins of power. Robert Crassweller’s Trujillo, the Life and Times of a Caribbean Dictator (1966) stands alone as the most thorough and insightful biography of the long-time Dominican dictator. Martin’s (1966) work on Dominican politics in the 1960s is not only an exploration of the trials and tribulations of Dominican democracy in the post-Trujillo era, but also a brutally honest critique of President Juan Bosch. In Howard J. Wiarda and Michael J. Kryzanek, “Dominican Dictatorship Revisited: The Caudillo Tradition and the Regimes of Trujillo and Balaguer” (1977), the authors compare the tactics and style of Joaquin Balaguer with those of his mentor, Rafael Trujillo. This com¬ parison of the two leaders sought to determine the extent to which the old ways of running the Dominican Republic continued after the demise of Trujillo.

GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS Understanding the structure and process of the Dominican governing system can be gleaned from the number of country studies discussed earlier, but the

104

/

Comparative Politics

most important contributions to the study of Dominican government are those that explore the huge government enterprises—sugar, electricity, and public works—and the issues of official corruption and privatization. In “Spoils in the Caribbean: The Struggle for Merit-Based Civil Service in the Dominican Re¬ public” (1986), Richard Kearney discusses the role of patronage, family con¬ nections, and corruption in the controversy surrounding the efforts of the Guzman administration to develop a merit-based civil service system. Kearney’s study is important because it points up the difficulties faced by governments anxious to make public service more effective and public servants more accountable. In another important study of public policy, Inside Development in Latin America: A Report from the Dominican Republic, Colombia and Brazil (1988), Richard Lang evaluates the Dominican health care system along with other policy programs in Brazil and Colombia. Lang relies heavily on personal interviews of health care professionals and administrators in the Plan Sierra program to give his study a unique perspective. Unfortunately, despite the democratization of Dominican politics, there is little in the way of research on the legislative and judicial branches of government. This is due in large part to the fact that these branches of government are controlled primarily by the president or his party, and most researchers have felt no compulsion to explore institutions that are weak and dependent. Although quite brief and descriptive, Rolando A. Alum, Jr.’s “Dominican Republic,” in George E. Delury, ed., World Encyclopedia of Political Systems & Parties (1987), provides a handy overview of the major governmental institutions and the party system in addition to the key actors who influence Dominican politics.

URBAN ISSUES AND LABOR POLITICS The urban riots of 1984 and 1985 in the Dominican Republic and the periodic labor strikes and demonstrations against government austerity measures would suggest that urban politics and labor organizations provide a prime source of research data and analysis. Yet, despite the almost regular challenges faced by the government from the urban unemployed and the labor movement, research in these areas of national life is quite sparse. During the post-intervention period, when President Balaguer was the recipient of extensive U.S. aid and welcomed multinationals like Gulf and Western, a number of leftist tracts examined urban unrest and the exploitation of workers by American companies. A prime example of such work is Carlos Maria Gutierrez’s The Dominican Republic: Repression and Rebellion (1972), which establishes a link between the treatment of Do¬ minican workers by foreign companies and urban upheavals. The North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA) has also produced a number of studies over the years dealing with multinational labor relations and class conflict. One of their more recent studies, “Dominican Republic: The Launching of Democ¬ racy? (1982), deals with the failure of the Guzman administration to address the pressing social and economic issues of the urban unemployed.

The Dominican Republic

/

105

AGRARIAN ISSUES Although the Dominican Republic remains a largely agricultural nation, its politics are decidedly urban. Nevertheless, a surprising number of studies have been done on the rural areas in terms of sociopolitical organization of the peasants and public policy research on such issues as land reform and rural development. Malcolm T. Walker’s Politics and Power Structure: A Rural Community in the Dominican Republic (1972) and Kenneth Evan Sharpe’s Peasant Politics: Strug¬ gle in a Dominican Village (1977) are both important theoretical and empirical studies which explore the interaction between the political, military, and gov¬ ernment structure and the local peasants. Walker and Sharpe effectively describe the control that landowning elites and the military have in the rural areas of the Dominican Republic. The examination of the Dominican agrarian sector has also been aided by the reports and studies of both public and private aid agencies which have investigated key issues such as land reform, the formation of farm cooperatives, and the impact of agricultural assistance on the overall development process. A fine example of such reporting is Stephen Vetter’s “Portrait of a Peasant Leader: Ramon Aybar” (1984), which provides an overview of rural issues in the 1980s.

THE STATE AND FUTURE OF POLITICAL RESEARCH IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Because the Dominican Republic has been engaged in a struggle to establish a democratic form of government, much of the research into the politics of this Caribbean country is directed toward the areas of institution building, electoral politics, and the effects of socioeconomic imbalances on governmental stability and effectiveness. The natural concern with the process of democratization has created a major gap in the area of public policy and political economy. As mentioned earlier, there has been no systematic study of the relationship between the governing structure and the economy in the Dominican Republic. A study which analyzed the sugar economy, the transition to a major Caribbean assembly center, and the role of trade conditions and policies on the national economy would be welcome in several research circles. Also in need of future research is the issue of Haitian migration to the Do¬ minican Republic and the exodus of Dominicans to the United States. The movement of people in and out of the Dominican Republic will certainly affect the character of politics in the country, especially in the area of race relations. The “darkening’’ of the Dominican populace and the intensifying animosity between the Dominicans and recent Haitian arrivals could further polarize the country and change the nature of political dialogue. Finally, the continued solidification of democracy in the Dominican Republic will undoubtedly attract research directed at the process of choosing the president and the democratic caudillos that dominate Dominican politics. It is unlikely

106

/

Comparative Politics

that major research efforts will be made in the areas of institutional development and group interaction. The Dominican Republic—as an interesting comparative case—still remains a country where political research is driven by elections and personalities, to the detriment of other subjects of investigation.

REFERENCES Alum, Rolando A., Jr. 1987. “Dominican Republic.” In George E. Delury, ed., World Encyclopedia of Political Systems and Parties. 2d ed. New York: Facts on File. Atkins, Pope G. 1981. Arms and Politics in the Dominican Republic. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Balaguer, Joaquin. 1984. La isla al reves: Haiti y el destino dominicano. Santo Domingo, D.R.: n.p. Berrios Martinez, Ruben. 1983. “Dependent Capitalism and the Prospects for Democracy in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic.” In Paget Henry and Carl Stone, eds., The New Caribbean: Decolonization, Democracy, and Development. Phil¬ adelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. Black, Jan Knippers. 1986. The Dominican Republic: Politics and Development in an Unsovereign State. Boston: Allen and Unwin. Bosch, Juan. 1964. The Unfinished Experiment: Democracy in the Dominican Republic. New York: Praeger. -. 1970. Composicion social dominicana, historia e interpretacion. 2d ed., rev. Santo Domingo, D.R.: Editoria Arte y Cine. Crassweller, Robert. 1966. Trujillo, the Life and Times of a Caribbean Dictator. New York: Macmillan. Friedrich, Carl, and Zibigniew K. Brzezinski. 1956. Totalitarian Dictatorship and Au¬ tocracy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Gleijeses, Piero. 1978. The Dominican Crisis. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gutierrez, Carlos Maria. 1972. The Dominican Republic: Repression and Rebellion. Translated by Richard E. Edwards. New York: Monthly Review Press. Kearney, Richard. 1986. “Spoils in the Caribbean: The Struggle for Merit-Based Civil Service in the Dominican Republic.” Public Administration Review 46, no. 2 (March/April): 144-51. Kryzanek, Michael J. 1977. “Diversion, Subversion and Repression: The Strategies of Anti-Regime Politics in Balaguer’s Dominican Republic.” Caribbean Studies 17, nos. 1 and 2 (April-July): 83-105. -. 1977. “Political Party Decline and the Future of Liberal Democracy: The PRD in Dominican Politics.” Journal of Latin American Studies 9 (May): 115-43. . 1979. “The 1978 Election in the Dominican Republic: Opposition Politics, Intervention and the Carter Administration.” Caribbean Studies 19, nos. 1 and 2 (April-July): 51-73. Kryzanek, Michael J., and Howard J. Wiarda. 1988. The Politics of External Influence in the Dominican Republic. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press. Lang, Richard. 1988. Inside Development in Latin America: A Report from the Dominican Republic, Colombia and Brazil. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

The Dominican Republic

/

107

Martin, John Bartlow. 1966. Overtaken by Events: The Dominican Crisis from the Fall of Trujillo to the Civil War. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Moya Pons, Frank. 1977. Manual de historia dominicana. Santiago, D.R.: Universidad Madre y Maestra. North American Congress on Latin America. 1982. “Dominican Republic: The Launching of Democracy?” NACLA Report on the Americas (November-December). Omes, German. 1958. Trujillo: Little Caesar of the Caribbean. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons. Sharpe, Kenneth Evan. 1977. Peasant Politics: Struggle in a Dominican Village. Bal¬ timore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Vetter, Stephen. 1984. “Portrait of a Peasant Leader: Ramon Aybar.” Grassroots De¬ velopment 8, no. 1: 2-11. Walker, Malcolm T. 1972. Politics and Power Structure: A Rural Community in the Dominican Republic. New York: Teachers College Press. Welles, Sumner. 1928. Naboth’s Vineyard: The Dominican Republic, 1844-1924. New York: Pay son and Clark. Wiarda, Howard J. 1965. “The Changing Political Orientation of the Catholic Church in the Dominican Republic.” Journal of Church and State 7 (Spring): 238-54. -. 1965. “The Politics of Civil-Military Relations in the Dominican Republic.” Journal of Inter-American Studies 7 (October): 465-84. -. 1966. “The Development of the Labor Movement in the Dominican Republic.” Inter-American Economic Affairs 20 (Summer): 41-63. -. 1968. Dictatorship and Development: The Methods of Control in Trujillo’s Dominican Republic. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. -. 1969. The Dominican Republic: A Nation in Transition. New York: Praeger. -. 1975. Dictatorship, Development and Disintegration: Politics and Social Change in the Dominican Republic. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Xerox University Microfilms Monograph Series. Wiarda, Howard J., and Michael J. Kryzanek. 1977. “Dominican Dictatorship Revisited: The Caudillo Tradition and the Regimes of Trujillo and Balaguer. ” Revista!Review Interamericana 1 (Fall): 417-35. -. 1982. The Dominican Republic: A Caribbean Crucible. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

VENEZUELA David W. Dent Since the 1950s, political science research on Venezuela has focused largely on the nature of regime transition from recurring authoritarian military dictatorships to the emergence of a democratic reformist system after 1959. The overthrow of the ten-year dictatorship of General Marcos Perez Jimenez in 1958 paved the way toward the creation of a viable democracy that has undergone six peaceful transfers of power and effective competition between government and opposition parties. Ironically, until the late 1970s, this successful political transformation generated little appeal as an area for political science research. For many years Venezuela’s single claim to fame for policymakers and re¬ searchers alike was the country’s petroleum reserves and its role in the formation of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Prior to the energy crisis of the 1970s, scholars tended to ignore Venezuela because of its relatively small size and population compared with Brazil, Argentina, and Mex¬ ico. It lacked a great Indian culture such as those found in Peru, Mexico, or Guatemala; from the perspective of North American and European scholars, Venezuela was a backwater of Latin American history. The interesting political conditions that drew scholars to Chile, Peru, Brazil, Colombia, and Argentina in the 1960s seemed to be absent in Venezuela. Until the emergence of the popular Accion Democratica (AD) president, Carlos Andres Perez (1973-1978, 1988-1993), Venezuela lacked a highly visible and controversial populist leader such as Juan D. Peron or Salvador Allende. Most of the political science research cited in published bibliographies between 1960 and 1980 was written by Ven¬ ezuelans, not by North Americans or Europeans. At the heart of the relatively recent interest in Venezuelan politics is the effort of scholars to understand better its successful transition from a bureaucraticauthoritarian system to what Charles F. Andrain, Political Change in the Third

110

/

Comparative Politics

World (1988), calls a “pluralist reconciliation system.” This current model of political system change is based on three characteristics that facilitate its legit¬ imacy and effectiveness as a Third World variant of democratic rule. First, national integrating institutions such as political parties and functional legislatures serve to unify diverse group interests and strengthen civil values. Second, rec¬ onciliation systems have the capacity to attain a high economic growth rate along with extensive income equality. Economic equality generates more fluid class divisions where social cleavages crosscut each other and political compromises are easier to negotiate. Third, pluralist reconciliation systems are usually but¬ tressed by having few external challenges—war, military invasions, and foreign economic pressures—so that elected political leaders can secure the necessary resources (and legitimacy) needed to reconcile diverse interest-group demands. The economic and political strains produced by the dramatic drop in petroleum prices in the 1980s have failed to reverse the democratic trends that have been in existence since 1959. Venezuela’s model of democratic rule contains a number of features of value to the study of Latin American politics. First, the transformation of the Vene¬ zuelan polity from a bureaucratic-authoritarian to a pluralist reconciliation system offers researchers a challenging case for explaining how democracies develop and sustain themselves in Latin America. Second, Venezuela is one of the few Latin American governments to professionalize its military so that the rules of the political game are played with the military as bystanders rather than the praetorian guards so common in other parts of Latin America. Third, if leadership is one of the key variables to explain the success of the Venezuelan model, then the socialization, recruitment, and replacement of elites is another reason to study the Venezuelan political system. Scholars concerned with the Venezuelan case continue to debate these features of politics and political change while drawing inspiration from other political scientists in their search for paradigms to explain Latin American politics. Space limitations prevent all of the relevant literature from being cited in this chapter. Hence, preference will be given to books and chapters over journal articles and to analyses by political scientists, even though economists, historians, and anthropologists have made important contributions over the past three de¬ cades. A few doctoral dissertations are included where important information can be found only in an unpublished source. Most of the works classified as “revolutionary issues” (party pamphlets, revolutionary ideology and tactics, tracks dealing with violence and change) are omitted because they tend to be mostly polemical, written by ideological partisans of one revolutionary cause or another. The following synthesis of the political science research on Venezuela over the past thirty years is presented in rough order of research attention. That is, the most important topics are presented first; within each category, the lit¬ erature is presented in chronological order beginning with the major works that were published during the decade of the 1960s.

Venezuela

/

111

PARTIES AND ELECTIONS Political parties, elections, and electoral behavior are the most important focus of political research on Venezuela. Although there were a few studies on these subjects during the 1950s, the more systematic research on parties and elections did not get under way until the early 1960s when modernization frameworks began to influence political research. One of the better works on a Latin American political party during this time period is John D. Martz’s Action Democratica: Evolution of a Modern Political Party in Venezuela (1966), which examines the AD in terms of its history, structure, and relationship with other groups and parties. In this seminal work, Martz classified the AD as a “modem” political party because it possessed a programmatic rather than ideological orientation, a permanent rather than a personal party organization, and cross-cutting alliances with other major political actors such as labor, peasants, military, youth, women, and students at several levels of society. However, by the end of the decade, both the AD and Comite de Organization Politica Electoral Independiente (COPEI) became more and more personality centered, a situation that still char¬ acterizes the leadership of these two major political parties. Consequently, Martz’s early appraisal of AD’s modernity is now less appropriate. About the same time, Franklin Tugwell, “The Christian Democrats of Ven¬ ezuela” (1965), provided a historical treatment of the genesis and evolution of the Christian Democratic party. Alberto Domingo Rangel, La revolution de las fantasias (1966), carried out one of the early studies of leftist leaders who bolted from the AD to form parties organized around more revolutionary themes and ideologies. Rangel’s study was followed several years later by Robert Jackson Alexander’s The Communist Party of Venezuela (1969), a critical assessment of the Partido Comunista de Venezuela (PCV) from its founding in 1931 through its failed attempt in the early 1960s to use force to capture power from the AD. Alexander (1969: xx) argues that the strategy and tactics of the PCV—urban terrorism and guerrilla warfare—failed because the AD “offered the people of Venezuela a program of advanced social reform, a nationalist program for the key oil industry, advocacy of rapid economic development, and support of political democracy.” These political events were also instrumental in isolating Fidel Castro and his prescribed strategy for revolution in Latin America. The dearth of literature on parties for the decade of the 1960s begins to change with more extensive and systematic works carried out by both North American and Venezuelan researchers. The number of important works on Venezuelan parties and elections by North American political scientists begins with David J. Myers, Democratic Campaigning in Venezuela: Caldera’s Victory (1973), who provides a solid descriptive and analytical study of the Caldera victory. The same election is studied by Enrique A. Baloyra and John D. Martz, “Dimensions of Campaign Participation: Venezuela, 1973,” in John A. Booth and Mitchell A. Seligson, eds., Political Participation in Latin America (1978), who provide

112

/

Comparative Politics

a valuable theoretical and empirical examination of the determinants of Vene¬ zuelan voting behavior. In contrast to voting studies in the United States, Baloyra and Martz (1978) find that attitudes toward the regime are more significant than socioeconomic status in predicting dimensions of campaign participation. Further evidence of this aspect of Venezuelan voting patterns can be found in David J. Myers and Robert O’Connor, “The Undecided Respondent in Mandatory Voting Settings. A Venezuelan Exploration” (1983). The Venezuelan contribution to this literature is exemplified by Jose Agustfn Silva-Michelena and Heinz Rudolf Sonntag, in El proceso electoral 1978: su perspectiva historico-estructural (1979), who stress the importance of elections and the party system for regime legitimization and transformation and for the reconciliation of conflicting de¬ mands on the regime. The literature on parties and elections over the past decade has flourished, and significant works have been published on virtually all aspects of the party system. Some of the best work on Venezuelan parties has been carried out by David J. Myers and Steve Ellner. In David J. Myers’s “Venezuela’s MAS” (1980), Venezuela’s Movement toward Socialism (MAS) is analyzed in terms of its ability to replace the more traditional Communist party as the most sig¬ nificant political force on the left. This theme is developed further in Steve Ellner’s “The MAS Party in Venezuela” (1986), in which the MAS’s origins, class orientation, ideology, and internal conflicts are discussed along with the struggles within the party’s leadership to forge a more positive image. The more recent problems faced by the MAS relate to the leadership’s effort to increase the legitimacy of the party as a viable alternative to the AD and the COPEI. In a comparative political history, Ellner, Venezuela's Movimiento al Socialismo: From Guerrilla Defeat to Innovative Politics (1989), provides a valuable treat¬ ment of the Venezuelan left emphasizing how the MAS has served as an outlet for mass alienation among the working class and intellectuals. The relationship between leftist parties such as the MAS and the Venezuelan labor movement is treated in Ellner’s Los partidos politicos y su disputa por el control del movimiento sindical en Venezuela, 1936-1948 (1980) and his “Fac¬ tionalism in the Venezuelan Communist Movement: 1939-1948” (1981) Ell¬ ner s work suggests that historical schisms within the Communist movement in Venezuela have contributed to the rise of social democracy and reformist policies within various AD administrations. This theme is also discussed in Ellner’s “Political Party Dynamics in Venezuela and the Outbreak of Guerrilla Warfare” (1980), where moderates accepted the legitimacy of the fledgling democratic system but the insurgent left did not. Venezuela’s two major parties—the AD and the COPEI—have received less continued research attention than the smaller parties on the left, but those studies that have been done are solid contributions to our understanding of party behavior. For example, Donald L. Herman, Christian Democracy in Venezuela (1980) analyzes the history, ideology, and internal structure of the Christian Democratic Party in an effort to explain the success of democratic politics and the ability of the AD and the COPEI to reconcile contending interests while alternating peace-

Venezuela

/

113

fully in power. Herman’s study of the COPEI should be read in conjunction with Ricardo Combellas’s COPEI: ideologia y liderazgo (1985), which is an excellent functional analysis of the COPEI’s ideology, organization, and leadership style. An interesting empirical examination of interparty conflict in the 1970s is found in Ellner’s “Inter-Party Agreement and Rivalry in Venezuela: A Comparative Perspective’’ (1984-1985). Ellner emphasizes the importance of “pressure from below” as much as “decision making from above” as an explanation for the Venezuelan system’s ability to reconcile diverse interests. Venezuelan political scientists have also contributed to the availability of election data and voting behavior studies not available elsewhere in Latin Amer¬ ica. Anyone interested in Venezuelan elections should consult Howard R. Penniman, ed., Venezuela at the Polls: The National Elections of 1978 (1980). Although somewhat dated, Penniman’s excellent analysis provides detailed in¬ formation on the electoral system, the parties, the voting behavior, and the nature of Venezuelan democracy. The importance of this work is corroborated by the observation that the polity is sufficiently institutionalized to withstand a wide range of economic and political problems, a conclusion that is still valid ten years after this study was produced. David J. Myers, in “Urban Voting, Struc¬ tural Cleavages, and Party System Evolution: The Case of Venezuela” (1975), provides a sophisticated empirical study of the ability of structural cleavages to explain variance in urban party voting. On the basis of the Venezuelan experi¬ ence, Myers (1975:147) argues “that a multidimensional paradigm is the most fruitful approach for analyzing relationships among urbanization, urbanism, and political development.” Valuable election data can be found in Roberto Chang Mota’s Sistemas y cifras de las elecciones venezolanas desde 1958 (1980). A rare look at the cost of Venezuelan elections can be found in Juan Carlos Rey, et al., El financiamiento de los partidos politicos y la democracia en Venezuela (1981), which examines the financial, legal, and political features of democratic elections. Part of the reason for the extremely high cost of Venezuelan elections (costs per vote run at least double what they run in the United States) is the incorporation of Madison Avenue advertising techniques designed to sway the voter to one political party or another. A brief treatment of this phenomenon can be found in Gloria Lacava’s “Venezuelan Elections: Madison Avenue Style” (1983), which describes New York media guru David Garth’s unsuccessful campaign for Caldera for the presidency in 1983. A valuable comparative study of party politics and elec¬ tions—Ronald H. McDonald and J. Mark Ruhl, Party Politics and Elections in Latin America (1989)—concludes that Marxist political parties in Latin America have had little success in gaining a share of the national vote or in attracting the support of disgruntled peasants in the campo.

COMPREHENSIVE COUNTRY STUDIES Although there have been only a few country studies of Venezuelan politics, several are model works of scholarship. David Eugene Blank, Politics in Ven-

114

/

Comparative Politics

ezuela (1973), wrote the first of several Latin American country studies in the Little Brown series on political development using a structural-functional con¬ ceptual framework. According to Blank, “Democracy in Venezuela, as well as in the United States, is practiced and maintained essentially by a minority of community leader activists” (p. 273). A country study, written as a textbook by Venezuelans, that should not be overlooked for its scope and insights into political life is Humberto Njaim et al., El sistema politico venezolano (1975). For those who are interested in a systematic compilation of political, social, economic, and military facts, Howard I. Blutstein’s Area Handbook for Vene¬ zuela (1977) provides a nuts-and-bolts handbook designed largely for U.S. mil¬ itary and diplomatic personnel. Luis J. Oropeza’s Tutelary Pluralism: A Critical Approach to Venezuelan Democracy (1983) argues that the Venezuelan democratic system is based on an ideological dualism—pluralism and authoritarianism—which explains the elit¬ ist nature of party politics and policy-making in Venezuela. It is the pragmatic style of Venezuelan elites combined with a consensus-based policy-making pro¬ cess—tutelary pluralism—that provides the means for reconciling this entrenched ideological dualism. David Eugene Blank’s Venezuela: Politics in a Petroleum Republic (1984) seeks to understand Venezuelan democracy through a theoretical framework based on three parallel subsystems: populist democracy, government planning, and praetorianism. According to Blank, it is the ability to balance the interests of power contenders in each of the subsystems that lies at the root of Venezuela’s democratic model. In a more critical assessment of the actual operation of the Venezuelan polity_ Moises Naim and Ramon Pinango, eds., El caso Venezuela: una ilusion de armoma? (1985)—numerous Venezuelan social scientists tackle a wide variety of subjects related to Venezuelan politics over the past several decades. Two elements, namely, the wealth of the Venezuelan state and the obsession with avoiding serious policy conflicts, undergird the relative success of the Venezuelan model. The best country study, an edited textbook, is by John D. Martz and David J. Myers, eds., Venezuela: The Democratic Experience (1986). Using basically a structural-functional framework, the contributors offer an excellent coverage of the essential ingredients of the current democratic reform system.

DEMOCRATIC THEORY AND PRACTICE The success of democratic reform politics over the years is one reason why a significant amount of research attention has been devoted to democratic theory and practice. One of the early studies to address this aspect of Venezuelan politics is Robert Jackson Alexander’s The Venezuelan Democratic Revolution: A Profile of the Regime of Romulo Betancourt (1964), which offers an encyclopedic treat¬ ment of the first three years of the Betancourt administration. Elite accomodation and party organization seem to be key variables in the transition from military authoritarianism to democratic rule. One of the few doctoral dissertations to

Venezuela

/

115

examine the dynamics of democratic development in the 1960s was Jose Agustfn Silva-Michelena s Conflict and Consensus in Venezuela” (1969), a serious effort to tap the roots of the emerging pluralist reconciliation system. Some of the best work on Venezuelan democracy was done in the 1970s while most of the rest of Latin America succumbed to military rule. Daniel H. Levine’s Conflict and Political Change in Venezuela (1973) is one of the early efforts to solve the political puzzle of how Venezuela has been able to overcome a history of intense conflict for most of the twentieth century and then develop strong democratic roots combined with a fairly high level of political legitimacy be¬ ginning in the 1960s. Gumercindo Rodriguez, ‘‘La democracia venezolana y el surgimiento del capitalismo de estado” (1977), argues that state capitalism has fomented political democracy in Venezuela. One of the few joint studies (MITCENDES-UCV) [Centro de Estudios del Desarrollo de la Universidad Central de Venezuela] of Venezuelan politics is by Jose Agustin Silva-Michelena, The Illusion of Democracy in Dependent Nations (1971), a rather pessimistic eval¬ uation of political development using a dependency framework. Another study emphasizing leadership support for the fledgling democractic system is Romulo Betancourt’s Venezuela, Oil and Politics (1979), a personal account of how Venezuelan leaders developed a commitment to democratic principles. Using a sophisticated national survey, Enrique A. Baloyra and John D. Martz, Political Attitudes in Venezuela: Societal Cleavages and Political Opinion (1979), dem¬ onstrate that independent variables such as attitudes toward politics (cynicism vs. criticism) are much more significant than other demographic or political variables. An extension of this important study can be found in Enrique A. Baloyra’s ‘‘Criticism, Cynicism, and Political Evaluation: A Venezuelan Ex¬ ample” (1979), one of the few studies published in the American Political Science Review in the 1970s. Venezuelan scholars with an interest in democratic theory and practice con¬ tributed to the literature on Venezuelan politics with a number of fine studies in the 1980s. One of the best, by Jose Antonio Gil Yepes, The Challenge of Venezuelan Democracy (1981), is a theoretically sophisticated analysis of plu¬ ralist democracy in Venezuela since 1958. A more critical examination of the ‘‘pluralist” aspects of Venezuelan democracy can be found in Oropeza (1983). As the strains of a huge foreign debt and the collapse of the petroleum market began to set in, scholars turned their analysis to the perils of economic policy¬ making and the possibilities of democratic survival. Two excellent studies of the relationship between economic policy-making and democratic reform are doctoral dissertations, one by Diego Abente Brun, ‘‘Economic Policy Making in a Democratic Regime: The Case of Venezuela (Tax Reform, Pluralism, Cor¬ poratism) (1984); the other by Terry Lynn Karl, “The Political Economy of Petrodollars: Oil and Democracy in Venezuela” (1982). The oil and democracy thesis is brought up to date in Karl’s “Petroleum and Political Pacts: The Tran¬ sition to Democracy in Venezuela” (1988). In an excellent piece of political economy research, Karl (1988) seeks to explain regime transition based on

116

/

Comparative Politics

structural determinants (opportunities created by oil) and interelite bargaining (pact making). However, since petroleum has played a unique role in the political transformation of Venezuela, she argues that its value as a model for other countries is very doubtful. Abente Brun, “Politics and Policies: The Limits of the Venezuelan Consociational Regime,” in Donald L. Herman, edDemocracy in Latin America: Colombia and Venezuela (1988), argues that Venezuela’s relatively successful political system is due in large part to the consociational nature of Venezuelan democracy. The paradox of politics and policies in Ven¬ ezuela, according to Abente Brun, is that the consociational regime provides both the strength and weakness of legitimate rule. The consociation character of politics means that decisions will be adopted only after a broad consensus among party elites has emerged, but the nature of the regime also imposes severe limits on the range of policy options available to key players in the political game. The reelection of Carlos Andres Perez confirms the resilient nature of the Venezuelan democratic system. Abente’s review essay, “Venezuelan Democ¬ racy Revisited” (1987), is an excellent synthesis of the recent works dealing with various theoretical efforts to understand Venezuelan democracy in the 1980s. What is interesting about Abente’s review is that he detects a “pervasive reverse ethnocentric bias” in the studies of the nature, potential, and limits of Venezuelan democracy in the 1980s, suggesting that political science research needs to be more precise and more accurate in its judgment of political system performance.

GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS The stability and effectiveness of Venezuela’s pluralist democratic govern¬ ments over the past thirty years have produced a significant amount of literature on public administration and government institutions. It is interesting to note that the return of democratic rule in many parts of Latin America over the past decade has contributed to a renewed interest in government institutions including the relative merits of a parliamentary versus a presidential governmental design. Still, we know far too little about such important governmental institutions as the bureaucracy, the courts and legal system, the congress, and the Venezuelan presidency. One of the early studies on one presidency in the 1960s is by James D. Cochrane, “The Venezuelan Executive: Background Material for a Study of the Leoni Administration” (1967). Planning and reform have received considerable research attention by political scientists both inside and outside Venezuela. The basic dilemmas of government planning—lack of coordination, inaccurate information, ideologically based pol¬ icy choices—are mapped out in M. F. Hassan’s “The Second Four-Year Plan of Venezuela” (1967). Another significant work for understanding the philos¬ ophy, goals, and machinery of reform administration is illustrated in a volume published by Venezuela, Comision de Administration Publica (CAP), Admin-

Venezuela

/

117

istracion para el desarrollo, la reforma administratis a en Venezuela: 1969-1971 (1971). The work of J. Chi-Yi Chen and Ramon Martin Mateo, Aspectos administrativos de la planificacion: el sistema venezolano (1973), provides a de¬ tailed examination of the national planning agency—CORDIPLAN—and other official agencies involved in the planning process. The role of the state in Venezuelan political life, often referred to jocularly as el estado papaito, is examined over a fifty-year period in Allan Randolph Brewer-Carias, “50 anos en la evolucion institucional de Venezuela, 19261976,” in Ramon J. Velasquez, et al., Venezuela moderna, medio siglo de historia, 1926-1976 (1979). This extremely lengthy chapter—over 230 pages— provides an excellent historico-institutional analysis of federalism, decentrali¬ zation, presidentialism, and public administration in addition to a critical dis¬ cussion of several core political problems including the organization of power, the establishment of legitimate authority, and the role of the state in economic development. David W. Dent’s “The Republic of Venezuela,” in George E. Delury, ed., Encyclopedia of Political Systems and Parties (1986), is a brief institutional treatment of the constitutional system and the relevant parties and groups that participate in the political process. Humberto La Roche’s Instituciones constitucionales del estado venezolano (1984) is a useful introduction to the formal characteristics and functions of the Venezuelan government and formal political instutitions. Rene Salgado, “The Politics of the Venezuelan Congress: An Introduction,” in MACLAS, Latin American Essays (1990), examines the interactions between the formal organization (chambers and committees) and legislative parties in order to explain why the congress is not a more active entity in the Venezuelan policy process. The only work to examine the role of congress in Venezuelan foreign policy is by Eva Josko de Gueron, “El congreso y la polftica exterior en Venezuela” (1978). Gueron concludes that congress has a very limited role in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy. Further work promoting the decentralization of public administration and ad¬ ministrative power can be found in Allan Randolph Brewer-Carias and Norma Izquierdo Corser, Estudios sobre la regionalizacion en Venezuela (1977), and Brewer-Carias, Estudios sobre la reforma administratis a (1980). The same ar¬ guments are extended into the 1980s with a systematic critique of Venezuela’s political-administrative structure in the management of crisis and reform in Brewer-Carias, El estado: crisis y reforma (1982). Gene E. Bigler, La politica y el capitalismo de estado en Venezuela (1981), explores the evolution of the decentralization of public administration in the state enterprises and organiza¬ tions—outside of the traditional machinery of central government administra¬ tion—that provide a variety of services throughout the country. One of the few efforts to examine systematically the types of administrative corruption—despite its pervasiveness in Latin American politics—can be found in Judith Ewell, “Administrative Corruption as a Political Issue in Venezuela,” Rocky Mountain Council on Latin American Studies (1977). Of interest in this brief study is how the concern for public sector corruption has shifted over the

118

/

Comparative Politics

years from a serious concern among adeco (members of the Accion Democratica party) politicians to the parties on the left such as the MAS and the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR) which tend to blame administrative corruption on democracy and the capitalist economic system. Some observers of Venezuelan political history, such as Judith Ewell, “The Extradition of Marcos Perez Ji¬ menez, 1959-1963: Practical Precedent for Enforcement of Administrative Hon¬ esty?” (1977), argue that efforts aimed at extraditing overturned presidents (Perez Jimenez was overthrown in 1958 after being in power for ten years) are likely to have little impact on eliminating governmental corruption and dishonesty.

LEADERSHIP AND ELITES The relative absence of charismatic political leaders in the post-war history of Venezuela has served to structure the type of research directed at the political system. The leadership studies that have been carried out over the past thirty years have been directed mostly at the party leaders associated with the founding of the two major parties—the AD and the COPEI—and the transformation of power from a bureaucratic-authoritarian system to one of the most successful pluralist reconciliation systems in Latin America. Systematic studies of Venezuelan elites did not begin until the end of the 1960s. One of the few sophisticated investigations of Venezuelan elites is Frank Bonilla’s The Politics of Change in Venezuela, vol. 2, The Failure of Elites (1970), a joint effort involving political scientists from the Center for Interna¬ tional Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Center for Development Studies at the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas. Lead¬ ership resistance to military rule is examined in Charles D. Ameringer’s “Leo¬ nardo Ruiz Pineda: Leader of the Venezuelan Resistance, 1949-1952” (1979), which describes Pineda’s efforts to create a powerful legacy for the eventual restoration of Venezuelan democracy. The work of Alfredo Tarre Murzi, Lopez Contreras, de la drama a la libertad (1982), examines an earlier period of political history but reaches some of the same conclusions as Ameringer (1979): The political ideology of much of Venezuela’s party leadership helped to set the foundation for the pluralist form of democracy that emerged after the end of the military dictatorship in 1958. Steve Ellner’s study, “Populism in Venezuela, 1935-1948: Betancourt and the Accion Democratica,” in Michael L. Conniff, edLatin American Populism in Comparative Perspective (1982), is an excellent treatment of how one of the founders of the AD subordinated his Communist ideology to a more pragmatic betancourdsmo grounded in nationalism, a mul¬ ticlass party system, and a commitment to electoral expansion. Good political biographies are rare in the study of Latin American politics, but Robert Jackson Alexander’s Romulo Betancourt and the Transformation of Venezuela (1982) yields a rich treatment of the agents of political socialization—family, schools, party organs, peers, and key events—on the life of the “grand old man” of

Venezuela

/

119

Venezuelan politics as well as the important role of democratic leaders in escaping the era of the Venezuelan caudillos.

URBAN AND LABOR ISSUES Urban issues—barrio politics, urban government, new town planning—studied by political scientists have been subjects of investigation that have received far more attention than labor politics in Venezuela over the past thirty years. One of the few studies of the labor movement in the 1960s was John D. Martz’s “The Growth and Democratization of the Venezuelan Labor Movement” (1963), a historically based study emphasizing organizational statistics and union mem¬ bership. More recent efforts to understand labor politics can be found in Charles L. Davis and Kenneth M. Coleman’s “Labor and the State: Union Incorporation and Working-Class Politicization in Latin America” (1986). Barrio politics has received the bulk of attention by political scientists inter¬ ested in urban issues. One of the most solid studies of this subject was carried out by Talton F. Ray in The Politics of the Barrios of Venezuela (1969), an exhaustive investigation of the behavioral and political aspects of sixteen Ven¬ ezuelan cities and towns. The value of this empirical study, based on three years of work in the barrios, is that it revises the overly ideological versions of Ven¬ ezuelan lower-class political attitudes found in many Venezuelan investigations of the subject. The work of Kenneth L. Karst, “Rights in Land and Housing in an Informal Legal System: The Barrios of Caracas” (1971), provides a useful treatment of how law and property rights are developed de facto in a society whose formal legal system contains few norms. The urban makeup of Venezuela has spawned a number of important studies of urban government, policy-making, and regional planning. Using a case study approach, Mark W. Cannon, R. Scott Fosler, and Robert Witherspoon, Urban Government for Valencia (1973), studies administration and urban decision mak¬ ing dealing with transportation, education, public housing, water/sewage, and planning during a period of rapid change. In a more systematic study—propo¬ sitions are offered for ways of optimizing city planning—Edward Lynch, “Prop¬ ositions for Planning New Towns in Venezuela” (1973), suggests several ways of solving the problems of urban development. In one of the few studies of Caracas, David J. Myers, in “Caracas: The Politics of Intensifying Primacy,” in Wayne A. Cornelius and Robert V. Kemper, eds., Metropolitan Latin Amer¬ ica: The Challenge and the Response {1978), discusses the key problems resulting from the increasing dominance of Caracas relative to the rest of the country. Venezuelan work on urban government can be found in Ana Elvira Araujo Garcia’s Gobierno y administracion de las ar areas metropolitanas: el caso de Caracas (1978) and Luis Torrealba Narvaez’s “La reforma administrativa mu¬ nicipal de Venezuela” (1982). Building on earlier efforts to examine urban and regional planning and development, Jonathan Charles Greenwood, “Regional Planning in Venezuela: Recent Directions” (1984), analyzes the impact and

120

/

Comparative Politics

effectiveness of regional planning policy in light of some of the newly emerging theories of urban change. Although Greenwood is sanguine about the reforms provided by Decreto 478, he finds that interregional disparities are still pro¬ nounced while the population of Caracas continues to increase at a dramatic rate. In his review essay, Daniel H. Levine, “Urbanization, Migrants and Politics in Venezuela” (1975), highlights some of the fragility in Venezuela’s pluralist reconciliation system due to hyperurbanization and migration.

ARMED FORCES The growing professionalization of the Venezuelan armed forces, the absence of military takeovers, and the increasing institutionalization of a pluralist form of democratic rule have contributed to the smaller amount of research attention devoted to the armed forces. Despite the relative paucity of studies on the Venezuelan military, the few investigations that have been carried out over the past thirty years have been quite good. Two works dominate the literature during the decade of the 1960s: P. B. Springer, “Social Sources of Political Behavior of Venezuelan Military Officers: An Exploratory Analysis” (1965), and Philip B. Taylor, Jr., The Venezuelan Golpe de Estado of 1958: The Fall of Marcos Perez Jimenez (1968). Taylor’s study is valuable for its treatment of regime transition and the strategies for depoliticization of the Venezuelan military after ten years of General Marcos Perez Jimenez. Most of the studies of the Venezuelan military were carried out by Venezuelans in the 1970s. The work by Jose Vicente Rangel, et al.,Militares y politico: una polemica inconclusa (1976), provides a number of viewpoints on the political role of the military. For those who want to understand the praetorian mind-set of the military by an active participant in the scheme to overthrow the fledgling constitutional government, Hugo Trejo, La revolucion no ha terminado. ..! (1977), delivers a highly personal document illustrating the ideological outlook that contributes to the overthrow of civilian regimes. For those interested in tracing historical legacies, Angel Ziems, El gomecismo y laformacion del Ejercito Nacional (1972), offers an excellent military history in which the armed forces are given credit for helping to centralize political power and create a common national identity. Winfield J. Burggraff, The Venezuelan Armed Forces in Politics, 1935-1959 (1972), provides a North American view of the armed forces from the fall of Juan Vicente Gomez to the end of military rule in 1958. A more recent treatment of the political and economic forces that produced and sustained the military dictatorship of Marcos Perez Jimenez is Felicitas Lopez Portillo’s El perezjimenismo: genesis de las dictaduras desarrollistas (1986). Using a dependency approach, Lopez Portillo generates interesting insights into the ideology and legitimation strategy that prevailed during Perez Jimenez’s tenyear dictatorship. One of the best studies of the armed forces in the 1980s is Gene E. Bigler’s “Professional Soldiers and Restrained Politics in Venezuela,” in Robert Wesson,

Venezuela

/

121

ed.. New Military Politics in Latin America (1982), which offers several expla¬ nations for the resilience of civilian rule to military intervention. According to Bigler’s assessment, elite accommodation and the legitimization of democratic rules across a broad spectrum of the population help to explain the success of constitutional rule in Venezuela. Eduardo C. Schaposnik, an Argentine exile living in Venezuela, undertakes a comparative study of civil-military relations in La democratizacion de las Fuerzas Armadas Venezolanas (1988), an excellent treatment of the rules that have governed civil-military relations in Venezuela since 1959. In Schaposnik’s view, civilian supremacy over the military is the result of destroying antiparty sentiments within the army and the antimilitary sentiment among civilians (1988: 380). The gradual emergence of an “expanding-sum game” after the overthrow of Perez Jimenez is analyzed in Felipe Aguero’s “The Military and Democracy in Venezuela” in Louis W. Goodman, Johanna S. R. Mendelson, and Juan Rial, eds., The Military and Democracy: The Future of Civil-Military Relations in Latin America (1990). According to Aguero, Venezuela’s model of civil-military relations rests to a great extent on the absence of zero-sum conditions which have led to a deterioration of civilmilitary relations and the use of the modernized military to defend democratic institutions from guerrilla attacks (supported from outside Venezuela) of both the right and the left.

ECONOMIC ISSUES AND POLICIES More research on economic issues has been done on Venezuela than on any other Latin American country. Part of this focus stems from Venezuela’s mem¬ bership in OPEC, the number of multinationals operating in Venezuela, and the dominant role of state enterprises in economic development. For those interested in understanding this area of research, a good starting point is Juan Pablo Perez Alfonso’s Petroleo: jugo de la tierra (1961), which offers some interesting insights on petroleum policy. Studies of economic policy-making increased during the 1970s when the Ven¬ ezuelans nationalized their petroleum industry. John D. Martz, “Policy-Making and the Quest for Consensus: Nationalizing Venezuelan Petroleum” (1977), analyzes President Perez’s political strategy and the technical aspects of this relatively successful effort to nationalize a major industry. Another perceptive study is Franklin Tugwell’s “Petroleum Policy in Venezuela: Lessons in the Politics of Dependence Management” (1974), which argues that the way in which this quarrel was resolved worked to the advantage of both Venezuela and the international oil companies. A more historical perspective is provided in Enrique A. Baloyra’s “Oil Policies and Budgets in Venezuela: 1938-1968” (1974), which offers an insightful theoretical analysis of budgets for explaining important policy outcomes. An important case study of business interest group politics can be found in Robert D. Bond, “Business Associations and Interest Politics in Venezuela: The FEDECAMARAS and the Determination of National

122

/

Comparative Politics

Economic Policies” (1975). Rene Salgado’s ‘‘Economic Pressure Groups and Policy Making in Venezuela: The Case of FEDECAMARAS Reconsidered” (1987) questions Bond’s findings in a solid empirical study that concludes that the power of some groups such as FEDECAMARAS is often overstated in the literature on Venezuelan interest groups. Salgado offers several interesting the¬ oretical propositions to explain the diminished power of private interest groups over such issues as debt and price controls. Jennifer L. McCoy’s “The Politics of Adjustment: Labor and the Venezuelan Debt Crisis” (1986-1987) is a wellcrafted analysis of how the Venezuelan state has managed the debt crisis without alienating crucial bases of support for the regime. McCoy concludes her analysis by arguing that regime type does not influence the capacity to carry out stabi¬ lization programs and that economic austerity measures do not always lead to the collapse of democracy.

AGRARIAN ISSUES AND POLICIES Despite the relatively successful efforts of political parties to grapple with agrarian reform, rural politics has received very little research attention in Ven¬ ezuela compared to other countries such as Peru, Guatemala, and Mexico. Most of the work in this area occurred in the 1960s. For example, George Coutsoumaris’s “Policy Objectives in Latin American Land Reform, with Special Ref¬ erence to Venezuela” (1963) is a useful starting point for understanding land reform politics. The best analysis of the campesino movement from a political and historical perspective is found in John Duncan Powell’s Political Mobili¬ zation of the Venezuelan Peasant (1971), although it is now quite dated. John D. Martz, “Approaches to Agricultural Policy in Venezuela” (1980), examines two approaches to agricultural policy—reformist and technocratic—which he uses to illustrate a rather ineffectual policy engineered by young middle-class political activists with little input from rural campesinos. In Martz’s view, “[T]he failures of the country’s agricultural policy cannot be assuring to other Latin American and Third World societies” (1980:53). William Roseberry’s Coffee and Capitalism in the Venezuelan Andes (1983) is an important politicalanthropological study of the history of a coffee-producing region of the Vene¬ zuelan Andes where the author analyzes the formation and transformation of peasants using a Marxist approach emphasizing social class and mode of pro¬ duction. On the basis of two years of research in this region, Roseberry suggests that the study of anthropological subjects—peasants, tenants, proletarians—be carried out in terms of the uneven process of capitalist development and proletarianization.

CHURCH AND STATE The relationship between religion and politics is one of the least studied subjects by political scientists and others interested in Venezuela. Most scholars

Venezuela

/

123

have been drawn to the political systems where liberation theology and evan¬ gelical intrusions have had a significant impact. The work by Daniel H. Levine, Religion and Politics in Latin America: The Catholic Church in Venezuela and Colombia (1981), is an exceptional comparative study for both its theoretical and methodological sophistication. According to Levine’s data, including inter¬ views with bishops and other church leaders, a distinct synthesis is beginning to take place between contemporary Latin American Catholics and pluralist politics. In Levine’s “From Church and State to Religion and Politics and Back Again” (1987), he argues that the centrality of religious groups in political activities will subside if the consolidation of democracy and civilian rule con¬ tinues during the 1990s.

THE STATE AND FUTURE OF POLITICAL RESEARCH The pattern of political science research on Venezuela over the past thirty years has been conditioned by several important factors. First, Venezuela pro¬ vides a case of regime transition from military authoritarianism to stable civilian democratic rule. This will serve to condition the areas of research into the next decade. Second, until the early 1980s, the cost of living in Venezuela, especially in Caracas, reduced the volume of research attention devoted to political subjects. Third, the lack of a revolutionary political environment and the professionalism of the military has made Venezuela a less interesting case for comparative study. However, as more research attention is devoted to parties, elections, regime transition, and institutional analysis of political power structures, Venezuela is likely to be included in future studies of Latin American politics. The political science research on Venezuela has neglected a variety of im¬ portant subjects that need greater research attention. For example, there is vir¬ tually no systematic research on the role of women in politics, intellectuals, education policy, and the role of the news media. With the exception of a few doctoral dissertations, little has been done in the area of political socialization and political culture and values in Venezuela. More work needs to be done on the Venezuela military since it would seem to provide a useful model of how to professionalize a key institution in a formerly praetorian society. As with other Latin American countries. North American and European po¬ litical scientists need to develop joint research projects using professionals and research institutes that currently exist in Venezuela. The severe financial straits that now exist in Venezuela’s public sector do not augur well for an immediate solution to the funding of multinational collaborative efforts; however, when more prosperous economic conditions return to Venezuela, political scientists should seize the opportunity to develop collaborative projects designed to answer some of the important theoretical and empirical questions in the comparative study of Latin American politics.

124

/

Comparative Politics

REFERENCES Abente Bran, Diego. 1984. “Economic Policy Making in a Democratic Regime: The Case of Venezuela (Tax Reform, Pluralism, Corporatism).’’ Ph.D. diss., Uni¬ versity of New Mexico. -. 1987.“Venezuelan Democracy Revisited.” Latin American Research Review 22, no. 1: 225-40. -. 1988.“Politics and Policies: The Limits of the Venezuelan Consociational Re¬ gime.” In Donald L. Herman, ed., Democracy in Latin America: Colombia and Venezuela. New York: Praeger/Greenwood: 133-54. Aguero, Felipe. 1990. “The Military and Democracy in Venezuela.” In Louis W. Good¬ man, Johanna S. R. Mendelson, and Juan Rial, eds., The Military and Democracy: The Future of Civil-Military Relations in Latin America. Lexington, Mass.: Lex¬ ington Books. Alexander, Robert Jackson. 1964. The Venezuelan Democratic Revolution: A Profile of the Regime of Romulo Betancourt. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. -. 1969. The Communist Party of Venezuela. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press. -. 1982. Romulo Betancourt and the Transformation of Venezuela. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Ameringer, Charles D. 1979. “Leonardo Ruiz Pineda: Leader of the Venezuelan Resis¬ tance, 1949-1952.” Journal of Inter-American Studies 21, no. 2 (May): 209-32. Andrain, Charles F. 1988. Political Change in the Third World. Boston: Unwin, Hyman. Araujo Garcia, Ana Elvira. 1978. Gobierno y administracion de las areas metropolitanas: el caso de Caracas. Caracas: Editorial Juridica Venezolana. Baez, Mauricio. 1981. “From Praetorianism to Civic Order: The Case of Venezuela.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania. Baloyra, Enrique A. 1974. “Oil Policies and Budgets in Venezuela: 1938-1968.” Latin American Research Review 9, no. 2 (Summer): 28-72. -. 1979. “Criticism, Cynicism, and Political Evaluation: A Venezuelan Example.” American Political Science Review 73, no. 4 (December): 987-1002. Baloyra, Enrique A., and John D. Martz. 1978. “Dimensions of Campaign Participation: Venezuela, 1973. In John A. Booth and Mitchell A. Seligson, eds., Political Participation in Latin America. New York: Holmes and Meier. -. 1979. Political Attitudes in Venezuela: Societal Cleavages and Political Opinion. Austin: University of Texas Press. Betancourt, Romulo. 1979. Venezuela, Oil and Politics. Translated by Everett Bauman. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Bigler, Gene E. 1981. La politico y el capitalismo de estado en Venezuela. Madrid, Spain: Editorial Tecnos. -. 1982. “Professional Soldiers and Restrained Politics in Venezuela.” In Robert Wesson, ed., New Military Politics in Latin America. New York: Praeger. Blank, David Eugene. 1973. Politics in Venezuela. Boston: Little, Brown. -. 1984. Venezuela: Politics in a Petroleum Republic. New York: Praeger. Blutstein, Howard I. 1977. Area Handbook for Venezuela. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Venezuela

/

125

Bond, Robert D. 1975. “Business Associations and Interest Politics in Venezuela: The FEDECAMARAS and the Determination of National Economic Policies.” Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University. Bonilla, Frank. 1970. The Politics of Change in Venezuela. Vol. 2: The Failure of Elites. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Brewer-Carfas, Allan Randolph. 1979. “50 anos en la evolution institucional de Ven¬ ezuela, 1926-1976.” In Ramon J. Velasquez, et al., Venezuela moderna, medio siglo de historia, 1926-1976. 2a ed. Caracas: Editorial Ariel. -. 1980. Estudios sobre la reforma administrativa. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela, Ediciones de la Biblioteca. -. 1982. El estado: crisis y reforma. Caracas: Academia de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales. Brewer Carlas, Allan Randolph and Norma Izquierdo Corser. 1977. Estudios sobre la regionalizacion en Venezuela. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela, Edi¬ ciones de la Biblioteca. Burggraff, Winfield J. 1972. The Venezuelan Armed Forces in Politics, 1935-1959. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Cannon, Mark W., R. Scott Fosler, and Robert Witherspoon. 1973. Urban Government for Valencia. New York: Praeger. Chang Mota, Roberto. 1980. Sistemas y cifras de las elecciones venezolanas desde 1958. Caracas: Consejo Supremo Electoral. Chen, J. Chi-Yi, and Ramon Martin Mateo. 1973. Aspectos administrativos de la planificacion: el sistema venezolano. Caracas: Universidad Catolica Andres Bello, Instituto de Investigaciones Economicas y Sociales. Cochrane, James D. 1967. “The Venezuelan Executive: Background Material for a Study of the Leoni Administration.” Caribbean Studies 6, no. 4 (January): 61-73 Combellas, Ricardo. 1985. COPEI: ideologia y liderazgo. Caracas: Editorial Ariel. Coutsoumaris, George. 1963. “Policy Objectives in Latin American Land Reform, with Special Reference to Venezuela.” Inter-American Economic Affairs 16, no. 2 (Autumn): 25-40. Davis, Charles L., and Kenneth M. Coleman. 1986. “Labor and the State: Union In¬ corporation and Working-Class Politicization in Latin America.” Comparative Political Studies 18, no. 4 (January): 395-417. Dent, David W. 1986. “The Republic of Venezuela.” In George E. Delury, ed., En¬ cyclopedia of Political Systems and Parties. 2d ed. New York: Facts on File. Ellner, Steve. 1980. Los partidos politicos y su disputa por el control del movimiento sindical en Venezuela, 1936-1948. Caracas: Universidad Catolica Andres Bello. -. 1980. “Political Party Dynamics in Venezuela and the Outbreak of Guerrilla Warfare.” Inter-American Economic Affairs 34, no. 2 (Autumn): 3-24. -. 1981. “Factionalism in the Venezuelan Communist Movement: 1939-1948.” Science and Society 45, no. 1 (Spring): 52-70. -. 1982. “Populism in Venezuela, 1935-1948: Betancourt and the Action Democratica.” In Michael L. Conniff, ed., Latin American Populism in Comparative Perspective. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. -. 1984-1985. “Inter-party Agreement and Rivalry in Venezuela: A Comparative Perspective.” Studies in Comparative International Development 19, no. 4 (Win¬ ter): 38-66.

126

/

Comparative Politics

-. 1986. “The MAS Party in Venezuela.” Latin American Perspectives 13, no. 2 (Spring): 81-108. -. 1989. Venezuela’s Movimiento al Socialismo: From Guerrilla Defeat to Inno¬ vative Politics. Boulder, Colo.: Westview. Ewell, Judith. 1977. “Administrative Corruption as a Political Issue in Venezuela.” In Rocky Mountain Council on Latin American Studies 25. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. -. 1977. “The Extradition of Marcos Perez Jimenez, 1959-1963: Practical Prec¬ edent for Enforcement of Administrative Honesty?” Journal of Latin American Studies 9 (November): 291-313. Gil Yepes, Jose Antonio. 1981. The Challenge of Venezuelan Democracy. New Bruns¬ wick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Greenwood, Jonathan Charles. 1984. “Regional Planning in Venezuela: Recent Direc¬ tions.” Third World Planning Review 6, no. 3 (August): 239-53. Gueron, Eva Josko de. 1978. “El congreso y la poh'tica exterior en Venezuela.” Politeia 7: 329-442. Hassan, M. F. 1967. “The Second Four-Year Plan of Venezuela.” Journal of InterAmerican Studies 9, no. 2 (April): 296-320. Herman, Donald L. 1980. Christian Democracy in Venezuela. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Karl, Terry Lynn. 1982. “The Political Economy of Petrodollars: Oil and Democracy in Venezuela.” Ph.D. diss., Stanford University. -. 1988. “Petroleum and Political Pacts: The Transition to Democracy in Vene¬ zuela.” Latin American Research Review 22, no. 1: 63-94. Karst, Kenneth L. 1971. “Rights in Land and Housing in an Informal Legal System: The Barrios of Caracas.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 19, no. 3 (Summer): 550-74. Lacava, Gloria. 1983.

Venezuelan Elections: Madison Avenue Style.” North American

Congress on Latin America (NACLA) 17, no. 6 (November/December): 36-39. La Roche, Humberto. 1984. Instituciones constitucionales del estado venezolano. Ma¬ racaibo, Venezuela: Editorial Universitaria LUZ. Levine, Daniel H. 1973. Conflict and Political Change in Venezuela. Princeton. N.J.: Princeton University Press. -. 1975. “Urbanization, Migrants and Politics in Venezuela.” Journal of InterAmerican Studies and World Affairs 17, no. 1 (Winter): 25-53. .1978. “Venezuela since 1958: The Consolidation of Democratic Politics.” In Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, eds., The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Latin America. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. -. 1981. Religion and Politics in Latin America: The Catholic Church in Venezuela and Colombia. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University. Press. . 1987. “From Church and State to Religion and Politics and Back Again.” World Affairs 150, no. 2 (Fall): 93-108. Lopez Portillo, Felfcitas. 1986. El perezjimenismo: genesis de las dictaduras desarrollistas. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. Lynch, Edward. 1973. “Propositions for Planning New Towns in Venezuela.” Journal of Developing Areas 7, no. 4 (July): 549-70. McCoy, Jennifer L. 1986-1987. “The Politics of Adjustment: Labor and the Venezuelan

Venezuela

/

127

Debt Crisis.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 28, no. 4 (Winter): 103-138. -. 1989. ‘‘Labor and the State in a Party-Mediated Democracy: Institutional Change in Venezuela.” Latin American Research Review 24, no. 2: 35-68. McDonald, Ronald H., and J. Mark Ruhl. 1989. Party Politics and Elections in Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Malloy, James M., and Mitchell A. Seligson, eds. 1987. Authoritarians and Democrats: Regime Transition in Latin America. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Martz, John D. 1963. “The Growth and Democratization of the Venezuelan Labor Movement.” Inter-American Economic Affairs 17, no. 2 (Autumn): 3-18. -. 1966. Accion Democratica: Evolution of a Modern Political Party in Venezuela. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. -. 1977. “Policy-Making and the Quest for Consensus: Nationalizing Venezuelan Petroleum.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 19, no. 4 (No¬ vember): 483-508. -. 1980. “Approaches to Agricultural Policy in Venezuela.” Inter-American Eco¬ nomic Affairs 34, no. 3 (Winter): 25-53. Martz, John D., and David J. Myers, eds. 1986. Venezuela: The Democratic Experience. Rev. ed. New York: Praeger. Myers, David J. 1973. Democratic Campaigning in Venezuela: Caldera’s Victory. Ca¬ racas: Fundacion La Salle de Ciencias Naturales, Instituto Caribe de Antropologla y Sociologla. -. 1975. “Urban Voting, Structural Cleavages, and Party System Evolution: The Case of Venezuela.” Comparative Politics 8, no. 1 (October): 119-51. -. 1977. “Policy Making and Capital City Resource Allocation: The Case of Caracas.” In John D. Martz and David J. Myers, eds., Venezuela: The Democratic Experience. New York: Praeger. -. 1978. “Caracas: The Politics of Intensifying Primacy.” In Wayne A. Cornelius and Robert V. Kemper, eds., Metropolitan Latin America: The Challenge and the Response. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. -. 1980. “Venezuela’s MAS.” Problems of Communism 39, no. 5 (September/ October): 16-27. Myers, David J., and Robert O’Connor. 1983. “The Undecided Respondent in Mandatory Voting Settings: A Venezuelan Exploration.” Western Political Quarterly 36, no. 3 (September): 420-33. Naim, Moises, and Ramon Pinango. 1985. El caso Venezuela: una ilusion de armonia. Caracas: Ediciones IESA. Njaim, Humberto, et al. 1975. El sistema politico venezolano. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela, Facultad de Derecho, Instituto de Estudios Politicos. Oropeza, Luis J. 1983. Tutelary Pluralism: A Critical Approach to Venezuelan Democ¬ racy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Penniman, Howard R., ed. 1980. Venezuela at the Polls: The National Elections of 1978. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Perez Alfonso, Juan Pablo. 1961. Petroleo: jugo de la tierra. Caracas: Editorial Arte. Powell, John Duncan. 1971. Political Mobilization of the Venezuelan Peasant. Cam¬ bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

128

/

Comparative Politics

Rangel, Alberto Domingo. 1966. La revolution de las fantasias. Caracas: Ediciones Ofidi. Rangel, Jose Vicente, et al. 1976. Militares y politico: una polemica inconclusa. Caracas: Ediciones Centauro. Ray, Talton F. 1969. The Politics of the Barrios of Venezuela. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rey, Juan Carlos, et al. 1981. Elfinanciamiento de los partidos politicos y la democracia en Venezuela. Caracas: Editorial Ateneo. Rodriguez, Gumercindo. 1977. “La democracia venezolana y el surgimiento del capitalismo de estado.’ Boletln de las Academia de Ciencias Politicos y Sociales 36, no. 69/70 (abril/septiembre): 45-74. Roseberry, William. 1983. Coffee and Capitalism in the Venezuelan Andes. Austin: University of Texas Press. Salgado, Rene. 1987. “Economic Pressure Groups and Policy Making in Venezuela: The Case of FEDECAMARAS Reconsidered.” Latin American Research Review 22, no. 3: 91-121. --—. 1990. “The Politics of the Venezuelan Congress: An Introduction.” MACLAS, Latin American Essays, vol. II. Rutgers, N.J.: Middle Atlantic Council of Latin American Studies and Latin American Studies, Rutgers University. Schaposnik, Eduardo C. 1988. La democratization de las Fuerzas Armadas Venezolanas. Caracas. Fundacion Nacional Gonzalo Barrios, Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales. Silva-Michelena, Jose Agustm. 1969. “Conflict and Consensus in Venezuela.” Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. -. 1971. The Illusion of Democracy in Dependent Nations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Silva-Michelena, Jose Agustm, and Heinz Rudolf Sonntag. 1979. El proceso electoral 1978: su perspectiva historico-estructural. Caracas: Editorial Ateneo. Springer, P. B. 1965. “Social Sources of Political Behavior of Venezuelan Military Officers: An Exploratory Analysis.” Politico 30, no. 2 (junio): 348-55. Tarre Murzi, Alfredo. 1982. Lopez Contreras, de la drama a la libertad. 2a ed. Caracas: Editorial Ateneo. Taylor, Philip B., Jr. 1968. The Venezuelan Golpe de Estado of1958: The Fall of Marcos Perez Jimenez. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Comparative Study of Political Systems. Torrealba Narvaez, Luis. 1982. “La reforma administrativa municipal de Venezuela.” Boletln de la Academia de Ciencias Politicos y Sociales 39, no. 89 (SeptiembreV 89-118. Trejo, Hugo. 1977. La revolution no ha terminado. . .! Valencia, Venezuela: Vadell Hermanos Editores. Tugwell, Franklin. 1965. “The Christian Democrats of Venezuela.” Journal of InterAmerican Studies 7, no. 2 (April): 245-67. -. 1974. “Petroleum Policy in Venezuela: Lessons in the Politics of Dependence Management. Studies in Comparative International Development 9, no. 1 (Spring): 84-120. Venezuela, Comision de Administracion Publica (CAP). 1971. Administration para el

Venezuela

/

129

desarrollo, la reforma administrativa en Venezuela: 1969-1971. Caracas: Com-

ision de Administracion Publica. Ziems, Angel. 1972. El gomecismo y la formacion del Ejercito Nacional. Caracas: Editorial Ateneo.

7 COLOMBIA Robert E. Biles

During the last three decades, research on Colombia has covered the range of political science concerns, but it has focused particularly on two key problems: the cause and cure of the nation’s chronic violence and revolution and the nature and consequences of the pervasive political party system. The period of La Violencia beginning in the late 1940s still holds a great fascination, although by the mid to late 1980s attention was turning toward the increasing role of the drug traffickers and the Betancur and Barco governments’ attempts to negotiate peace with the leftist guerrillas. The persistence of the traditional two-party system, the attempt to modify the partisan system through the sixteen-year Na¬ tional Front experiment, and the mixture of long-standing democratic institutions with a strong (some say, dominant) elite have produced a great deal of research and speculation. From Spanish colonial days, Colombia has been an intellectual center, one that has produced many able scholars, writers, and journalists and a class of quite literate and competent statesmen such as Alberto Lleras Camargo. The Colombian press has long been relatively free and extensive, and by the 1980s, the nation had become one of Latin America’s leaders in book publishing. In the late 1960s, this intellectual tradition was reflected in a substantial amount of writing about politics. Little, however, would be classified as political science in North America and Europe. Rather, most works on Colombia fall into four somewhat overlapping genres: partisan tracts written by or for politicians in pursuit of office and honor, journalistic accounts of specific campaigns and events, polemics, and analyses in the tradition of the Latin American pens adores. All of these are valuable sources of certain kinds of information, but they lack the contextually conscious, systematic, empirically based analysis associated with professional political science research. Hence, only a few of these kinds of

132

/

Comparative Politics

works are included in this chapter. Frequently, partisan tracts provide information on issues, personalities, and self-images of the leading political figures but suffer from bias and exaggeration. Colombian journalists provide a great deal of in¬ formation and many insights, yet their accounts tend to be highly descriptive or impressionistic, and analysis is often simplistic and lacking in historical back¬ ground. Moreover, in Colombia there is a strong tradition of partisanship in the reporting of news. Polemics are of value as primary sources—for the issues, the targets, and the reasoning (or ideology) they bring to light—but, by their emo¬ tional, pseudo-analytical nature, they do not represent objective research. Finally, the tradition of the pensador is one of informed, well-expressed thought on a subject, but it is often not grounded in systematic or empirical research. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, several developments began to change the nature of political research in Colombia. The ascendancy of the behavioral school in political science began to push North America comparativists to be more empirical, systematic, and theory based. Colombian scholars trained in North America and Europe in both sociology and political science began to reflect some of the same concerns. Latin American studies also became more compet¬ itive, which improved the quality of work. Finally, there was growth in the study of political science as such in Colombia. Even today, political science is taught primarily as political philosophy and is a minor part of law school programs. However, in 1963 the Universidad de los Andes in Bogota began a program in modem political science, which achieved department status and authorization to offer degrees in 1968. Although modem political science has been taught else¬ where since the 1960s, this department, its graduates, and its former faculty remain the most prolific single source of political science research in the country. Other major sources of research include the Universidad Nacional, Universidad Javeriana, Universidad del Valle, Fundacion para la Educacion Superior y el Desarrollo (FEDESARROLLO), Centro de Investigation y Educacion Popular (CINEP), and Fundacion Friedrich Ebert de Colombia (FESCOL). Although a few quality works were published in the 1950s and 1960s, it was not until the 1970s that rigorous empirical studies by Colombians and North Americans began to appear more commonly. Over time, the methods, theoretical perspectives, and subjects of political science research in Colombia have become more diverse, reflecting the range found in the general field of comparative politics. The purpose of this chapter is to synthesize the political science research on Colombia over the past thirty years. Discussion is organized around the major topics of investigation discussed in the introduction, presented in order of research attention (see Appendix B) since 1960. In selecting items for inclusion, pref¬ erence is given to books and chapters in edited volumes, accessible articles in professional journals, and representative pieces drawn from the Handbook of Latin American Studies during this time period. Preference is also given to works by political scientists, although sociologists, historians, economists, anthropol-

Colombia

/

133

ogists, and geographers have all contributed to our knowledge of Colombian politics. Works in both English and Spanish are included.

REVOLUTION AND VIOLENCE Modem Colombia has been marked by an exceptionally high level of internal violence: the largely rural La Violencia between followers of the two traditional parties in the late 1940s and 1950s, the subsequent revolutionary and now para¬ military violence, a large number of street criminals, and, intensifying in the 1980s, conflict with the powerful drug cartels. Horacio Gomez Aristizabal, a leading penologist and judge, argued in Teoria gorgona: causation de la vi¬ olencia y estructuracion de un sistema para erradicarla (1962), as would many subsequent writers, that La Violencia was produced not only by social and economic conditions but also by the failure of political institutions. He specif¬ ically mentioned the courts, prisons, and armed forces. Richard S. Weinert contended in “Violence in Pre-Modem Societies: Rural Colombia” (1966) that La Violencia was initially a response by the Laureano Gomez—led Conservatives to the Liberal party’s commitment to modernization. In his Subversion and Social Change in Colombia (1969), Colombian sociologist Orlando Fals Borda used a dialectical method to provide a sociohistorical analysis of antiestablishment movements in Colombia which highlights the difficulties of change. In a quan¬ titative study, John A. Booth, “Comparing Political Violence in Colombia and Guatemala,” in John A. Booth and Mitchell A. Seligson, eds., Politics and the Poor (1978), found that parity—both between the two parties and between reformers and counterrevolutionaries—proved to be the strongest predictor of violence. In 1980, Paul H. Oquist, Violence, Conflict, and Politics in Colombia, did a structural analysis of La Violencia, arguing that it was a product of conflict between the two parties as they sought to erect nonpluralist, political party hegemonies. He also found that intense intraelite conflict led to a partial collapse of the state. Finally, in his highly acclaimed When Colombia Bled: A History of the Violence in Tolima (1985), James D. Henderson provided a narrative historical study of the Department of Tolima as a case study of political violence and its explanation. Henderson concluded that La Violencia was a conservatizing force and provided a mortal blow to uncritical party allegiance. Clearly, there remains an intense interest and growing methodological sophistication in the study of Colombian conflict and the politics of the period in which it took place.

The Peace Process In the 1980s, the attempts of the Betancur and Barco governments to use reform and negotiation to end the leftist insurgency caught the attention of both foreign and Colombian scholars. The entry of former guerrillas into legal status produced a spate of biographies and works based on interviews. One of the best

134

/

Comparative Politics

of the latter is Arturo Alape’s La paz, la violencia: testigos de exception (1985). Perhaps the most comprehensive account of events from the 1970s through 1985 is Alfredo Vasquez Carrizosa’s Betancury la crisis national (1986). The former foreign minister argued a common theme, that the crisis was caused by internal factors: excessive concentration of land and income, incapacity of the political system to integrate citizens beyond the boundaries of the traditional parties, and the negative consequences of the limitations on participation by the National Front. Clearly the best analysis of the peace process by a foreigner is Mark W. Chemick’s doctoral dissertation: “Insurgency and Negotiations: Defining the Boundaries of the Political Regime in Colombia” (1989).

The Politics of Drug Trafficking During the 1980s, the impact of drug trafficking and the growing power of drug cartels centered in and around Medellin, Cali, and Bogota became an increasing concern to each succeeding elected government in Colombia. A valu¬ able early study of the causes and consequences of the drug trade is found in Richard B. Craig, “Domestic Implications of Illicit Colombian Drug Production and Trafficking” (1983). He found that antidrug efforts gradually intensified more in response to growing recognition of the negative impact on the nation and the position of the elite than to pressures from the United States. The interest in the drug problem spawned a plethora of sensationalist works; however, careful studies are also emerging. Two of the better students of the issue, Mario Arango Jaramillo and Jorge Child Velez, in their 1985 work, Los condenados de la coca: el manejo politico de la droga, examined narcotics control in Colombia and the United States and, echoing a common Colombian theme, put much of the blame on the United States as the source of demand. Recent studies continue this theme and see the drug problem exacerbating an already difficult situation, for example, adding to the already high level of violence and damaging attempts at agrarian reform and democratic opening. The key studies that address these issues include Alvaro G. Camacho, Droga y sociedad en Colombia (1988); Jaime E. Jaramillo, et al., Colonization, coca, y guerrilla (1989); and Bruce Michael Bagley and Juan G. Tokatlian, La economia politica de narcotrafico entre Col¬ ombia y Estados Unidos (1989). Drawing on extensive personal interviews, Mario Arango Jaramillo’s Impacto del narcotrafico enAntioquia (1988) provides a valuable illustration of the impact of drug investments and their influence in the nation’s major industrial center, Medellin.

PARTIES, GROUPS, ELECTIONS, AND PUBLIC OPINION Political Parties Colombian political life has been dominated by two of the world’s oldest active political parties: liberal and conservative. Led by the nation’s economic elite,

Colombia

/

135

they have continually frustrated the development of viable third parties. As important to the study of Colombia as the party system is, Ronald H. McDonald and J. Mark Ruhl, in Party Politics and Elections in Latin America (1989:77), argue that the party system has not always closely resembled a classic twoparty model. Since the end of the National Front in 1974, Colombian voters have continued to favor one or the other of the two major parties, despite growing alienation and a decline in partisan attachments. Research on political behavior and parties has shown probably the greatest degree of methodological sophistication and considerable theoretical develop¬ ment in Colombia. Works on the political parties commonly fall into three types: partisan tracts with little analysis, dependency polemics with emphasis on North American imperialism and oligarchical domination, and more reasoned scholarly analysis (many also with a dependency focus). Colombian scholars commonly make more use of class, economic control, and elitism, whereas North Americans are more developmentalist and use more bureaucratic, cultural, and political variables. Both show great interest in understanding the nature and consequences of the National Front experience. There is a growing literature on the left; although much is polemical and unscholarly, one useful and detailed study through 1949 by a Soviet-trained historian is Medofilo Medina’s Historia del Partido Comunista de Colombia (1980). Satumino Sepulveda Nino, in Las elites colombianas en crisis: de partidos policlasistas a partidos monoclasistas (1970), provided a sociological analysis

of the development of Colombian parties in the late 1960s which suggested that the vertical, multiclass, and monolithic nature of the parties was giving way to class-based parties. In an empirical study of power in the parties, however, Gabriel Murillo, Israel Rivera, and Patricia Pinzon, Actividades y estructura de poder en los partidos politicos colombianos (1973), found evidence of the oli¬ garchical nature of the parties. They were directed from the top, and significant amounts of personalism prevailed. A description of the structure and operation of the political parties and electoral system is found in Robert E. Biles, “Republic of Colombia’ ’ in George E. Delury, ed., World Encyclopedia of Political Systems and Parties (1987). The attempt of the National Front at controlled democracy and incremental change has fascinated and frustrated observers of Colombian politics. One of the best works on this political experiment, containing chapters by some of the leading Colombianists form the United States and Colombia, is R. Albert Berry, Ronald G. Heilman, and Mauricio Solaun, eds., Politics of Compromise: Co¬ alition Government in Colombia (1980). While the chapters point out a number of failings, they are generally upbeat, and the editors conclude that the Front has largely achieved its goals of institution building and stabilization. Jonathan Hartlyn continued the examination of the origins and achievements of the Na¬ tional Front in The Politics of Coalition Rule in Colombia (1988) with some of the same conclusions—some success, some failures—but with greater emphasis on theory and analysis.

136

/

Comparative Politics

Clientelism An important phenomenon shaping the functioning of the Colombian party system is a pattern frequently referred to as clientelism. In the early 1970s, Steffen W. Schmidt authored several works on clientelism, including his “Bu¬ reaucrats as Modernizing Brokers?: Clientelism in Colombia” (1974), in which he observed a change in the traditional patron-client role. In recent years, a number of scholars, most connected with CINEP or the Universidad Nacional, have begun systematic examinations of clientelism as a key component of Co¬ lombian political life. One group focuses on the role of clientelism during La Violencia, for example, Henderson (1985). Related to this work is Jorge Pablo Osterling’s Democracy in Colombia: Clientelist Politics and Guerrilla Warfare (1989), an examination of the relationship of clientelism to guerrilla warfare. The second group—illustrated by Feman E. Gonzalez’s Clientelismo y administracion publica (1980)—examines the relationship between patron-client net¬ works and various economic, political, and social structures involved in public administration.

Political Behavior and Elections Research on political behavior and elections built a strong foundation in the 1970s with careful descriptive studies, survey research, and analysis of voting returns. The studies were particularly concerned with explaining Colombia’s low voter turnout but also examined other forms of participation, factors affecting voter choice, and political attitudes. Unfortunately, the 1980s saw some slack¬ ening of the effort and little building on the earlier knowledge base. Mario Latorre, a political insider and respected pensador, provided an insightful ex¬ amination of the party conventions, leadership, and campaigns in his Elecciones y partidos politicos en Colombia (1974). Fernando Cepeda Ulloa, one of the founders of modem political science in Colombia, and Claudia Gonzalez de Lecaros, in Comportamiento del voto urbano en Colombia: una aproximacion (1976), provided a perceptive analysis of urban voting behavior in departmental capital cities for the 1958-1974 period. They found shifts in party voting, greater noncaptive voting, and more abstention. Rodrigo Losada Lora, a prolific writer and one of Colombia’s finest political scientists, contributed significantly during this period. In a methodologically sophisticated work, he and Gladys Delgado Lersundy attempted to explain the levels of electoral participation during congres¬ sional elections in the 1958-1976 period. They found low turnout regardless of social characteristics in Las elecciones de mitaca en 1976: participacion electoral y perspectiva historica (1976). However, in Maria Eugenia Alvarez, et al., Democracia sin participacion?: tendencias y caracteristicas en Colombia

(1981)—a study of Colombian attitudes toward democracy and political partic¬ ipation—the authors found that class, education, political activity, and quality of government did affect participation in the Colombian political system. Two

Colombia

/

137

more recent studies of elections by Colombian political scientists—Oscar Del¬ gado, Colombia elige: mitaca/84-perspectiva/86 (1986), and Monica Lanzetta, et al., Colombia en las urnas: iQue paso en 1986? (1987)—provide further insights into Colombian political behavior. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s a significant amount of survey research was conducted in Colombia. The Department of Political Science at the Universidad de los Andes conducted election surveys of Bogota for the 1972, 1974, and 1978 elections; the 1978 study was a panel study: Rodrigo Losada Lora and Gabriel Murillo, Andlisis de las elecciones de 1972 en Bogota (1973). Another excellent regional survey focusing on abstention, a common feature of Colombian politics, is found in Judith Talbot de Campos and Jose F. Martin, El comportamiento electoral en Cali, 1978 (1980). A panel survey of the 1982 presidential election in Bogota—Elsa Gomez Gomez, et al., La eleccion presidencial de 1982 en Bogota: dinamica de la opinion electoral (1982)—supported the findings of the earlier surveys, including the continuing importance of party label over ideology for explaining the Colombian vote. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Rodrigo Losada, Mauricio Solaun, and Eduardo Velez (see, for example, Rod¬ rigo Losada Lora and Eduardo Velez Bustillo, Identificacion y participacion politica en Colombia [1982]), produced a number of sophisticated analyses based on survey research in five regions of Colombia, which among other things replicated the work on political participation by Sidney Verba, Norman H. Nie, and Jae-on Kim, The Modes of Democratic Participation: A Cross National Comparison (1971).

Interest Groups The research on interest groups in Colombia has been highly fragmented—a series of isolated articles focusing on particular areas with no study providing an overall picture of the role and functioning of groups in a political context. The consistent finding of those who have studied interest groups in Colombia is that they do play a significant role in key parts of the political process. The following works are representative of the ongoing debate over the role of interest groups in Colombian politics. A careful description and an analysis of several major interest associations and their links to government are provided in John J. Bailey’s “Pluralist and Corporatist Dimensions of Interest Representation in Colombia, ’ ’ in James F. Malloy, ed., Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America (1977). Bailey found that interest representation in Colombia is more pluralist than corporatist, a finding that surprised a number of analysts. The following year, Bruce Michael Bagley and Fernando Botero Zea—“Organizaciones contemporaneas en Colombia: un estudio de la Asociacion Nacional de Usuarios Campesinas, ANUC’’ (1978)—wrote an excellent essay on the origin, development, and status of the most important peasant interest groups in Co¬ lombia. In the case of ANUC, they found that peasants are so heterogeneous in Colombian society that effective organization is virtually impossible. Several

138

/

Comparative Politics

years later, Miguel Urrutia, Gremios, polttica economica y democracia (1983), found that pressure groups play an important role in Colombian legislative politics despite the fact that many have interpreted them as being impotent.

ELITES AND LEADERS Because of the many volumes of presidential statements, campaign biogra¬ phies, and popular or sensationalist pieces for the nonacademic community, a great deal has been written about Colombian leaders but there has been little se¬ rious political science analysis of power and those who exercise it. One exception is Gary Hoskin’s “Belief Systems of Colombian Political Party Activists” (1979), an empirical study based on interviews with 412 party leaders. Party af¬ filiation was found to be the most powerful predictor of belief systems in this study earned out in the 1970s. (Related findings can be found in the works on congress in the following section on government institutions and public policy.) Much of the research on Colombia assumes a strong elite role, but few have studied Colombian elites directly. The few exceptions would include works by Alvaro Echeverri Uruburu, Andrew Hunter Whiteford, John Walton, and David W. Dent. Echeverri’s Elites y proceso politico en Colombia, 1950-1978 (1986) covers the role of elites in Colombian political life over a twenty-year period, including the National Front. Andrew Whiteford, “Aristocracy, Oligarchy, and Cultural Change in Colombia,” in Arthur J. Field, ed., City and Country in the Third World (1970), argues that an oligarchy existed, at least in the Valle del Cauca region, but it was divided on key political issues such as land reform. Efforts to apply North American models (and methodology) to the study of community power can be found in David W. Dent, “Oligarchy and Power Structure in Urban Colombia: The Case of Cali” (1974) and “Styles of Devel¬ opment in Urban Colombia: A ‘Crucial-Case’ Analysis of Two Cities” (1976), and in John Walton, Elites and Economic Development: Comparative Studies on the Political Economy of Latin American Cities (1977). The works by Dent and Walton both argue that the organization of economic and political power combines with the recruitment and behavior of elites to produce significant effects on economic development at the community level. Walton compared elites in Mexico (Guadalajara and Monterrey) and Colombia (Medellin and Cali); how¬ ever, efforts to study empirically Colombian elites have been made much more difficult in the 1980s by the influence of the cocaine cartels. It is also possible that some North American scholars were hostile to the study of elites, thereby creating a rather large gap in our understanding of Colombian politics. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a great deal was written on the priest turned revolutionary, Padre Camilo Torres. One of the best biographies, which is of particular value for understanding the process of his radicalization and revolu¬ tionary orientation, was written by a close friend, German Guzman Campos, El padre Camilo Torres (1968). Other leaders, such as the martyred populist Jorge Eliecer Gaitan, were also the subject of collected works and biographies during

Colombia

/

139

the 1970s. One of the best on Gaitan, murdered in 1948, is Richard E. Sharpless’s Gaitan of Colombia: A Political Biography (1978), which draws on primary documents from the family and interviews with key individuals who knew the leader.

GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY In spite of the central role of the presidency in Colombian politics, there are relatively few careful studies of this political institution. In El poder presidencial en Colombia: la crisis permanente del derecho constitucional (1986), Alfredo Vasquez Carrizosa provides an excellent constitutional history of the power of the Colombian executive. He documents the tendency to concentrate economic and political power in the hands of a few and questions the permanent use of the state of siege. Many observers have questioned the ability of the Colombian presidency to deal effectively with national problems. For example, Ronald P. Archer and Marc W. Chemick, “El Presidente frente a las instituciones nacionales,” in Patricia Vasquez, ed., La democracia en bianco y negro: Colombia en los ahos 80 (1989), recently noted the failure of the three major institutional reforms initiated by presidents in the last twenty years. The importance of the decentralized agencies comes out in policy and interest group research. Studies of the congress have also been relatively few, although it is a far more important body here than in most other Latin American countries. Observers have not found it to be the primary locus of decision making. Rather its primary function is commonly seen as legitimation of decisions made by the president and parties or distribution of patronage and status. In the early 1970s, a joint study at the University of the Andes produced a number of excellent works, including Francisco Leal Buitrago’s Estudio del comportamiento legislativo en Colombia, vol. 1, Analisis historico de desarrollo politico nacional: 1930-1970 (1973), an interesting structural-functionalist analysis of national legislative be¬ havior since 1930. In several publications, Rodrigo Losada used interview data to analyze congressional attitudes, socialization, and demographic characteris¬ tics. In his Perfil socio-politico tipico del congresista colombiano (1972), he compared legislators to other national elite groups in the 1958-1966 period.

Public Policy Analysis Unfortunately, policy studies are not well developed in Colombian political science, although a number of worthwhile studies of individual policies have been produced over the past thirty years. The following examples indicate the range of studies relevant to political scientists. Works of policy relevance from other disciplines such as economics, health, and education are omitted from this discussion. In an early but impressive work, Antonio J. Posada and Jeanne de Posada, La CVC: un reto al subdesarrollo y al tradicionalismo {1966), provided a detailed

140

/

Comparative Politics

manual and critical evaluation of the Cauca Valley development authority. A decade later, Diego Sandoval Peralta, El manejo electoral de la politico econ¬ omica durante el Frente Nacional (1975), analyzed the handling of the economy by Colombian governments in order to maximize electoral support. Sandoval found some relationship between economic fluctuation and presidential election periods. Richard Hartwig, Roads to Reason: Transportation, Administration, and Rationality in Colombia (1983), applied rationality theory to understanding the Ministry of Public Works, the key agency for Colombian transportation. The work provides insight into the working of Colombian politics and bureaucracy from the 1920s to 1974, the official end of the National Front. Harvey F. Kline, The Coal of El Cerrejon: Dependent Bargaining and Colombian Policy-Making

(1987), applies the literature on dependency and bargaining to explain the gov¬ ernment’s decisions to contract with transnational corporations in order to develop Colombia’s coal resources at El Cerrejon. Finally, Alvaro Tirado Mejia’s De¬ centralization y centralismo en Colombia (1983), raised again the argument for federalism, an issue that has divided Colombians since independence. Tirado Mejia’s account provides a good rendition of the standard arguments for decen¬ tralization of decision making along with documents on constitutional reform going back to the adoption of the 1886 constitution.

COMPREHENSIVE COUNTRY AND COMPARATIVE STUDIES Although there is a substantial number of quality studies of parts of the Colombian political system, there is no current comprehensive study of the nation which pulls together into a whole all the insights gained over the last twenty years. Vernon L. Fluharty’s Dance of the Millions: Military Rule and the Social Revolution in Colombia, 1930-1956 (1958), a historical treatment of the preNational Front period, was one of the first serious political studies undertaken by a North American. Robert H. Dix’s Colombia: The Political Dimensions of Change (1967) broke new ground in the 1960s, and it is still widely considered the best comprehensive treatment of Colombian politics, although it is now somewhat dated by events and the expansion of research knowledge. His briefer 1987 update, The Politics of Colombia, is an excellent work but does not reach the level of the former. James L. Payne’s empirical study, Patterns of Conflict in Colombia (1968), was a highly controversial book at the time it was published because of the negative tone of its findings—Payne argued that status was the primary incentive for Colombian politicians—and because many felt that his conclusions went far beyond the data presented in his book. Harvey F. Kline’s Colombia: Portrait of Unity and Diversity (1983), a brief introduction for the general reader, covers geography, history, society, and politics. The final two works are comparative in orientation and reflect the attempt of Latin Americanists to understand the democratic opening of the 1980s. John A. Peeler, Latin Amer¬ ican Democracies: Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela (1985), analyzed the eco-

Colombia

/

141

nomic and political conditions that explain the development and maintenance of a stable democracy in Colombia with particular emphasis on the concepts of “pacts” established by the dominant parties to maintain legitimacy and stability. Donald L. Herman’s, ed., Democracy in Latin America: Colombia and Vene¬ zuela (1988) is a collection of chapters by leading specialists which portray the state of Colombian and Venezuelan democracy in somewhat sanguine tones, despite severe economic and drug trafficking difficulties. Although they are discussed under other headings, three other works of broad value in this context are Francisco Leal Buitrago’s Estado y politica en Colombia (1984), Haitiyn (1988), and Berry, Heilman, and Solaun (1980).

RELIGION AND POLITICS The question of the proper relationship between church and state has divided Colombians since colonial times. Although the issue is not as pressing today, the church plays a stronger role in Colombia than in much of the rest of Latin America. David E. Mutchler’s The Church as a Political Factor in Latin Amer¬ ica, with Particular Reference to Colombia and Chile (1971) emphasizes the internal disintegration of the church in recent years—in contrast to the thesis advanced by some—and was particularly strong on decision making and internal organization. Daniel H. Levine’s Religion and Politics in Latin America: The Catholic Church in Venezuela and Colombia (1981) takes a more optimistic tack concerning church-state conflict in Colombia. Levine claims that a new synthesis is emerging between religion and politics.

LABOR, STRIKES, AND PAROS CIVICOS Much of the writing about organized labor in Colombia is polemical or pri¬ marily descriptive; however, there are a number of analytical works, many of them historical in orientation. Marco A. Cordoba’s Elementos de sindicalismo (1974) a historical and analytical examination of labor from its beginnings, covers both pragmatic and theoretical interests. Alvaro Delgado, Politica y movimiento obrero, 1970-83 (1984), analyzes both urban and rural labor activities during the 1970s and provides useful economic, attitudinal, and strike data. The potential of the form of general strike known as the paro civico has caught the attention of both reformers and those concerned with order. Pedro Santana’s Desarrollo regional y paros civicos en Colombia (1983) is a critical study of strikes and regional disparities which showed the difficulties of achieving economic de¬ mocracy despite the presence of the mechanisms of pluralist democracy.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS Democracy The juxtaposition of Colombia’s long democratic tradition with a strong elite and great inequality has long intrigued scholars who have attempted to understand

142

/

Comparative Politics

the reality of the political system and to classify it. As part of the focus on regime transition and democratic opening in Latin America, Colombianists in the 1980s were particularly concerned with defining the nature of the nation’s democracy. Three issues received special attention: the longevity or stability of Colombia’s democracy, its resistance to reform, and the effects of the National Front on it. In Alexander W. Wilde’s “Conversations among Gentlemen: Oli¬ garchical Democracy in Colombia” in Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, eds., The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes (1978), the breakdown of democracy in Colombia in 1949 was seen as caused by changes in institutions (the party system) and rules (attitudes toward competition and consent). Surprisingly, Wilde found variables such as class and ideology to be weak in explaining the breakdown of democracy in Colombia in the 1950s. Francisco Leal’s best-seller (1984) is a series of essays on the formation of the nation which argues that bipartisanship is the central column of the contemporary political system. Leal contends that the military plays a more central role in the formation of government policy than is commonly noted. Ricardo Santamarfa and Gabriel Silva Proceso politico en Colombia: del Frente Nacional a la Apertura Democratica (1984), found the political system to be dangerously out of phase with socioeconomic conditions, in part because it displayed little flexibility in absorbing reform.

Dependency One of the first Colombians to use a dependency framework was Rodrigo Parra Sandoval, ed., Dependencia externa y desarrollo politico en Colombia (1970), who criticized North American and European theorists for their failure to account sufficiently for conditions of external dependency which affect Co¬ lombian political institutions and social processes. Unfortunately, much of the early writing on dependency in Colombia reflected more political ideology than careful scholarship. Dependency theory, widely accepted as theoretical ortho¬ doxy by the end of the 1970s, had lost a great deal of its attractiveness as an explanation for Latin American economic and political development by the end of the 1980s. Nevertheless, the debate between dependistas and non-dependistas led to an expansion of theory development and an improvement of scholarship on Colombia and other Latin American political systems.

Political Thought There is a significant number of works on political thought or philosophy, including compilations of the writing and speeches of leaders such as Jorge E. Gaitan and Camilo Torres. Gerardo Molina, a leading leftist scholar and activist, produced a number of works in the last twenty years, including his three-volume Las ideas liber ales en Colombia (1970/1977) and Las ideas socialistas en Col¬ ombia (1987), which contributed to a better understanding of liberalism and socialism within the Colombian context. Unfortunately, there is less systematic

Colombia

/

143

research available on conservative thought; the one exception is the recent work by James D. Henderson, Conservative Thought in Twentieth Century Latin Amer¬ ica: The Ideas of Laureano Gomez (1988). One can glean important political ideas from the works that emphasize the populist orientation of Gaitan, former dictator Rojas Pinilla, and former president Betancur.

THE MILITARY AND POLITICS Historically, the Colombian military has been less inclined to intervene in politics than is the norm elsewhere in Latin America. This pattern is described in J. Mark Ruhl’s Colombia: Armed Forces and Society (1980), a careful study in which the author argues that the absence of the golpe de estado is the result of Colombia’s capable, unified, and legitimate civilian elites. Many authors note, however, that the long period of violence and disorder has produced a more active and direct role for the military in the political process. For example, in El poder militar en Colombia: de la colonia al Frente Nacional (1982), Gonzalo Bermudez Rossi, a retired major and sociologist, sees the bogotazo in 1948, the Cuban Revolution, and the growing guerrilla warfare as increasingly militarizing Colombia. In a similar vein, Gustavo Gallon Giraldo, La republica de las armas: relaciones entre fuerzas armadas y Estado en Colombia, 1960-1980 (1983), argues that the problem is not so much increasing militarization and the possibility of another golpe de estado, but the repressiveness of the state as Colombian democracy has declined. The growth of drug trafficking has increased both the military’s role and the difficulty of doing research on the relation of illicit drugs, guerrilla violence, paramilitary violence, and civil-military relations.

HUMAN RIGHTS, THE PRESS, AND GENDER Over the last decade, human rights has been the subject of a significant amount of writing in Colombia, but it is primarily in the form of reports and debate rather than scholarly analysis. The Colombian press has been relatively free but highly partisan in presenting the news. Reporting on the activities of the drug cartels has become particularly dangerous for the reporters from the major dailies. One of the few works to deal with the relationship between the press and politics is Charles David Collins’s La prensa y el poder politico en Colombia: tres ensayos (1981), which examines the strong association between political power and newspaper ownership in Colombia, including a case study of Cali. There is a growing literature on various roles of women in Colombia, but the work on women in politics is relatively small. From a policy perspective, Mag¬ dalena Leon de Leal’s, ed., La mujer y el desarrollo en Colombia (1977) is particularly valuable for its emphasis on education, health, law, and political participation. Her more recent work, Debate sobre la mujer en America Latina y el Caribe, vol. 1, La realidad colombiana (1982), deals with rural conditions, class, abortion, and participation from a leftist and feminist perspective. In a

144

/

Comparative Politics

comparative study, Robert E. Biles, “Women and Political Participation in Latin America: Urban Uruguay and Colombia” (1983), used survey data to analyze levels and sources of political participation in urban Colombia and Uruguay.

CONCLUSION: THE STATE AND FUTURE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH Trying to evaluate the status of research in Colombia is like trying to decide whether the proverbial glass of water is half full or half empty. On the one hand, given the recent development of political science in Colombia, the meager re¬ search infrastructure, the lack of funds, and the physical problems for many kinds of research, the quantity and quality of research are indeed impressive. In almost all areas, there is at least a foundation of research on which to build, and for many there is a level of considerable sophistication. On the other hand, few of the areas examined have been researched in substantial breadth and depth. The only two exceptions to this generalization are the period of La Violencia and the political experiment from 1958 to 1974 called the National Front. There are too few researchers digging into interesting political questions, and the num¬ bers of scholars seem to be dwindling due to the dangers associated with drug trafficking. Those doing political science research—both foreign and Colom¬ bian—have not spent enough time building on the extant research. The reasons for the lack of research continuity and inadequate attention to theory are often rooted in the nature of political science research in Colombia. First, when there are so many topics of interest that need to be explored, it is tempting to move on rather than being caught in the drudgery of refining and building on past research efforts. Second, book and journal runs are small, and this is combined with slim library collections, where there is little in the way of indexing. Third, university teaching in Colombia is a profession that does not pay enough to avoid a second job, and this leaves little time for serious social science research. Considerable work has also been done on revolution and violence. One would hope that the richness of the findings about the sources and nature of La Violencia would serve as a building block for a better understanding of contemporary guerrilla and paramilitary conflicts. As our understanding of various aspects of conflict and violence increases, an examination of the sources of the high overall level of violence in the country would be of great value. In the area of political behavior, there needs to be more replication and building on initial empirical work. In leadership and elite studies, there needs to be more systematic and empirical examination of elites at the nation level. These are commonly assumed to be of critical importance, but too few studies have developed the evidence and provided details of their actual role. There needs to be more work on all policy-making areas and a pulling together of the individual studies to understand the overall policy process. With respect to country and comparative studies, there is a need for a comprehensive study of Colombian politics that would

Colombia

/

145

integrate much of the work of the last twenty-five years, including more com¬ parative analysis from other Latin American cases. Finally, we know far too little about the normative aspects of democracy in Colombia and the empirical forces that undergird the current political system in the light of increasing political decay. Future scholars may have to wait for more stable and orderly times, but they will find the period from 1960 to 1990 a fertile one for the study of comparative Latin American politics.

REFERENCES Alape, Arturo. 1985. La paz, la violencia: testigos de exception. Bogota: Editorial Planeta. Alvarez, Maria Eugenia, et al. 1981. Democracia sin participation?: tendencias y caracterlsticas en Colombia. Bogota: Departamento de Asesorias e Investigation. Arango Jaramillo, Mario. 1988. Impacto del narcotrafico en Antioquia. Medellin: Edi¬ torial J. M. Arango. Arango Jaramillo, Mario, and Jorge Child Velez. 1985. Los condenados de la coca: el manejo politico de la droga. Medellin: Editorial J. M. Arango. Archer, Ronald P., and Marc W. Chemick. 1989. “El Presidente frente a las instituciones nacionales.” In Patricia Vasquez, ed., La democracia en bianco y negro: Col¬ ombia en los anos 80. Bogota: Editorial UniAndes, Departamento de Ciencia Politica, and CEREC. Bagley, Bruce Michael, and Fernando Botero Zea. 1978. “Organizaciones contemporaneas en Colombia: un estudio de la Asociacion Nacional de Usuarios Campesinas, ANUC.” Estudios Rurales Latinoamericanos 1, no. 1 (enero/abril): 59-95. Bagley, Bruce Michael, and Juan G. Tokatlian. 1989. La economla politica de narcotrafico entre Colombia y Estados Unidos. Bogota: Universidad de los Andes and CEREC. Bailey, John J. 1977. “Pluralist and Corporatist Dimensions of Interest Representation in Colombia.’’ In James F. Malloy, ed., Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Bermudez Rossi, Gonzalo. 1982. El poder militar en Colombia: de la colonia al Frente Nacional. Bogota: Ediciones Expresion. Berry, R. Albert, Ronald G. Heilman, and Mauricio Solaun, eds. 1980. Politics of Compromise: Coalition Government in Colombia. New Brunswick, N.J.: Trans¬ action Books. Biles, Robert E. 1983. “Women and Political Participation in Latin America: Urban Uruguay and Colombia.” Working Papers on Women in International Develop¬ ment, no. 25. East Lansing: Michigan State University. -. 1987. “Republic of Colombia.” In George E. Delury, ed., World Encyclopedia of Political Systems and Parties. 2d ed. vol 1. New York: Facts on File. Booth, John A. 1978. “Comparing Political Violence in Colombia and Guatemala.” In John A. Booth and Mitchell A. Seligson, eds., Political Participation in Latin America, vol. 2, Politics and the Poor. New York: Holmes and Meier. Camacho Alvaro. 1988. Droga y sociedad en Colombia. Bogota: Universidad del Valle and CEREC. Campos, Judith Talbot de, and Jose F. Martin. 1980. El comportamiento electoral en

146

/

Comparative Politics Cali, 1978. Cali, Colombia: Universidad del Valle, CIDSE, and Fundacion Fried¬ rich Naumann.

Cepeda Ulloa, Fernando, and Claudia Gonzalez de Lecaros. 1976. Comportamiento del voto urbano en Colombia: una aproximaciion. Bogota: Universidad de los Andes, Departamento de Ciencia Polltica. Chemick, Mark W. 1989. “Insurgency and Negotiations: Defining the Boundaries of the Political Regime in Colombia.” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University. Collins, Charles David. 1981. La prensa y el poder politico en Colombia: tres ensayos. Cali, Colombia: Universidad del Valle, CIDSE. Cordoba Marco A. 1974. Elementos de sindicalismo. 2d ed. Bogota: Ediciones Tercer Mundo. Craig, Richard B. 1983. “Domestic Implications of Illicit Colombian Drug Production and Trafficking.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 25, no. 3 (August): 325-50. Delgado, Alvaro. 1984. Politicay movimiento obrero, 1970-83. Bogota: Ediciones CEIS. Delgado, Oscar. 1986. Colombia elige: mitaca/84-perspectiva/86. Bogota. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Facultad de Estudios Interdisciplinarios, Programa de Estudios Politicos. Dent, David W. 1974. “Oligarchy and Power Structure in Urban Colombia: The Case of Cali.” Journal of Latin American Studies 6, no. 1 (May): 113-33. -. 1976. “Styles of Development in Urban Colombia: A ‘Crucial-Case’ Analysis of Two Cities.” Comparative Political Studies 9, no. 1 (April): 43-68. Dix, Robert H. 1967. Colombia: The Political Dimensions of Change. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. -. 1987. The Politics of Colombia. New York: Praeger. Echeverri Uruburu, Alvaro. 1986. Elites y proceso politico en Colombia, 1950-1978. Bogota: Fundacion Universitaria Autonoma de Colombia. Fals Borda, Orlando. 1969. Subversion and Social Change in Colombia. Translated by Jacqueline D. Skiles. New York: Columbia University Press. Fluharty, Vernon L. 1958. Dance of the Millions: Military Rule and the Social Revolution in Colombia, 1930-1956. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Gallon Giraldo, Gustavo. 1983. La republica de las armas: relaciones entre fuerzas armadas y Estado en Colombia, 1960-1980. Bogota: CINEP. Gomez Aristizabal, Horacio. 1962. Teoria gorgona: causacion de la violencia y estructuracion de un sistema para erradicarla. Bogota: Editorial Iqueima. Gomez Gomez, Elsa, et al. 1982. La election presidencial de 1982 en Bogota: dinamica de la opinion electoral. Bogota: ANIF, Fondo Editorial. Gonzalez, Feman E. 1980. Clientelismo y administration publica. Bogota: ANIF. Guzman Campos, German. 1968. El padre Camilo Torres. Mexico City: Siglo XXI. Hartlyn, Jonathan. 1988. The Politics of Coalition Rule in Colombia. New York: Cam¬ bridge University Press. Hart wig, Richard. 1983. Roads to Reason: Transportation, Administration, and Ration¬ ality in Colombia. Pittsburgh, Pa. University of Pittsburgh Press. Henderson, James D. 1985. When Colombia Bled: A History of the Violence in Tolima. University: University of Alabama Press. . 1988. Conservative Thought in Twentieth Century Latin America: The Ideas of Laureano Gomez. Athens: Ohio University Center for Latin American Studies.

Colombia

/

147

Herman, Donald L., ed. 1988. Democracy in Latin America: Colombia and Venezuela. New York: Praeger. Hoskin, Gary. 1979. “Belief Systems of Colombian Political Party Activists.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 21, no. 4 (November): 481-504. Jaramillo, Jaime E. et al. 1989. Colonizaclon, coca, y guerrilla. 3rd ed. Bogota: Alianza Editorial Colombiana. Kline, Harvey F. 1983. Colombia: Portrait of Unity and Diversity. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. -. 1987. The Coal of El Cerrejon: Dependent Bargaining and Colombian PolicyMaking. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Lanzetta, Monica, et al. 1987. Colombia en las urnas: Quepaso en 1986? Bogota: Carlos Valencia Editores. Latorre, Mario. 1974. Elecciones y partidos politicos en Colombia. Bogota: Universidad de los Andes, Departmento de Ciencia Polftica. Leal Buitrago, Francisco. 1973. Estudio del comportamiento legislativo en Colombia, vol. 1: Analisis historico de desarrollo politico nacional: 1930-1970. Bogota: Ediciones Tercer Mundo. -. 1984. Estado y politico en Colombia. Bogota: Siglo XXI Editores and CEREC. Leon de Leal, Magdalena, ed. 1977. La mujer y el desarrollo en Colombia. Bogota: ACEP. -. 1982. Debate sobre la mujer en America Latina y el Caribe, vol. 1: La realidad colombiana. Bogota: ACEP. Levine, Daniel H. 1981. Religion and Politics in Latin America: The Catholic Church in Venezuela and Colombia. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Losada Lora, Rodrigo. 1972. Perfil socio-politico tlpico del congresista colombiano. Bogota: Universidad de los Andes, Departamento de Ciencia Polftica. Losada Lora, Rodrigo, and Gladys Delgado Lersundy. 1976. Las elecciones de mitaca en 1976: participacion electoral y perspectiva historica. Bogota: FEDESARROLLO. Losada Lora, Rodrigo, and Gabriel Murillo. 1973. Analisis de las elecciones de 1972 en Bogota. Bogota: Universidad de los Andes, Departamento de Ciencia Polftica. Losada Lora, Rodrigo, and Eduardo Velez Bustillo. 1982. ldentifcacion y participacion politico en Colombia. Bogota: FEDESARROLLO. McDonald, Ronald H., and J. Mark Ruhl. 1989. Party Politics and Elections in Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Medina, Medofilo. 1980. Historia del Partido Comunista de Colombia. Bogota: Centro de Estudios e Investigaciones Sociales. Molina, Gerardo. 1970/1977. Las ideas liberales en Colombia. 3 vols. Bogota: Ediciones Tercer Mundo. -. 1987. Las ideas socialistas en Colombia. Bogota: Ediciones Tercer Mundo. Murillo, Gabriel, Israel Rivera Ortiz, and Patricia Pinzon. 1973. Actividadesy estructura de poder en los partidos politicos colombianos. Bogota: Universidad de los Andes, Departamento de Ciencia Polftica. Mutchler, David E. 1971. The Church as a Political Factor in Latin America, with Particular Reference to Colombia and Chile. New York: Praeger. Oquist, Paul H. 1980. Violence, Conflict, and Politics in Colombia. New York: Academic Press.

148

/

Comparative Politics

Osterling, Jorge Pablo. 1989. Democracy in Colombia: Clientelist Politics and Guerrilla Warfare. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Parra Sandoval, Rodrigo, ed. 1970. Dependencia externa y desarrollo politico en Col¬ ombia. Bogota: Imprenta Nacional. Payne, James L. 1968. Patterns of Conflict in Colombia. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. , Peeler, John A. 1985. Latin American Democracies: Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Posada Antonio J., and Jeanne de Posada. 1966. La CVC: un reto al subdesarrollo y al tradicionalismo. Bogota: Ediciones Tercer Mundo. Ruhl, J. Mark. 1980. Colombia: Armed Forces and Society. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University, Maxwell School. Sandoval Peralta, Diego. 1975. El manejo electoral de la politico economica durante el Frente Nacional. Bogota: Universidad de los Andes, CEDE. Santamarfa, Ricardo, and Gabriel Silva 1984. Proceso politico en Colombia: del Frente Nacional a la Apertura Democratica. Bogota: Fondo Editorial CEREC. Santana Pedro. 1983. Desarrollo regional y paros civicos en Colombia. Bogota: Centro de Investigacion y Educacion Popular. Schmidt, Steffen W. 1974. “Bureaucrats as Modernizing Brokers?: Clientelism in Col¬ ombia.” Comparative Politics 6 (April): 435-50. Sepulveda Nino, Satumino. 1970. Las elites colombianas en crisis: de partidos policlasistas a partidos monoclasistas. n.p. Sharpless, Richard E. 1978. Gaitan of Colombia: A Political Biography. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Tirado Mejia, Alvaro. 1983. Decentralizacion y centralismo en Colombia. Bogota: Ed¬ itorial Oveja Negra and Fundacion Friedrich Naumann. Urrutia, Miguel. 1983. Gremios, politico economica y democracia. Bogota: Fondo Cul¬ tural Cafetero and FEDESARROLLO. Vasquez Camzosa, Alfredo. 1986. Betancur y la crisis nacional. Bogota: Ediciones Aurora. -. 1986. El poder presidencial en Colombia: la crisis permanente del derecho constitucional. 3rd ed. Bogota: Ediciones Suramerica. Verba, Sidney, Norman H. Nie, and Jae-on Kim. 1971. The Modes of Democratic Participation: A Cross National Comparison. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Walton, John. 1977. Elites and Economic Development: Comparative Studies on the Political Economy of Latin American Cities. Institute of Latin American Studies. Austin: University of Texas Press. Weinert, Richard S. 1966. “Violence in Pre-Modem Societies: Rural Colombia.” Amer¬ ican Political Science Review 60 (June): 340-47. Whiteford, Andrew Hunter. 1970. “Aristocracy, Oligarchy, and Cultural Change in Colombia.” In Arthur J. Field, ed., City and Country in the Third World. Cam¬ bridge, Mass.: Schenkman. Wilde, Alexander W. 1978. Conversations among Gentlemen: Oligarchical Democracy in Colombia. In Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, eds., The Breakdown of Dem¬ ocratic Regimes. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

8 ECUADOR David W. Dent Despite the fact that the political history of Ecuador illustrates a number of important political traits for comparative political analysis—contrasting regime types, a weak party system, populist forms of leadership, military authoritari¬ anism, and a boom-and-bust externally dependent economy—Ecuador has re¬ ceived relatively little research attention. More research activity is devoted to its Andean neighbors, Colombia and Peru, where the political puzzles are more interesting and research funds are more readily available. However, over the past decade this pattern has started to change with the deterioration of research conditions owing to drug trafficking, guerrilla violence, and the exodus of schol¬ ars from research centers and universities in the large urban centers. Although Ecuador is still a country where it is difficult to do research, current conditions are showing signs of a marked improvement compared with the dangers of doing certain kinds of political research in Colombia and Peru. Those who have carried out political science research in Ecuador over the past thirty years have been attracted by a number of features of value to the com¬ parative study of Latin American politics. The first is its chronic political in¬ stability driven by recurrent economic crises and the frequent involvement of the nation’s military in barracks revolts and in the replacement of populist political leaders. Many of these post-war economic and political crises are the result of an economy dependent on the export of oil and bananas, a weak constitutional government, and a generally antireformist attitude among the country’s industrialmerchant class. Second, Ecuador has experienced a number of regime types— democratic reform, military authoritarian, populist—conducive to the study of political development and social change. Third, the extremely late industriali¬ zation in Ecuador and the growing role of the state have afforded political

150

/

Comparative Politics

scientists the opportunity to formulate and test a number of propositions related to political and economic development. Most of the post-1960 political science research on Ecuador is focused on populist experiments by national and regional elites and the causes and conse¬ quences of military intervention in politics. Subjects of investigation such as the role of the armed forces, populist political leaders, and political instability based on ideological conflicts encompass most of the political science research on Ecuador. The kind of institutional analysis of politics found in the research on Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, and Costa Rica is almost nonexistent in Ecuador. Other gaps in the political science literature for Ecuador will be discussed in the final section of this chapter. The state of political science research on Ecuador since 1960 will be examined in this chapter focusing on subjects of investigation, the strengths and weaknesses found in the extant literature, contrasting research perspectives found among North American and Latin American scholars, and some future agendas for political science research in the 1990s. Because of space limitations, the literature surveyed in this chapter is not meant to be comprehensive. Preference is given to books and chapters over journal articles and to analyses by political scientists, even though historians and economists have made important contributions to the political science research on Ecuador over the past three decades. Works in both Spanish and English are included as well as the contributions by the few European scholars working in Ecuador. Most of the literature categorized as “revolutionary issues” are omitted from this chapter because of their often impressionistic and polemical form.

COUNTRY AND COMPARATIVE STUDIES Country studies, either in the form of monographs or chapters in edited vol¬ umes, are the most important focus of political science research on Ecuador. While many of these studies attempt to utilize theoretical frameworks in vogue during the various phases of investigation since 1960, their major purpose was to provide a basic understanding of political life in Ecuador. The first postWorld War IJ country study was George I. Blanksten’s Ecuador: Constitutions and Caudillos (1951), a legal-constitutional study of Ecuador emphasizing po¬ litical history, caudillismo, regionalism, and socioeconomic cleavages. Blank¬ sten’s work on Ecuador epitomized the “public law phase” of political science research on Latin America during the decade of the 1950s. Typically, it was heavily laden with ethnocentric observations about the “pathology of democ¬ racy” and offered mostly a descriptive and atheoretical treatment of the country and its governmental system. In a rather simplistic analysis, Blanksten (1951) argues that the symbiotic relationship between caudillos and constitutions ex¬ plains the continuing patterns of militarism, personalism, and political instability so endemic to Ecuador’s political life. North Americans continued to produce country studies on Ecuador, but only

Ecuador

/

151

two appeared between Blanksten’s (1951) study and the surge of interest begin¬ ning with the demise of military rule in 1979. Ecuador was largely ignored in the 1960s as political scientists focused most of their attention on Brazil, Ar¬ gentina, Cuba, and Mexico.1 Jack B. Gabbert’s “Ecuador,” in Ben G. Burnett and Kenneth F. Johnson, eds., Political Forces in Latin America: Dimensions of the Quest for Stability (1968), attempts to assess the chances of achieving political stability and democracy using a “modernization and development” framework but with meager positive results. Gabbert’s (1968:287) conclusion, that “Ecuador seems ripe for a shattering revolution” shows not only the limits of this type of theoretical framework but also how little some North American political scientists understood Ecuador during the 1960s. John D. Martz—the second North American political scientist to begin serious research on Ecuador in the 1960s—produced the first book-length country study on Ecuadorian politics since Blanksten’s (1951) work almost twenty years earlier. Using “modernization theory,” Martz, Ecuador: Conflicting Political Culture and the Quest for Progress (1972), finds the source of Ecuador’s political di¬ lemmas in the fragmentation of political culture—a reflection of the geography, history, and political economy of the country. In “Ecuador: Authoritarianism, Personalism, and Dependency,” a chapter in a popular Latin American politics textbook, Howard J. Wiarda and Harvey F. Kline, edsLatin American Politics and Development (1979), Martz incorporates some of the theoretical insights from the literature on authoritarianism and dependency to explain Ecuadorian politics and to update his earlier work. But, again, it is Ecuador’s political culture and intense regionalism that explain the lack of development and the weak sense of national identity among the citizenry. Martz (1979) concurs with other scholars who have found that Ecuador is not a revolutionary society, despite a political history replete with elements of a revolutionary environment. During the 1970s, Ecuadorian political scientists and sociologists began to publish original works dealing with some of the core concepts related to political science. An important work during this period, one which uses basically a Marxist framework for the study of domination and control, is Agustfn Cueva Davila’s, El proceso de dominacion politico en el Ecuador (1974). This was followed by Osvaldo Hurtado’s El poder politico en el Ecuador (1981), which provided an excellent sociopolitical analysis of power and authority in addition to an insider’s account of the rise and fall of military governments during the 1970s.2 It is worth noting that the vitalization of Ecuadorian social sciences that occurred in the 1980s owed much to the influx of scholars who moved to Ecuador because of the fear of persecution in the Southern Cone countries of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. Two highly regarded country studies on Ecuador appeared in the late 1980s; both incorporated valuable information on petroleum policy and the important relationship between economic development and regime type. David W. Schodt, Ecuador: An Andean Enigma (1987) offers new insights into the relationship between economic development and political change. While cycles of economic

152

/

Comparative Politics

boom and bust—cacao, bananas, and petroleum—have come to dominate the economic history of Ecuador, there has been no corresponding development of a political system capable of confronting some of the most basic problems of Ecuadorian politics. John D. Martz, Politics and Petroleum in Ecuador (1987), uses Ecuador as a case study of the relationship between regime type and public policy between 1972 and 1984. What Martz (1987) finds is that regime type and little impact on foreign policy due to the fact that both types of regimes—military authoritarianism and democratic pluralism—were undermined by certain vul¬ nerabilities connected with international economic conditions: foreign debt, the drastic drop in petroleum revenues, and the reduced capacity of the United States to import goods in the 1980s. There is no doubt that Martz’s research on Ecuador has made a significant contribution to an understanding of one of South America’s least studied political systems.

ARMED FORCES Military juntas have ruled Ecuador on two separate occasions since 1960 (1963-1966 and 1972-1979), and the armed forces remain an important political force which can be expected to intervene in politics when it perceives that “national interests” are endangered. The rumors of a planned golpe de estado if Abdala Bucaram had won the 1988 presidential election suggest that the military remains notably autonomous and capable of intervention on a wide range of contentious issues. At present, the Ecuadorian military’s perception of its role in society is not limited to defending the constitutional order. Most of what has been written about the military and politics in Ecuador has been written by North Americans and reflects an interest in explaining the causes and consequences of the coup d’etat. This stems from the general theoretical interest in this subject in the United States, the long political career of Jose Maria Velasco Ibarra (elected president five times but thrown out by the military four times), and the several military governments since 1963. No useful book-length works on the Ecuadorian military appeared until the end of the 1970s; however, one monograph and a useful journal article were written in the 1960s. Lilo Linke, “Ecuador’s Politics: President Velasco’s Fourth Exit” (1962), documents Velasco’s fourth fall from power in 1961, providing insights into the reasons for the coup d’etat and the problems likely to confront his civilian successor Carlos Arosemena Monroy, who was indeed overthrown two years later. Martin C. Needier, Anatomy of a Coup d’etat: Ecuador 1963 (1964), continued this research with an insightful monograph on the military coup d’etat that deposed Arosemena Monroy in 1963, focusing on both the causes and the consequences of the military takeover. Clearly, the finest piece of research on Ecuador’s armed forces appeared in John Samuel Fitch’s The Military Coup d’etat as a Political Process: Ecuador, 1948-1966 (1977), in which the author develops a theoretical model of the coup

Ecuador

/

153

d’etat and applies a variety of empirical techniques to explain civil-military relations.3 The key finding in Fitch’s excellent study is that the military coup d’etat functions as a means of resolving the periodic crises that stem from weak political institutions, poor social integration, and the pitfalls incurred by an externally dependent economy.4 The value of Fitch’s research on the Ecuadorian military is that he demonstrates that the coup d’etat is more than a symptom of political decay; it also serves as an obstacle to developing sound political insti¬ tutions and greater levels of political legitimacy. The most current work on the Ecuadorian military is John D. Martz’s The Military in Ecuador: Policies and Politics of Authoritarian Rule (1988), which includes some of the major political events of the presidency of Leon Febres Cordero (1984-1988). An important study, which is more difficult to classify according to subjects of investigation, is Catherine M. Conaghan’s Restructuring Domination: Industrialists and the State in Ecuador (1988). Using Ecuador as a centerpiece for comparative analysis, Conaghan (1988: 141) argues, “Whereas bureaucratic-authoritarianism became the response of the Southern Cone bourgeoisie in the aftermath of populism, the Ecuadorian bourgeoisie’s over¬ whelming resistance to reformism had stymied the development of political forces on the left so successfully that democracy could reemerge easily as an acceptable political option for dominant classes.” There are only a few worthwhile studies of the armed forces by Ecuadorians. One of these studies, by Jose Marfa Egas, Ecuador y el gobierno de la junta military (1975), offers a critical analysis of the military government of General Rodriguez Lara from an Ecuadorian perspective. Using the Peruvian model under General Velasco, Egas (1975) concludes that Peru’s model of military populism offers little either for solving the distributive aspects of economic and social development or for building more legitimacy into the political system. Several years later, Augusto Varas and Fernando Bustamante, Fuerzas armadasy politica en Ecuador (1978), attempt to explain the failure of the junta under General Rodriguez Lara, but the analysis falls short in helping to expand our knowledge of the military and public policy in Ecuador. From both comparative and analytic perspectives, the more recent work of Fernando Bustamante, “The Armed Forces of Colombia and Ecuador in Comparative Perspective,” in Augusto Varas, ed., Democracy under Siege: New Military Power in Latin America (1989), is a more successful treatment of the linkages among the armed forces and local political structures and institutions. In general, the problem with the study of the armed forces in Ecuador is that there are simply too few trained political scientists to do the theoretical and empirical work that is necessary, and North American political scientists tend to find the military in other South American systems of greater interest. Nevertheless, the 1990s may be the best time to study the military in countries like Ecuador where some degree of constitutionalism prevails, and leftist guerrilla insurgencies have not reached a point where political order is being seriously threatened.

154

/

Comparative Politics

PARTIES, GROUPS, AND ELECTIONS Political scientists interested in parties, interest groups, and elections have not been drawn to Ecuador for purposes of systematic research over the past thirty years. Until the 1980s, most of the work on parties was descriptive in nature and was done by Ecuadorians, most of whom are not political scientists. Antonio Diaz, “Los partidos politicos del Ecuador” (1963), examined the party system as of 1963 but provided little in the way of comparative data.5 After the return of democracy in 1979, the quality and quantity of the literature on parties began to improve. Two of the important works to appear during the first two years of civilian rule are Nicanor Jacome and Patricio Moncayo’s Partidos politicos y programas de gobierno del Ecuador (1979) and Francisco R. Davila’s “Los partidos politicos tradicionales y el descenso de la oligarquia en el Ecuador” (1981). Jacome and Moncayo (1979) provide a comparative analysis of the origins, tactics, ideology, programs of Ecuador’s eleven major political parties. Davila (1981), in a Marxist analysis of the relationship among the parties, the military, and the landowner oligarchy, argues that the failure of traditional parties to aggregate adequately the demands of the lower classes served to delegitimize the governmental system, thereby opening the door to more revolutionary parties. Two significant studies of parties, electoral behavior, and populism by Ec¬ uadorians—both of whom did their graduate studies in the United States— appeared in the 1980s, far surpassing what was done in the 1960s and 1970s. One of the most comprehensive studies of populist voting behavior in Ecuador (based on extensive field research in Guayaquil) is Amparo Menendez Carrion’s La conquista del voto: de Velasco a Roldos (1986). In this important study, the author argues that lower class voters responded to populist leaders for very rational reasons, such as the prospects of material payoffs, and not because of a candidate’s charisma or populist ideology.6 Rafael Quintero’s El mito del populismo en el Ecuador (1980) has provided a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the origins of the modem Ecuadorian state combined with an impressive assemblage of empirical data to support his major arguments. Quintero’s careful empirical analysis sets a standard for political science research that augurs well for the future of social science in Ecuador. The best study of Ecuador’s party system is by Catherine M. Conaghan, “Party Politics and Democratization in Ecuador,” in James M. Malloy and Mitchell A. Seligson, eds., Authoritarians and Democrats: Regime Transition in Latin Amer¬ ica (1987). Working within the framework of regime transition and redemocra¬ tization, Conaghan (1987) looks at the party system during the period of transition during the first post-military regime (1979-1984) in terms of the government’s ability to deal with three crises—representation, rationality, and mediation_ which, she argues, are pivotal to democratic stability and legitimacy. The ability of the party system to fulfill the reformist aspirations of the new Borja admin¬ istration are explored in Catherine M. Conaghan’s “Ecuador Swings toward Social Democracy” (1989).

Ecuador

/

155

Interest groups have also been neglected in the study of Ecuadorian politics, but Nick D. Mills, Crisis, conflicto, y consenso: Ecuador 1979-1984 (1984), provides an excellent treatment of the problematic relationship between parties and trade unions during the Roldos-Hurtado presidencies. An earlier work which deals exclusively with interest groups and interest group theory was Leslie Brownrigg’s “Interest Groups in Regime Changes in Ecuador” (1974).

ECONOMIC ISSUES Political science research in the field of political economy is a recent phe¬ nomenon in the literature on Ecuador. This is probably the result of numerous factors, but the fact that multinational corporations are few and relatively recent would have to be taken into account. One of the few articles on economic issues before the 1980s was Paciente Vasquez Mendez’s “Dependencia economica y politica del Ecuador” (1975), a Marxist analysis of the causes of Ecuador’s economic and political dependency. This study was followed by Gerhard Drekonja-Komat’s Ecuador hoy (1978), a useful series of essays on political economy in contemporary Ecuador focused on disproving the myths associated with Ecuador as the “banana country.” The research published on economic issues in the 1980s has expanded con¬ siderably from the paucity of research conducted during the 1960s and 1970s. Most of the work has been done by North American and European economists, not by political scientists interested in political economy. Some of the best studies dealing with economic issues in contemporary Ecuador are by David W. Schodt. In addition to Schodt (1987), which includes a wealth of economic data, those interested in economic issues should consult David W. Schodt, “Austerity Pol¬ icies in Ecuador: Christian Democratic and Social Christian Versions of the Gospel,” in Howard Handelman and Werner Baer, eds., Paying the Costs of Austerity in Latin America (1989), and his “Ecuador,” in Abraham F. Lowenthal, ed., Latin America and Caribbean Contemporary Review (1989). For those interested in political economy from a historical perspective, see Linda Alexander Rodriguez’s The Search for Public Policy: Regional Politics and Government Finances in Ecuador, 1830-1940 (1985), which emphasizes both failures of reform and the failure of reformers to understand local traditions when designing and implementing policies of change.

LEADERS: CAUDILLOS AND REFORMERS The political science research on Ecuadorian leaders builds on the characteristic features of politics—regionalism, authoritarianism, and personalism—in a search for clues to the nation’s chaotic political history. Out of this has grown an interest in caudillismo and populism, which tend to dominate the literature over the past three decades. Using a Marxian framework, Agustfn Cueva Davila, The Process of Political

156

/

Comparative Politics

Domination in Ecuador (1982), provides an excellent treatment of the historical roots of caudillismo and populism up through World War II. Despite the fact that Ecuadorian scholars such as Rafael Quintero (1980) criticize Cueva’s treat¬ ment of populism, his chapter on the symbolic and cultural bases of velasquismo is one of the best in the literature on Latin American populism. Covering basically the same time period (1900-1940), Rafael Quintero (1980) argues that Ec¬ uadorian populism—as measured by the events surrounding Velasco Ibarra’s election—was of a different kind from that of other Latin American political systems, and therefore the populist framework was inadequate for understanding politics and political change in early twentieth-century Ecuador. Following the current expressions of regionalism and authoritarianism, John D. Martz, “The Regionalist Expression of Populism: Guayaquil and the CFP, 1948-1960“ (1980), analyzes Guayaquil’s CFP (Concentracion de Fuerzas Populares) and finds a distinct brand of regional populism reflecting the demographic and socioeconomic realities of Ecuador in the 1950s. Research on various types of leaders will no doubt continue into the 1990s, but clearly more systematic analyses of the role of elites and power in Ecuador need to be carried out before we understand fully this dimension of the Ecuadorian political system.

GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS The political science literature on public administration and government in¬ stitutions in Ecuador is extremely sparse. There is virtually no existing research on the judicial branch, and what exists on the executive branch of government is negligible. One of the few studies of congress is by Peter Pyne, “Legislatures and Development: The Case of Ecuador 1960-61“ (1976), in which executive and legislative relations are examined in the early 1960s. A more valuable source, although quite brief, is David W. Schodt’s “Republic of Ecuador,” in George E. Delury, ed., World Encyclopedia of Political Systems and Parties (1987), which includes an excellent treatment of Ecuador’s constitutional system of government, its electoral system and party structure, and other key actors— military, students, and labor groups—in the political process. Clearly, political science research on Ecuador is badly in need of an infusion of institutional analysis.

URBAN ISSUES: LABOR POLITICS AND THE INFORMAL SECTOR Ecuador has not been the beneficiary of scholars interested in urban politics and labor unions as have such other countries as Mexico and Argentina. His¬ torians have been more interested in these subjects, and much of what has been written on labor politics is an offshoot of studies devoted to populism and its policy consequences. Two studies—one by a European, the other by a North American—address some of the problems of urban politics and labor strife: Alan

Ecuador

/

157

Middleton’s “Division and Cohesion of the Working Class: Artisans and Wage Laborers in Ecuador’’ (1982) and Richard J. Moore’s “Urban Problems and Policy Responses for Metropolitan Guayaquil,” in Wayne A. Cornelius and Robert V. Kemper, eds., Metropolitan Latin America: The Challenge and the Response (1978). In Moore’s policy-oriented case study of the problems asso¬ ciated with rapid urbanization, he argues that Guayaquil’s major problem—the incomplete integration of suburbio into city life—is caused by three factors: the lack of coordination of governmental programs, the failure to treat urban prob¬ lems as rooted in sociopolitical conditions, and the reactive rather than creative nature of government response. Despite the paucity of studies devoted to urban issues in Ecuador, particularly during the 1960s and 1970s, Ecuadorians are now beginning to fill this void with carefully crafted work on factory workers and the informal sector. Some of the best work in the 1980s is that of Juan Pablo Perez Safnz: Clase obrera y democracia en Ecuador (1985) and Entre la fabrica y la ciudad (1986). In the later work he documents how factory workers use opportunities in the informal sector of the economy to supplement their income. However, probably the best work on the informal sector in Ecuador is Gilda Farrell’s “Migration temporal y articulation al mercado urbano de trabajo,” in Louis Lefeber, ed., Economi'a politica del Ecuador: campo, region, nacion (1985), which deals with temporary migration and utilization of urban markets for micro-business activities.

AGRARIAN ISSUES It is surprising that there is not more research on agrarian issues by social scientists interested in Ecuador since agriculture is still the mainstay of the economy, employing over one-half of the labor force and contributing over 30 percent of the gross national product. Inequalities in income distribution and land ownership would seem to offer the preconditions for revolutionary politics such as we find in Central America, but Ecuador has yet to reach this stage of conflict. A British scholar, M. R. Redclift, “Agrarian Reform and Peasant Organization in the Guayas Basin, Ecuador” (1976) and Agrarian Reform and Peasant Organization on the Ecuadoroan Coast (1978), examines sharecropping and the establishment of cooperatives in the mid-1970s, but his studies are now rather out of date. A more quantitative analysis, covering a longer time span, is Carlos Luzuriaga and Clarence Zuvekas, Jr.’s, Income Distribution and Rural Poverty in Ecuador: 1950-1979 (1983). Since the early 1980s, politically in¬ formed analyses—at times written by non-Ecuadorians—have begun to appear. A meticulously documented study on agrarian reform was done by an Argentine residing in Ecuador, Osvaldo Barsky, La reforma agraria ecuatoriana (1984), and Andres Guerrero, Haciendas, capital, y lucha de closes andinas (1983), published an excellent Marxist treatment of the agrarian issue. Perhaps the re¬ formist zeal of the current Borja administration will spawn an interest in filling some of the major gaps in the literature dealing with the agrarian question.

158

/

Comparative Politics

CONCLUSION There are many reasons why political science research on Ecuador has lagged behind some of the other Latin American countries. First, the political history of Ecuador has never experienced a nationalist-charismatic leader who has chal¬ lenged the hegemony of the United States. Moreover, Ecuador does not have a very strong network of leftist parties which can challenge effectively the more powerful political forces on the right. Second, Ecuador lacks the research in¬ frastructure to complement the work of North American and British scholars, even though this pattern is beginning to change through the collaborative research taking place at FLACSO (Quito). Third, Ecuador has displayed a brand of conservative politics that has contributed to essentially a nonrevolutionary po¬ litical culture. These three factors contribute to the fascination with populism and authoritarianism and the neglect of other parts of the political process. The relatively small volume of political science research on Ecuador, however, should not conceal the important contributions made by such scholars as Conaghan, Fitch, Martz, Mills, and Schodt from the United States and such Ec¬ uadorian social scientists as Bustamante, Cueva, Egas, Hurtado, Menendez Carrion, and Quintero. There is still a need for more work, collaborative and comparative in nature, particularly in the subject areas dealing with regime transition, electoral politics, and redemocratization. Some scholarly exchange is now taking place between York University (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) and FLACSO in Quito but nowhere near what is being done through joint projects in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. The scholarship that is most deficient on Ecuadorian politics would include such topics of investigation as church-state matters, education policy, the roles of women and intellectuals, politics and the news media,7 electoral politics, political values, and the criminal justice system. There is also a tendency to ignore the military once civilians have returned to power. Contrary to popular belief, now may be the best time to study the Ecuadorian armed forces. In the next decade, North American and European political scientists need to work on developing joint research projects designed to build a more expansive base of political science data. Filling some of the gaps in the current state of research on Ecuador will not come easy given the meager volume of information available in some subject areas. More research is not necessarily better, but political scientists interested in Latin America could contribute to the well-being of both the profession and Ecuador by encouraging more graduate student re¬ search in this Andean nation.

NOTES L The °ne exception to the dearth of research in this area is Georg Maier’s “The Impact of Velasquismo on the Ecuadorian Political System” (1966). 2. Osvaldo Hurtado, elected vice president in 1979, eventually served as president of

Ecuador

/

159

Ecuador from 1981 to 1984 following the tragic death of Jaime Roldos, who died in an airplane crash. 3. For an Ecuadorian study of the armed forces and politics during this period, see Augusto Varas and Fernando Bustamante, Fuerzas armadas y politica en Ecuador(1978). 4. A condensed version of his book-length study appears in a chapter in Abraham F. Lowenthal and J. Samuel Fitch, eds., Armies and Politics in Latin America, rev. ed. (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1986), in which he treats the military coup d’etat as an integral part of the political process, building a general crisis-management process into the political system. 5. Diaz is a Quito-based lawyer and a sociologist who follows the ebb and flow of party politics. 6. Amparo Menendez Carrion is now the head of FLACSO in Quito, a position that should give her an important role in the future development of political science in Ecuador. 7. One of the rare studies of the media in Ecuador, now several decades old, is by Jack M. McLeod, Ramona R. Rush, and Karl H. Friederick, “The Mass Media and Political Information in Quito, Ecuador’’ (1968).

REFERENCES Barsky, Osvaldo. 1984. La reforma agraria ecuatoriana. Quito: Corporacion Editorial Nacional. Blanksten, George I. 1951. Ecuador: Constitutions and Caudillos. Berkeley: University of California Press. Brownrigg, Leslie. 1974. “Interest Groups in Regime Changes in Ecuador.’’ InterAmerican Economic Affairs 28, no. 1 (Summer): 3-18. Bustamante, Fernando. 1989. “The Armed Forces of Colombia and Ecuador in Com¬ parative Perspective.” In Augusto Varas, ed., Democracy under Siege: New Military Power in Latin America. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Conaghan, Catherine M. 1987. “Party Politics and Democratization in Ecuador.” In James M. Malloy and Mitchell A. Seligson, eds., Authoritarians and Democrats: Regime Transition in Latin America. Pittsburgh Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. -. 1988. Restructuring Domination: Industrialists and the State in Ecuador. Pitts¬ burgh Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. -. 1989. “Ecuador Swings toward Social Democracy.” Current History 88, no. 536 (March): 137-141, 154. Cueva Davila, Agustfn. 1982. The Process of Political Domination in Ecuador. Trans. by Danielle Salti. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Davila, Francisco R. 1981. “Los partidos politicos tradicionales y el descenso de la oligarqufa en el Ecuador.” Revista Mexicana de Sociologla 43, no. 3 (julio/ septiembre): 1141-68. Diaz, Antonio. 1963. “Los partidos politicos del Ecuador.” Politica (Noviembre): 105-16. Drekonja-Komat, Gerhard. 1978. Ecuador hoy. Bogota: Siglo Veintiuno Editores. Egas, Jose Marfa. 1975. Ecuador y el gobierno de la junta militar. Buenos Aires: Tierra Nueva. Farrell, Gilda. 1985. “Migration temporal y articulation al mercado urbano de trabajo.” In Louis Lefeber, ed., Economia politica del Ecuador: campo, region, nacidn. Quito: Corporacion Editorial Nacional.

160

/

Comparative Politics

Fitch, John Samuel. 1977. The Military Coup d’etat as a Political Process: Ecuador, 1948-1966. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. -. 1986. “The Military Coup d’etat: The Ecuadorian Case.” In Abraham F. Lowenthal and J. Samuel Fitch, eds., Armies and Politics in Latin America. Rev. ed. New York: Holmes and Meier. Gabbert, Jack B. 1968. “Ecuador.” In Ben G. Burnett and Kenneth F. Johnson, eds., Political Forces in Latin America: Dimensions of the Quest for Stability. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth. Guerrero, Andres. 1983. Haciendas, capital, y lucha de clases andinas. Quito: Editorial El Conejo. Hurtado, Osvaldo. 1981. El poder politico en el Ecuador. 4th ed. Barcelona: ARIEL. Jacome, Nicanor, and Patricio Moncayo. 1979. Partidos politicos y programas de gobierno del Ecuador. Quito?: Cesla. Lefeber, Louis, ed. 1985. Economia politico del Ecuador: campo, region, nacion. Quito: Corporacion Editorial Nacional. Linke, Lilo. 1962. “Ecuador’s Politics: President Velasco’s Fourth Exit.” The World Today 18, no. 2 (February): 57-69. Lowenthal, Abraham F., and J. Samuel Fitch, eds. 1986. Armies and Politics in Latin America. Rev. ed. New York: Holmes and Meier. Luzuriaga, Carlos, and Clarence Zuvekas, Jr. 1983. Income Distribution and Rural Poverty in Ecuador: 1950-1979. Tempe: University of Arizona, Center for Latin American Studies. McLeod, Jack M., Ramona R. Rush, and Karl H. Friederick. 1968-1969. “The Mass Media and Political Information in Quito, Ecuador.” Public Opinion Quarterly 32 (Winter): 575-87. Maier, Georg. 1966. “The Impact of Velasquismo on the Ecuadorian Political System.” Ph.D. diss., University of Florida. Martz, John D. 1964. Anatomy of a Coup d’etat: Ecuador 1963. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Comparative Study of Political Systems. -. 1972. Ecuador: Conflicting Political Culture and the Quest for Progress. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. -. 1979. “Ecuador: Authoritarianism, Personalism, and Dependency.” In Howard J. Wiarda and Harvey F. Kline, eds., Latin American Politics and Development. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. -. 1980. “The Regionalist Expression of Populism: Guayaquil and the CFP, 19481960.” Journal of Inter-American Studies 22, no. 3 (August): 289-314. -. 1987. Politics and Petroleum in Ecuador. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. -. 1988. The Military in Ecuador: Policies and Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, Latin American Institute. Menendez Carrion, Amparo. 1986. La conquista del voto: de Velasco a Roldos. Quito: Corporacion Editorial Nacional. Middleton, Alan. 1982. “Division and Cohesion of the Working Class: Artisans and Wage Laborers in Ecuador.” Journal of Latin American Studies 14, no 1 (May)171-94. Mills, Nick D. 1984. Crisis, conflict y consenso: Ecuador, 1979-1984. Quito: Corpo¬ racion Editorial Nacional. Moore, Richard J. 1978. “Urban Problems and Policy Responses for Metropolitan Guay-

Ecuador

/

161

aquil.” In Wayne A. Cornelius and Robert V. Kemper, eds., Metropolitan Latin America: The Challenge and the Response. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Needier, Martin C. 1964. Anatomy of a Coup d’etat: Ecuador 1963. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Comparative Study of Political Systems. Perez Safnz, Juan Pablo. 1985. Close obrera y democracia en Ecuador. Quito: El Conejo. -. 1986. Entre la fabrica y la ciudad. Quito: El Conejo. Philips, George. 1982. Oil and Politics in Latin America. Cambridge, England: Cam¬ bridge University Press. Pyne, Peter. 1976. “Legislatures and Development: The Case of Ecuador 1960-61.” Comparative Political Studies 9, no. 1 (April): 43-68. Quintero, Rafael. 1980. El mito delpopulismo en el Ecuador: analisis de losfundamentos del estado ecuatoriano moderno, 1895-1934. Quito: FLACSO. Redclift, M. R. 1976. “Agrarian Reform and Peasant Organization in the Guayas Basin, Ecuador.” Inter-American Economic Affairs 30, no. 1 (Summer): 3-27. -. 1978. Agrarian Reform and Peasant Organization on the Ecuadorian Coast. London: Athlone Press. Rodriguez, Linda Alexander. 1985. The Search for Public Policy: Regional Politics and Government Finances in Ecuador, 1830-1940. Berkeley: University of California Press. Schodt, David W. 1987. Ecuador: An Andean Enigma. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. -. 1987. “Republic of Ecuador.” In George E. Delury, ed.. World Encyclopedia of Political Systems and Parties. 2d ed. New York: Facts on File. -. 1989. “Austerity Policies in Ecuador: Christian Democratic and Social Christian Versions of the Gospel.” In Howard Handelman and Werner Baer, eds., Paying the Costs of Austerity in Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. -. 1989. “Ecuador.” In Abraham F. Lowenthal, ed., Latin America and Caribbean Contemporary Record, vol. 6 (1986—1987). New York: Holmes and Meier. Varas, Augusto, and Fernando Bustamante. 1978. Fuerzas armadasy politico en Ecuador. Quito: Universidad Central del Ecuador. Vasquez Mendez, Paciente. 1975. “Dependencia economica y politica del Ecuador.” Anales de la Universidad del Cuenca 31, no. 1/2 (enero/junio): 36-63.

9 PERU David G. Becker

From the middle of the nineteenth century, Peruvian society was dominated by a landed-commercial-financial oligarchy whose power was evidenced by its abil¬ ity to exclude other social sectors from meaningful political participation. This “premodem” state of affairs began to crumble only in 1968, when radical military officers seized power and set about instituting a series of reforms. Between 1969 and 1975 the military regime managed to destroy the bases of oligarchic power. The regime’s nationalist-reformist policies were also somewhat successful in enhancing local control over economic development and relations with key foreign powers, and its agrarian reform was extensive enough to invite comparison with the Cuban and Mexican experiences. Yet the 1978-1980 es¬ tablishment of the country’s first democracy based on universal adult suffrage reflected less the military’s preferences than the considerable pressures exerted from below by the business, labor, peasant, and urban-migrant interests that rushed to fill the political vacuum left by the oligarchy’s demise. Although the breadth and effectiveness of such pressures would appear to suggest a promising future for Pern’s new democracy, they are counterbalanced by negative factors. Indeed, so grave are these negative factors that political scientists must struggle to understand how two civilian presidents thus far— Fernando Belaunde (1980-1985) and Alan Garcia (1985-1990)—have been able to complete their elected terms of office. A persistent economic crisis, charac¬ terized by a stagnant national product per capita, declining urban living standards, rural backwardness, and a crushing debt service burden, has gripped the country for over a decade. There is a growing trade in illegal drugs: Peru is the world’s largest producer of coca and is likely to remain so until and unless the peasants can somehow gain equivalent returns from legal crops. The shrillness of political discourse, together with dramatic shifts and reversals of public policy and stated

164

/

Comparative Politics

objectives, signals an absence of societal consensus on fundamental questions. The search for consensus not only must confront the extremes of violence per¬ petrated by the Sendero Luminoso rebels and the government’s counterinsurgency forces, but must also deal with the fact that Peru’s highly centralized, inflexible political institutions are singularly ill adapted to an ethnically and geographically diverse population caught in the throes of a still early stage of capitalist transformation. That the enigmas of Peruvian politics have not yielded to the tools of political science is no fault of Peruvian scholars. The country’s social science establish¬ ment is highly respected throughout Latin America and boasts an output of publications per capita greater than most.' The 1968-1980 military regime was fairly tolerant of dissenting intellectuals, and its sporadic repressions never hand¬ icapped research for very long. Private universities and research institutes, many of which have external sources of funds, have filled in for the declining national universities.2 On the other hand, the interest of U.S. political scientists in Peru has waxed and waned over the past thirty years and is currently passing through something of a lull. If we classify contributions to the literature by the epoch in which the research was performed as well as by theme, we see that the decade of military rule (1969-1980) brought forth a much larger body of writing than the decades preceding and following (see Appendix B). The active decade was also one of great ferment in the discipline, a time when many U.S. political scientists be¬ lieved that they had finally found in the “dependency” framework a definitive answer to the riddle of dictatorship and underdevelopment in Latin America. Today, however, world historical events make it extremely unlikely that Peru will soon undergo the transition to socialism that was once considered the best or only remedy for dependency. Instead, the most urgent practical tasks facing the society are those involved in reconciling the efficiency of a market economy with a host of unmet social needs, in reforming creaky political institutions such that they can meet the increasing demands being placed upon them, and in strengthening democratic instances within civil society. North American re¬ searchers ought to be able to assist Peruvians in all three areas. The challenge will be a difficult one at a time when, with the decline of the dependency idea, our discipline seems to have lost faith in its theoretical apparatus. But more sustained attention to Peru and its problems may help to provide the new the¬ oretical tools we so sorely require.

THE VICISSITUDES OF PERUVIAN POLITICS AND THE DISCIPLINE’S RESPONSE Gradualist Illusions, 1960-1970 For the better part of the decade, Fernando Belaunde’s administration presided listlessly over the gradual decline of oligarchic power. Andean peasants began

Peru

/

165

to invade and occupy haciendas; a guerrilla foco established itself in the central Andes but was rather quickly suppressed.3 A flood of migrants, displaying an unsuspected talent for well-planned political initiatives, invaded outlying urban lands in successive waves, resisted the authorities’ efforts to evict them, and set about converting the territories they had “conquered” into residential suburbs. Very few U.S. political scientists questioned the discipline’s then-regnant frameworks and paradigms—modernization, pluralist or power-elite theory, and so on—and most specialists on Peru accepted the reformist pretensions of Belaunde’s Action Popular (AP) party more or less at face value. Although Morris Janowitz’s pioneering research on the sociology of Third World militaries had begun to attract attention, the Peruvian armed forces were still described as “guard dogs of the oligarchy.” Political forces such as the Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana (APRA) party and organized labor, whose objectives and strategies clashed with prevailing gradualist notions, were subjected to un¬ sympathetic debunking by writers like Grant Hilliker, The Politics of Reform in Peru: The Aprista and Other Mass Parties of Latin America (1971), and James L. Payne, Labor and Politics in Peru: The System of Political Bargaining (1965). The Peruvian bureaucracy attracted some research, for it was believed that far¬ sighted, progressive administration—not parliamentary initiative and certainly not popular revolution—was the key to social advance; for example, see Jack W. Hopkins’s The Government Executive of Modern Peru (1967) and Rudolph Gomez’s The Peruvian Administrative System (1969). Peruvian social scientists of the time conducted relatively little empirical re¬ search. One exception was Jose Matos Mar, whose preoccupation with the question of urban migration helped make North Americans more aware of the issue. Urban studies evolved into one of the discipline’s more dynamic subfields; investigators began to realize that Peruvian migration was archetypical of a phenomenon generalized throughout the Third World and offered an accessible vehicle for testing a variety of new theoretical propositions. The landmark pub¬ lications of the period include Sara Michl’s “Urban Squatter Organization as a National Government Tool: The Case of Lima, Peru,” in Francine F. Rabinovitz and Felicity M. Trueblood, eds., Latin American Urban Research (1973); Henry A. Dietz’s “Urban Squatter Settlements in Peru: A Case History and Analysis” (1969); and Matos Mar’s El Peru actual: sociedad y politico (1970). David Collier’s Squatters and Oligarchs: Authoritarian Rule and Policy Change in Peru (1976) followed. Although these works took full account of the migrants’ tremendous capacity for organizing themselves in pursuit of their interests, they still tended to view the latter as a “marginalized mass” subject to manipulation by the national authorities and local caciques. The period also saw the appearance of a masterpiece of political sociology: Francois Bourricaud’s Pouvoir et societe dans le Perou contemporain (1966).4 Bourricaud laid bare the mechanisms and social practices by which the oligarchy, whose constituent elements incorporated a variety of economic interests, had maintained its cohesion over the years; he showed how its political dominance

166

/

Comparative Politics

rested less on control of the state than on informal circuits of power that bypassed the state; and, most important of all in light of later events, he revealed that relations between the oligarchy and the military were characterized by mutual unease, suspicion, and resentment.

“Revolution” and Reaction, 1970-1980 The military golpe de estado of October 3, 1968, initiated a thoroughgoing process of transformation. The military’s initial objectives were land reform, to destroy the basis of oligarchic power; the revaluation of the Native American cultural heritage, to enhance national integration; the expropriation of selected foreign-owned firms, to cement national control of the economy; and the estab¬ lishment of dirigist planning supplemented by a network of parastatal enterprises, to accelerate the pace of industrial development. But pressure from the social forces they had unwittingly unleashed moved the generals steadily leftward.5 By 1974 they had greatly strengthened organized labor, instituted novel experiments in worker comanagement and “social property,” expropriated the daily press, joined the nonaligned movement, and begun the construction of a radicalnationalist one-party state. A growing political left would not be pacified, how¬ ever. Because the military had closed the channels of interest representation but not those of verbal dissent, public politics was reduced to symbolic-ideological dimensions. It degenerated into a dialogo de sordos in which oficialista ideo¬ logical incoherence (neither capitalism nor socialism) was matched by that of a left whose twenty-odd parties fought bitter battles over the fine points of Marxist doctrine. In August 1975, General Juan Velasco Alvarado was removed from the pres¬ idency and replaced by General Francisco Morales Bermudez, who insisted that the change in leadership meant nothing more than the passage of the ‘ ‘revolution’ ’ into a second phase. This fiction soon gave away to the reality of a Peruvian Thermidor: Although there was no restoration of oligarchic power, Morales Bermudez undid the more radical reforms, sought accommodations with inter¬ national capital, clipped the wings of the labor movement, and launched a process of transition to civilian constitutional governance. The left countered with two successful general strikes. But the people at large showed little appetite for radical action; by 1978, their imagination had been captured by the election (the first since 1966) of a constituent assembly and its subsequent redacting of a new national constitution. The process of transition over the next two years is de¬ scribed by Julio Cotier, “Military Interventions and ‘Transfer of Power to Ci¬ vilians’ in Peru,” in Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, eds., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Latin America (1986). These events, unique in the Latin American experience, coincided in time with a weather change in U.S. political science. The familiar products of that ‘paradigm shift” included the substitution of critical engagement for “valuefree objectivity”; the foundation or refloating of a host of journals with overtly

Peru

/

167

radical commitments; the rediscovery of Marxism; and, in the realm of theory, such innovations as dependency, European structuralism (especially Nicos Poulantzas’s version), and the effort by Theda Skocpol, Peter Evans, and their collaborators to “bring the state back in.” Guillermo O’Donnell’s paradigmatic conception of bureaucratic-authoritarianism, which combined dependency ideas with the research on late-capitalist corporatism that Philippe Schmitter and others had been conducting for several years, neatly capsulized many of these theoretical developments. There are thus at least two plausible reasons for the increased volume of U.S. publications during the 1970s. First, the expectation was that the new advances in theory would render the Peruvian experience more comprehensible and pos¬ sibly less unique. Second, many scholars realized that the political experiment not only was intrinsically interesting but also was—or should have been—of direct concern to those who design and implement U.S. policy toward Latin America. Peruvian social science prospered during this decade under the stimulus of events and lessened isolation. For once, Peruvian and North American academics found themselves communicating on the same theoretical and ideological wave¬ lengths. Collaborative research projects were launched, and Peruvians made appearances at prestigious symposiums; their papers, published in such wellknown edited volumes as Abraham F. Lowenthal’s The Peruvian Experiment: Continuity and Change under Military Rule (1915) and David Chaplin’s Peruvian Nationalism: A Corporatist Revolution (1976), further enhanced their reputations and brought their work before a far larger audience.

Democracy and Its Discontents, 1980-1990 The 1980 general election was won by Fernando Belaunde at the head of a conservative coalition made up of the Accion Popular and the Partido Popular Cristiano. The new government quickly proved itself incompetent at economic management and made matters worse for itself by its undemocratic policy-making modalities.6 Its ineptitude in dealing with Sendero Luminoso, whose armed struggle had been launched to coincide with the return to constitutionalism, helped the rebellion to spread. The left opposition, now committed to an electoral road to socialism, should have benefited handsomely from these failures as well as from the deepening economic recession, but it was handicapped by difficulties in welding its constituent parties and sects into a single political front, Izquierda Unida (IU), and by an erosion of organized labor’s power. Popular opposition to oligarchic domination had once been monopolized by the APR A. Founded in 1928 as a revolutionary nationalist movement by Victor Raul Haya de la Torre, it never achieved power but did enjoy a loyal following and was—indeed, still is—the country’s sole fully institutionalized political force.7 The party began to flounder in the 1960s; when Haya died in 1979, it seemed to be in an advanced state of decay. Under the leadership of Alan Garcia

168

/

Comparative Politics

Perez, however, it managed to court business executives opposed to Belaunde’s economic liberalism while simultaneously broadening its popular bases. This cross-class coalition swept Garcia and the APR A into power in the 1985 election. Garcia reversed the previous government’s policy orientation; he unilaterally limited debt repayment and replaced austerity with Keynesian economic reac¬ tivation. Though initially successful, he could neither break the underlying bot¬ tlenecks that kept the economy in a stranglehold nor bring Sendero Luminoso under control. His 1987 attempt to nationalize the banking system, a characteristic grand gesture with populist overtones, backfired politically: The people received it as an unwelcome reminder of the by-now-detested military regime, and the business class rejected it out of hand. The desertion of the capitalists destroyed the president’s social coalition and, with it, his ability to govern. As the country limped toward the 1990 election with its economy in shambles and its average standard of living reduced to 1960s levels, it had to confront a sinister new reality: the alliance between Sendero Luminoso and narcotrafico. Nevertheless, political events have continued to confound the pundits. The November 1989 municipal elections came off as scheduled despite threats and harassment from Sendero and were won by Frente Democratico (FREDEMO), a new conservative coalition led by the internationally renowned novelist, Mario Vargas Llosa. As of early 1990 the generals still appeared to prefer barracks over the Palacio de Gobiemo, and another presidential election campaign was in full swing. Mario Vargas Llosa, whose venture into electoral politics had been precipitated by Garda’s attempted bank nationalization, continued to hold a sizable lead in the opinion polls, as he had done since announcing his candidacy. Yet, when the election actually took place in April 1990, he was shocked by the electoral strength of Alberto Fujimori, an agricultural engineer who cam¬ paigned successfully on an anti-oligarchy platform that hurt Vargas Llosa in the final weeks of the race. With Vargas Llosa’s 32 percent to Fujimori’s 30 percent, a run-off election was scheduled for June 1990 with Vargas Llosa pegged as the underdog in the final vote. Hence, political scientists are faced with further puzzles: the Peruvian left’s inability to take advantage of social-structural and economic conditions that seem tailor-made for radical politics and, more fun¬ damentally, the apparent ability of tottering institutions to withstand pressures which, by the discipline’s conventional logic, should have brought them down long before now. U.S. political science, as I have noted, has reacted by turning its attention elsewhere. Not only has the volume of publications declined drastically in the 1980s, but many of the best recent works, such as Cynthia McClintock and Abraham F. Lowenthal, eds.. The Peruvian Experiment Reconsidered (1983), and Stephen F. Gorman, ed., Post-Revolutionary Peru: The Politics of Trans¬ formation (1982), either report research performed during the late 1970s or reassess the developments of the previous decade. Nothing of note was published on Belaunde and the Popular Action Party between 1980 and 1985. There is but one noteworthy publication thus far that deals with the transition from Belaunde

Peru

/

169

to Garcia: John Crabtree’s paper, “The Consolidation of Alan Garcia’s Gov¬ ernment in Peru” (1987). Research on political parties and government insti¬ tutions is conspicuous by its absence during this period. Fortunately, since 1980, Peruvian publications have increased in quantity and quality. Empirical research is often first rate, and important new avenues of investigation have opened up. Electoral data have been compiled and are ready for detailed analysis. Theoretical frameworks are more sophisticated; new ap¬ proaches to the study of political consciousness (i.e., systems of communication and the sociopolitical construction of meaning) are being evaluated. Correspond¬ ingly, dependencismo and state-centric “grand theory” are being replaced, and class analysis is being enriched by a concern for the “political subjects” which constitute themselves in civil society. Ideological commitments are less central to the determination of research agendas, and the selection of working hypotheses are more modestly stated and are largely oriented toward the strengthening and deepening of democracy.

ISSUES OF THEORY Since 1970 a number of Peruvian and U.S. scholars have organized their research around the concept of dependency, meaning that their work begins with two central premises: (1) The country’s political development is to be explained with primary reference to its subordinate articulation to a dominant international capitalist system; changes in political institutions and shifts in the class content of local modes of domination are the result of the changing system-maintenance requisites of the international capitalist order and (2) local dominant classes are the internal embodiment of this articulation with external forces; their political behavior derives chiefly from the “objective” demands of their external eco¬ nomic interests. Julio Cotier’s writings of the 1970s exemplify the application of dependency theory to the study of the military’s revolution. His essays, “The New Mode of Political Domination in Peru,” in Abraham F. Lowenthal, ed.. The Peruvian Experiment: Continuity and Change under Military Rule (1975), and “State and Regime: Comparative Notes on the Southern Cone and the ‘Enclave’ Societies,” in David Collier, ed., The New Authoritarianism in Latin America (1979), follow lines of argument laid out by Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Guillermo O’Don¬ nell. International capital, owing to its increasingly oligopolistic and transnational character, requires the replacement of market-based systems of local domination by military-authoritarian corporatist systems; the latter dutifully impose stateguided schemes of industrialization which prioritize accumulation over distri¬ bution. Cotier further elaborates the argument in Closes, Estado y nacion en el Peru (1978). Two books of the late 1970s are noteworthy for their theoretical contributions to the “rediscovery of the state”: Ellen Kay Trimberger’s Revolution from Above: Military Bureaucrats and Development in Japan, Turkey, Egypt, and Peru (1978)

170

/

Comparative Politics

and Alfred Stepan’s The State and Society: Peru in Comparative Perspective (1978). Both hold that “military developmentalism” of the Peruvian kind (Trimberger compares it specifically with Nasserism) is instituted by autonomous state elites in hopes of cementing their power and protecting the state institutions on which that power depends against internal and external challenges. It should be noted that neither Stepan nor Trimberger uses the dependency framework in these works. David G. Becker, The New Bourgeoisie and the Limits of De¬ pendency: Mining, Class, and Power in “Revolutionary” Peru (1983), takes aim at both the dependency and the state-centric positions. Adopting Richard L. Sklar’s paradigmatic conception of postimperialism to describe the present stage of international capitalism,8 I argue that there is no contradiction between the Peruvian bourgeoisie’s external linkages and its dedication to genuine national development. My class analysis is Marxian in its stress on conflict but rejects economic determinism (political power can be a basis of class formation as well as an attribute of a class position). Instead of assigning the state an intrinsic class character (e.g., the capitalist state), I regard it as a set of institutions standing at the center of an ongoing contest for political power and social control. By treating class formation as a continuous process, which is influenced but not determined by objective economic interests, I arrive at the conclusion that the Peruvian revolution was an intraclass struggle for power from which a modern¬ izing industrial bourgeoisie emerged triumphant. With this victory the class achieved ideological as well as political and economic supremacy, which may enable it henceforth to rest its dominance on general consent. The growing interest of Peruvian social science in the question of the ‘ ‘political subject” has been mentioned. This is the realm of so-called discourse theory: the attempt, using concepts and tools developed for textual criticism, to com¬ prehend the socially produced systems of meaning that animate the consciousness of self-identified societal groups, motivate their political action, and link them communicatively to the rest of society. Carlos Franco’s article, “Nacion, Estado y clases: condiciones del debate en los 80” (1985), represents a preliminary effort to apply these ideas to the study of Peruvian politics since the restoration of constitutional governance.

GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS The study of institutional and legal issues has languished since the 1960s, except with regard to the bureaucracy. Peter S. Cleaves and Martin J. Scurrah’s Agriculture, Bureaucracy, and Military Government in Peru (1980) is a case study of the military regime’s land reform and agricultural assistance bureau¬ cracy; the book relates bureaucratic behavior (using the agricultural sector as a reference point) to the overall directions of the state under military rule and makes an interesting contrast to Hopkins (1967) and Gomez (1969). Although the U.S. literature has largely ignored institutional questions, Pe¬ ruvian literature has not. (U.S. scholars’ preference for identifying political

Peru

/

171

power with power elites, especially the military in the case of Latin America, appears to have diminished hardly at all since the days of C. Wright Mills. Peruvian scholars, in contrast, seem increasingly aware that power is condensed in political institutions, and the latter are therefore worthy of study in their own right.) Luis Pasara’s “La ‘Libenizacion’ en democracia,” in Luis Pasara and Julio Cotier, eds., Democracia, sociedad y gobierno en el Peru (1988), is more an impassioned plea for social peace and democracy than a work of political analysis; nevertheless, it is noteworthy because it not only takes institutional analysis seriously but also argues that the study of institutions is more central to the stabilization of Peruvian democracy than the critique of domination. Parastatal corporations are the subject of Alfred H. Saulniers’s Public Enter¬ prises in Peru: Public Sector Growth and Reform (1988). Oligarchic Peru made less use of government ownership of industry than any other country in the region; however, the military regime quickly reversed that state of affairs during the 1970s. In part because of their newness and the lack of experience of their managements, Peruvian parastatals have been notoriously inefficient and loss ridden. Saulniers’s work is important because it provides diagnostics and rec¬ ommendations based on case studies of a number of parastatal enterprises.

ECONOMIC ISSUES Macro studies of Peruvian economic development, most of them quite con¬ scious of the inseparability of economics from politics, have appeared in abun¬ dance since 1970. Rosemary Thorp and Geoffrey Bertram’s Peru 1890-1977: Growth and Policy in an Open Economy (1978) is especially strong in setting forth the historical background to the military regime’s attempt at economic reorientation. E.V.K. Fitzgerald’s The State and Economic Development: Peru since 1968 (1976) explains the regime’s economic policies and their limitations in terms of a theory of state capitalism.9 Both books are limited to the policies of the first phase of military rule; the economic policies of the second phase are analyzed by Alan Angell and Rosemary Thorp, “Inflation, Stabilization and Attempted Redemocratization in Peru, 1975-1979” (1980). Distributional economics is the subject of Richard C. Webb’s Government Policy and the Distribution of Income in Peru, 1963-73 (1977). An important distributional issue which has long cried out for additional economic research is the peasantry’s articulation with the rest of the national economy; Adolfo Fi¬ gueroa’s Capitalist Development and the Peasant Economy in Peru (1984) is a major contribution to the field. Peru’s limited experience with economic planning shows through painfully: Many of the country’s present economic ills stem from planning and policy errors committed by the military regime. Outstanding among the works which have addressed this theme since the 1970s is Daniel Schydlowsky and Juan J. Wicht’s The Anatomy of an Economic Failure: Peru, 1968-1978 (1979)10; in it, the authors castigate the generals for ignoring both export promotion and the back-

172

/

Comparative Politics

ward condition of the agricultural sector and for instituting instead an expensive, inefficient program of across-the-board subsidies to national industries. John Sheahan’s “The Economics of the Peruvian Experiment in Comparative Per¬ spective,” in Cynthia McClintock and Abraham F. Lowenthal, eds., The Pe¬ ruvian Experiment Reconsidered (1983), relates many of these works to each other and to the general literature on the economics of development. Sheahan’s standpoint is that of an empiricist who prizes results over theoretical purity. The state of the economy in the last year of the Belaunde government and the alternatives for the future were the subject of a symposium organized by the Universidad del Pacifico, whose published proceedings, German Alarco, ed., Desaflos para la economi'a peruana, 1985-1990 (1985), are also a good source for recent economic data. Carol Wise, “Democratization, Crisis, and the APRA s Modernization Project in Peru,” in Barbara Stallings and Robert Kaufman, eds., Debt and Democracy in Latin America (1989), analyzes Alan Garcia’s radical stand on the debt issue and concludes that the underdevelopment of the Peruvian state, the inefficient economic management teams, and the suspicions of such groups as business, labor, and the political parties of the opposition doomed his economic policies to failure. Garcia’s approach to macroeconomic policy is discussed in his own Elfuturo diferente: la tarea historica del APRA (1982), in which he lays out the diagnosis and prescriptions that would animate the course of his presidency.

Direct Foreign Investment Until 1968 Peru was one of the least restrictive countries in Latin America for foreign investors; the abuses permitted or encouraged by the oligarchy and compliant governments have fastened upon foreign investment an obloquy which only now is beginning to recede. Hence Peru looms disproportionately large in the extensive literature on the political behavior of the transnationals. The prin¬ cipal book-length treatments are Adalberto J. Pinelo’s The Multinational Cor¬ poration as a Force in Latin American Politics: A Case Study of the International Petroleum Company in Peru (1973), which examines the petroleum dispute that triggered the 1968 coup d’etat; Charles T. Goodsell’s American Corporations and Peruvian Politics (1974), which considers transnational corporate involve¬ ment in Peruvian domestic politics; and Becker (1983), which explains why the military regime’s mining nationalizations were selective rather than general. Shane Hunt’s chapter, “Direct Foreign Investment in Peru: New Rules for an Old Game,” in Abraham F. Lowenthal, ed., The Peruvian Experiment: Con¬ tinuity and Change under Military Rule (1975), also discusses the military’s “assertive pragmatism” toward foreign investment."

Indirect Investment and Debt Owing to its lack of export diversity and heavy import dependence, Peru suffers from severe international payment and liquidity problems even though

Peru

/

173

its foreign debt is relatively small in absolute dollar terms. The origins of the debt problem are discussed, with considerable technical detail, by Robert Devlin in Los bancos transnacionales y el financiamiento externo de America Latina: la experiencia del Peru 1965-1976 (1980); unlike dependency writers, Devlin lays the responsibility for the country’s current debt crisis squarely at the door of the military regime’s policymakers. Barbara Stallings, “Peru and the U.S. Banks: Privatization of Financial Relations,” in Richard R. Fagen, ed., Capi¬ talism and the State in U.S.-Latin American Relations (1979), argues that Peru and other Third World countries were affected adversely by the 1970s shift of much foreign lending activity from international entities to private banks. She pursues the theme from a historical perspective in her recent book, Banker to the Third World: U.S. Portfolio Investment in Latin America, 1900-1986 (1987), in which Peru figures as the principal case study. Her paper, “International Capitalism and the Peruvian Military Government” (in McClintock and Lowenthal, 1983), considers direct as well as indirect foreign investment in its discussion of the country’s changing articulation with international capital during the years of military rule.

POLITICAL PARTIES, LEADERSHIP, AND THE ELECTORAL PROCESS The study of Peruvian political parties and leaders essentially reduces to the study of the APRA and its perennial (until his death in 1979) jefe maximo, Victor Raul Haya de la Torre. Here the scholar’s task is complicated by Peru’s ex¬ ceedingly deep pro- versus anti-aprista polarization, which sometimes overrides the left-right division and which has made it almost impossible for Peruvians to treat the APRA objectively. Unfortunately, most U.S. Peruvianists seem to have been caught up in their hosts’ emotions, for they have shown themselves equally incapable of a balanced presentation of the subject.12 APRA studies advanced but little during the 1970s, when the party’s reformism seemed to have been marginalized by events. Peter F. Klaren’s Modernization, Dislocation, and Aprismo: Origins of the Peruvian Aprista Party, 1870-1932 (1973) is useful for its discussion of the party’s origins, but Klaren’s anti-APRA biases mar the work and lead him into unverifiable psychological speculation about Haya’s personality and motivations. A party which engenders such intense sympathies and antipathies cries out for political and cultural analysis. Imelda Vega Centeno provides it in two volumes: Aprismo popular: mito, cultura e historia (1985) and Ideologia y cultura en el Aprismo popular (1986). Only toward the end of the 1980s has the preoccupation with the APRA begun to cede ground to a broader interest in party institutions. Julio Cotier’s essay, “Los partidos politicos y la democracia en el Peru” (in Pasara and Cotier, 1988), puts forward a brutally honest eval¬ uation and critique of the deficiencies of each of the country’s organized political forces. Cotier is as unsparing of his own group, the IU, as he is of the others;

174

/

Comparative Politics

he faults the IU for its factionalism, its fear of effective leadership, and the tendency of one of its factions to flirt with vanguardist revolutionary dreams. Fernando Tuesta Soldevilla’s Peru politica en cifras: elite politica y elecciones (1987) is a very complete compendium of election returns through the municipal election of 1986; it presents in one volume not only the returns for every sig¬ nificant national election since 1931 (with breakdowns by department and, for the more recent elections, by province and by precinct in metropolitan Lima) but also a wealth of information on the composition of executive cabinets, national parliaments, and Lima city governments over the years. What remains is to subject these raw data to detailed analysis, a task which in Peru is still considered the province of journalists. Henry A. Dietz was one of the first to integrate voting data into broader studies of political behavior. While such data play a relatively minor part (owing to the paucity of elections) in his “Mobili¬ zation, Austerity, and Voting: The Legacy of the Revolution for Lima’s Poor” (in Gorman, 1982), they occupy the central position in his later paper, “Political Participation in the Barriadas: An Extension and Reexamination” (1985).

Marxist and Popular Nationalist Doctrine Jose Carlos Mariategui, in many ways the father of Latin American Marxism, remains very much alive in the hearts and minds of Peruvian leftists, as does Victor Raul Hay a de la Torre in the hearts and minds of apristas. The secondary literature on Mariategui suffers from an adulatory tone which does scant justice to the sophistication of his thought and offers little enlightenment to serious scholars. Harry E. Vanden’s National Marxism in Latin America: Jose Carlos Mariategui’s Thought and Politics (1986) is a case in point but, if read critically, is useful as an introduction to Mariategui’s ideas and career. The secondary literature on Haya suffers from the opposite problem: It partakes of the antiaprista bias we have discussed and refuses to engage him intellectually. Two recent works by Hugo Garcia Salvattecci suggest that the two thinkers will at last obtain the treatment they deserve. Georges Sorel y J. C. Mariategui (n.d.) shows how heavily Mariategui was influenced by Sorel and, through him, by Bergsonian vitalism; Mariategui emerges as a voluntarist whose thought departed radically not only from “historical-materialist” orthodoxy but also from Gramsci’s treatment of politics and culture.13 Haya de la Torre o el marxismo latinoamericano (1980) analyzes Haya’s conflicts with Third International Marx¬ ism and takes the position that the theoretical differences between him and Mariategui were much less important during the latter’s lifetime than is usually believed.

SOCIAL GROUPS AND MOVEMENTS This area has received the greatest sustained attention from scholars over the years. Social-structural forms of political analysis seem capable of addressing

Peru

/

175

more questions than any other approach; even advocates of the state-centric explanation have not abandoned them completely.14

The Bourgeoisie In Peru, as elsewhere, research on the bourgeoisie has been held back by a prejudice: Whereas every other class is allowed a distinctive collective con¬ sciousness that enables it to launch or participate in social movements whose purposes extend well beyond the securing of interests, the bourgeoisie is deprived of this dimension of humanity and reduced to an interest-seeking machine. In fact, the bourgeoisie too is composed of people who associate with each other because they share the same worldview, values, and system of meaning as well as the same interests, and who act politically to protect and advance a way of life that is deeply meaningful to them. In the pre-1980 literature, Peruvian and foreign analysts alike dealt with the bourgeoisie by citing economic statistics or listing members of corporate boards and exclusive social clubs. A noteworthy exception is Frits Wils’s Industriali¬ zation, Industrialists, and the Nation-State in Peru: A Comparative/Sociological Analysis (1979), which is, to my knowledge, the first published work to stress the class’s industrializing vocation and political aspirations. Although Becker (1983) deals specifically with the mining industry, it is mentioned here because it treats mining entrepreneurs and managers as constituting a leading bourgeois stratum which exemplifies traits and outlooks found diffused throughout the uppermost corporate-industrial class strata. Since 1980, Peruvian social science has finally begun to take the bourgeoisie seriously. Francisco Durand’s La decada frustrada: los industriales y el poder 1970-1980 (1982) explains the class’s failure to influence the course of the revolution despite the former’s broad sympathy with the initially proclaimed objectives; his Los industriales, el liberalismo y la democracia (1984) considers the behavior of the class under the second-phase military regime (1975-1980) and the first years of the democratic restoration. Both books are well researched and draw extensively on the statements of class leaders and the publications of the two major class organizations, the National Industrial Society (SNI) and the Association of Exporters (ADEX). Durand is particularly sensitive to intraclass tensions and divisions—small versus large manufacturers, exporters versus pro¬ ducers for the domestic market, and so on. Manuel Castillo Ochoa’s “La identidad confundida: el movimiento empresarial frente a la crisis reciente,” in Eduardo Ballon, ed., Movimientos sociales y crisis: el caso peruano (1986), treats the bourgeoisie’s disillusionment with Belaunde’s brand of conservatism and its tilt toward the APRA in 1985.

The Military Little was published on the Peruvian military before 1970, but three works of that early period became influential later on. Liisa North’s Civil-Military

176

/

Comparative Politics

Relations in Argentina, Chile, and Peru (1966) is a historical study which emphasizes the new military professionalism that became widespread in Latin America during the early years of this century. Hoping to restrain the depredations of “militaries” that were little more than bands of thieves and adventurers, the oligarchies of the time increased budgetary allotments and invited training mis¬ sions from Europe to teach their officers discipline, modem tactics, and (a vain hope) subservience to civilian authority. Peru’s training mission came from France, renewing a relationship that went back to the War of the Pacific (1879— 1883) and that would continue until World War II. A former army major, Victor Villanueva, adds the viewpoint of an insider in two books: El militarismo en el Peru (1962) and, in response to the 1968 coup, iNueva mentalidad militar en el Peru? (1969). The military takeover in 1968 stimulated an outpouring of research; hence, the decade of the 1970s accounts for the bulk of the literature. The sources of the military’s cohesion, systems of political belief, and characteristic forms of political action were ably elucidated by Luigi R. Einaudi and Alfred C. Stepan III in Latin American Institutional Development: Changing Military Perspectives in Peru and Brazil (1971) and by Einaudi in “Revolution from Within? Military Rule in Peru since 1968” (in Chaplin, ed., 1976). These works explain the nature of Peruvian civil-military relations with reference to the military’s stress on education and to national security doctrines developed in the Center for Higher Military Studies (CAEM) during the 1950s and early 1960s. They also observe how the task of repressing the 1965 guerrilla/oco, together with the army’s civic action role in expanding the Andean highway and electrical infrastructure, sen¬ sitized officers to the plight of the peasantry and to the simmering danger it represented. Stepan (1978) builds on all these observations to construct a theory of military state corporatism. The investigation of tensions and conflicts within the military had to await the political developments that brought these former secrets to light. (The de¬ velopments themselves are fully and competently described in Henry Pease Garcia, El ocaso del poder oligarquico [1977].) Liisa North and Tanya Korov¬ kin’s The Peruvian Revolution and the Officers in Power, 1967-1976 (1981) and George D. E. Philip’s The Rise and Fall of the Peruvian Military Radicals, 1968-1976 (1978) show that, although the military as a whole had indeed de¬ termined to get rid of the oligarchy, the impetus for more sweeping reforms came from a few officers whose commands and personal friendships with Velasco gave them influence beyond their numbers; the rest of the officer corps went along for the sake of institutional unity until the 1975 economic downturn, rising public opposition, and Velasco’s failing health combined to suggest a different course.

The Peasantry Before 1969 the peasantry was of interest chiefly to anthropologists. Then, with the promulgation of agrarian reform, politically active and surprisingly

Peru

/

177

well-organized peasants began agitating for extension of the areas affected and a voice in determining the property regimes to be established; political scientists were presented with a new field of research. The political struggles surrounding the reform are examined in Susan C. Bourque and David Scott Palmer’s “Trans¬ forming the Rural Sector: Government Policy and Peasant Response” (in Lowenthal, 1975); Howard Handelman’s Struggle in the Andes: Peasant Political Mobilization in Peru (1975); Colin Harding’s “Land Reform and Social Conflict in Peru” (in Lowenthal, 1975); Eduardo Fioravanti’s Latifundio y sindicalismo agrario en el Peru (1976), a dense work which traces the origins of peasant unions to the land invasions of the late 1950s and early 1960s; Norman Long and Bryan R. Roberts’s edited volume, Peasant Cooperation and Capitalist Expansion in Central Peru (1978); and Cynthia McClintock’s Peasant Coop¬ eratives and Political Change in Peru (1981). The peasantry of the central Andes has advanced farthest because, for most of this century, it has been closely linked with capitalism (mining) and the national market. The developmental impact of these linkages is discussed in Norman Long and Bryan R. Roberts’s edited volume, Miners, Peasants, and Entrepreneurs: Regional Development in the Central Highlands of Peru (1984). Since 1980 a new emphasis has come to the fore. In hopes of evaluating the survivability of democratic political norms in the countryside and explaining the ambiguous response to Sendero Luminoso,15 analysts are beginning to look more closely at the internal organization, microeconomy, and traditional belief system of the peasant community. Representative of the new trend are Marisol de la Cadena’s “Cooperacion y mercado en la organizacion comunal andina” (1985) and Luis Cueva Sanchez’s edited volume, Sierra central: comunidad campesina, problemas y alternativas (1987). Fernando Eguren’s paper, “Democracia y sociedad rural” (in Pasara and Cotier, 1988), makes effective use of this research to advance further our understanding of national peasant organization.

Organized Labor Because the APRA controlled it organizationally and politically until 1969, the labor movement was at first a subsidiary topic of research on aprismo. Payne (1965) reflects this heritage, as does the only other significant work of the period, David Chaplin’s The Peruvian Industrial Labor Force (1967). Chaplin’s study, unlike Payne’s, offers a solid historical-sociological analysis of the development of the Peruvian working class (it is a case study of textile workers; the industry is the country’s first and still largest manufacturing subsector) and retains its value for labor historians. Despite the movement’s explosive growth in numbers, organizational strength, and militancy during the 1970s,16 the decade did not produce a memorable literature. Much effort was devoted to issues like struggles over job tenure (,estabilidad laboral) and comanagement, whose ephemeral nature became evi¬ dent only with hindsight.17 The period’s best work was Dirk Kruijt and Menno

178

/

Comparative Politics

Vellinga’s exhaustive political-sociological study of mine labor in the central Andes, Labor Relations and Multinational Corporations: The Cerro de Pasco Corporation in Peru (1902-1974) (1979). Better organized and still valuable for its insights into working-class politics in spite of the demise of participatory experiments is Evelyne Huber Stephens’s The Politics of Worker s’ Participation: The Peruvian Approach in Comparative Perspective (1980). Chastened by the worse-than-expected showing of the left in the 1980 election, researchers began to investigate workers’ political behavior with fewer precon¬ ceptions. Stephens’s article, “The Peruvian Military Government, Labor Mo¬ bilization, and the Political Strength of the Left” (1983), explains that workers’ intense dedication to the principle of unionization stems from the fact that Pe¬ ruvian unions, unlike those in many other countries of the region, were built by the workers themselves in the face of persistent opposition from the state, not by state authorities seeking a mode of cooptation. She points out as well that, with the influx of urban migrants into the proletariat, organized labor can now count on the support of the far larger mass of urban poor in struggles which revolve around fundamental labor rights or immediate economic interests. The publication of Jorge Parodi’s “Ser obrero es algo relativo . .: obreros, clasismo y politico (1986) marks a true coming of age. The author has interviewed workers at length and synthesizes from their narratives an account of proletarian responses to the events of the 1970s that will be difficult to improve upon. We discover that workers are far from revolutionary, that their aspirations center upon such commonplaces as the hope of upward mobility and a demand for treatment which respects their basic humanity. What they really resist is pro¬ letarianization itself: Those who have migrated to Lima from the Andes enter wage employment for the mechanical skills they learn and the savings they accumulate, but their ambition is to abandon it in favor of self-employment as soon as circumstances permit. We also learn that the political radicals who infiltrated the labor movement during the 1970s helped strengthen it for a time but ultimately undid much of that contribution through their elitism and manip¬ ulation. Parodi’s two later essays, “La desmovilizacion del sindicalismo indus¬ trial peruano en el segundo belaundismo” (in Ballon, 1986) and “Los sindicatos en la democracia vacfa” (in Pasara and Cotier, 1988), employ essentially the same methodology and bring his findings up to date.

Urban Migrants and the Informal Sector Studies of Peru’s urban squatter settlements and the informal economy as¬ sociated with them have not only prospered in the last several years, they have also acquired a new perspective. Whereas earlier works treated the migrants as marginals and saw them as manipulated by the wielders of power, the current tendency is to treat them as active subjects fully capable of exploiting clientelistic relationships for their own benefit, developing their neighborhoods in accordance with their own needs, and taking the initiative in their economic activities.18 As

Peru

/

179

in other areas, much of the new literature is distinguished by well-chosen em¬ pirical case studies. Henry A. Dietz’s Poverty and Problem-Solving under Military Rule: The Urban Poor in Lima, Peru (1980) analyzes the extent and limits of urban squat¬ ters’ self-help politics (also see his 1985 paper). Jose Matos Mar argues, in Desborde popular y crisis del Estado: el nuevo rostro del Peru en la decada de 1980 (1984), that inadequate state resources and capabilities for promoting social integration have been overwhelmed by urban population growth, forcing migrants to seek alternative solutions to their problems of health care, police protection, and the like. Of necessity they organize themselves for self-help and to extract assistance from sympathetic outsiders. Their activities, overflowing the bounds of conventional politics and social arrangements, have created a dense network of para-institutional organizations and a unique political culture. Matos Mar believes that the migrants embody a real alternative to traditional Peruvian urban culture (criollismo) and social relations; indeed, he maintains that they are in the process of transforming Peruvian society. The social and cultural dimensions of migrant life are treated in Susan Lobo’s A House of My Own: Social Organization in the Squatter Settlements of Lima, Peru (1982), which is based on observations she made while living for nearly four years in one of Lima’s pueblos jovenes. She finds vital, highly organized families and local communities with strong systems of ethics and a series of well-thought-out survival strategies. Political action is discussed from a com¬ parative perspective in Anthony and Elizabeth Leeds’s “Accounting for Behav¬ ioral Differences: Three Political Systems and the Responses of Squatters in Brazil, Peru, and Chile,” in John Walton and Louis H. Masotti, eds., The City in Comparative Perspective: Cross-National Research and New Directions in Theory (1976). One of their most interesting findings is that the clientelistic political networks in which most pueblo joven dwellers are immersed may be more effective overall for meeting urgent needs than the Chilean strategy of alliance with the left. Whereas the Peruvians’ long experience with clientelism has taught them to manipulate these relations effectively even when the state is in unfriendly hands, the Chileans found themselves with no effective means of action once the left had been destroyed by the Pinochet dictatorship. The recent struggle of urban migrants to counter the erosion of their living standards is analyzed by Teresa Tovar Samanez, “Vecinos pobladores en la crisis (19801984)” (in Ballon, 1986). Until a few years ago, the terms customarily used to describe the informal economy were “marginalization” and “immiseration.” Arguments of that kind were swept away in 1986 with the publication of Hernando de Soto’s controversial book, El otro sendero, which has since been released in an English translation.19 De Soto insists that the informal economy is actually a dynamic component of the national economy, with which it is closely integrated; that its participants are true entrepreneurs; and that informality is the product not of poverty but of a “mercantilist” economic system in which the state protects existing firms by

180

/

Comparative Politics

imposing cumbersome regulations and heavy taxation. It is the burden of reg¬ ulation and taxation, impossible to bear in an economy whose productivity remains low, that compels informals to seek outlets for their entrepreneurial energies outside the law. De Soto’s many critics have seized upon his weak conception of mercantilism, the possibility that many informals are in truth wageworkers, and the claim that even self-employed informals are systemically exploited in their relationships with the formal sector (albeit in novel ways which are overlooked by the classic Marxian preoccupation with the wage contract). Diego Palma’s La informalidad, lo popular y el cambio social (1987) compares and contrasts the positions in¬ volved in the debate. Pedro Gafin, Julio Carrion, and Oscar Castillo, Asalariados y closes populares en Lima (1986), argue the position that the informals are a proletariat rather than an entrepreneuriat.

SENDERO LUM1NOSO Sendero is extremely unusual among Third World revolutionary movements in its disdain for propaganda; it has rarely published manifestos setting out its objectives. It is neither allied with nor receives aid from any other movement or government. Although the press describes it as “Maoist,” its tactics are very different from Mao’s and more closely resemble those of Bakunin and Pol Pot. Inasmuch as the movement’s hatred and suspicion of outsiders (a category which includes urban Peruvians and makes no distinction according to ideology) rule out direct observation, research opportunities are limited and the findings to date are tenuous. As a result, no single scholar knows a great deal about this rural guerrilla movement. Cynthia McClintock’s “Why Peasants Rebel: The Case of Peru’s Sendero Luminoso” (1984), reviews theories of peasant revolution in the light of the Sendero experience and emphasizes a growing threat to the peasantry’s economic subsistence as a key factor in Sendero’s emergence. David Scott Palmer’s “Re¬ bellion in Rural Peru: The Origins and Evolution of Sendero Luminoso” (1986) places greater stress upon the unique political history of Ayacucho, the depart¬ ment in which the movement was bom and nurtured; he discusses the depart¬ ment’s physical isolation from the center of national political power, the inordinately large role played in the politics of its capital city by the University of San Cristobal de Huamanga (where the Sendero movement originated during the 1970s), and a local tradition of resistance to distant authority which extends back at least as far as the Inca empire. Carlos Ivan Degregori, “Sendero Luminoso: los hondos y mortales desencuentros” (in Ballon, 1986), offers a Peruvian perspective that is further enriched by personal experience: Degregori knew most of the senderista leaders when they taught and studied together at the university, and he is intimately familiar with the doctrinal debates of the time in which Sendero emerged. Disagreeing with McClintock, he insists that the roots of the movement are social rather than

Peru

/

181

economic and that the central explanatory factors are the backgrounds and careers of provincial intellectuals, the cultural traditions of the department, and the intercommunal rivalries whose origins antedate the modem era.

PERUVIAN RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES FOR 1990 AND BEYOND The significant advances registered by Peruvian social science over the past thirty years can be expected to continue, if we assume that the beneficent Eu¬ ropean and international agencies which have compensated for the deterioration of local financial resources will go on doing so. As befits a discipline whose subfield boundaries are far less sharply demarcated than our own, new research in political economy, political sociology, and political anthropology should excel. We should be especially on the lookout for progress in the analysis of political subjects and social movements, which may be accompanied by the further de¬ velopment of discourse theory. If the social and ideological barriers, which once separated intellectuals from the bourgeoisie and the military, continue to crumble, as has been happening since 1980, we may find the same concepts and approaches being applied to them. In some ways the strengths and weaknesses of the Peruvian and U.S. disci¬ plines complement one another, which suggests the possibility of a mutually useful division of labor. Public choice and other quantitative methodologies have yet to be applied systematically to the study of Peruvian politics. Such research could also assist Peruvians to develop tools that they have not utilized to date; thanks again to the beneficence of external funding sources, many Peruvian researchers now have available to them the equipment they need to engage in this kind of work. More institutional analysis, another area where North American political science has a strong tradition, is still needed, and for the most practical of purposes: making it possible for limited government to survive in Peru and to become increasingly more democratic. The inability of the parliament to represent and aggregate interests, the chronic inefficiency and corruption of the judiciary, the oscillations of the executive power between dictation and paralysis, and the stifling role of an overweening and overcentralized bureaucracy need to be subjected to a diagnosis and critique. I have shown how North American interest in Peru has risen and fallen over the past thirty years. It is understandable that the discipline’s theoretical and ideological ferment of the 1970s would have combined with the apparent unique¬ ness of Peruvian events to produce a surge of professional concern that has since abated. Even so, we need to overcome our tendency to flit like journalists from one capital to another in response to the headlines of the moment. Sendero Luminoso is not an excuse for bypassing the country: though is poses dangers to researchers wishing to work in certain rural areas, the wilder rumors (e.g., that Sendero has set about assassinating all foreigners everywhere) have no basis

182

/

Comparative Politics

in fact; in Lima, one faces less risk of violence than one does, say, in New York. In sum, what research on Peru needs most is the sustained attention that its size and importance warrant. Our task in the years to come will consist mainly in setting and holding a steady scholarly course.

NOTES 1. Political science {politicologia) is just beginning to establish itself as an independent discipline. Much political research in Peru has been the province of sociologists, econ¬ omists (particularly in regard to policy studies and political economy), and specialists in public law (derecho). 2. The best university research on politics and political economy is currently being performed at the Universidad Catolica and the Universidad del Pacifico; the Universidad de Lima and the Universidad Nacional Agraria (La Molina) contribute as well. The principal independent research institutes are the Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP), Grupo de Estudios para el Desarrollo (GREDES), Centro Peruano de Estudios Intemacionales (CEPEI), Centro de Estudios y Promotion de Desarrollo (DESCO), and the Instituto Libertad y Democracia (ILD). Overseas foundations supply funding, subsidize publications, and sponsor professional symposia and conferences; research funding in smaller amounts is provided by such public international agencies as the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and the Andean Pact. 3. The guerrilla frequently makes an appearance in the literature as a historical antecedent to some other object of study. Only Hector Bejar’s Peru 1965: apuntes sobre una experiencia guerrillera (1969), a first-person account, deals with it for its own sake. 4. See Francois Bourricaud, Power and Society in Contemporary Peru, trans. Paul Stevenson (New York: Praeger, 1970). 5. For an account of the events see Henry Pease Garcia, El ocaso del poder oligarquico: lucha politico en la escena oficial 1968-1975 (Lima: DESCO, 1977). 6. The executive demanded and received from a compliant parliamentary majority a grant of authority enabling it to legislate by decree. When his policies were attacked, Prime Minister Ulloa dismissed the critics with contemptuous arrogance. 7. The right is represented by personalistic parties with narrow bases and little or¬ ganization. IU is striving to build a grass-roots infrastructure and cadre network com¬ parable to the APRA’s, but its efforts have been held back by factional infighting among its constituent parties. 8. See David G. Becker, Jeff Frieden, Sayre P. Schatz, and Richard L. Sklar, Postimperialism: International Capitalism and Development in the Late Twentieth Century (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1987). 9. Abbreviated versions of the Thorp-Bertram and Fitzgerald theses appear in McClintock and Lowenthal (1983) as Thorp, “The Evolution of Peru’s Economy,” and Fitzgerald, “State Capitalism in Peru: A Model of Economic Development and Its Limitations.” 10. Also see their chapter, “The Anatomy of an Economic Failure,” in McClintock and Lowenthal (1983). 11. The concept of “assertive pragmatism” comes from Sayre P. Schatz; see his “Assertive Pragmatism and the Multinational Enterprise,” in Becker et al. (fn. 8).

Peru

/

183

12. Hilliker’s deprecatory treatment was mentioned above. The opposite extreme of uncritical adulation is represented by Harry Kantor, The Ideology and Program of the Peruvian Aprista Movement (1966). 13. This well-documented view of Mariategui is heretical in the extreme. To Peruvian Marxists generally and to the Peruvian Communist Party in particular, Mariategui was a mainstream Leninist who differed with Stalin over tactics, saw eye to eye with Gramsci, and anticipated Mao. 14. One social force has been overlooked: the church. True, the role of religious and lay activists and social organizers is often featured in works on urban squatter settlements and, increasingly, the peasantry; and an extensive literature deals with the contributions of Peruvians such as Gustavo Gutierrez to the Theology of Liberation. But because political sociologists have not examined the national church as an institution, we have little systematic knowledge (as compared, say, with Mexico) about the politics of the hierarchy: its relations with the state, with radical priests and nuns (many of whom are foreigners), and with the masses of the faithful. 15. Peasants have no particular affection for senderismo, whose inroads among them have been based on force and fear; yet they are unwilling to help combat the movement, even in those areas where the military authorities have been able to provide protection. 16. About 8 percent of the labor force is now organized, a figure which embraces the lion’s share of the work force in mining and large-scale manufacturing. There are no less than four national labor centrals: the Communist-affiliated Confederacion General de Trabajadores del Peru (CGTP), the APRA-affiliated Confederacion de Trabajadores del Peru (CTP), and the independent Confederacion de Trabajadores de la Revolution Peruano (CTRP) and Confederacion Nacional de Trabajadores (CNT) (listed in descending order of size). 17. On comanagement see Peter T. Knight, “New Forms of Economic Organization in Peru: Toward Workers’ Self-Management” (in Lowenthal, 1975); and, with a com¬ parative perspective, Martin J. Scurrah and Bruno Podesta, “The Experience of Worker Self-Management in Peru and Chile,” in Sheldon Annis and Peter Hakim, eds., Direct to the Poor: Grassroots Development in Latin America (1988). 18. This literature neither romanticizes the migrants’ situation nor overlooks the ex¬ treme hardships they suffer. 19. Hernando De Soto, The Other Path: The Invisible Revolution in the Third World, trans. June Abbott (New York: Harper & Row, 1989).

REFERENCES Alarco, German, ed. 1985. Desafiospara la economiaperuana, 1985-1990. Lima: Centro de Investigation de la Universidad del Patifico. Angell, Alan, and Rosemary Thorp. 1980. “Inflation, Stabilization and Attempted Re¬ democratization in Peru, 1975-1979.” World Development 8, no. 11: 865-86. Ballon, Eduardo, ed. 1986. Movimientos sociales y crisis: el caso peruano. Lima: DESCO. Becker, David G. 1983. The New Bourgeoisie and the Limits of Dependency: Mining, Class, and Power in “Revolutionary” Peru. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Becker, David G., Jeff Frieden, Sayre P. Schatz, and Richard L. Sklar. 1987. Postim-

184

/

Comparative Politics perialism: International Capitalism and Development in the Late Twentieth Cen¬

tury. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner. Bejar, Hector. 1969. Peru 1965: apuntes sobre una experiencia guerrillera. Havana, Cuba: Casa de las Americas. Bourque, Susan C., and David Scott Palmer. 1975. “Transforming the Rural Sector: Government Policy and Peasant Response.” In Abraham F. Lowenthal, ed., The Peruvian Experiment: Continuity and Change under Military Rule. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Bourricaud, Francois. 1970. Power and Society in Contemporary Peru. Translated by Paul Stevenson. New York: Praeger. Cadena, Marisol de la. 1985. “Cooperation y mercado en la organization comunal andina.” Documentos de Trabajo, Serie: Antropologia, no.l (mimeographed). Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Castillo Ochoa, Manuel. 1986. “La identidad confundida: el movimiento empresarial frente a la crisis reciente.” In Eduardo Ballon, ed., Movimientos socialesy crisis: el caso peruano. Lima: DESCO. Chaplin, David. 1967. The Peruvian Industrial Labor Force. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Chaplin, David, ed. 1976. Peruvian Nationalism: A Corporatist Revolution. New Bruns¬ wick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Cleaves, Peter S., and Martin J. Scurrah. 1980. Agriculture, Bureaucracy, and Military Government in Peru. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Collier, David. 1976. Squatters and Oligarchs: Authoritarian Rule and Policy Change in Peru. Baltimore Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Cotier, Julio. 1975. “The New Mode of Political Domination in Peru.” In Abraham F. Lowenthal, ed., The Peruvian Experiment: Continuity and Change under Military Rule. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press. -. 1978. Clases, estado y nacion en el Peru. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. -. 1979. “State and Regime: Comparative Notes on the Southern Cone and the ‘Enclave’ Societies.” In David Collier, ed.. The New Authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press. -. 1986. “Military Interventions and ‘Transfer of Power to Civilians’ in Peru.” In Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, eds., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Latin America. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hop¬ kins University Press. -. 1988. “Los partidos politicos y la democracia en el Peru.” In Luis Pasara and Julio Cotier, eds., Democracia, sociedad y gobierno en el Peru. Lima: Centro de Estudios de Democracia y Sociedad. Crabtree, John. 1987. “The Consolidation of Alan Garcia’s Government in Peru.” Third World Quarterly 9, no. 3: 804-24. Cueva Sanchez, Luis, ed. 1987. Sierra central: comunidad campesina, problemas y alternativas. Lima: Fundacion Friedrich Ebert. Degregori, Carlos Ivan. 1986. “Sendero Luminoso: los hondos y mortales desencuentros.” In Eduardo Ballon, ed., Movimientos sociales y crisis: el caso peruano. Lima: DESCO. De Soto, Hernando. 1989. The Other Path: The Invisible Revolution in the Third World. Translated by June Abbott. New York: Harper & Row. Devlin, Robert. 1980. Los bancos transnacionales y elfinanciamiento externo de America

Peru

/

185

Latina: la experiencia del Peru 1965-1976. Santiago de Chile: CEPAL, United Nations. Dietz, Henry A. 1969. “Urban Squatter Settlements in Peru: A Case History and Analysis.’’ Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 11 (July): 353— 70. -. 1980. Poverty and Problem-Solving under Military Rule: The Urban Poor in Lima, Peru. Austin: University of Texas Press. Dietz, Henry A. 1982. “Mobilization, Austerity and Voting: The Legacy of the Revolution for Lima’s Poor.” In Stephen F. Gorman, ed., Post-Revolutionary Peru: The Politics of Transformation. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. -. 1985. “Political Participation in the Barriadas: An Extension and Reexamina¬ tion.” Comparative Political Studies 18, no. 3: 323-55. Durand, Francisco. 1982. La decada frustrada: los industriales y el poder 1970-1980. Lima: DESCO. -. 1984. Los industriales, el liberalismo y la democracia. Lima: DESCO and Fundacion Friedrich Ebert. Eguren, Fernando. 1988. “Democracia y sociedad rural.” In Luis Pasara and Julio Cotier, eds., Democracia, sociedad y gobierno en el Peru. Lima: Centro de Estudios de Democracia y Sociedad. Einaudi, Luigi R. 1976. “Revolution from Within? Military Rule in Peru since 1968.” In David Chaplin, ed., Peruvian Nationalism: A Corporatist Revolution. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Einaudi, Luigi R., and Alfred C. Stepan, III. 1971. Latin American Institutional De¬ velopment: Changing Military Perspectives in Peru and Brazil. RAND Report R-586-DOS. Santa Monica, Calif. RAND Corporation. Figueroa, Adolfo. 1984. Capitalist Development and the Peasant Economy in Peru. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Fioravanti, Eduardo. 1976. Latifundio y sindicalismo agrario en el Peru. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Fitzgerald, E.V.K. 1976. The State and Economic Development: Peru since 1968. Cam¬ bridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Franco, Carlos. 1985. “Nation, estado y clases: condiciones del debate en los 80.” Socialismo y Participacion 29 (mar 30): 1-18. Galfn, Pedro, Julio Carrion, and Oscar Castillo. 1986. Asalariados y clases populares en Lima. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Garcia Perez, Alan. 1982. Elfuturo diferente: la tarea historica delAPRA. Lima: DESA. Garcia Salvattecci, Hugo. 1980. Hay a de la Torre o el marxismo latinoamericano. Lima: Marla Ramirez V. _. n.d. Georges Sorely J. C. Mariategui. Lima: Enrique Delgado Valenzuela. Gomez, Rudolph. 1969. The Peruvian Administrative System. Boulder: Bureau of Gov¬ ernmental Research and Service, University of Colorado. Goodsell, Charles T. 1974. American Corporations and Peruvian Politics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Gorman, Stephen F., ed. 1982. Post-Revolutionary Peru: The Politics of Transformation. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Handelman, Howard. 1975. Struggle in the Andes: Peasant Political Mobilization in Peru. Austin: University of Texas Press. Harding, Colin. 1975. “Land Reform and Social Conflict in Peru.” In Abraham F.

186

/

Comparative Politics

Lowenthal, ed., The Peruvian Experiment: Continuity and Change under Military Rule. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Hilliker, Grant. 1971. The Politics of Reform in Peru: The Aprista and Other Mass Parties of Latin America. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hopkins, Jack W. 1967. The Government Executive of Modern Peru. Center for Latin American Studies, Latin American Monographs, 2d ser., no. 3. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Hunt, Shane. 1975. “Direct Foreign Investment in Peru: New Rules for an Old Game.” In Abraham F. Lowenthal, ed., The Peruvian Experiment: Continuity and Change under Military Rule. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Kantor, Harry. 1966. The Ideology and Program of the Peruvian Aprista Movement. Washington, D.C.: Savile Books. Klaren, Peter F. 1973. Modernization, Dislocation, and Aprismo: Origins of the Peruvian Aprista Party, 1870-1932. Austin: University of Texas Press. Kruijt, Dirk, and Menno Vellinga. 1979. Labor Relations and Multinational Corpora¬ tions: The Cerro de Pasco Corporation in Peru (1902-1974). Assen, The Neth¬ erlands: Van Gorcum & Co. Leeds, Anthony, and Elizabeth Leeds. 1976. “Accounting for Behavioral Differences: Three Political Systems and the Responses of Squatters in Brazil, Peru, and Chile.” In John Walton and Louis H. Masotti, eds.. The City in Comparative Perspective: Cross-National Research andNew Directions in Theory. New York: Halsted Press, John Wiley & Sons. Lobo, Susan. 1982. A House of My Own: Social Organization in the Squatter Settlements of Lima, Peru. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Long, Norman, and Bryan R. Roberts, eds. 1978. Peasant Cooperation and Capitalist Expansion in Central Peru. Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas. -. 1984. Miners, Peasants, and Entrepreneurs: Regional Development in the Cen¬ tral Highlands of Peru. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lowenthal, Abraham F., ed. 1975. The Peruvian Experiment: Continuity and Change under Military Rule. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. McClintock, Cynthia. 1981. Peasant Cooperatives and Political Change in Peru. Prince¬ ton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. -. 1984. “Why Peasants Rebel: The Case of Peru’s Sendero Luminoso.” World Politics 37, no. 1: 48-84. McClintock, Cynthia, and Abraham F. Lowenthal, eds. 1983. The Peruvian Experiment Reconsidered. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Matos Mar, Jose. 1970. El Peru actual: sociedad y politico. Mexico. D.F.: Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. -. 1984. Desborde popular y crisis del estado: el nuevo rostro del Peru en la decada de 1980. Peru Problema 21. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Michl, Sara. 1973. “Urban Squatter Organization as a National Goverment Tool: The Case of Lima, Peru.” In Francine F. Rabinovitz and Felicity M. Trueblood, eds., Latin American Urban Research, vol. 3. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. North, Liisa. 1966. Civil-Military Relations in Argentina, Chile, and Peru. Politics of Modernization Series, no. 2. Berkeley: Institute of International Relations, Uni¬ versity of California. North, Liisa, and Tanya Korovkin. 1981. The Peruvian Revolution and the Officers in

Peru

/

187

Power, 1967-1976. Occasional Monograph Series, no. 15. Montreal, Quebec: Centre for Developing-Area Studies, McGill University. Palma, Diego. 1987. La informalidad, lo popular y el cambio social. Serie Cuademos DESCO 8. Lima: DESCO. Palmer, David Scott. 1986. “Rebellion in Rural Peru: The Origins and Evolution of Sendero Luminoso.” Comparative Politics 18, no. 2: 127-46. Parodi, Jorge. 1986. “La desmovilizacion del sindicalismo industrial peruano en el segundo belaundismo.” In Eduardo Ballon, ed., Movimientos sociales y crisis: el caso peruano. Lima: DESCO. -. 1986. “Ser obrero es algo relativo . . . ”: obreros, clasismo y politico. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. -. 1988. “Los sindicatos en la democracia vacfa.” In Luis Pasara and Julio Cotier, eds. Democracia, sociedad y gobierno en el Peru. Lima: Centro de Estudios de Democracia y Sociedad. Pasara, Luis, and Julio Cotier, eds. 1988. Democracia, sociedad y gobierno en el Peru. Lima: Centro de Estudios de Democracia y Sociedad. Payne, James L. 1965. Labor and Politics in Peru: The System of Political Bargaining. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Pease Garcia, Henry. 1977. El ocaso del poder oligarquico: lucha politico en la escena oficial 1968-1975. Lima: DESCO. Philip, George D. E. 1978. The Rise and Fall of the Peruvian Military Radicals, 19681976. London University Institute of Latin American Studies, Mongraph no. 9. London: Athlone Press. Pinelo, Adalberto J. 1973. The Multinational Corporation as a Force in Latin American Politics: A Case Study of the International Petroleum Company in Peru. New York: Praeger. Saulniers, Alfred H. 1988. Public Enterprises in Peru: Public Sector Growth and Reform. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Schydlowsky, Daniel, and Juan J. Wicht. 1979. The Anatomy of an Economic Failure: Peru, 1968-1978. Discussion Paper Series, Center for Latin American Devel¬ opment Studies, no. 32. Boston: Center for Latin American Development Studies, Boston University. Scurrah, Martin J., and Bruno Podesta. 1988. “The Experience of Worker Self-Man¬ agement in Peru and Chile.” In Sheldon Annis and Peter Hakim, eds., Direct to the Poor: Grassroots Development in Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner. Sheahan, John. 1983. “The Economics of the Peruvian Experiment in Comparative Perspective.” In Cynthia McClintock and Abraham F. Lowenthal, eds.. The Peruvian Experiment Reconsidered. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Stallings, Barbara. 1979. “Peru and the U.S. Banks: Privatization of Financial Rela¬ tions.” In RichardR. Fagen, ed.,Capitalism and the State in U.S.-Latin American Relations. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. _. 1983. “International Capitalism and the Peruvian Military Government.” In Cynthia McClintock and Abraham F. Lowenthal, eds., The Peruvian Experiment Reconsidered. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. _. 1987. Banker to the Third World: U.S. Portfolio Investment in Latin America, 1900-1986. Berkeley: University of California Press.

188

/

Comparative Politics

Stepan, Alfred. 1978. The State and Society: Peru in Comparative Perspective. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Stephens, Evelyne Huber. 1980. The Politics of Workers’ Participation: The Peruvian Approach in Comparative Perspective. New York: Academic Press. -. 1983. “The Peruvian Military Government, Labor Mobilization, and the Political Strength of the Left.” Latin American Research Review 18, no. 2: 57-93. Thorp, Rosemary, and Geoffrey Bertram. 1978. Peru 1890-1977: Growth and Policy in an Open Economy. London: Macmillan & Co. Tovar Samanez, Teresa. 1986. “Vecinos pobladores en la crisis (1980-1984).” In Ed¬ uardo Ballon, ed., Movimientos sociales y crisis: el casoperuano. Lima: DESCO. Trimberger, Ellen Kay. 1978. Revolution from Above: Military Bureaucrats and Devel¬ opment in Japan, Turkey, Egypt, and Peru. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Tuesta Soldevilla, Fernando. 1987. Peru politico en cifras: elite politico y elecciones. Lima: Fundacion Friedrich Ebert. Vanden, Harry E. 1986. National Marxism in Latin America: Jose Carlos Mariategui’s Thought and Politics. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner. Vega Centeno, Imelda. 1985. Aprismo popular: mito, cultura e historia. Lima: Tarea. -. 1986. Ideologia y cultura en el Aprismo popular. Lima: Tarea. Villanueva, Victor. 1962. El militarismo en el Peru. Lima: T. Scheuch. -. 1969. iNueva mentalidad militar en el Peru? Lima: J. Mejia Baca. Webb, Richard C. 1977. Government Policy and the Distribution of Income in Peru, 1963-73. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Wils, Frits. 1979. Industrialization, Industrialists, and the Nation-State in Peru: A Com¬ parative/Sociological Analysis. Research Series no. 41. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California. Wise, Carol. 1989. “Democratization, Crisis, and the APRA’s Modernization Project in Peru.” In Barbara Stallings and Robert Kaufman, eds., Debt and Democracy in Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

10 BOLIVIA Eduardo A. Gamarra

Although Bolivia has historically been of little importance to the United States and has been a minor player in the international arena, it has gradually produced a few prominent American and European political scientists and historians who have directed their research attention to this Andean nation. Owing to the seminal work by Robert J. Alexander, The Bolivian National Revolution (1958), the Revolution of 1952 and its consequences soon became the focus of scholarly attention. Little was done on Bolivian politics until James M. Malloy’s Bolivia: The Uncompleted Revolution (1970) was published, and this quickly became the classic book on the subject. The work by Alexander and Malloy helped pave the way toward the publication of a number of books by North Americans and Europeans that added significantly to this literature during the 1970s and 1980s. The best of this genre—focusing partially or wholly on the Bolivian national revolution and its consequences—includes James M. Malloy and Richard Thom, eds.. Beyond the Revolution: Bolivia Since 1952 (1971); Christopher Mitchell, The Legacy of Populism in Bolivia: From the MNR to Military Rule (1977); Jerry Ladman, ed., Modern Day Bolivia: Legacy of the Revolution and Prospects for the Future (1982); Jonathan Kelly and Herbert Klein, Revolution and the Rebirth of Inequality: A Theory Applied to the National Revolution in Bolivia (1981); James Dunkerley, Rebellion in the Veins: Political Struggle in Bolivia 1952-1982 (1984); and James M. Malloy and Eduardo Gamarra, Revolution and Reaction: Bolivia 1964-1985 (1988). Bolivia’s unfortunate experience with prolonged military rule between 1964 and 1982 is greatly responsible for the impoverished state of political science research in Bolivia. Many of the most promising scholars were exiled or jailed during this time period. As a result, much of the scholarly work done on Bolivia was written by foreign scholars or by Bolivians living in exile. The forced closing

190

/

Comparative Politics

of universities, especially in fields related to political inquiry, accounts for the fact that only in the last six years has political science been offered as a discipline in the major universities. As a result, Bolivia’s first generation of locally trained political scientists is about to graduate. This trend augurs well for the professional development of the social sciences in Bolivia during the 1990s and beyond. The return to democracy in Bolivia during the 1980s has generated consid¬ erably more political science research—in effect, a literary boom that parallels the publication rate of nations with far greater resources—than was the case during prior periods of military rule. Three major research centers have opened to provide an institutional base for returning scholars and for recent graduates of Bolivia’s universities. The synthesis of the political science research in this chapter concentrates on the contributions of these centers and their researchers, in addition to the work carried out by North American and European scholars. Bolivia’s convoluted political history in the last three decades provides a virtual laboratory for all types of political science research. In fact, certain features of the Bolivian case allow comparative analysts to examine more closely problems that are common to the Latin American region as a whole. The first of these features is the prolonged military intervention in politics and the elevation of coup making to almost an art form. Second, the military’s attempts to impose different political solutions to problems of development and their failure to institutionalize a stable regime have been studied closely by both Bolivian and foreign scholars. Third, Bolivia’s difficult transition to democracy and the prob¬ lems faced by weak and incipient civilian governments permit a critical exam¬ ination of the dilemmas of democratization. Fourth, the magnitude of the economic crisis Bolivia faced in the mid-1980s has enabled researchers to ponder whether the consolidation of a democratic regime, in the context of severe economic difficulties, is politically possible. Because of space limitations, not all of the relevant literature devoted to political science research over the past three decades will be cited in this chapter. However, every effort was made to select the most representative works on Bolivia by North American, Bolivian, and European social scientists during this period. What is discussed is arranged in order of scholarly significance, following the subjects of investigation analyzed in Chapter 1 and Appendix B. Agrarian and revolutionary issues are covered in the discussion on theory and labor politics.

COUNTRY AND COMPARATIVE STUDIES James Malloy’s research over the past twenty-five years has provided the most comprehensive interpretation of Bolivian politics in the post-war period, and, as a result, has established the foundation of the mainstream research agenda. Demonstrating the value of his early work on political developments in Bolivia, a Spanish version—Bolivia: la Revolucion inconclusa (1989)—was finally pub¬ lished in Bolivia in 1989, nearly twenty years after the appearance of this seminal work. Building on the findings of Malloy’s earlier work, Malloy and Gamarra

Bolivia

/

191

(1988) argue that Bolivian political life in the last three decades has been shaped by the dynamics unleashed by the revolution and by the failed attempts to implement the state-led development strategy introduced by the Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario (MNR) in 1952. An excellent piece of scholarship, which also traces the impact of the revolution on Bolivian politics, written by James Dunkerley (1984), a well-known British historian, provides a detailed and superbly documented narrative that focuses on the plight of labor and the political left under military governments. The trend in the 1970s toward military government did not diminish the importance of the revolution as a subject of inquiry. Some scholars developed an interest in the comparative dimension of the revolution as a basis for under¬ standing better the dynamics of political change. One of the most significant works was written by Susan Eckstein, The Impact of Revolution: A Comparative Analysis of Mexico and Bolivia (1976).

A concise analysis of Bolivian political history can be found in the prestigious textbook on Latin American politics: James M. Malloy, “Bolivia: An Incomplete Revolution,” in Howard J. Wiarda and Harvey Kline, eds., Latin American Politics and Development (1985). Year-to-year developments in Bolivia between 1981 and 1988 are analyzed by James M. Malloy and Eduardo Gamarra, “Bo¬ livia,” in Abraham F. Lowenthal, ed., Latin America and Caribbean Contem¬ porary Record (1989). Yearly summaries periodically appear in Current History, which also update the most relevant political events in Bolivia.

THEORY Academic thinking about Bolivian politics has been influenced primarily by the writings of Rene Zavaleta Mercado, Elpoder dual en America Latina (1974); Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz, Oleocracia o patria (1982); and Sergio Almaraz Paz, Requiem para una republica (1969). Few Bolivian analysts have written much without acknowledging the influence of these three authors. The research questions they probed still dominate the literature concerned with political theory. However, the nature of this research has generated an interest in the state as a dependent variable, viewed largely in instrumentalist terms, which has in turn led to speculative and often ideological analysis of Bolivian politics. Many political scientists have used the Bolivian case to explain broader the¬ oretical questions and political puzzles. Such was the case, for example, with Malloy’s (1970) book on the 1952 revolution. Apart from this important work, the only book in English that applied a broader theoretical framework to explain the revolution was written by Kelly and Klein (1981). They theorized that radical revolutions tend to redistribute income and physical capital, which creates a more equal distribution of wealth and income in the short run but eventually leads to a decline in status inheritance. Theorizing about the revolution has been one of the dominant concerns of Bolivian political sociologists; however, many of the works available are laden

192

/

Comparative Politics

with jargon, devoid of social science methodology, and not very useful for understanding Bolivia’s national revolution and its aftermath. Two works by Guillermo Bedregal epitomize this style of political science research: Teona del nacionalismo revolucionario (1985) and El poder en la revolucion nacional (1985). Malloy and Gamarra (1988) analyzed Bolivia within a broader theoretical framework that sought to explain its pattern of regime transition within the Latin American context. Although it is a prematurely pessimistic forecast of democ¬ ratization efforts, Laurence Whitehead’s “Bolivia’s Failed Democratization, 1977-1980,” in Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, eds.. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule (1986), provided one of the most significant attempts at examining the Bolivian case in light of the most current theories regarding transitions from military rule. Contemporary thinking about political theory is largely dominated by debates over the nature of democracy and the construction of a new democratic order. Much of this theoretical debate has been influenced by neo-Marxist scholars working out of universities and research institutes in London, Paris, and Frank¬ furt. For example, Bolivian scholars such as Fernando Calderon and Salvador Romero, who have been at the forefront of thinking about democratic theory, have been influenced by European ideas on this subject. The more recent works of Rene Antonio Mayorga, “La democracia entre la fragmentation y la impo¬ sition,” in Rene Antonio Mayorga, ed., Democracia a la deriva (1987), and H.C.F. Mansilla’s Modernizacion y progreso en cuestionamiento (1984) also show the influence of the German Frankfurt school on Bolivian political thinking.

ECONOMIC ISSUES Bolivia’s chronic economic difficulties, intertwined with drug trafficking and political instability, have been the subjects of a few noteworthy studies of political economy during the decade of the 1980s. The most representative of this work is by Pablo Ramos Sanchez, Siete ahos de economia Boliviana (1980), who provided an economic critique of the Banzer period including an analysis of the relationship between the economic model and the political program pursued by that military regime. James M. Malloy and Sylvia Borzutsky, “The Praetorianization of the Revolution” (in Ladman, 1982), also applied a political economy framework to examine the Banzer period. One of the consequences of the economic crisis of the 1980s was to prompt analysts to consider the relationship between economics and politics more care¬ fully and systematically. Even economists who would normally avoid delving into political analysis have produced works that fit neatly into the field of political economy. One of the best and most representative studies of this type is the coauthored work by Juan Antonio Morales and Jeffrey Sachs, The Bolivian Hyperinflation and Stabilization (1987). Although it is mainly an economic

Bolivia

/

193

analysis of the hyperinflationary period of the mid-1980s, their research shows that sociopolitical factors were largely responsible for the economic crisis. A more critical analysis of the politics of Bolivia’s hyperinflation was provided by James Dunkerley and Rolando Morales, “The Bolivian Crisis” (1986). The only book-length study of Bolivia’s political economy of development between 1964 and 1985 is found in Malloy and Gamarra (1988). In Malloy and Gamarra (1989), the authors extend their analysis to explain the political effects of the stabilization policies adopted in 1985. Since 1985, the research on political economy has been strengthened by three articles produced by North American and Bolivian scholars. In Eduardo Gamarra, “The Privatization Debate in Bolivia,” in Dennis Gayle and Jonathan Goodrich, eds., Privatization and Deregulation in Global Perspective (1989), privatization initiatives since 1985 are analyzed emphasizing the reactions of different social groups. Rene Antonio Mayorga, Democratizacion y modernizacion del estado: el caso de Bolivia (1988), in an excellent piece of political economy research, provides an analysis of the reactions of key pressure groups to the stabilization measures designed to offset the hyperinflation in the mid-1980s. Another fine study, based on in-depth interviews with Bolivian entrepreneurs and policy¬ makers, is Catherine Conaghan, James M. Malloy and Luis A. Abugattas, “Busi¬ ness and the ‘Boys’: The Politics of Neoliberalism in the Central Andes” (1990), in which the authors analyze the decision-making process that led to the for¬ mulation of the New Economic Policy (NPE) that stabilized an economy rocked by a 26,000-percent annual inflation rate. One of the more promising fields of political inquiry in contemporary Bolivia is political economy due in large part to the consolidation of the New Economic Policy and the debate it has engendered among Bolivian scholars and policy practitioners. The importance of this subject of research, and the growing em¬ phasis on economic theoretical constructs, is likely to expand the interest in political economy and continue the output of books and articles related to this aspect of the Bolivian politics.

ARMED FORCES Bolivia’s reputation as the most coup-prone nation in Latin America is well deserved. Since the military takeover that toppled the MNR in 1964, coups and countercoups have been the dominating characteristics of Bolivian political life. Since the mid-1960s, any significant study of Bolivian politics was compelled to address the role of the armed forces. William H. Brill’s Military Intervention in Bolivia: The Overthrow of Paz Estenssoro and the MNR (1967) was one of the first studies to analyze the causes of the 1964 military coup that ended the Bolivian Revolution. Malloy’s analysis (1970) of the National Revolution traced the origins of the 1964 coup to the MNR’s attempt to control the labor militia by reconstructing the military. In another perceptive study, Jorge Calderon, The Bolivian Coup of 1964: A Soci-

194

/

Comparative Politics

ological Analysis (1972), relied on Malloy’s analysis to provide a sociological interpretation of General Barrientos’s coup. Further analysis of the military during this period was provided by Charles D. Corbett’s “Military Institutional Development and Socio-Political Change: The Bolivian Case’’ (1972), an ex¬ planation of the dilemmas confronting the institutional development of the mil¬ itary in a period (1964-1971) of rapid sociopolitical change. Much of what has been written about the military by Bolivian authors during the 1960s and 1970s reflects the prevailing political and ideological tensions in Bolivian society. Personal accounts by exiles or laudatory praises of the presidente de turno were common. Illustrative of this style of analysis is Fernando Diez de Medina’s El general del pueblo (1972). Guillermo Bedregal, a wellknown and controversial politician, wrote the only book (Los militares en Bolivia: ensayo de interpretacion sociologica, 1971) during this period that claimed to apply a sociological analysis to the military institution. The military-populist interlude between 1969 and 1971 generated a number of works that examined the military’s attempt to lead a reformist period of government. For the most part, however, these descriptive books and articles continued to focus on the personal experiences of each author. Nevertheless, a few such as Jorge Gallardo Lozada’s De Torres a Banzer: diez meses de emergencia en Bolivia (1972) did provide some interesting insights into the populist experiment, particularly the relations between the military and civilian labor leaders and the political party elites. Of greater significance during this period was organized labor’s attempt to push through a Soviet-like popular assembly in spite of the military’s opposition. Two works—Jerry Knudson, Bolivia’s Popular Assembly and the Overthrow of General Juan Jose Torres (1974), and Eduardo Fioravanti, L’esperanza dell’assemblea popolare in Bolivia (1971)— produced in the early 1970s provided the only studies of the functioning of the Asamblea Popular. Although descriptive in their approach, these two studies have become the standard reference for understanding the Torres period in Bolivia. The coming to power of General Hugo Banzer Suarez in 1971 led many scholars to examine the new military regime utilizing the conceptual frameworks that were in vogue in political science at the time. James M. Malloy, “Au¬ thoritarianism and Corporatism: The Case of Bolivia,’’ in James M. Malloy, ed., Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America (1977), for example, wrote extensively on Bolivia’s experiments with corporatism. Christopher Mitch¬ ell’s study (1977) of the MNR also provided an important analysis of the rela¬ tionship of the party of the revolution with General Banzer’s dictatorship. Studies over the past decade have attempted to interpret the military period from a broader comparative and theoretical perspective. For example, in Eduardo Gamarra’s doctoral dissertation—“Political Stability, Democratization, and the Bolivian National Congress” (1987)—he analyzed successive military attempts to develop a corporatist style legislature. In Malloy and Gamarra (1988), the authors classify Banzer’s seven-year period as an instance of “neo-patrimonial

Bolivia

/

195

rule” in which the military’s attempt to install a bureaucratic-authoritarian regime failed due to structural constraints and to the clientelistic nature of the relations between General Banzer and key individuals in the private sector, political parties, and the military. In a more descriptive assessment, James Dunkerley (1984) examines the Ban¬ zer period and the subsequent turbulent transition to democracy (1978-1982) while, at the same time, generating a very critical indictment of the Bolivian military. Although Dunkerley offers a richly descriptive and historical narrative illustrating the dilemmas confronting the military as it responded to pressures from civil society to surrender power, he carefully avoids any attempt to provide broader theoretical explanations. One of the few examples of Bolivian scholarship on the Banzer period pub¬ lished in English is the excellent study of the linkages between national popular state capitalism and military dictatorship by Rene Antonio Mayorga, “National Popular State Capitalism and Military Dictatorships in Bolivia: 1952-1975” (1978). As with other parts of South America, the transition to democracy in the later 1970s produced a number of works that keenly illustrated the fate of the Bolivian military and the 1952 revolution. One of the more interesting works, although hardly grounded in social science methodology, was Pablo Ramos Sanchez’s Radiografia de un golpe de estado (1982). What he offers the reader is a com¬ pelling explanation (although based on news events and rumors of the day) of the 1980 coup that temporarily halted the transition to democracy and brought to power the infamous narco general, Luis Garcia Meza. Like other Bolivian analysts, Ramos argued that the coup was rooted in the military’s response to civilian inquiries into corruption and human rights abuses during the Banzer years. However, James M. Malloy’s Bolivia: The Sad and Corrupt End of the Revolution (1982) is the most illustrative characterization of the Garcia Meza regime as a “uniformed kleptocracy” and one of the best analyses of the de¬ terioration of Bolivian political institutions since the revolution. The transition from military rule generated a new set of concerns, although followed by only a handful of articles, among social scientists who quickly turned their attention to the process of democratization and the participation of other social groups. The best works on this subject are three essays that focus on the disengagement of the military after 1982. In her analysis of the Garcia Meza period, Gloria Ardaya, “Ejercito: crisis para la transicion?” (1985), argues that the military decomposition was largely responsible for the transition to democracy in 1982. This was followed several years later by Eduardo Gamarra’s “Bolivia: Disengagement and Democratization,” in Constantine Danopoulos, ed., Military Disengagement from Politics (1988), an analysis of the military in historical perspective and a sober assessment of its future role under democratic rule. Given the decomposition of the armed forces during the Garcia Meza period and the unwillingness of civilians to press ahead with inquiries into military rule, Gamarra (1988) argues that it is highly unlikely to have military intervention in

196

/

Comparative Politics

the near future. Finally, Raul Barrios Moron, “Fuerzas armadas y proceso democratico en Bolivia’ ’ (1986), analyzes the behavior of the armed forces during the first civilian government following the transition headed by Heman Siles Zuazo and his populist Democratic and Popular Union (UDP) coalition. Bamos (1986) concludes that, with the help of the United States, the Bolivian armed forces are slowly rebuilding their influence in Bolivian political life. Although most social scientists have neglected the military as a subject of investigation since the transition to democracy, Gary Prado Salmon, a prominent former officer, has written a first-hand historical account of the armed forces since 1949: Poder y fuerzas armadas: 1949-1982 (1984). In spite of the personal history, Prado provides a detailed and unique analysis of the politics and conflict inside the military institution. This unique retrospective analysis of the Banzer period, when the author faced exile, is a particularly useful description of the deep-seated divisions—personalistic, ideological, and generational—within the armed forces. In one of the only studies of the Bolivian military undertaken by a European political scientist, Jean-Pierre Lavaud, “L’art du coup d’etat: les militaires dans la societe bolivienne (1952-1985)” (1989), examines the recruitment, formation, ideology, and demands of military officers in order to explain the causes of military coups between 1952 and 1982. However, he concludes that the prev¬ alence of coup d’etats in Bolivia cannot be explained solely by examining the conflict within the military institution. As with earlier studies cited in this section, Lavaud emphasizes the importance of the military’s civilian allies—the private sector and key political parties—in the art of coup making.

POLITICAL PARTIES, PRESSURE GROUPS, AND ELECTIONS Considering the importance of the MNR in Bolivian politics, it is surprising that so few studies have been written on the party that led the 1952 revolution. Fewer still are available on other parties in the political system. In the late 1960s Herbert S. Klein published the only study—Parties and Political Change in Bolivia (1969)—that comprehensibly examined the process of party formation in the prerevolutionary period. Malloy’s study (1970) of the revolution evaluated the formation process and the consolidation of the MNR in great detail; Mitchell’s dissertation, later published as The Legacy of Populism in Bolivia: From the MNR to Military Rule (1977), is the only study devoted solely to an analysis of the MNR. Owing to the militarization of Bolivian politics, few scholars studied political parties after 1964. With the transition to democracy that began in the late 1970s, authors sought to explain the proliferation of minute political parties, the ties of larger parties to pressure groups, and their role in the newly elected national congress. One example of this type of research is Raul Rivadeneira’s El laberinto

Bolivia

/

197

politico de Bolivia (1984), in which the author tries to identify all the political parties and their factions since 1952. This effort was complemented with the publication of the second edition of Mario Rolon Anaya’s Politico y partidos politicos en Bolivia (1987) and Guillermo Lora’s Historia de los partidos politicos en Bolivia (1987), which provide the history and platforms of every significant political party. With the onset of democracy in the 1980s, political scientists and political sociologists began to examine more closely the behavior of political parties and their relationships to other key social groups. For example, in his doctoral dissertation, Gamarra (1987) analyzed the linkages between political parties and pressure groups during the transition to democracy. Salvador Romero, a prom¬ inent political sociologist, concentrated on the relationships between political parties and pressure groups such as organized labor and regional civic committees in Partidos, sindicatos y grupos de presion en Bolivia (1987). In his essay, “Cuestionados por la sociedad: los partidos politicos” (1988), Fernando Cald¬ eron offers a more critical view of political parties and their functions within the larger society. Despite the prevalence of elections since 1978, elections and electoral pro¬ cesses have received comparatively little research attention. A few studies con¬ centrated mainly on descriptive accounts of party platforms and proposals; others merely provided descriptive narrations of the electoral contest. Some analysis of the electoral disputes between 1982 and 1985 can be found in the works by Dunkerley (1984) and by Malloy and Gamarra (1988). It is noteworthy that since 1960 electoral analysis is the most neglected field of political inquiry in Bolivia. Although there are no systematic studies on the elections held before 1978, the 1980s have witnessed a healthy dose of academic interest in electoral processes and procedures. In large measure, the growing interest in this subject of investigation is the product of a nation gradually coming to terms with elections and democratic rule. Two recent studies—Renata Hoff¬ mann’s A proposito de las elecciones municipales (1988) and Jose Baldivia’s Balance y perspectiva: elecciones municipales (1988)—analyze the results of the 1987 municipal elections, and a number of Bolivian scholars are currently working on the May 1989 elections. Although there is currently a slight upward trend in electoral studies, survey research and public opinion polls will most likely be slighted in future academic endeavors. Historically, the study of pressure groups in Bolivia has been neglected by both local and foreign scholars. However, as they became significant players in the political arena, especially during and after the transition from military rule, several authors began to study the political role of key organizations such as the Confederation of Private Entrepreneurs (CEPB) and the Santa Cruz Civic Com¬ mittee. The most representative works on regional committees are Fernando Calderon and Roberto Lasema’s, eds., El poder de las regiones (1982) and Jose Luis Roca’s Fisonomia del regionalismo Boliviano (1979), a seminal study

198

/

Comparative Politics

of Bolivian regionalism. Roca’s study supports the argument that where political parties fail to establish links with regions, de facto groups such as civic com¬ mittees supplant them as interest aggregators and articulators. Interest in the political behavior of the private sector has also grown in the 1980s primarily because of the key role played by prominent entrepreneurs in the transition to democracy and in governmental posts since 1985. The best study in this area is Catherine M. Conaghan, James M. Malloy and Luis A. Abugattas’s “Business and the ‘Boys’: The Politics of Neoliberalism in the Central Andes” (1990)—which places the Bolivian private sector in a comparative and theoretical perspective. This type of political science research has been made possible by the compilation of documents and speeches published by the CEPB which now allow scholars the opportunity to interpret the political behavior of this organi¬ zation during the last decade.

VALUES Research on political culture is virtually unknown in Bolivia. This gap in our understanding of Bolivian politics is rooted in several causes. First, Bolivian social scientists, the majority of whom have been trained in Europe, have never been exposed to the work on political culture pioneered by North American political scientists. Second, the reticence to study political values and culture is also related to the few resources available to conduct surveys. Third, method¬ ological problems, such as adequate survey and polling techniques, are numerous in a country where census data is nonexistent or inadequate. This particular problem surfaced in the public opinion polls that were conducted during the 1989 general election campaign. Moreover, electoral results, based on such inferior empirical methods, contribute to the scant amount of knowledge con¬ cerning political attitudes, and voting behavior, among Bolivians in general. The only extant piece of research on political culture in Bolivia is Jorge Lazarte’s “Cultura pohtica, democracia, e inestabilidad” (1986), which attempts to demonstrate the usefulness of political culture to explain the political behavior of labor groups between 1982 and 1985. Although his essay suffers from a few methodological flaws, Lazarte made a valuable initial contribution to this subject of research. Although research centers in Bolivia have developed some interest in the pursuit of surveys to measure political attitudes, it is highly unlikely that political culture will be a major area of research interest in the near future.

LABOR POLITICS Given the historical significance of organized labor in Bolivian politics sur¬ prisingly few studies are available that focus specifically on the Central Obrera Boliviana (COB), Bolivia’s largest labor organization. Organized labor played a key role in launching the national revolution in 1952, and it has been the principal opposition force to every government since at least 1956. Bolivia’s

Bolivia

/

199

turbulent political history partially accounts for the vacuum in academic research on labor. The most comprehensive history of Bolivian labor is found in Guillermo Lora’s two-volume Historia del movimiento obrero (1970), which has been translated into English. Lora, the founder of the Trostskyist Partido Obrero Revolucionario (POR), analyzed the history of Bolivian labor between 1923 and 1952, a key period in the formation of organized labor. Unfortunately, military intervention in the 1970s prevented other scholars from following Lora’s seminal work. In exile, only Rene Zavaleta Mercado (1974), the late dean of Bolivian social sciences, provided a theoretical analysis of the power of the COB during the MNR period which matched the standard established by Guillermo Lora. North American analysts, such as Malloy (1970) and Mitchell (1977), provided insightful examinations of the Bolivian labor movement during and after the revolution although their works focused on other aspects of the period. Robert J. Alexander wrote one of the few works on Bolivian labor in English—“The Labor Movement during and since the Revolution,” in Ladman (1982)—a short and concise history of labor’s fate under military rule. Beginning with the 1980s, a growing number of books and articles on labor gradually became available; the most representative of this work was Rene Zavaleta Mercado’s “Forma clase y forma multitud en el proletariado minero,” in Rene Zavaleta Mercado, Bolivia Hoy (1983), an analysis of how the miners’ disloyalty to the government contributed to the development of a new Bolivian state. In another innovative work, Rene Antonio Mayorga, “La crisis del sistema democratico y la Central Obrera Boliviana (COB),” in CLACSO, El sindicalismo latinoamericano en los ochenta, 1986, and Roberto Lasema, “Movimiento sindical, crisis y democracia,” in CLACSO, El sindicalismo latinoamericano en los ochenta, 1986, using a rigid social scientific framework, explore the question of labor and democracy in the context of a severe economic crisis. In the late 1980s three works have become particularly useful for understanding the current dilemmas confronting organized labor in Bolivia. Ramiro Velazco’s El poder de la Central Obrera en el estado Boliviano (1988) provides a careful and critical evaluation of the COB during the 1982-1985 period. Jorge Lazarte, a former adviser to the COB, has become the leading scholar on the Bolivian labor movement with the recent publication of his Movimientos obreros y procesos politicos en Bolivia: historia de la COB 1952-1987 (1988). This work fills a huge research gap that had remained open since Lora’s early volumes (1970) on the subject. Lazarte’s book integrates a wealth of data, such as doc¬ uments and communiques dating back to the revolution, with a rich theoretical discussion of the role of labor in the last three decades. Finally, another recent publication of value is the compilation of articles found in FLACSO, Crisis del sindicalismo en Bolivia (1987). Since the late 1970s, with the incorporation of campesino unions into the COB, a number of works have focused specifically on groups like the Confed¬ eration Sindical Unica de Trabajadores Campesinos de Bolivia (CSUTCB). The most concise and interpretative essay on this group is Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui’s

200

/

Comparative Politics

“Autonomfa y dependencia en el movimiento campesino contemporaneo: la CSUTCB y el proceso democratico,” in Rene Antonio Mayorga, ed., Democracia a la deriva (1987), which traces the evolution of campesino unions and their participation in the process of transition and consolidation from authoritarian rule. Silvia Rivera’s Oprimidos pero no vencidos: luchas del campesinado aymar a y quechua de Bolivia 1900-1980 (1986) is the best book on the evolution of the peasantry and peasant political movements. The literature on peasant movements and agrarian issues is vast; however, most of the work in this field has been conducted by anthropologists and historians with an interest in the political participation of the Bolivian peasantry. The compilation of articles by Fernando Calderon and Jorge Dandler, Bolivia: la fuerza historica del campesinado (1986), not only provides the best collection of articles on peasant movements and the Bolivian state, but also analyzes the peasantry in broader historical, comparative, and theoretical terms.

GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS Much of what has been written on Bolivia’s political system consists of legal studies that describe the functions, characteristics, and powers of government institutions. No works are available that specifically analyze governmental struc¬ tures from the perspective of sociology or political science. In the early 1970s, the area handbook series produced a useful English language description of the roles of the judiciary, congressional, and executive branches. This description was expanded and updated by Eduardo Gamarra in “Politics and Government,” in Bolivia: A Country Study (forthcoming). Only scant attention has been paid to the structure and functions of the Bolivian congress. Luis Alejandro Iriarte Ontiveros’s La democracia y el congreso del 80 (1983), although poorly researched and disjointed in its analysis, does provide some treatment of the role played by the Bolivian congress in the transition from military rule in the early part of the 1980s. Over the last three decades, the only book-length study that focuses exclusively on the role of the Bolivian national congress, with particular focus on the recent transition to democracy, is Ga¬ marra’s doctoral dissertation (1987). There are no studies that examine the judiciary in any detail, although recently a USAID consulting group conducted a comprehensive survey of the judicial system in Bolivia. There are now a few studies of the national bureaucracy— Isabel Arauco, Accion social de los sectores medios: el caso de las burocracia estatal (1985)—but there is no doubt that key political institutions are the most understudied component of Bolivian politics. It is evident that more research attention must be devoted to the role played by governmental and legal institutions in Bolivia, especially during the period of democratic consolidation.

Bolivia

/

201

THE STATE AND FUTURE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ON BOLIVIA Political science research on Bolivia has been minimal, and all indications suggest that this trend will continue. Foreign scholars have neglected Bolivia, particularly since the revolution, and with no crisis on the horizon it is unlikely that many more will study this country. A cursory examination of political science faculties in U.S. universities reveals that less than five scholars focus their research wholly or partially on Bolivia. As a result, the future of political science research in Bolivia is almost entirely up to Bolivian scholars. Nevertheless, the outlook in Bolivia is promising; the current research boom is directed by scholars who can now conduct research without fear of retaliation from government officials. Given the prevalence of civilian governments and signs of the con¬ solidation of democratic procedures and norms, the environment is propitious for the continuation of this trend in political science inquiry. Several problems, however, must be noted about the nature of political inquiry in Bolivia which may hinder the progress noted above. First, the economic situation in Bolivia has forced academics to engage in other activities to earn a living. This dilemma has compelled many to shift their attention away from research, especially empirically oriented scholarship, toward more abstract anal¬ ysis. To some degree this has also contributed to the politicization of scholarship. Second, research institutions in Bolivia depend almost entirely on foreign foundations and grants to finance projects. Among the major U.S. foundations only a few have financed projects and contributed to the general budgets of these institutions. A few Bolivian scholars have benefitted from scholarships from North American foundations in other disciplines; however, no political scientist has been funded to date. European foundations have closed the gap in some measure, but clearly they have not been able to provide sufficient funding for the day-to-day operations, salaries, and projects of Bolivian research centers and social scientists. Political science research on Bolivia is now caught in a catch22 situation: The lack of interest in Bolivia by major foundations may be directly related to the scarcity of interest by North American scholars in the politics of Bolivia. Third, Bolivian political scientists have had little contact over the years with their North American and European counterparts. Although there are many in¬ dividual ties between faculty at U.S. universities and Bolivian researchers, there are no institutional links that would allow for regularized scholarly exchange. One of the most lamentable consequences of this situation is that Bolivian scholars do not have access to the wealth of bibliographical material on Bolivia available in a few prestigious U.S. universities or in the Flispanic Division of the Library of Congress. A corollary to this problem is that Bolivian scholars have little or no knowledge about works written on Bolivia in the United States and Europe. Over 150 doctoral dissertations and master’s theses have been written on Bolivia,

202

/

Comparative Politics

but fewer than 5 have been translated into Spanish. The crux of this problem is the fact that Malloy’s (1970) work took nearly twenty years to appear in Spanish. Although the revolution and its aftermath dominate most of the political science research on Bolivia, studies on democratization, particularly the nature of state and society relations, have become the main research focus in the 1980s. More empirically grounded studies are needed, but a few Bolivian scholars have begun to use methods, such as interviews of political actors and surveys, to supplement a theoretically promising area. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that we know very little about what the average Bolivian thinks about politics. Future research must give some consideration to studies on political attitudes and mass behavior. More research attention needs to be devoted to the major players in the Bolivian political game: business and regional civic committees, organized labor (partic¬ ularly the role of the Bolivian Labor Confederation), the armed forces, and the peasantry. All of these groups, with the exception of the military, are now playing an increasingly significant role in Bolivian politics. The military continues to be one of the most understudied and least understood institutions in Bolivia. Recent studies have explained much about the behavior of the armed forces between 1964 and 1982; however, we are still ignorant about how the military operates and what its officers think about politics. Given the importance of this institution in the Bolivian political process, systematic research is a must. Given the current political situation in Bolivia, the greatest need is for more studies on political parties and political movements, particularly ethnic-based quasi-populist movements. Throughout the 1990s, the focus of political science research is likely to be on elections, political parties, democracy, and state-society relations. The par¬ adox of political science research on Bolivia is that with the prospects for con¬ solidating democracy quite favorable, political science research is likely to increase among Bolivian scholars. However, without political instability, crisis, and violence, the opposite trend is likely to occur among North American scholars.

REFERENCES Alexander, Robert J. 1958. The Bolivian National Revolution. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. -. 1982. “The Labor Movement during and since the Revolution.” In Jerry Ladman, ed., Modern Day Bolivia: Legacy of the Revolution and Prospects for the Future. Tempe: Center for Latin American Studies, Arizona State University. Almarez Paz, Sergio. 1969. Requiem para una republica. La Paz: UMSA. Arauco, Isabel. 1985. Accion social de los sectores medios: el caso de las burocracia estatal. La Paz: Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Economica y Social (CERES). Ardaya, Gloria. 1985. “Ejercito: crisis para la transition”? Estado y Sociedad 1, no. 1: 41-49.

Bolivia

/

203

Baldivia, Jose. 1988. Balance y perspectiva: elecciones municipales. La Paz: Instituto Latinoamericano de Investigaciones Sociales (ILDIS). Barrios Moron, Raul. 1986. “Fuerzas armadas y proceso democratico en Bolivia.” Estado y Sociedad 2, no. 3: 99-119. Bedregal, Guillermo. 1971. Los militares en Bolivia: ensayo de interpretacion sociologica. La Paz: Los Amigos del Libro. -. 1985. El poder en la revolucion nacional. La Paz: Los Amigos del Libro. -. 1985. Teoria del nacionalismo revolucionario. La Paz: Los Amigos del Libro. Brill, William H. 1967. Military Intervention in Bolivia: The Overthrow of Paz Estenssoro and the MNR. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Comparative Study of Political Systems. Calderon, Jorge. 1972. The Bolivian Coup of 1964: A Sociological Analysis. Buffalo: Council on International Studies, State University of New York at Buffalo. Calderon, Fernando. 1988. “Cuestionados por la sociedad: los partidos politicos.” Hom¬ ines 11, nos. 1 and 2: 149-63. Calderon, Fernando, and Jorge Dandler. 1986. Bolivia, la fuerza histdrica del campesinado: con una cronologia de Bolivia, America Latina, y el imperio Espahol, 1492-1983. La Paz: Centro de Estudios de Realidad Economica y Social. Calderon, Fernando, and Roberto Lasema, eds. 1982. El poder de las regiones. Coch¬ abamba, Bolivia: Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Economica y Social. Conaghan, Catherine M., James M. Malloy, and Luis A. Abugattas. 1990. ‘‘Business and the ‘Boys’: The Politics of Neoliberalism in the Central Andes.” Latin Amer¬ ican Research Review 25, no. 2: 3-30. Corbett, Charles D. 1972. ‘‘Military Institutional Development and Socio-Political Change: The Bolivian Case. ’ ’ Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 14, no. 4 (November): 399-435. Diez de Medina, Fernando. 1972. El general del pueblo. La Paz: Los Amigos del Libro. Dunkerley, James. 1984. Rebellion in the Veins: Political Struggle in Bolivia 1952-1982. London: Verso. Dunkerley, James, and Rolando Morales. 1986. “The Bolivian Crisis.” New Left Review 155 (January/February): 86-106. Eckstein, Susan. 1976. The Impact of Revolution: A Comparative Analysis of Mexico and Bolivia. London: Sage Contemporary Political Sociology Series. Fioravanti, Eduardo. 1971. L'esperanza dell’ assemblea popolare en Bolivia. Milan, Italy: Edizioni Jaca Book. FLACSO. 1987. Crisis del sindicalismo en Bolivia. La Paz: Facultad Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) and ILDIS. Gallardo Lozada, Jorge. 1972. De Torres a Banzer: diez meses de emergencia en Bolivia. Buenos Aires: Editorial Periferia. Gamarra, Eduardo. 1987. “Political Stability, Democratization, and the Bolivian National Congress.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh. -. 1988. “Bolivia: Disengagement and Democratization.” In Constantine Danopoulos, ed., Military Disengagement from Politics. London: Routledge. -. 1989. “The Privatization Debate in Bolivia.” In Dennis Gayle and Jonathan Goodrich, eds., Privatization and Deregulation in Global Perspective. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. -. Forthcoming. “Politics and Government.” In Bolivia: A Country Study. Wash¬ ington, D.C.: Area Handbook Series, Library of Congress.

204

/

Comparative Politics

Hoffmann, Renata. 1988. A proposito de las elecciones municipales. La Paz: Instituto Latinoamericano de Investigaciones Sociales (ILDIS). Iriarte Ontiveros, Luis Alejandro. 1983. La democracia y el congreso del 80. La Paz: Editorial Amerindia. Kelly, Jonathan, and Herbert Klein. 1981. Revolution and the Rebirth of Inequality: A Theory Applied to the National Revolution in Bolivia. Berkeley: University of California Press. Klein, Herbert S. 1969. Parties and Political Change in Bolivia. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Knudson, Jerry. 1974. Bolivia's Popular Assembly and the Overthrow of General Juan Jose Torres. Buffalo: Council on International Studies, State University of New York at Buffalo. Ladman, Jerry, ed. 1982. Modern Day Bolivia: Legacy of the Revolution and Prospects for the Future. Tempe: Center for Latin American Studies, Arizona State University. Lasema, Roberto. 1986 “Movimiento sindical, crisis y democracia.” In CLACSO, El sindicalismo latinoamericano en los ochenta. Santiago: CLACSO. Lavaud, Jean-Pierre. 1989. “L’art du coup d’etat: les militaires dans la societe bolivienne (1952-1985).” Revue Frangaise de sociologies 30: 107-36. Lazarte, Jorge. 1986. ‘‘Cultura politica, democracia, e inestabilidad.” Estadoy Sociedad 2, no. 3 (Octubre): 53-73. -. 1988. Movimientos obreros y procesos politicos en Bolivia: historia de la COB, 1952-1987. La Paz: Edobol. Lora, Guillermo. 1970. Historia del movimiento obrero. 2 vol. La Paz: Los Amigos del Libro. -. 1987. Historia de los partidos politicos en Bolivia. La Paz: Ediciones La Colmena. Malloy, James M. 1970. Bolivia: The Uncompleted Revolution. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Uni¬ versity of Pittsburgh Press. -. 1977. “Authoritarianism and Corporatism: The Case of Bolivia.” In James M. Malloy, ed., Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. -. 1982. Bolivia: The Sad and Corrupt End of the Revolution. Indianapolis, Ind.: UFSI Reports. -. 1985. “Bolivia: An Incomplete Revolution.” In Howard J. Wiarda and Harvey Kline, eds., Latin American Politics and Development. 2d ed. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. -. 1989. Bolivia: La Revolucion inconclusa. La Paz: Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Economica y Social (CERES). Malloy, James M., and Sylvia Borzutsky. 1982. “The Praetorianization of the Revo¬ lution.” In Jerry Ladman, ed., Modern Day Bolivia: Legacy of the Revolution and Prospects for the Future. Tempe: Center for Latin American Studies, Arizona State University. Malloy, James M., and Eduardo Gamarra. 1988. Revolution and Reaction: Bolivia 19641985. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. -. 1989. “Bolivia.” In Abraham F. Lowenthal, ed., Latin America and Caribbean Contemporary Record, vol. 6 (1986-1987). New York: Holmes and Meier.

Bolivia

/

205

Malloy, James M., and Richard Thom, eds. 1971. Beyond the Revolution: Bolivia since 1952. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Mansilla, H.C.F. 1984. Modernizacion y progreso en cuestionamiento. La Paz: UMSA. Mayorga, Rene Antonio. 1978. “National Popular State Capitalism and Military Dic¬ tatorships in Bolivia: 1952-1975.’’ Latin American Perspectives 5, no. 2 (Spring): 89-119. -. 1986. “La crisis del sistema democratico y la Central Obrera Boliviana (COB).” In Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO), El sindicalismo latinoamericano en los ochenta. Santiago: CLACSO. -. 1987. “La democracia entre la framentacion y la imposicion.” In Rene Antonio Mayorga, ed., Democracia a la deriva. La Paz: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO) and CERES. -. 1988. Democratizacion y modernizacion del estado: el caso de Bolivia. La Paz: CLACSO and United Nations Development Fund. Mayorga, Rene, ed. 1987. Democracia a la deriva. La Paz: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO). Mitchell, Christopher. 1977. The Legacy of Populism in Bolivia: From the MNR to Military Rule. New York: Praeger. Morales, Juan Antonio, and Jeffrey Sachs. 1987. The Bolivian Hyperinflation and Sta¬ bilization. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, no. 2073. Prado Salmon, Gary. 1984. Poder y fuerzas armadas: 1949-1982. La Paz: Los Amigos del Libro. Quiroga Santa Cruz, Marcelo. 1982. Oleocracia o patria. Mexico City: Siglo XXL Ramos Sanchez, Pablo. 1980. Siete ahos de economla boliviana. La Paz: Editorial Puerta del Sol. -. 1982. Radiografla de un golpe de estado. La Paz: Editorial Puerta del Sol. Rivadeneira, Raul. 1984. El laberinto politico de Bolivia. La Paz: CINCO. Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia. 1986. “Autonomlay dependencia en el movimiento campesino contemporaneo: la CSUTCB y el proceso democratico.” In Rene Antonio May¬ orga, ed., Democracia a la deriva. La Paz: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO). -. 1986. Oprimidos pero no vencidos: luchas del campesinado aymara y quechua de Bolivia 1900-1980. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Research Institute on Social Development (UNRISD). Roca, Jose Luis. 1979. Fisonomla del regionalismo boliviano. La Paz: Los Amigos del Libro. Rolon Anaya, Mario. 1987. Politico y partidos politicos en Bolivia. La Paz: Editorial Juventud. Romero, Salvador. 1987. Partidos, sindicatos y grupos de presion en Bolivia. La Paz: Centro de Promotion del Laicado (CEPROLAI). Velazco, Ramiro. 1988. El poder de la Central Obrera en el estado boliviano. Buenos Aires: CLACSO. Whitehead, Laurence. 1986. “Bolivia’s Failed Democratization, 1977-1980.” In Guil¬ lermo O’Donnell, Philippe Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, eds., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Zavaleta Mercado, Rene. 1974. El poder dual en America Latina. Mexico City: Siglo XXL -. 1983. Bolivia hoy. Mexico City: Siglo XXL

11 CHILE Paul E. Sigmund

Students of comparative government, especially those interested in Latin Amer¬ ica, have found Chile’s political system a fascinating object of investigation. Over the past thirty years, Chile has experienced a number of important political transitions at the executive level: the election of a conservative (Jorge Alessandri, 1958-1964), a Christian Democrat (Eduardo Frei, 1964-1970), and a Marxist Socialist (Salvador Allende, 1970-1973); a brutal coup d’etat in 1973 that over¬ threw Allende and enabled General Augusto Pinochet to hold power for seventeen years; and the election of a Christian Democrat (Patricio Aylwin) in December 1989. The transformation from Allende’s Unidad Popular to personalist dicta¬ torship brought sweeping changes in nearly all parts of the political system. As Charles F. Andrain points out in Political Change in the Third World (1988: 182), “Whereas President Allende had articulated a democratic socialist ideol¬ ogy, with a high value placed on civil liberties and socioeconomic equality, Augusto Pinochet, the army general who became president, rejected civil lib¬ erties, pluralism and equality.” Pinochet argued that strong government was necessary to protect the nation from both foreign domination and the internal Marxist threat. The challenge facing the new Aylwin administration will be to eliminate the antipluralist rigidities built into the political system from 1973 to 1990 while expanding the opportunities for peaceful sociopolitical change. Chile has thus offered social scientists a number of case studies for under¬ standing political change in the Third World. In particular, the example of an elected Marxist government between 1970 and 1973 as well as its bloody demise produced an explosion of writing both in and outside of Chile. The Frei and Pinochet governments produced fewer studies, but they aroused considerable interest and controversy because they typified such contrasting approaches to political and economic development. The problem with much of the writing on

208

/

Comparative Politics

Chile in the past three decades is a reflection of a more general Chilean problem. Like Chileans themselves, “Chile watchers’’ have been divided into “the three thirds”: left, center, and right. Each has its own internally consistent and mutually contradictory explanation of Chile’s problems and their resolution, and each could find ample evidence in recent Chilean politics to support its point of view. This polarization of views has been substantially reduced in the late 1980s in Chilean politics, and there is some evidence that a similar reduction in the polemical and partisan character of scholarship on Chile is beginning to emerge. However, it is still true that a discussion of Chilean politics is likely to reveal the basic outlook of the author along with whatever insights it provides on Chile. The following discussion examines some of the major topics of investigation on Chilean internal politics over the past three decades. Emphasis is placed on books over journal articles; and Chilean, North American, and European con¬ tributions to the debate on the comparative politics of Chile are included. Because of the nature of the contemporary history of Chile, the distinction between the literature on comparative politics and international relations is frequently blurred, resulting in a partial overlap with the material included in Chapter 17.

COMPARATIVE AND COMPREHENSIVE COUNTRY STUDIES Chile came to international attention in the 1960s as a possible showcase for the Alliance for Progress, the U.S. response to the challenge of the Cuban Revolution. Frederick B. Pike, Chile and the United States, 1880-1962 (1963), emphasized the social tensions in Chile and the U.S. role in maintaining elite control; Kalman H. Silvert, Chile, Yesterday and Today (1965), portrayed Chile as one of the more advanced Latin American countries struggling with the problem of integrating the dispossessed into an expanding modem sector. Sil¬ vert’s effort was one of the first to explore the issue of within-system change emphasizing ways of mobilizing popular sectors into the modernizing political system. The most important and comprehensive work on Chile written in the 1960s—still a valuable introduction, a quarter of a century later—was Federico G. Gil’s The Political System of Chile (1966). Gil’s book is especially useful on the development of Chilean political parties and the background to the re¬ sounding victory of the Christian Democrats in the 1964 presidential election. The victory of Eduardo Frei and the initial reforms that his government carried out between 1964 and 1970—agrarian reform and the “Chileanization” of cop¬ per—raised high hopes for his Revolution in Liberty, which are reflected in Leonard Gross’s The Last, Best Hope: Eduardo Frei and Chilean Democracy (1967). The various ideological approaches to Chile’s development problems were described in Ernst Halperin’s Nationalism and Communism in Chile (1965), and the position of the left was represented in James Petras’s Politics and Social Forces in Chilean Development (1969) and Norbert Lechner’s La democracia en Chile (1970). A personalistic but valuable sample of the rightist point of view

Chile

/

209

is contained in the six-volume history of the Frei administration written by Arturo Olavarria Bravo, Chile bajo la democracia cristiana (1966-1971). The economic policy of the Frei government is defended by his former finance minister, Sergio Molina, in El proceso de cambio en Chile (1972). A number of interesting cases involving the Chilean participation in the Alliance for Progress are analyzed by Jerome Levinson and Juan de Onfs in The Alliance that Lost Its Way (1970). With the election of Allende in 1970, there was an outpouring of publications on Chile. (A bibliography, prepared by Lee Williams at Yale, which is limited to works published in the three years of Allende’s presidency from 1970 to 1973 contains 2,700 items.) For purposes of analysis, the review of the literature on the Allende period is divided into four groups: those published while the ex¬ periment with a via chilena to socialism was going on, those written in immediate response to the 1973 coup, those of a more scholarly and reflective character that appeared in the late 1970s, and finally the retrospective views of the Allende government that were published in the 1980s. Richard E. Feinberg’s The Triumph of Allende: Chile’s Legal Revolution (1972), written by a Peace Corps participant-observer, gives a sense of the enthusiasm that the Allende period engendered; and Joan E. Garces, Allende’s Catalan advisor and speech writer, gives an insider’s view in three books during the Allende period: 1970, La pugna politico por la presidencia en Chile (1971), El estado y los problems tacticos en el gobierno de Allende (1974), and Allende et Texperience chilienne (1976, also available in Spanish). Alistair Home, a British observer, has written an insightful first-hand account, Small Earthquake in Chile: Allende’s South America (1972). The Chilean Road to Socialism is the title of two different collections of articles on the Allende period, written while he was still in power, and edited respectively by Dale C. Johnson and J. Ann Zammit. Both were published in 1973 before the coup, and both are generally optimistic and uncritical. The Johnson and Zammit volumes should be compared with the papers presented at a 1976 symposium, which involved many of Al¬ lende’s former ministers who are now more self-critical and analytic, and which were published in English in 1979: Federico G. Gil et al., eds., Chile at the Turning Point: Lessons of the Socialist Years, 1970-73. The first book to be published after the coup (it was nearly complete when the coup took place) was Robert Moss’s Chile’s Marxist Experiment (1973), an extremely hostile interpretation by an editor of the London Economist. It was followed by two sympathetic American accounts—Gary MacEoin, No Peaceful Road: Chile’s Struggle for Dignity (1974), and Laurence Bims, ed., The End of Chilean Democracy: An IDOC Dossier on the Coup and Its Aftermath (1973)— both of which emphasized U.S. complicity in Allende’s overthrow. The U.S. role was also attacked by those writing from a Marxist perspective, but they also criticized Allende’s failure to arm the workers and to force a confrontation with the bourgeoisie. For this perspective, see Les Evans, Disaster in Chile: Allende’s Strategy and Why It Failed (1974); Michael Raptis, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Chile (1974); Paul Sweezy and Harry Magdoff, eds.,

210

/

Comparative Politics

Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Chile (1974); Ian Roxborough et al., Chile: The State and Revolution (1977); Gabriel Smimow, The Revolution Dis¬ armed: Chile, 1970-73 (1979); and Jorge Palacios, Chile: An Attempt at “His¬ toric Compromise’’: The Real Story of the Allende Years (1979). Their criticisms were challenged by an American advisor to the Allende regime, Edward Boorstein, in Allende’s Chile: An Inside View (1977). The American role was also highlighted in Armando Uribe’s The Black Book of American Intervention in Chile (1975), but its assertions must be revised in the light of the Staff Report of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities, Covert Action in Chile, 1963-73 (1975), as well as the hearings, documents, and twenty-seven articles published by the House Foreign Affairs Committee in The United States and Chile during the Allende Years (1975). The Senate Select Committee’s investigation and a later court suit also cast doubt on the claim of U.S. involve¬ ment in the murder of one of its citizens (Charles Horman) after the coup, which was made in Thomas Hauser’s The Execution of Charles Horman (1978). Hau¬ ser’s book was subsequently reissued with the title. Missing, in order to benefit from the publicity surrounding the Costa-Gavras film based on the book. It is not surprising that there were fewer published responses to the coup from the center and the right. However, Francisco Orrego Vicuna of the University of Chile collected some of them in Chile: The Balanced View (1975), and the military government quickly published the White Book of the Change of Gov¬ ernment in Chile: 11th of September, 1973 (1973), which contained extensive documentation (in both Spanish and English) designed to justify its actions. Several years later Pinochet defended his role in the coup along with supporting documents in Spanish as El dia decisivo (1979) and in English as The Crucial Day (1981). The only significant analysis of the Allende period by a Chilean Christian Democrat was Genaro Arriagada Herrera’s De la via chilena a la via insurreccional (1974), which argued, as the title implies, for a movement by the regime away from a democratic transition toward violent confrontation in the last months of the Allende presidency. In the last part of the 1970s, several more comprehensive studies by American scholars were published. The edited collection by Arturo and J. Samuel Val¬ enzuela, Chile: Politics and Society (1976) emphasized the constraints on the Allende government but, due to a long delay in its publication, did not benefit from the post-coup revelations and documentation. A broader view which argued for a combination of external pressures by the United States and internal political and economic mistakes—deliberate polarization and runaway inflation—was pro¬ duced by Paul E. Sigmund, The Overthrow of Allende and the Politics of Chile, 1964-1976 (1977). The polarization thesis as an explanation of Allende’s down¬ fall was also a central theme in Robert J. Alexander’s The Tragedy of Chile (1978). Arturo Valenzuela focused on the failure of the moderates in both the government and the opposition to head off the coup in The Breakdown of Dem¬ ocratic Regimes: Chile (1978). Barbara Stallings’s Class Conflict and Economic Development in Chile, 1958-1973 (1978) explained the coup in class terms,

Chile

/

211

whereas Brian Loveman’s comprehensive history, Chile, the Legacy of Hispanic Capitalism (1979, 2nd ed., 1988: 308), devoted considerable attention to the Hispanic tradition although Loveman concluded that “the most critical factor of all in the failure of the Allende administration was bad politics”. Also useful in understanding the socioeconomic factors that underlay the coup is Cesar L. Caviedes’s The Politics of Chile: A Socio-Geographical Assessment (1979). A Mexican view is contained in Liliana de Riz’s Sociedad y politico en Chile: de Portales a Pinochet (1979). The ideological debate over the coup and its consequences continued into the 1980s. In 1982, Samuel Chavkin published The Murder of Chile: Eyewitness Accounts of the Coup, the Terror, and the Resistance Today (later updated as Terror in Chile, 1984), which blamed the United States both for the coup and for the repression that followed. James Whelan, Allende: Death of a Marxist Dream (1981), provided a detailed account of the coup based on sixty-five interviews, mainly with those opposed to Allende. Sergio Bitar, Allende’s min¬ ister of mines, published La caida de Allende y la huelga de la Teniente (1986), and his earlier Chile: Experiment in Democracy was translated into English in 1985. Alejandro Rojas, who had left the Communist party, published La transformacion del estado: la experiencia de la Unidad Popular (1987). The most useful contribution to the debate in the 1980s was a combination memoir and scholarly study by Nathaniel Davis who had been U.S. ambassador to Chile during the turbulent Allende years. In The Last Two Years of Salvador Allende (1986), Davis provides a wealth of new detail and fresh judgments on, among other topics, the controversial issue of the circumstances surrounding Allende’s death (murder or suicide?). As late as 1988, the same well-ploughed field was being turned over once again by an Israeli scholar, Edy Kaufman, whose Crisis in Allende’s Chile: New Perspectives, despite its title, added little to what was already known about the period. Despite the radical changes introduced by the military regime in Chile, there was a curious lack of writing on the politics of the Pinochet period (1973-1990). Ten years after the 1973 coup, all one could find in English were a few articles by Karen Remmer—“Evaluating the Policy Impact of Military Regimes in Latin America” (1978) and “Political Demobilization in Chile, 1973-1978” (1980)— and Paul E. Sigmund—“Chile: Market Fascism or Utopian Libertarianism!” (1981) and “Chile: Ten Years of Pinochet (1983)—and Chile: A Country Study (1982), the area handbook prepared by Andrea T. Merrill at American University for the U.S. Army. In 1983, Manuel Antonio Garreton published the Spanish version of The Chilean Political Process, an updated version of which (with a new concluding chapter) appeared in English in 1989. However, most of the book was written before the political opening which began in 1982-1983, and it made what turned out to be a mistake in insisting that the Communists play a major role in any return to democracy. The updated papers from a 1980 conference on Chile, edited by Arturo and J. Samuel Valenzuela, Military Rule in Chile: Dictatorship and Oppositions (1986), also suffered from having been

212

/

Comparative Politics

prepared before the 1983-1984 protests and the reemergence of political parties in Chile, although they provided useful insights into the earlier period. The single most useful study of Chilean politics since the 1973 coup was Genaro Arriagada Herrera’s, Pinochet: The Politics of Power (1988), a translation and update of an earlier work in Spanish that analyzed how the regime moved from institu¬ tionalized rule by the military to the personalistic Pinochet dictatorship. It also argued that the 1980 constitution both prolonged and legitimized Pinochet’s dominance and, at the same time, offered a way to defeat him. Just before the 1988 plebiscite on the continuation of Pinochet’s rule, the Council on Foreign Relations published Chile: Prospects for Democracy (1988), three papers presented to its Chile Study Group by Mark Falcoff, Arturo Val¬ enzuela, and Susan Kaufman Purcell. In 1989 Mark Falcoff also published Chile, 1970-1989: A Critical History, which focuses mainly on the Allende period but includes a one-chapter overview of the Pinochet period down to the 1988 pleb¬ iscite. It came out at the same time as James Whelan’s Out of the Ashes (1989), which is supposed to be a description of the “life, death, and transfiguration of democracy in Chile, 1833-1988,” although 1,000 of its 1,100 pages are devoted to highly selective evaluations of the Frei, Allende, and Pinochet periods from a conservative point of view. Studies of the Pinochet years are currently being written by Paul E. Sigmund and by Arturo Valenzuela and Pamela Constable, but they will not be published until the early 1990s, after Chile returns to full democracy. As will all future writers on the Pinochet period, they will rely on Ascanio Cavallo Castro et al., La historia oculta del regimen militar: Chile 1973-1988 (1988), a 600-page definitive study of policy-making in the Pinochet regime including a detailed account of government repression and the murder of its opponents.

LEADERS Systematic studies of Chilean leaders and elites have not attracted the research attention of many North American or Chilean political scientists. Arturo Olavama Bravo has published four volumes of his memoirs, Chile entre dos Alessandris (1962-1966). Eduardo Frei, president of Chile from 1964 to 1970, has written many books in Spanish. For a representative sample of his thought in English, see Paul E. Sigmund, ed., The Ideologies of the Developing Nations (1972). There are numerous edited volumes in Spanish of the speeches of Salvador Allende, but there is only a single collection in English—Chile’s Road to So¬ cialism (1973)—which translates his speeches from 1970 to 1972. The most accessible example of Allende’s thinking in English is found in Regis Debray’s The Chilean Revolution: Conversations with Allende (1971), which is important historically since Allende’s assertion that his acceptance of bourgeois democracy was “tactical” in nature was taken by the opposition to mean that he was only biding his time for a forcible seizure of power. Another translated example of Augusto Pinochet’s thinking, besides The Cru-

Chile

/

213

cial Day (1981), is his speech on the second anniversary of the 1973 coup, which appears in Brian Loveman and Thomas M. Davies, Jr., eds., The Politics of Antipolitics: The Military in Latin America (1978: 200-207).

PARTIES, GROUPS, AND ELECTIONS For obvious reasons, a good deal was written about Chilean parties and elec¬ tions in the 1960s and early 1970s, and practically nothing was written thereafter until the mid-1980s. The Institute for the Comparative Study of Political Systems published Chile, Election Factbook, edited by Charles Daugherty in 1963, and The Chilean Presidential Election of September 4, 1964, edited by Federico Gil and Charles Parrish in 1965. Federico Gil’s Genesis and Modernization of Po¬ litical Parties in Chile (1962) provided the basis for his 1966 study of Chilean politics. In 1964 Sergio Giulisaste Tagle published the second edition of his Partidos politicos chilenos, and German Urzua Valenzuela published a similar study in 1968: Los partidos politicos chilenos, las fuerzas politicas. Works on individual parties include those by George Grayson, El partido democrata cristiano chileno (1968); Heman Ramirez Nicochea, Origen y formacion del partido comunista en Chile (1965); Julio Cesar Jobet, El partido socialista de Chile (2 vols.) 1971; and Peter Snow, El radicalismo chileno (1972). After the 1973 coup, two works by American scholars discussed Chilean parties. Paul Drake, Socialism and Populism in Chile, 1932-1952 (1978), in¬ cluded an epilogue on the socialist party between 1952 and 1973; and Karen Remmer published several articles on Chilean party history which were later incorporated into Party Competition in Argentina and Chile: Political Recruit¬ ment and Public Policy, 1890-1930 (1984). Two studies of Chilean political groups by North Americans also published in the 1970s were Frank Bonilla and Myron Glaser’s Student Politics in Chile (1970) and Ben G. Burnett’s Political Groups in Chile: The Dialogue between Order and Change (1970). The bu¬ reaucracy in Chile was examined by Peter S. Cleaves, in Bureaucratic Politics and Administration in Chile (1974). When the military junta outlawed the left parties in 1973 and declared the others in recess in 1974, there was no further research on that subject until the 1980s, although it was possible to follow the varying fortunes of the parties in exile and quasi-clandestinity through the leftist Catholic journal, Chile-America, published in Rome from 1974 until 1983. A useful source on the Communist party is the entry under Chile in the Yearbook on International Communist Affairs, published annually at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. In the early 1980s, the foreign-financed think tanks in Santiago began to publish monographs by their resident scholars. Particularly important was the Chilean branch of the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO), originally under the sponsorship of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and later given the protection of the Catholic Church. FLACSO scholars published important studies of the Chilean left, including Tomas Mou-

214

/

Comparative Politics

lian’s Democracia y socialismo en Chile (1983) and Augusto Varas’s, ed., El partido comunista de Chile (1988). At another institution, the Christian Democratic-oriented Center for Economic Investigation on Latin America (CIEPLAN), Ignacio Walker made a significant contribution to the discussion through his monograph on the radicalization of the Socialist party in the 1960s and early 1970s: Del populismo al leninismo y la inevitabilidad del conflicto: el partido socialista de Chile, 1933-1973, published in 1986. German Urzua Valenzuela also published Diccionario politico-institucional de Chile in 1984 and La de¬ mocracia practica: los gobiernos radicales in 1987. Based at a Catholic Church-sponsored research complex, the Academy of Christian Humanism, Carlos Huneeus began to conduct polling in Chile in the mid-1980s, the first results of which were published in Los chilenos y la politica (1987). They revealed the existence of a large centrist moderate bloc in Chile that rejected the extremes of both left and right. Tomas Moulian studied the right from the 1930s to the 1950s in Las candidaturas presidenciales de la derecha (1986). The “modernized” right had its own think tank in the Centro de Estudios Publicos with a journal, Estudios Publicos, which published the proceedings of center-sponsored dialogues in which representatives of all three major political tendencies in Chile participated. The corporatist or “hard” (duro) right was represented by Pablo Rodriguez Grez, El mito de la democracia en Chile (1986). An update of Carlos Cruz-Coke’s Historia electoral de Chile, 1925-1973 appeared in 1984. Theoretical studies of the Chilean party system of the past and future by Adolfo Aldunate, Angel Flisfisch, and Tomas Moulian appeared in Estudios sobre el sistema de partidos en Chile (1985). The Institute of Political Science was revived at the Catholic University of Chile, and it began to publish a journal. Revista de Ciencia Politica, in 1979. In 1986 Bernardino Bravo Lira published his Regimen de gobierno y partidos politicos en Chile, 1924-1973 (1978). Outside of Chile, much less was being published on parties and elections. Two highly partisan studies were published in England: Carmelo Furci’s The Chilean Communist Party and the Road to Socialism (1984), by an Italian Communist, and Benny Pollack and Heman Rosenkranz’s Revolutionary Social Democracy: The Chilean Socialist Party (1986). Michael Fleet’s The Rise and Fall of Chilean Christian Democracy (1985) appeared just before the Chilean Christian Democrats began a spectacular resurgence at the head of a broad opposition alliance that led to the election of a Christian Democrat, Patricio Aylwin, in December 1989. Julio Faundez looked at both the Communist and Socialist parties in Marxism and Democracy in Chile from 1932 until the Fall of Allende (1988). An obvious gap in these studies is an examination of the contemporary Chilean right. Estudios Publicos has published high-quality research from a conservative point of view, but there is no study of the National Party, nor of the numerous new groups on the right that have emerged in the 1980s. This may be due to the excessive length of time that it took for the right to reorganize after the

Chile

/

215

political opening of the mid-1980s, but it may also have something to do with the fact that political scientists tend to prefer reformist or radical political points of view.

ARMED FORCES AND THE GOLPE DE ESTADO It is symptomatic of the scholarly ignorance of the political role of the armed forces in Chile during the 1960s that the only sources in English for that period are a 1967 doctoral thesis by Roy Allen Hansen—“Military Culture and Or¬ ganizational Decline: A Study of the Chilean Army”—which was based on a very limited number of interviews with retired officers, and a short, comparative monograph by Liisa North, Civil-Military Relations in Argentina, Chile, and Peru (1966). Alain Joxe, Las fuerzas armadas en el sistema politico chileno (1970), focused attention on the political role of the military just as it was beginning to become repoliticized, in the wake of Allende’s election and an aborted coup in 1969. (See Florencia Varas, Conversaciones con Viaux, 1972, for views of its principal instigator.) Liisa North also wrote a perceptive article (“The Military in Chilean Politics”) on that repoliticization in Abraham F. Lowenthal, ed., Armies and Politics in Latin America (1976). The most important American scholar studying the Chilean military in the 1970s and 1980s was Fred¬ erick M. Nunn, a historian. See, for example, Nunn’s The Military in Chilean His¬ tory: Essays on Civil-Military Relations, 1810-1973 (1976). Political scientists in the 1970s viewed the military interventions in the South¬ ern Cone as examples of bureacratic-authoritarianism, using the analytic scheme invented by Guillermo O’Donnell to explain the role of the military in Argentina. Robert R. Kaufman made a critical application of this scheme in his monograph. Transitions to Stable Authoritarian-Corporate Regimes: The Chilean Case (1976), and was more critical in his contribution to David Collier, ed., The New Authoritarianism in Latin America (1979). A more general approach was taken by Karen Remmer in her article “Evaluating the Policy Impact of Military Regimes in Latin America” (1978). The post-coup period was marked by silence on the subject of the military during the 1970s with the exception of a book on the coup itself by Florencia Varas and Jose Manuel Vergara, entitled Coup!: Allende s Last Day in its English translation (1975), and a set of interviews Varas did with General Gustavo Leigh in 1978, Gustavo Leigh: el general disidente (1979). The U.S. investigation of the 1976 assassination of Allende’s former ambassador to the United States, Orlando Letelier, in Washington, D.C., produced a number of books and articles, the most useful of which for its insights into the Chilean military and intelligence system is Taylor Branch and Eugene M. Propper’s Labyrinth (1982). Merrill (1982), written for the Department of the Army, has a useful section on the armed forces, and Paul E. Sigmund published an article on “The Military in Chile” in Robert Wesson, ed., The New Military Politics in Latin America (1982).

216

/

Comparative Politics

Within Chile the think tank scholars began to study the military in the 1980s. Because of press censorship, Genaro Arriagada Herrera published his El pensamiento politico de los militares (1981) under private auspices, but Augusto Varas of FLACSO was able to publish a number of monographs beginning in 1980, the best known of which is Los militares en el poder: regimen y gobierno militar en Chile, 1973-1987 (1987), which is being translated into English. Raquel Correa and a number of other female journalists published their press interviews with important generals as Los generates del regimen (1983). How¬ ever, the most penetrating analysis of the political role of the Chilean armed forces since 1973 remains Arriagada’s Pinochet (1988). The involvement of the armed forces in human rights violations, especially in the period immediately following the coup, is a continuing topic of interest. Outside groups, such as Amnesty International and in the 1980s Americas Watch, have published many reports, and the United Nations has appointed a special rapporteur who regularly submits reports to the General Assembly. Within Chile the subject was not written about for most of the 1970s, but it became a frequent topic of books and articles in the 1980s. In 1979, Heman Montealegre was able to publish a legal and juridical discussion under the auspices of the Academy of Christian Humanism, La seguridad del estado y los derechos humanos. A much greater impact was made by Maximo Pacheco’s Lonquen, when it was published in 1980. It is a detailed account of the discovery of a mass grave of victims of the 1973 repression and of the investigation that followed. Chilling accounts of the impact of human rights violations are contained in Patricia Politzer’s Miedo en Chile (1983), which has been translated into English as Fear in Chile (1989). The posthumous publication of the memoirs of Carlos Prats, the pro-Allende general who was forced out of the army command three weeks before the 1973 coup and murdered in exile in Buenos Aires in 1974, Memorias de un soldado (1985), also created a sensation in Chile. (Prats had been working on his memoirs at the time of his death, and his daughters completed the book from his notes.)

ECONOMIC POLICY ISSUES The analysis of economic policy in Chile in the early 1960s must begin with the publication of Ricardo Lagos’s La concentracion del poder econdmico (1961). The international discussions of inflation, agrarian reform, and the struc¬ turalist theories of the Santiago-based United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America were reviewed in Albert Hirschman’s Latin American Issues, Essays and Comments (1961) and his Journeys toward Progress: Studies of Economic Policy-Making in Latin America (1963). In 1965 Markos Mamalakis and Clark Reynolds published their edited volume, Essays on the Chilean Econ¬ omy, and in 1969 Mario Zanartu and John J. Kennedy edited a collection of articles on The Overall Development of Chile. Lagos’s 1961 analysis was con¬ tinued with the publication of Genaro Arriagada Herrera’s, La oligarquia pa-

Chile

/

217

tronal chilena (1970). The best overall evaluation of the economic policies of the period may be found in Ricardo Ffrench-Davis, Politicos economicas en Chile, 1952-1970 (1973). The most detailed analysis of the economic policies of the Allende government is found in Stefan de Vylder, Allende’s Chile: The Political Economy of the Rise and Fall of the Unidad Popular (1976). It should be compared with the uncon¬ vincing defense of his policies by Allende’s finance minister, Pedro Vuskovic, in Acusacion al imperialismo (1975), and with the essays by various authors in Sandro Sideri, ed., Chile 1970-73: Economic Development and Its International Setting: Self-Criticism of the Unidad Popular Government Policy (1979). Also critical of the Allende policies is the last section of Markos Mamalakis’s The Growth and Structure of the Chilean Economy: From Independence to Allende (1976). The nationalization of the Chilean copper industry in 1971 led to a number of books on the topic. The best known is Theodore Moran’s Multinational Corporations and the Politics of Dependence: Copper in Chile (1974), but others include Eric N. Baklanoff’s Expropriation of United States Investments in Cuba, Mexico, and Chile (1975) and George Ingram’s Expropriation ofU.S. property in South America (1974). Eduardo Novoa Monreal’s La batalla por el cobre (1972) gives the Allende government position, and later developments are sum¬ marized in Chapter 5 of Paul E. Sigmund’s Multinationals in Latin America: The Politics of Nationalization (1980). In the late 1970s Chileans began to debate the social cost of the economic policy of the Pinochet government. Representative of the two sides would be Fernando Dahse’s El mapa de la extrema riqueza (1979) and Joaquin Lavin’s El enriquecimiento de personas en Chile (1980). Lavin also defended the eco¬ nomic changes in Chile: la revolucion silenciosa (1987), published in English as Chile: A Quiet Revolution (1988). In the 1980s the free market policies of the students of Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger of the University of Chicago (“los Chicago boys”) led to a devastating collapse of the economy, followed by a striking recovery. Those policies are analyzed (and criticized) in works by Alejandro Foxley, Latin Amer¬ ican Experiments in Neo-Conservative Economics (1983); Joseph Ramos, NeoConservative Economics in the Southern Cone of Latin America, 1973-1983 (1986); Pilar Vergara, Auge y caida del neoliberalismo en Chile (1984); Gary M. Walton, ed., The National Economic Policies of Chile (1985); and Sebastian and Alejandra Cox Edwards, Monetarism and Liberalization: The Chilean Ex¬ periment (1987)—the last of these books contains the most comprehensive dis¬ cussion. Jaime Gatica Barrios, De industrialization in Chile (1989), covers the 1974-1982 period and blames Pinochet for destroying Chilean industry. The economists responsible for economic policy in the Pinochet regime are profiled in Arturo Fontaine Aldunate’s Los economistas y el presidente Pinochet (1988). Beginning in 1980 the Pinochet government began to apply its free market principles to social programs, such as social security, health care, education,

218

/

Comparative Politics

and state-owned enterprises. The programs have been critically analyzed in a series of articles and monographs by researchers associated with CIEPLAN, including Jose Pablo Arellano on social legislation and privatization and Dagmar Raczynski on health care and local government. The educational reforms have been analyzed and criticized by another foreign-financed institute, the Corpo¬ ration de Promotion Universitaria. Articles more favorable to the government position may be found in Estudios Publicos. The only relevant studies in English are by Joseph Scarpaci, Primary Medical Care in Chile (1988), and Paul E. Sigmund, “Privatization, Reprivatization, and Hyperprivatization in Chile” in Ezra Suleiman and John Waterbury, eds., The Political Economy of Public Sector Reform and Privatization (1990). Finally, a curious throwback to the elite studies of the 1960s is Maurice Zeitlin and Richard Earl Ratcliff’s Landlords and Cap¬ italists: The Dominant Class of Chile (1988), a work of historical rather than contemporary interest since it is based on research done in the mid-1960s.

AGRARIAN ISSUES AND PEASANT POLITICS Agrarian reform became an issue in Chile in the early 1960s, and the strongest reform law ever adopted under democratic auspices was passed in 1967. It was applied in very different ways by the Frei and Allende administrations, and after 1973 the military government returned much of the land taken over during the Allende period. In 1966 William Thiesenhusen published an analysis entitled Chile’s Experiments in Agrarian Reform. Important later studies include those by Jeannine Swift, Agrarian Reform in Chile (1971); Robert R. Kaufman, The Politics of Land Reform in Chile, 1950-1970: Public Policy, Political Institu¬ tions, and Social Change (1972); and Brian Loveman, Struggle in the Country¬ side: Politics and Rural Labor in Chile, 1919-1973 (1976). The Comite Interamericano de Desarrollo Agricola (CIDA), or Interamerican Commission on Agricultural Development, published an influential study of land tenure in 1966: Chile: tenencia de la tierra y desarrollo socio-economico del sector agricola. More recent Chilean studies include those by Sergio Gomez, Instituciones y procesos agrarios en Chile, (1982); Patricio Silva, Estado, neoliberalismo, y politica agricola en Chile, 1973-1981 (1987); and Jose Garrido, ed., Historia de la reforma agraria en Chile (1988). Lovell S. Jarvis, Chilean Agriculture under Military Rule: From Reform to Reaction, 1973-1980 (1985) is a useful study in English.

URBAN ISSUES AND LABOR POLITICS The history of the Chilean labor movement is described in Robert J. Alex¬ ander’s Labor Relations in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile (1962) and in Victor Alba’s Politics and the Labor Movement in Latin America (1968). Alan Angell, Politics and the Labor Movement in Chile (1972), provides more detail. A highly partisan account of developments under the Allende government appears in Juan

Chile

/

219

G. Espinoza and Andrew Zimbalist’s Economic Democracy: Workers’ Partici¬ pation in Chilean Industry, 1970-1973 (1978). More recent developments, up to the adoption of the Labor Plan in 1979 that legalized local unions, are described in Gonzalo Falabella’s Labour in Chile under the Junta, 1973-1979 (1981). See also Guillermo Campero and Jose A. Valenzuela, El movimiento sindical en el regimen militar chileno, 1973-1981 (1983), and Jaime Ruiz-Tagle P., El sindicalismo chileno despues del plan laboral (1985). More recent works in English include those by Peter de Shazo, Urban Workers and Labor Unions in Chile, 1902-1927 (1984); Peter Winn, Weavers of Revolution: the Yarur Workers and Chile’s Road to Socialism (1986); and Charles Bergquist, Labor in Latin Amer¬ ica: Comparative Essays on Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, and Colombia (1986).

EDUCATION Education policy and the politics of education in the political system have not generated much research attention, despite the importance of political ideology for legitimating contrasting types of regimes over the past thirty years. For historical background, one can begin with Fernando Campos Harriet, 150 ahos de desarrollo educacional, 1810-1960 (1962). Some of the changes on the university level that took place in the 1960s are described in Carlos Huneeus, La reforma de la universidad de Chile (1973). The reforms of the Frei, Allende, and Pinochet governments are compared in Kathleen B. Fischer, Political Ide¬ ology and Educational Reform in Chile, 1964-1976 (1979). The Allende gov¬ ernment proposal which helped to trigger the 1973 military coup is analyzed in Joseph Farrell, The National Unified School in Allende’s Chile (1986).

RELIGION AND POLITICS The Catholic Church has always been a key actor in Chilean politics, but until the 1970s studies of religion and politics were mostly treated as part of churchstate issues throughout Latin America. In 1971, a sensationalized expose of the church’s political role in Chile was published by an ex-Jesuit, David Mutchler, The Church as a Political Factor in Latin America, with Particular Reference to Colombia and Chile. The debate over the support given by some Catholics to the Allende government can be understood best in Brian Smith’s The Church and Politics in Chile: Challenges to Modern Catholicism (1982). More partisan accounts appear in works by Teresa Donoso Loers, Los cristianos por el socialismo en Chile (1974) (hostile), and John Eagleson, ed., Christians and So¬ cialism: Documentation for the Christians for Socialism Movement in Latin America (1975) (sympathetic). Teresa Donoso has also published a general attack on the church’s cooperation with Allende in La iglesia del silencio (1976). More recent studies include those by Enrique Correa and Jose Antonio Viera-Gallo, Iglesia y dictadura (1986), and Maria Antonieta Huerta and Luis Pacheco Pastene, La iglesia chilena y los cambios sociopoliticos (1988).

220

/

Comparative Politics

CONCLUSION The political science research on Chile since 1960 has produced a large volume of materials, but the literature tends to be somewhat unbalanced in its interpre¬ tation of activities and events. The dominant perspective throughout the preAllende period has been either a modernization and development approach, influenced by the Alliance for Progress, or a class-conflict-cum-imperialism outlook that viewed the Frei reforms as the survival tactics of the oligarchs and imperialists. Ideological biases—from both the left and right—were even more clear in the mass of writing in the 1970s on the Allende government and its overthrow. Initially much of it concentrated on the U.S. role, but later writing by both Chileans and foreigners admitted that the Allende government also had made very serious economic and political errors. The newly fashionable de¬ pendency mode of analysis was, of course, useful in analyzing Allende’s prob¬ lems, although for a time it tended to obstruct a clear analysis of the regime’s domestic problems. The departure of many Chilean academics after the 1973 coup left a notable gap in the analyses of the Pinochet regime in the 1970s. For the most part, Chilean politics were associated with the bureaucratic-authoritarian model of Guillermo O’Donnell, although for the left, it sufficed to attach the label of fascism to the Pinochet government without much further analysis. In the 1980s, however, the collapse and resurgence of the Chilean economy led to scholarly writing by Chileans and foreigners on the government’s free market economic policy. For the 1980s as well, the foreign-funded research institutes in Santiago began to produce high-quality policy analysis, much of it by young Chileans who had gone abroad for advanced degrees in the social sciences. There were already a number of very able economists and some sociologists working in Santiago, but a significant development in the 1980s was the emergence of a corps of professional political scientists with their own organization, the Chilean Political Science Association. While the institutes to which they were attached were often identified with a particular party or ideological tendency, they were in continuing dialogue and social contact with one another, creating a basis for democratic pluralism and reducing the polarization and ideological conflict so common during the Allende period. Political science research on Chile has been influenced by contending research perspectives over the past thirty years. Since the bulk of the writing on Chile has been done by Americans, it is not surprising that the scholarship reflects the U.S. role in Chile, either for praise or condemnation. Many Chileans, particularly on the left, have shared this interest. However, with the emergence of a larger and more ideologically varied group of social scientists in Chile, other topics— antipoverty policy, public opinion, and Chilean foreign policy—are beginning to receive more attention. With the return of many Chilean academic exiles, one can expect most of the future work on Chile to be done by Chileans. Research agendas will probably be less ideological and more “scientific” than was the

Chile

/

221

case earlier, but one can still expect the choice of topic and sometimes the conclusions to be influenced by the writer’s identification with the right (now libertarian rather than traditional), the center (no longer split into religious and secular traditional camps), or the left (now more democratic than revolutionary). The changes in the political science research on Chile will also be influenced by the Latin American policy of the United States and the dramatic events in Eastern Europe at the end of 1989. Future research agendas will need to address the causes and effects of rede¬ mocratization and the consequences of alternative policy scenarios with the return of a civilian pluralist reconciliation system in 1990. There is still much to be done on the Pinochet years if we are going to understand fully the breakdown of democratic regimes and civil-military relations. New developments on the right—in terms of program and ideology—augur well for a return to a more ideologically balanced debate on domestic and foreign policy issues. The years since 1973 have been painful and traumatic ones for Chileans accustomed to a system where political parties played a key role in protecting civil liberties and furthering democratic procedures. The task of renewing and stabilizing demo¬ cratic party politics will be a challenge not only to the Chilean people, but also to the social scientists from the United States, Europe, and Latin America in¬ terested in the roles of political ideologies, party identification, and elites in regime transition. Much has been learned about Chile before and during a period of repression, exile, and economic hardship. More important for the country is that a solid foundation has been laid for future distinguished contributions to social science by the new generation of Chilean social scientists that is now beginning to appear.

REFERENCES Alba, Victor. 1968. Politics and the Labor Movement in Latin America. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Aldunate, Adolfo, Angel Flisfisch, and Tomas Moulian. 1985. Estudios sobre el sistema de partidos en Chile. Santiago: Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO). Alexander, Robert J. 1962. Labor Relations in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. New York: McGraw-Hill. _. 1978. The Tragedy of Chile. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Allende, Salvador. 1973. Chile’s Road to Socialism. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books. Andrain’, Charles F. 1988. Political Change in the Third World. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Angell, Alan. 1972. Politics and the Labor Movement in Chile. London: Oxford Uni¬ versity Press. Arriagada Herrera, Genaro. 1970. La oligarquia patronal chilena. Santiago: Ediciones Nueva Universidad. _. 1974. De la via chilena a la via insurreccional. Santiago: Editorial del Pacifico, Instituto de Estudios Politicos. _. 1981. El pensamiento politico de los militares: estudios sobre Chile, Argentina,

222

/

Comparative Politics

Brazil, y Uruguay. Santiago: Centro de Investigaciones Socioeconomicas de la Compama de Jesus. -. 1988. Pinochet: The Politics of Power. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Baklanoff, Eric N. 1975. Expropriation of United States Investments in Cuba, Mexico, and Chile. New York: Praeger. Bergquist, Charles. 1986. Labor in Latin America: Comparative Essays on Chile, Ar¬ gentina, Venezuela, and Colombia. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Bims, Laurence, ed. 1973. The End of Chilean Democracy: An IDOC Dossier on the Coup and Its Aftermath. New York: The Seabury Press. Bitar, Sergio. 1985. Chile: Experiment in Democracy. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues (ISHI). -. 1986. La caida de Allende y la huelga de el Teniente. Santiago: Ediciones Omitorrinco. Bonilla, Frank, and Myron Glaser. 1970. Student Politics in Chile. New York: Basic Books. Boorstein, Edward. 1977. Allende's Chile: An Inside View. New York: International Publishers. Branch, Taylor, and Eugene M. Propper. 1982. Labyrinth. New York: Viking Press. Bravo Lira, Bernardino. 1978. Regimen de gobierno y partidospoliticos en Chile. 19241973. Santiago: Editorial Jurldica. Burnett, Ben G. 1970. Political Groups in Chile: The Dialogue between Order and Change. Institute of Latin American Studies. Austin: University of Texas Press. Campero, Guillermo, and Jose A. Valenzuela. 1983. El movimiento sindical en el regimen militar chileno, 1973-1981. Santiago: Estudios ILET. Campos Harriet, Fernando. 1962. 150 ahos de desarrollo educacional, 1810-1960. San¬ tiago: Editorial Universitaria. Cavallo Castro, Ascanio, et al. 1988. La historia oculta del regimen militar: Chile 19731988. Santiago: Editorial Antartica. Caviedes L., Cesar. 1979. The Politics of Chile: A Socio-Geographical Assessment. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Chavkin, Samuel. 1982. The Murder of Chile: Eyewitness Accounts of the Coup, the Terror, and the Resistance Today. New York: Everest House. Cleaves, Peter S. 1974. Bureaucratic Politics and Administration in Chile. Berkeley: University of California Press. Collier, David, ed. 1979. The New Authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Comite Interamericano de Desarrollo Agricola (CIDA). 1966. Chile: tenencia de la tierra y desarrollo socio-econdmico del sector agricola. Santiago: CIDA. Correa, Enrique, and Jose Antonio Viera-Gallo. 1986. lglesia y dictadura. Santiago: CESOC. Correa, Raquel, et al. 1983. Los generates del regimen. Santiago: Aconcagua. Cruz-Coke, Ricardo. 1984. Historia electoral de Chile, 1925-1973. Santiago: Editorial Jurldica de Chile. Dahse, Fernando. 1979. El mapa de la extrema riqueza. Santiago: Aconcagua. Daugherty, Charles, ed. 1963. Chile, Election Eactbook. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Comparative Study of Political Systems. Davis, Nathaniel. 1986. The Last Two Years of Salvador Allende. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Chile

/

223

Debray, Regis. 1971. The Chilean Revolution: Conversations with Allende. New York: Vintage. Donoso Loers, Teresa. 1974. Los cristianos por el socialismo en Chile. Santiago: El Mercurio. -. 1976. La iglesia del silencio. Santiago: El Mercurio. Drake, Paul. 1978. Socialism and Populism in Chile, 1932-1952. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Eagleson, John, ed. 1975. Christians and Socialism: Documentation for the Christians for Socialism Movement in Latin America. Translated by John Drury. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books. Edwards, Sebastian, and Alejandra Cox. 1987. Monetarism and Liberalization: The Chilean Experiment. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishers. Espinoza, Juan G., and Andrew Zimbalist. 1978. Economic Democracy: Workers’ Par¬ ticipation in Chilean Industry, 1970-1973. New York: Academic Press. Evans, Les. 1974. Disaster in Chile: Allende’s Strategy and Why It Failed. New York: Pathfinder Press. Falabella, Gonzalo. 1981. Labour in Chile under the Junta, 1973-1979. London: Institute of Latin American Studies. Falcoff, Mark. 1989. Chile, 1970-1989: A Critical History. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Falcoff, Mark, Arturo Valenzuela, and Susan Kaufman Purcell. 1988. Chile: Prospects for Democracy. New York: Council on Foreign Relations. Farrell, Joseph. 1986. The National Unified School in Allende’s Chile. Vancouver: Uni¬ versity of British Columbia Press. Faundez, Julio. 1988. Marxism and Democracy in Chile from 1932 until the Fall of Allende. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Feinberg, Richard E. 1972. The Triumph of Allende: Chile’s Legal Revolution. New York: The New American Library. Ffrench-Davis, Ricardo. 1973. Politicos economicas en Chile, 1952-1970. Santiago: Editorial Nueva Universidad. Fischer, Kathleen B. 1979. Political Ideology and Educational Reform in Chile, 19641976. Los Angeles: Latin American Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Fleet, Michael. 1985. The Rise and Fall of Chilean Christian Democracy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Fontaine Aldunate, Arturo. 1988. Los economistas y el presidente Pinochet. Santiago: Zig-Zag. Foxley, Alejandro. 1983. Latin American Experiments in Neo-Conservative Economics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Furci, Carmelo. 1984. The Chilean Communist Party and the Road to Socialism. London: Zed Books. Garces, Joan E. 1971. 1970, La pugna politico por la presidencia en Chile. Santiago: Editorial Universitaria. _. 1974. El estado y los problemas tacticos en el gobierno de Allende. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXL _. 1976. Allende et 1’experience chilienne. Paris: Fondation Nationale de Sciences Politiques. Garreton, Manuel Antonio. 1989. The Chilean Political Process. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

224

/

Comparative Politics

Garrido, Jose, ed. 1988. Historia de la reforma agraria en Chile. Santiago: Editorial Universitaria. Gatica Barrios, Jaime. 1989. Deindustrialization in Chile. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Gil, Federico. 1962. Genesis and Modernization of Political Parties in Chile. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. -. 1966. The Political System of Chile. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gil, Federico, and Charles Parrish. 1965. The Chilean Presidential Election of September 4, 1964. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Comparative Study of Political Systems. Gil, Federico G., et al., eds. 1979. Chile at the Turning Point: Lessons of the Socialist Years, 1970-73. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues (ISHI). Giulisasti Tagle, Sergio. 1964. Partidospoliticos chilenos. Second ed. Santiago: Editorial Nacimento. Gomez, Sergio. 1982. Instituciones y procesos agrarios en Chile. Santiago: FLACSO. Grayson, George. 1968. El partido democrata cristiano chileno. Buenos Aires: Editorial Francisco de Aguirre. Gross, Leonard. 1967. The Last, Best Hope: Eduardo Frei and Chilean Democracy. New York: Random House. Halperin, Ernst. 1965. Nationalism and Communism in Chile. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Hansen, Roy Allen. 1967. “Military Culture and Organizational Decline: A Study of the Chilean Army.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Hauser, Thomas. 1978. The Execution of Charles Horman. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Hirschman, Albert. 1961. Latin American Issues, Essays and Comments. New York: Twentieth Century Fund. -. 1963. Journeys toward Progress: Studies of Economic Policy-Making in Latin America. New York: Twentieth Century Fund. Home, Alistair. 1972. Small Earthquake in Chile: Allende’s South America. New York: Viking Press. Huerta, Maria Antonieta, and Luis Pacheco Pastene. 1988. La iglesia chilena y los cambios sociopoliticos. Santiago: Pehuen. Huneeus, Carlos. 1973. La reforma en la universidad de Chile. Santiago: Corporacion de Promocion Universitaria. -. 1987. Los chilenos y la politico. Santiago: Salesianos. Ingram, George. 1974. Expropriation of U. S. Property in South America. New York: Praeger. Jarvis, Lovell S. 1985. Chilean Agriculture under Military Rule: From Reform to Re¬ action, 1973-1980. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of International Studies. Jobet, Julio Cesar. 1971. El partido socialista de Chile. 2 vols. Santiago: Ediciones Prensa Latinoamericana. Johnson, Dale, ed. 1973. The Chilean Road to Socialism. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor. Joxe, Alain. 1970. Las fuerzas armadas en el sistema politico chileno. Santiago: Editorial Universitaria. Kaufman, Edy. 1988. Crisis in Allende’s Chile: New Perspectives. New York: Praeger. Kaufman, Robert R. 1972. The Politics of Land Reform in Chile, 1950-1970: Public

Chile

/

225

Policy, Political Institutions, and Social Change. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. -. 1976. Transitions to Stable Authoritarian-Corporate Regimes: The Chilean Case. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. -. 1979. “Industrial Change and Authoritarian Rule in Latin America: A Concrete Review of the Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Model.” In David Collier, ed.. The New Authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press. Lagos, Ricardo. 1961. La concentracion del poder econdmico. Santiago: Editorial del Pacffico. Lavfn, Joaquin. 1980. El enriquecimiento de personas en Chile. Santiago: Ciencia y Tecnologia. -. 1987. Chile: la revolucion silenciosa. Santiago: Zig-Zag. -. 1988. Chile: A Quiet Revolution. Santiago: Zig-Zag. Lechner, Norbert. 1970. La democracia en Chile. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Signos. Levinson, Jerome, and Juan de Oms. 1970. The Alliance That Lost Its Way. New York: Quadrangle Books. Loveman, Brian. 1976. Struggle in the Countryside: Politics and Rural Labor in Chile, 1919-1973. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. -. 1979, 1988. Chile, the Legacy of Hispanic Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Loveman, Brian, and Thomas M. Davies, Jr., eds. 1978. The Politics of Antipolitics: The Military in Latin America. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Lowenthal, Abraham, ed. 1976, 1986. Armies and Politics in Latin America. New York: Holmes and Meier. MacEoin, Gary. 1974. No Peaceful Way: Chile’s Struggle for Dignity. New York: Sheed and Ward. Mamalakis, Markos. 1976. The Growth and Structure of the Chilean Economy: From Independence to Allende. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Mamalakis, Markos, and Clark Reynolds, eds. 1965. Essays on the Chilean Economy. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin. Merrill, Andrea T. 1982. Chile, A Country Study. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Molina, Sergio. 1972. Elproceso de cambio en Chile. Santiago: Editorial Universitaria. Montealegre, Hernan. 1979. La seguridad del estado y los derechos humanos. Santiago: Academia del Humanismo Cristiano. Moran, Theodore. 1974. Multinational Corporations and the Politics of Dependence: Copper in Chile. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Moss, Robert. 1973. Chile’s Marxist Experiment. New York: John Wiley. Moulian, Tomas. 1983. Democracia y socialismo en Chile. Santiago: FLACSO. -. 1986. Las candidaturas presidenciales de la derecha. Santiago: FLACSO. Mutchler, David. 1971. The Church as a Political Factor in Latin America, with Par¬ ticular Reference to Colombia and Chile. New York: Praeger. North, Liisa. 1966. Civil-Military Relations in Argentina, Chile, and Peru. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of International Studies. _. 1976. “The Military in Chilean Politics.” InAbrahamF. Lowenthal, ed., Armies and Politics in Latin America. New York: Holmes and Meier. Novoa Monreal, Eduardo. 1972. La batalla por el cobre. Santiago: Quimantu.

226

/

Comparative Politics

Nunn, Frederick M. 1976. The Military in Chilean History: Essays on Civil-Military Relations, 1810-1973. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Olavam'a Bravo, Arturo. 1962-1966. Chile entre dos Alessandris. 4 vols. Santiago: Editorial Nacimiento. -. 1966-1971. Chile bajo la democracia cristiana. 6 vols. Santiago: Nacimiento y Salesiana. Orrego Vicuna, Francisco, ed. 1975. Chile, the Balanced View. Santiago: The University of Chile. Pacheco, Maximo. 1980. Lonquen. Santiago: Ediciones Aconcagua. Palacios, Jorge. 1979. Chile, an Attempt at “Historic Compromise’’: The Real Story of the Allende Years. Chicago: Banner Press. Petras, James. 1969. Politics and Social Forces in Chilean Development. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pike, Frederick B. 1963. Chile and the United States, 1880-1962. South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press. Pinochet, Augusto. 1981. The Crucial Day. Santiago: Editorial Renascimiento. Politizer, Patricia. 1983. Miedo en Chile. Santiago: CESEC. —-. 1989. Fear in Chile. New York: Pantheon. Pollack, Benny, and Heman Rosenkranz. 1986. Revolutionary Social Democracy: The Chilean Socialist Party. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Prats, Carlos. 1985. Memorias de un soldado. Santiago: Pehuen. Ramirez Nicochea, Heman. 1965. Origen y formacion del Partido Comunista en Chile. Santiago: Editorial Austral. Ramos, Joseph R. 1986. Neo-Conservative Economics in the Southern Cone of Latin America, 1973-83. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Raptis, Michael. 1974. Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Chile. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Remmer, Karen. 1978. “Evaluating the Policy Impact of Military Regimes in Latin America.” Latin American Research Review 13, no. 2: 39-54. -. 1980. “Political Demobilization in Chile, 1973-1978.” Comparative Politics 12, no. 3 (April): 275-301. -. 1984. Party Competition in Argentina and Chile: Political Recruitment and Public Policy, 1890-1930. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Riz, Liliana de. 1979. Sociedad y politico en Chile: de Portales a Pinochet. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM). Rodriguez Grez, Pablo. 1986. El mito de la democracia en Chile. Providencia, Chile: Editorial EVES. Rojas, Alejandro. 1987. La transformacion del estado: la experiencia de la Unidad Popular. Santiago: Ediciones Documentas. Roxborough, Ian, et al. 1977. Chile: The State and Revolution. London: Macmillan & Co. Ruiz-Tagle P., Jaime. 1985. El sindicalismo chileno despues del plan laboral. Santiago: Programa de Economfa del Trabajo, Academia de Humanismo Cristiano. Scarpaci, Joseph. 1988. Primary Medical Care in Chile. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Shazo, Peter de. 1984. Urban Workers and Labor Unions in Chile, 1902-1927. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Sideri, Sandro, ed. 1979. Chile 1970-73: Economic Development and Its International

Chile

/

227

Setting: Self-Criticism of the Unidad Popular Government Policy. The Hague, Netherlands: Martins Nijhoff. Sigmund, Paul E. 1977. The Overthrow of Allende and the Politics of Chile, 1964-1976. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. -. 1980. Multinationals in Latin America: The Politics of Nationalization. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. -. 1981. “Chile: Market Fascism or Utopian Libertarianism!” Worldview 24, no. 10: 4-6. -. 1982. “The Military in Chile.” In Robert Wesson, ed., The New Military Politics in Latin America. New York: Praeger. -. 1983. “Chile: Ten Years of Pinochet.” Worldview 26, no. 12: 8-10. -. 1990. “Privatization, Reprivatization, and Hyperprivatization in Chile.” In Ezra Suleiman and John Waterbury, eds., The Political Economy of Public Sector Reform and Privatization. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Sigmund, Paul E., ed. 1972. The Ideologies of the Developing Nations. 2d rev. ed. New York: Praeger. Silva, Patricio. 1987. Estado, neoliberalismo, y politico agricola en Chile, 1973-1981. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: CEDLA. Silvert, Kalman H. 1965. Chile, Yesterday and Today. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Smimow, Gabriel. 1979. The Revolution Disarmed: Chile, 1970-73. New York: Monthly Review Press. Smith, Brian. 1982. The Church and Politics in Chile: Challenges to Modern Catholicism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Snow, Peter. 1972. El radicalismo chileno. Buenos Aires: Francisco de Aguirre. Stallings, Barbara. 1978. Class Conflict and Economic Development in Chile, 19581973. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Sweezy, Paul, and Harry Magdoff, eds. 1974. Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Chile. New York: Monthly Review Press. Swift, Jeannine. 1971. Agrarian Reform in Chile. Lexington, Mass.: Health Lexington Books. Thiesenhusen, William. 1966. Chile’s Experiments in Agrarian Reform. Madison: Uni¬ versity of Wisconsin Press. U.S. House of Representatives, Foreign Affairs Committee. 1975. The United States and Chile during the Allende Years. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence Activities, Staff Report. 1975. Covert Action in Chile, 1963-73. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Uribe, Armando. 1975. The Black Book of American Intervention in Chile. Boston: Beacon Publishers. Urzua Valenzuela, German. 1968. Los partidos politicos chilenos, las fuerzas politicos: ensayos de insurgenica politico en Chile. Santiago: Editorial Jurfdica de Chile. -. 1984. Diccionario politico-institucional de Chile. Santiago: Editorial Jurldica de Chile. -. 1987. La democracia practica: los gobiernos radicales. Santiago: CIESEC. Valenzuela, Arturo. 1978. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Chile. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

228

/

Comparative Politics

Valenzuela, J. Samuel, and Arturo Valenzuela. 1976. Chile: Politics and Society. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Valenzuela, J. Samuel, and Arturo Valenzuela, eds. 1986. Military Rule in Chile: Dic¬ tatorship and Oppositions. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Varas, Augusto. 1987. Los militares en el poder: regimen y gobierno militar en Chile. 1973-1987. Santiago: Pehuen/FLACSO. Varas, Augusto, ed. 1988. El partido comunista de Chile. Santiago: CESOC/FLACSO. Varas, Florencia. 1972. Conversaciones con Viaux. Santiago: Eire. -. 1979. Gustavo Leigh: el general disidente. Santiago: Ediciones Aconcagua. Varas, Florencia, and Jose Manuel Vergara. 1975. Coup!: Allende’s Last Day. New York: Stein and Day. Vergara, Pilar. 1984. Auge y caida del neoliberalismo en Chile. Santiago: FLACSO. Vuskovic, Pedro. 1975. Acusacion al imperialismo. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica. Vylder, Stefan de. 1976. Allende’s Chile: The Political Economy of the Rise and Fall of the Unidad Popular. New York: Cambridge University Press. Walker, Ignacio. 1986. Del populismo al leninismo y la inevitabilidad del conflicto: el partido socialista de Chile, 1933-1973. Santiago: CIEPLAN. Walton, Gary M., ed. 1985. The National Economic Policies of Chile. Greenwich, Conn.: Jai Press. Whelan, James. 1981. Allende: Death of a Marxist Dream. Washington, D.C.: Council for Inter-American Security. -. 1989. Out of the Ashes: Life, Death and Transfiguration of Democracy in Chile, 1833-1988. Washington, D.C.: Regner/Gateway. White Book of the Change of Government in Chile: 11th of September, 1973. 1973. Santiago: Empresa Editora Nacional Gabriela Mistral. Winn, Peter. 1986. Weavers of Revolution: The Yarur Workers and Chile’s Road to Socialism. New York: Oxford University Press. Zammit, J. Ann, ed. 1973. The Chilean Road to Socialism. Austin: University of Texas Press. Zanartu, Mario, and John J. Kennedy, eds. 1969. The Overall Development of Chile. South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press. Zeitlin, Maurice, and Richard Earl Ratcliff. 1988. Landlords and Capitalists: The Dom¬ inant Class of Chile. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

12 BRAZIL Frances Hagopian

In the past three decades, Brazil has been an exceptionally fruitful case for political science research. Theoretical analyses and empirical research about Brazil in the 1960s to the 1980s have followed the nation’s descent into and climb back from military-authoritarian rule. The military coup in 1964 and the authoritarian regime it established sparked scholarship on the breakdown of democracy, the transformation of the military, and authoritarian politics and policy-making; and the economic model pursued by the new regime forced a revision of conventional dependency theory. Also, as its military was one of the first in Latin America to begin to disengage from direct rule, Brazil provided a fertile case for studies of political institutions and the broader question of regime transition. The persistence of old and the emergence of new forms of political organization—populism, clientism, corporatism, and new social movements— and the transformation of the unions, the Catholic Church, and political parties have further evoked a rich and growing literature. In contrast to the political science research on many countries in this volume, major trends in scholarship on Brazil have primarily been directed by Brazilians, not by North Americans. This is perhaps in part due to the support for political science in Brazil offered by the Ford Foundation, support which enabled an entire generation of Brazilians to study political science who, in other Latin American countries, were channeled into sociology programs and which made possible graduate study abroad at the same time it strengthened advanced degree granting institutions within Brazil.1 Limited space precludes mention of many significant contributions to the scholarly literature on Brazil. Among the casualties are a plethora of articles, many in Portuguese, published within the past decade, as well as multiple articles by the same author. To make the references as accessible as possible to re-

230

/

Comparative Politics

searchers unfamiliar with the Brazilian scholarly literature, bibliographic entries are categorized according to the author’s final surname, even in those instances in which he or she is better known by a penultimate surname.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS The principal problem occupying theories of Brazilian politics in the past three decades has been the causes and consequences of the authoritarian turn of 1964. The early theories based their explanations for the military coup on the opposition of the propertied classes to popular mobilization and the reaction of imperialist forces. Helio Jaguaribe, Economic and Political Development: A Theoretical Approach and a Brazilian Case Study (1968), viewed the coup as a reflection of a structural crisis caused by the exhaustion of the possibilities for socioeco¬ nomic development within the existing institutional framework. The “national capitalist” model of development pursued after 1930 generated social, economic, and political distortions—imbalances between urban industrial and rural agri¬ cultural systems and among regions, a lack of political representation, and a “cartorial state” or one in which the politics of patronage was pervasive— which, in turn, limited further development. The principal debate of the 1970s was whether the authoritarian regime rep¬ resented a break with the dominant trend in Brazilian political development. Various theorists divided into two camps: those who saw the 1964 coup as a sharp departure from previous patterns, motivated by the exigencies of a partic¬ ular stage of economic development, and those who believed that the onset of authoritarianism in that year represented a restoration of a form of political organization whose origins lay alternatively in the Estado Novo or in Portuguese colonialism. This theme ran throughout the important volume edited by Alfred Stepan, Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future (1973). In his con¬ tribution to Stepan’s volume, Philippe C. Schmitter, “The ‘Portugalization’ of Brazil?,” argued that the military was able to build upon institutional structures first erected during the Estado Novo and that the revolution of 1964 was neither aberrant nor discontinuous. In that same volume, one of the leading proponents of the view that the post-1964 regime in Brazil represented a fundamental re¬ structuring of the economy and politics, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, “Asso¬ ciated-Dependent Development: Theoretical and Practical Implications,” argued that the rise of what he called “associated-dependent development” was closely related to basic economic and social changes. Responding to Jaguaribe, Cardoso asserted that “associated-dependent development is not without dynamism; it is not based on ruralization at the expense of industrialization; it does not reinforce the old division of labor in which some countries only exported raw material and imported manufactured goods” (1973:156). He proposed instead that it represented a new type of dependency, based on a new international division of labor, and the “internationalization of the internal market.” The “elective af¬ finity” between the economic crisis precipitated by the alleged exhaustion of

Brazil

/

231

import-substituting industrialization and the rise of authoritarianism is also the core of perhaps the most influential thesis about Latin American politics of the period from the 1960s to the 1980s, according to Guillermo O’Donnell, Mod¬ ernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Pol¬ itics (1973). According to this theory, partially inspired by the Brazilian case, the need to stabilize the economy, to reduce inflation, and to attract foreign investment in order to produce capital goods prompted a coup coalition of the military and technocrats to seize power in 1964. The hallmarks of the bureau¬ cratic-authoritarian regime were the “deactivation” of the popular sectors and the depoliticization of the policy-making process. O’Donnell’s thesis opened the door for other theorists to speculate about the power coalition behind the coup of 1964 and the pattern of politics engendered by this particular form of authoritarian rule. Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Autoritarismo e democratizagao (1975), perhaps most explicitly argued that, unlike previous authoritarian rule, the coalition sustaining associated-dependent devel¬ opment comprised the military, technocrats, and the international and interna¬ tionalized sectors of the Brazilian bourgeoisie. Also revelant for political scientists, he argued that a decline of traditional politics and political parties had taken place and that the branches of the state which were more or less imperme¬ able to political influence had been privileged. Through “bureaucratic rings” of influence, high-level private sector elites interacted with the military and civilian technical elites who dominated the state apparatus. Theories which offered political explanations for Brazil’s propensity toward authoritarianism, reflecting the strong Weberian influence on Brazilian social theory, credited the heritage of Portuguese patrimonialism for the centralized, strong Brazilian state. The classic work which inspired many of the most im¬ portant theories of Brazilian authoritarianism of the 1970s was Raymundo Faoro’s Os donos do poder: formagao do patronato politico Brasileiro (1958), which traced the modem state in Brazil to the traditional patrimonial state constructed by Portugal. Squarely within this tradition can be placed Simon Schwartzman’s evolving analysis of the long roots of authoritarianism in Brazil. In “Representa§ao e cooptagao polftica no Brasil” (1970), Sao Paulo e o estado nacional (1975), and more fully in Bases do autoritarismo Brasileiro (1982), Schwartzman argued that Brazil lapsed into authoritarianism not because societal demands outstripped the capacity of political institutions to process them, but because the state was too strong. “Political cooptation,” or the incorporation and subordi¬ nation of emergent groups by the patrimonial state, triumphed in 1964 as the prevalent mode of political participation over representation, present in an em¬ bryonic form in Sao Paulo. State building in the nineteenth century is analyzed somewhat differently by Fernando Uricoechea, The Patrimonial Foundations of the Brazilian Bureaucratic State {1980), who argued that a rational state apparatus was constructed in the mid-nineteenth century, although it incorporated features of patrimonialism. Elisa Maria Pereira Reis, “Elites agrarias, State-Building, e autoritarismo” (1982), argues that the roots of contemporary authoritarianism

232

/

Comparative Politics

were laid in Brazil by agrarian elites, principally from Sao Paulo, who created a strong state during the Old Republic to advance their economic interests. Fabio Wanderley Reis, “Solidariedade, interesses e desenvolvimento politico: um marco teorico e o caso Brasileiro,” in Jorge Balan, ed., Centro e periferia no desenvolvimento Brasileiro (1974), challenged the terms of the debate about the continuity of Brazilian authoritarianism on the grounds that it neglected to take into account that Brazil in 1964 was at a different stage of political development than it was during preceding authoritarian regimes. For Reis, the coup and the regime’s efforts at political demobilization represented an attempt to impose a nonideological political market in a context in which rapid social mobilization prevented a solution to the problem of territorial solidarity. Although scholars disputed the relative strength of state and society and the origins of Brazilian authoritarianism, most agreed that in Brazil liberalism was weak and corporatism strong. Philippe C. Schmitter, Interest Conflict and Po¬ litical Change in Brazil (1971), the first major work to analyze the emergence and persistence of corporatist patterns of interest representation in Brazil, pro¬ vided a broad conceptual framework for many subsequent studies. A penetrating analysis of the weakness of liberalism in Brazil was advanced by Wanderley Guilherme dos Santos in “Liberalism in Brazil: Ideology and Praxis,” in Morris J. Blachman and Ronald G. Heilman, eds., Terms of Conflict: Ideology in Latin American Politics (1977), and more fully in Ordem burguesa e liberalismo politico (1978). Santos argued that a liberal project was not viable in Brazil because Brazil lacked a bourgeoisie organized to shape the state apparatus ac¬ cording to the logic of market relationships and interested in asserting control over the three institutions—the military, the educational system, and the public bureaucracy—that are the bulwarks of a liberal society. These theories implying that Brazil was doomed to authoritarianism in 1964 because of the nature of its insertion in the world economy and its political heritage raised a problem for researchers: how to explain the turn toward de¬ mocracy in the late 1970s and 1980s? Until recently, there were few theoretical studies of Brazilian politics which might have predicted the transition from authoritarian rule. One exception was the early work of a non-Brazilianist, Juan J. Linz’s “The Future of an Authoritarian Situation or the Institutionalization of an Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Brazil,” in Alfred Stepan, ed., Au¬ thoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future (1973), which presaged the political difficulties the authoritarian regime was about to face in its attempts to legitimize itself. Among the observers who viewed the process of liberalization as triggered by the split between the military and its bourgeois supporters were Luiz Carlos Bresser Pereira, O colapso de uma alianga de classes (1978), and Luciano Martins, “The ‘Liberalization’ of Authoritarian Rule in Brazil,” in Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, eds., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule; part II, Latin America (1986). Bolivar Lamounier, “Authoritarian Brazil Revisited: The Impact of Elections on the Abertura," in Alfred Stepan, ed., Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition

Brazil

/

233

and Consolidation (1989), has argued that Brazil’s pluralist traditions were stronger than previously believed and that the political opening was propelled by the regime’s need to contest elections. In the same volume is one of the best theoretical analyses of the direction of the New Republic: Maria do Carmo Campello de Souza’s “The Brazilian ‘New Republic’: Under the ‘Sword of Damocles’.”

ECONOMIC ISSUES Studies of the economic model pursued by the military government crossed disciplinary boundaries. Perhaps because of their connection to the broader the¬ oretical issue of the rise of authoritarianism, political scientists were particularly interested in such economic issues as the role of the bourgeoisie in industriali¬ zation; the expanded role of the state in the economy and its political implications; dependent development and multinational corporations; and, in the 1980s, the burden of debt and economic constraints on democracy. Political scientists studying Brazil have been drawn for three decades to study¬ ing the contribution of the bourgeoisie to economic and political development. The economic and political behavior of national entrepreneurs was examined in the 1960s by Fernando Henrique Cardoso, O empresario industrial e o desenvolvimento economico (1964), and Luciano Martins, Industrializagao, burguesia nacional e desenvolvimento (1968). In the 1970s, the most significant contri¬ bution to the study of state-bourgeois relations was made by Eli Diniz and Renato Raul Boschi, whose collaborative Empresariado nacional e estado no Brasil (1978) questioned conventional analyses in arguing that industrial entrepreneurs were able to exercise political influence upon a strong state. Eli Diniz’s Empre¬ sariado, estado e capitalismo no Brasil: 1930-1945 (1978) highlighted the expression of political demands by the bourgeoisie during the Vargas era. Renato Raul Boschi, Elites industriais e democracia: hegemonia burguesa e mudanga polltica no Brasil (1979), focused on the political behavior of the bourgeoisie during the epoch of military rule in the 1960s and 1970s. Why the bourgeoisie advocated political liberalization in the 1970s and the political role it might be expected to play in the 1980s were discussed by Philippe Faucher, “The Paradise That Never Was: The Breakdown of the Brazilian Authoritarian Order,” in Thomas C. Bruneau and Philippe Faucher, eds., Authoritarian Capitalism: Bra¬ zil’s Contemporary Economic and Political Development (1981); Eli Diniz, “O empresariado e a nova conjuntura,” in Helgio Trindade, ed., Brasil em perspectiva: dilemas da abertura polltica (1982); and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, “Entrepreneurs and the Transition Process: The Brazilian Case,” in Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, eds.. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule, part III, Comparative Perspectives (1986). The first observers of the coup who adhered to dependency analysis had assumed that the overthrow of Goulart had been perpetrated by multinational corporations in order to halt Brazilian industrialization, as we have seen above.

234

/

Comparative Politics

a view contested theoretically by Fernando Henrique Cardoso. This belief was forever demolished empirically by Peter Evans in Dependent Development: The Alliance of Multinational, State, and Local Capital in Brazil (1979), arguably the most influential work to appear in English about economic issues under military rule in Brazil. Evans’s Dependent Development aptly portrayed the Brazilian state as an organizer of alliances and capital; provided rich detail about the special interests and strengths of local capital which permitted it to survive in a world of multinational competition; and, better than any other single work, explained the shifting interests and behavior of multinational corporations from the days of classic dependence to their willingness to invest in development on the periphery of the world economy. The expansive role of the state in the economy also generated much excellent scholarship. Werner Baer, Richard Newfarmer, and Thomas Trebat, “On State Capitalism in Brazil: Some New Issues and Questions” (1976), were among the first observers of the expansion of the state’s economic activities into production and productive investment. Carlos Estevam Martins, ed., Estado e capitalismo no Brasil (1977), explored the political origins and effects of the “state capitalism” model. The volume is divided in two parts: in the first, there are six empirical studies of the expansion of state enterprises; and in the second, political scientists and economists grapple with and attempt to theorize about state intervention in the economy, state capitalism, and the political order. If scholars could agree that the state and multinationals played central roles in developing Brazil, two key economic issues remained on the agenda in the 1970s: the military’s contribution to the economic miracle and the economic necessity of the coup. Albert Fishlow, “Some Reflections on Post-1964 Brazilian Economic Policy,” in Alfred Stepan, Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future (1973), and Edmar Bacha, “Issues and Evidence on Recent Brazilian Economic Growth” (1977), both questioned that a miracle had been wrought by the military. Bacha argued that the economic miracle may better be explained as a predictable crest of a longer economic cycle. Two important challenges to the bureaucratic-authoritarian thesis that the Brazilian coup was driven by the need to advance to the stage of capital goods production were issued at the end of the decade. Michael Wallerstein, “The Collapse of Democracy in Brazil: Its Economic Determinants” (1980), discovered that the most important economic reason for the coup was the need to bring inflation under control. Jose Serra, “Three Mistaken Theses Regarding the Connection between Industrialization and Authoritarian Regimes,” in David Collier, ed.. The New Authoritarianism in Latin America (1979), found that the timing of the argument about the deep¬ ening of industrialization was all wrong: Consumer durables were produced in Brazil beginning in the 1950s, and the state promoted the manufacture of capital goods seriously only in 1974, a full decade after the coup. If subordinated, the distributional effects of the Brazilian model of develop¬ ment were not entirely absent from the scholarly agenda, and the return of democracy has elevated the social question on the policy agenda. Economist

Brazil

/

235

Sylvia Ann Hewlett, The Cruel Dilemmas of Development: Twentieth Century Brazil (1980), tells a story of inequality which political scientists cannot ignore. A major research project supported by the Samey government about poverty in Brazil, the distribution of income among regions and classes, and other weighty problems and possible remedies is described in Helio Jaguaribe et al., Brasil 2000—para um novo pacto social (1986). A third important volume about the social dimension of economic growth and development in the entire post-war period in Brazil is by Edmar L. Bacha and Herbert S. Klein, eds.. Social Change in Brazil, 1945-1985: The Incomplete Transition (1989). Looking to the future, political scientists will be challenged to assess the potential for political change which the Brazilian development model has en¬ gendered, a question on which debate has already begun. In response to those scholars who believe that development in Brazil produced urbanization, but insufficient industrial employment and a concentration of urban poverty, Vilmar Faria, “Desenvolvimento, urbanizagao e mudangas na estrutura de emprego: a experiencia Brasileira dos ultimos trinta anos,” in Bernardo Sorj and Maria Hermfnia Tavares de Almeida, eds., Sociedade e politico no Brasil pos-64 (1983), argued, based largely on census data, that the industrialization of Brazil generated a major revolution in industrial employment. A recent attempt to grapple with how the sweeping economic changes wrought by the military regime can be reconciled with dependency analysis is found in Fernando Henrique Cardoso, “Associated-Dependent Development and Democratic Theory,” in Alfred Stepan, ed., Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consol¬ idation (1989). Finally, the issue of the 1980s that has subordinated the study of all other economic topics is that of debt. No political scientist can ignore the enormous, perhaps insurmountable, obstacles to democracy posed by the country’s crushing debt service which siphons off annually 10 billion dollars, nearly 5 percent of the national product. The subject of debt and the management of the economic crisis have spawned a veritable cottage industry; among the best studies are those of Edmar Bacha and Pedro S. Malan, “Brazil’s Debt: From the Miracle to the Fund,” and Albert Fishlow, “A Tale of Two Presidents: The Political Economy of Crisis Management”—both in Alfred Stepan, ed., Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation (1989)—and Eul-Soo Pang, “Debt, Adjustment, and Democratic Cacophony in Brazil,” in Barbara Stallings and Robert Kaufman, eds., Debt and Democracy in Latin America (1989).

ARMED FORCES AND THE GOLPE DE ESTADO The pioneering work on the Brazilian armed forces was done by Alfred Stepan, The Military in Politics: Changing Patterns in Brazil (1971). Based on impressive research into military documents and on interviews with high-ranking military officers, Stepan demonstrated that the traditional “moderating” pattern of civilmilitary relations prevailing prior to 1964, in which the military intervened to

236

/

Comparative Politics

depose executives when prompted to do so by key civilian sectors, had been superseded by direct military rule. Alfred Stepan is also the author of the seminal article on the subject of the expansion of military roles in Latin America, “The ‘New Professionalism’ of Internal Warfare and Military Role Expansion,’’ in Alfred Stepan, ed., Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future (1973), which draws attention to a new military ideology of internal security and national development disseminated through the curriculum of military schools of higher learning. In “Political Leadership and Regime Breakdown: Brazil,” in Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, eds., The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Latin America (1978), Stepan argued that the military seizure of power was provoked by poor civilian political leadership. Like Stepan, Edmundo Campos Coelho, Em busca de identidade: o exercito e a politica na sociedade Brasileira (1976), treats the military as a separate organization. From the time of independence to the present, he argues effectively, the army’s political behavior was increasingly conditioned by the organization’s own interests and needs; it acquired ever higher degrees of autonomy from particular segments of civil society until, finally, it closed itself to societal influences. The view of the 1964 coup advanced by Rene Armand Dreifuss, 1964: a conquista do estado, aqao politica, poder, e golpe de classe (1981), which assigns a larger role to the bourgeoisie and questions the autonomy of the military institution in seizing power, is supported by an impressive body of research, including hundreds of pages of appendices. The book documents the conspiracy of entrepreneurs, the military, the technobureaucracy, and the most conservative sectors of Brazilian society to destabilize and overthrow the government of Joao Goulart and subsequently to seize strategic state posts in order to implement an agenda they developed jointly in the research institutes Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudos Sociais (IPES) and Instituto Brasileiro de A$ao Democratica (IBAD). Whatever the origins of the military coup, most observers agreed that in power, the military, brought in to perform a Bonapartist role for the elite, began to distance itself from the elite whose support had legitimated its seizure of power. This argument was made by Rene Armand Dreifuss and Otavio Soares Dulci in “As formas armadas e a politica,” in Bernardo Sorj and Maria Herminia Tavares de Almeida, eds., Sociedade e politica no Brasil pos-64 (1983). Clearly, the military initiated Brazil’s transition from authoritarian rule, and it exerts substantial political influence even after handing over the reins of gov¬ ernment to civilians. Rene Armand Dreifuss, “Nova Republica. novo exercito?,” in Flavio Koutzii, ed., A Nova Republica: um balanqo (1986), points out that the subject of what the proper role of the military in the state and society should be has not even been opened for discussion in the New Republic. Alfred Stepan, Rethinking Military Politics: Brazil and the Southern Cone (1988), explains the abertura as the product of an intramilitary split between soft-liners in the gov¬ ernment and hard-liners in the security community; the former felt the latter threatened the military as an institution. Among the most compelling parts of his ongoing analysis of the military is the enumeration of the many prerogatives

Brazil

/

237

that remain to the Brazilian military despite an accomplished transition to civilian rule, which, if unchecked, may threaten Brazilian democracy. Four essays in¬ tended to inform the 1987-1988 debates of the Constitutient Assembly were collected by Eliezer Rizzo de Oliveira, et al., in As forgas armadas no Brasil (1987). At present and in the future, the most important question of civil-military relations in Brazil is of course whether the cycle of military intervention can be broken. Alexandre Barros, “The Brazilian Military in the Late 1980s and Early 1990s: Is the Risk of Intervention Gone?,” in Louis W. Goodman, Johanna S. R. Mendelson, and Juan Rial, eds., The Military and Democracy: The Future of Civil-Military Relations in Latin America (1990), concludes that, if democracy malfunctions politically or fails to solve the country’s grave economic problems, future military intervention cannot be ruled out. Democracy is vulnerable because civilians and the military have not come to terms about a legitimate function for the military, for which he assigns as much blame to the civilian political elite as to the men in uniform. For Walder de Goes, “Militares e polftica, uma estrategia para a democracia,” in Fabio Wanderley Reis and Guillermo O’Don¬ nell, eds., A democracia no Brasil: dilemas e perspectivas (1988), keeping the military in the barracks depends on opening channels of institutionalized access for the armed forces to the legislature through which they can express their corporate interests.

PARTIES, GROUPS, AND ELECTIONS In the 1960s, scant attention was paid to parties and elections in Brazil. Prior to the coup, virtually the only research by a North American, Phyllis J. Peterson, “Brazilian Political Parties: Formation, Organization, and Leadership, 1945— 1959” (1962), was the author’s doctoral dissertation about political parties in the postwar period. Mostly Brazilians conducted case studies of elections by state; many of these early studies appeared in the Revista Brasileira de Estudos Politicos, whose editor, Orlando M. Carvalho, authored the first important study of Brazilian elections, Ensaios de sociologia eleitoral (1958). The 1962 local elections were systematically analyzed across states by the contributors to Themistocles Cavalcanti and Reisky Dubnic, eds., Comportamento eleitoral no Brasil (1964). This rudimentary research was insightful and empirically supported, but its ambition was limited. It made no pretension to understand such broad ques¬ tions as the role of parties in the political system and the beliefs of voters. One exception to this trend was Glaucio Ary Dillon Soares, “The Politics of Uneven Development: The Case of Brazil,” in Seymour M. Lipset and Stein Rokkan, eds., Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives (1967). Soares contrasted voting trends at a highly aggregrated level in the relatively backward northeast with the more developed southeast in the postwar period, arguing that socioeconomic differences between the two regions gave rise to dual politics: traditional in Brazil’s underdeveloped areas and modem

238

/

Comparative Politics

in the southeast. In Sociedade e politico, no Brasil (1973), Soares portrayed twentieth-century Brazilian politics as a linear progression of economic devel¬ opment undermining oligarchical politics. He argued that urbanization, indus¬ trialization, and increased political participation in the postwar period led to a rise in voting for the Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro (PTB) and eventually to the 1964 coup, which he viewed as the last gasp of the oligarchy who understood all too well the direction of political change. In the first decade after the coup, the study of parties and electoral politics was virtually nonexistent. With the progovemment Alianga Renovadora Nacional (ARENA) party viewed as the puppet of Brazil’s real power holders and the Movimento Democratico Brasileiro (MDB) as a token opposition party, elections were thought to be meaningless. During these years, the only book on political parties to appear was Ronald H. Chilcote’s The Brazilian Communist Party: Conflict and Integration, 1922-1972 (1974), a study which was not time bound and which was not part of a larger research trend. The unanticipated 1974 victory of the MDB restored the subject of political parties and elections to the research agenda and sparked the collection of survey data about the beliefs, orientations, and motivations of voters in Brazil’s largest political markets. The relationship between party and voter was the central concern of Bolivar Lamounier and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, eds., Os partidos e as eleigoes no Brasil (1975), which focused on the 1974 congressional elections; Fabio Wanderley Reis, ed., Os partidos e o regime: a logica no processo eleitoral Brasileiro (1978), which analyzed the results of the 1976 municipal elections in the municipalities of Presidente Prudente (Sao Paulo), Niteroi (Rio de Janeiro), Caxias do Sul (Rio Grande do Sul), and Juiz de Fora (Minas Gerais); and Bolivar Lamounier, ed., Voto de desconfianga: eleigoes e mudanga politico no Brasil, 1970-1979 (1980), which explored the meaning of voting in Sao Paulo in an authoritarian regime. In his own contribution to the volume, “O voto em Sao Paulo, 1970-1978,” Lamounier advanced his important argument that Brazilian elections under the military assumed a plebiscitary nature; after 1974, the MDB polled well because it successfully identified itself in the minds of voters with the opposition to authoritarianism and military government policies. One of the finest books written on the role of Brazilian political parties in the larger political system, Maria do Carmo Campello de Souza’s Estado e partidos politicos no Brasil (1930-1964) (1976), dismissed as trivial the finding that Brazilian parties were weak and asked instead why they were weak. The answer she provided was that the strong, centralized state consolidated during the 1930s predated the emergence of a party system, posed a difficulty for its institution¬ alization, and provided a stimulus for clientelistic politics. A full decade later, Bolivar Lamounier and Rachel Meneguello, Partidos politicos e consolidagao democratica: o caso Brasileiro (1986), added that the parties were weakened after 1945 by the actions of self-interested, professional politicians. Two studies of the early 1980s which illuminated different functions performed by political parties under authoritarianism are Eli Diniz’s Voto e maquina politico: patron-

Brazil

/

239

agem e clientelismo no Rio de Janeiro (1982), an outstanding work on the clientelistic machine of ex-governor Chagas Freitas in the Rio de Janeiro MDB and a unique contribution to understanding both clientelism in Brazil and the way in which parties operated during the dictatorship; and Margaret J. Sarles’s “Maintaining Political Control through Parties: The Brazilian Strategy” (1982), which demonstrates the way in which the authoritarian regime used political parties to mobilize support. The liberalization of the political arena sanctioned by the Figueiredo government provided the backdrop for a flood of studies of parties beginning in the late 1970s and continuing into the 1980s. These studies did not confine themselves to the new parties created by the 1979 party reform law but reflected on the pre-1964 parties and party system. They were important not only for their intrinsic value, but also for the light they hoped to shed on the contribution of parties to, or their failure to prevent, the 1964 coup d’etat. Maria Victoria de Mesquita Benevides’s A UDN e o udenismo: ambigiiidades do liberalismo Brasileiro (1945-1965) (1981), a study of the Uniao Democratica Nacional (UDN)—the enigmatic party which professed a commitment to liber¬ alism and liberal democracy but supported the 1964 coup (and other coup attempts before it), and Lucia Hippolito’s De raposas e reformistas—o PSD e a expe¬ rience democratica Brasileira (1945-64) (1985), an excellent study of the Partido Social Democratico (PSD), the clientelistic, “Michellian party par excellence,” are among the best examples of this genre of study of individual parties. Another retrospective look at the 1945-1964 party system, Olavo Brasil de Lima Junior’s Os partidos politicos Brasileiros: a experiencia federal e re¬ gional: 1945164 (1983), focused on the understudied relationship between na¬ tional and state voting trends in the postwar period. Wanderley Guilherme dos Santos, “The Calculus of Conflict: Impasse in Brazilian Politics and the Crisis of 1964” (1979), traced the breakdown of democracy to the fragmentation of the political parties in congress. The first of the two-volume set edited by David V. Fleischer, Os partidos politicos no Brasil (1981), examines multipartism and the postwar party system, two-partism and the party system under military rule, and party behavior in the legislature; the second volume is a welcome collection of case studies of parties in the states of Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul, and Bahia. Maria Victoria de Mesquita Benevides’s recent study of the Brazilian labor party of Getulio Vargas, O PTB e o trabalhismo: partido de sindicato em Sao Paulo (1945-1964) (1989), fills the last major gap in the literature on parties in the pre-coup period. Recently, two excellent studies of individual parties during the authoritarian regime and beyond have appeared. Mario D’Alva Gil Kinzo’s Legal Opposition Politics under Authoritarian Rule in Brazil: The Case of the MDB, 1966-1979 (1988) is a rich analysis of the MDB’s search for identity, rebuilding, and attempts at popular mobilization as a “legal opposition” in an authoritarian regime. The birth and prospects of the Workers’ Party is the subject of the doctoral dissertation of Margaret E. Keck, “From Movement to Politics: The Formation of the Workers’ Party in Brazil” (1986).

240

/

Comparative Politics

GOVERNMENT-LEGAL INSTITUTIONS Studies of governmental and legal institutions in Brazil have been weighted far more toward the executive branch than the congress and courts, and this imbalance has reflected a certain political reality. During the years of the au¬ thoritarian regime, the functions and prerogatives of congress were pared con¬ siderably, and the courts were virtually powerless. Among the very few studies of the Brazilian legislature were made by Sergio Henrique Hudson de Abranches, “O legislative no processo politico do Brasil” (1973); Sergio Henrique Hudson de Abranches and Glaucio Ary Dillon Soares, “As fun$oes do legislative” (1973); and Robert Packenham, “Functions of the Brazilian National Congress,” in Weston Agor, ed., Latin American Legislatures: Their Role and Influence (1971). The only complete book on the subject contained the proceedings of a 1974 seminar on the legislature and economic development: Candido Mendes, ed., O legislative e a tecnocracia (1975). Many of the essays in the volume are too general for the researcher interested in Brazil, but the articles by Carlos A. Astiz, “O papel atual do congresso Brasileiro,” and Candido Mendes, “O congresso Brasileiro pos-64: um legislative para a tecnocracia?,” are solid con¬ tributions to the literature on the Brazilian government. No significant political science research has been undertaken on the judiciary and legal systems. In contrast to the dearth of literature on the legislature and courts, studies of policy-making have been abundant. An early work about policy-making, Na¬ thaniel H. Leff’s Economic Policy-Making and Development in Brazil 19471964 (1968), devotes fully half the book to the political factors influencing economic policy in the postwar period: clientelism, elite ideology, and the weak¬ ness of industrial interests. Celso Lafer, “The Planning Process and the Political System in Brazil: A Study of Kubitschek’s Target Plan—1956-1961” (1970), attributes the success of national development policy during the Kubitschek administration to the effectiveness of the planning process. Robert T. Daland, Brazilian Planning: Development Politics and Administration (1967), reached a different conclusion, namely that plans in the pre-1964 period regularly failed. Not surprisingly, when the military regime overthrew Joao Goulart, the nature of government changed. The regime attempted to centralize finance and gov¬ ernment operations, to depoliticize policy, and to rationalize the bureaucracy; and, in the 1970s, several excellent studies captured some of these changes. Barry Ames’s Rhetoric and Reality in a Militarized Regime: Brazil Since 1964 (1973), which examined policy in the three areas of housing, wages, and edu¬ cation, was one of the first studies of the change in policy-making under the military. Thomas E. Skidmore, “Politics and Economic Policy Making in Au¬ thoritarian Brazil, 1937-71,” in Alfred Stepan, ed.. Authoritarian Brazil.Origins, Policies, and Future (1973), compared the autonomy of executive branch policy-making and the entrusting of crucial decisions to technocrats under Castello Branco to the policy-making style of the Estado Novo. Olavo Brasil de Lima Junior, “Mudan^a polftica e processo decisorio: analise da polftica or§a-

Brazil

/

241

mentaria Brasileira” (1977), demonstrated that budgetary authority had been transferred to the executive. Some of the best work in the field of policy-making has been studies of single policy issues. James M. Malloy, in The Politics of Social Security in Brazil (1979), a study of the change in public policy and bureaucratic transfor¬ mation under the military, shows how the administration of social security was removed from the PTB leaders and the union leaders known as pelegos and was given over to technocrats. Two important case studies, Stephen G. Bunker’s “Policy Implementation in an Authoritarian State: A Case from Brazil” (1983), which examines the policy to develop the Amazon, and Michael Barzelay’s The Politicized Market Economy: Alcohol in Brazil’s Energy Strategy (1986), a book about Brazil’s alcohol policy, enriched the literature on the policy-making process. Studies of the Brazilian bureaucracy differ widely in perspective, theoretical concerns, and conduct of inquiry. Lawrence S. Graham’s Civil Service Reform in Brazil: Principles versus Practice (1968) is a serious, scholarly treatment of the bureaucracy under Vargas and principally in the period from 1945 to 1964. Robert T. Daland, Explaining Brazilian Bureaucracy: Performance and Pa¬ thology (1981), returned to a question that previously had preoccupied the author: the resistance of the Brazilian bureaucracy to administrative modernization. Lu¬ ciano Martins’s Estado capitalista e burocracia no Brasil pds-64 (1985), an examination of the bureaucracy that grew up around the expansion of the state’s functions after 1964, is empirically as well as conceptually strong. Based on interviews with managers and heads of agencies, it presents case studies of the National Development Bank, the Industrial Development Council, and the De¬ partment of Foreign Commerce. Studies of subnational government have been rare. An early study of local government can be found in Frank P. Sherwood’s Institutionalizing the Grass¬ roots in Brazil: A Study in Comparative Local Government (1967). Some of the most useful studies of local government for the researcher were prepared by the Brazilian Institute of Municipal Administration, or Instituto Brasileiro de Ad¬ ministrate Municipal (IBAM): Munidpios do Brasil: organizagao e atividades governmentais (1960), Munidpios do Brasil: quinze anos depois (1975), and O prefeito Brasileiro: caracteristicas e percepgoes (1975). One of the few studies of the financial resources and linkages of state and local governments, made by Antonio Carlos de Medeiros, Politics and Intergovernmental Relations in Brazil, 1964-1982 (1986), drew from case studies of Espirito Santo and Sao Paulo. A relatively new work by Barry Ames, Political Survival: Politicians and Public Policy in Latin America (1987), a general study of the political survival strategies of incumbent government elites in Latin America, was based largely on Brazilian government budgetary allocations in the pre-coup and late military periods. From a rational choice perspective, the sophisticated analysis provides a wealth of information about the behavior of congressional committees in the pre-1964 period and the grand strategy of the military in preparing its exit after

242

/

Comparative Politics

1978. It is one of the few studies of the behavior of congressional committees in Brazil prior to 1964 and of spending patterns under the military.

LEADERS The seminal article on elite networks in Brazil was written by the late an¬ thropologist Anthony Leeds, “Brazilian Careers and Social Structure: An Ev¬ olutionary Model and Case History” (1964). The most important research on elite recruitment in Brazil has been conducted for nearly two decades by David V. Fleischer. Among his articles about elite recruitment in the state of Minas Gerais are ‘ ‘O trampolim politico: mudangas nos padroes de recrutamento politica em Minas Gerais” (1973) and “A Bancada Federal Mineira: trinta anos de recrutamento politico, 1945/1975” (1977). Jose Murilo de Carvalho’s A construgao da ordem: a elite politica imperial (1980) stands as the best work on the nineteenth-century elite. The response of the country’s most traditional fam¬ ilies to their decline as agrarian oligarchs and the political change which accom¬ panied the twilight of the Old Republic—assuming society’s most prestigious leadership positions in cultural, political, and bureaucratic institutions—are re¬ counted by Sergio Miceli, Intelectuais e classe dirigente no Brasil (1920-1945) (1979). A careful empirical study of the political careers of 160 state governors and 290 cabinet ministers from 1945 to the 1970s is found in Edson de Oliveira Nunes’s “Legislative, politica e recrutamento de elites no Brasil” (1978), which demonstrates that, although the governors in the post-coup era had legislative experiences similar to those of their predecessors from 1945 to 1964, the ministers of the military cabinets were recruited from different training grounds—technical, bureaucratic, or military training—than their counterparts in pre-coup cabinets, who by and large rose from the legislature. Some of the most interesting political science research about Brazil has focused on the relationships between leaders and mass publics, especially populism and clientelism. In the well-known O colapso do populismo no Brasil (1968), Octavio Ianni discusses the rise, height, and demise of populism. Francisco C. Weffort, O populismo na politica Brasileira (1978), argued that expanding participation after 1930 legitimated the Brazilian state; populism occurred at a Bonapartist moment. An English version of his work appeared as “State and Mass in Brazil” in Irving Louis Horowitz, ed., Masses in Latin America (1970). A historical account of populism in Rio de Janeiro from 1925 to 1945 is found in Michael L. Coniff’s Urban Politics in Brazil: The Rise of Populism, 1925-1945 (1981). Populism is a relatively recent phenomenon in Brazil when compared to clien¬ telism. Jose Murilo de Carvalho, “Barbacena: a famflia, a politica, e uma hipotese” (1966), demonstrated that the politics of patronage had been trans¬ planted from rural to urban Brazil, where it buttressed the rule of the traditional families. One of the most conceptually compelling articles about clientelism in Brazil was Antonio Otavio Cintra’s “Traditional Brazilian Politics: An Inter-

Brazil

/

243

pretation of Relations between Center and Periphery,” in Neuma Aguiar, ed., The Structure of Brazilian Development (1979). Eul-Soo Pang, Bahia in the First Brazilian Republic: Coronelismo and Oligarchies, 1889-1934 (1979), is a case study of coronelismo, or the rule of local political bosses, in the north¬ eastern state of Bahia. Paul Cammack, “Clientelism and Military Government in Brazil,” in Christopher Clapham, ed., Private Patronage and Public Power (1982), disputed Nunes Leal’s classic argument that coronelismo was the product of a transitional stage of Brazilian development when public and private power were approximately equal, arguing instead that clientelism was more pervasive in the postwar era than during the Old Republic and most widely resorted to by the military government. Frances Hagopian, “The Politics of Oligarchy: The Persistence of Traditional Elites in Contemporary Brazil” (1986), highlighted the contribution of clientelism to the survival of the traditional political elite during the authoritarian regime. An important book about elite ideology and networks, Peter McDonough’s Power and Ideology in Brazil (1981), marshalled an impressive data set of interviews conducted in 1972 and 1973 with more than 250 leaders in labor unions, business and industry, public enterprises, political parties, civil service, and the church. McDonough’s account supported what the dominant theoretical arguments about Brazil asserted but never really proved: An alliance of the military, technocrats, and business held power over key decisions during the Medici government; politicians, bishops, and labor leaders wearied of their exclusion from decision making; and the authoritarian coalition was ultimately unstable.

URBAN ISSUES AND LABOR POLITICS For much of the 1960s and 1970s, political scientists lamented the marginality of the urban poor and the corporatist control and outright repression of the working class. In contrast, studies of labor and urban classes in the late 1970s and early 1980s were unbridled in their optimism about the organizational po¬ tential of labor and the urban popular classes during the transition from author¬ itarian rule. The urban and union movements bom of the abertura were believed to form the core of a distinctive, potentially democratizing trend in Brazilian history. Janice Perlman, in The Myth of Marginality: Urban Poverty and Politics in Rio de Janeiro (1976), one of the first pieces of social science about Brazil to make use of extensive interviews, exploded the perception prevailing not only in Brazil but throughout Latin America that urban slum dwellers were politically, economically, socially, and culturally marginal.2 Perlman’s study of three favelas in Rio de Janeiro revealed that the residents were well organized and optimistic, worked hard, and were neither apathetic nor radical, but instead were aware of and involved in those aspects of politics that affected them and generally were system supportive. In short, they had ‘‘the aspirations of the bourgeoisie, the

244

/

Comparative Politics

perseverance of pioneers, and the values of patriots” (1976:243) even though they were economically exploited and, during the authoritarian regime, politically repressed. A more recent, equally rich, glimpse into the daily life of the urban poor is provided by the ethnography of Teresa Pires do Rio Caldeira’s A politico, dos outros: o cotidiano dos moradores da periferia e o que pensam do poder e dos poderosos (1984), which chronicles the labor market experiences and views of power and society of thirty-three residents of the poor neighborhoods on the periphery of the city of Sao Paulo. Political scientists refocused their study of the urban poor in the late 1970s and 1980s on the rise of independent, voluntary associations among both the popular and middle classes in Brazil’s major cities. Neighborhood housing as¬ sociations in particular, which demanded improvements in poor urban services and inadequate housing, were viewed as an important new form of interest representation and a major challenge to an authoritarian state. They were also hailed for their potential, along with other new voluntary associations in Brazilian civil society, to be “schools for democracy,” in that members developed or¬ ganizational skills, practiced electing leaders, participated politically, and for the first time posited demands before local and state government. There is no single book in English on this phenomenon, but there are some excellent edited volumes published in Brazil as well as a series of first-rate articles. Paul Singer and Vinicius Caldeira Brandt, eds., Sao Paulo: o povo em movimento (1980), describe various social movements in Sao Paulo. One of the best collections of research on urban movements is found in Renato Raul Boschi’s edited volume, Movimentos coletivas no Brasil urbano (1983), which contains case studies of the movements of tht favelados in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, as well as a comparative study of movements in six urban areas of Brazil. Ruth C. L. Car¬ doso, “Movimentos sociais urbanos: balango crftico,” in Bernardo Sorj and Maria Hermmia Tavares de Almeida, eds., Sociedade e politico no Brasil pos64 (1983), questioned the prevailing thesis that urban social movements were capable of democratizing the state but affirmed that they demonstrated that the people were capable of autonomous and united action. While many observers held high hopes that new social movements, uncompromised with the state and political parties, could more effectively represent the urban poor than other organizations, such as parties and unions, Renato Raul Boschi, “Social Move¬ ments and the New Political Order in Brazil,” in John D. Wirth, Edson de Oliveira Nunes, and Thomas E. Bogenschild, eds., State and Society in Brazil: Continuity and Change (1987), cautioned that since single-issue movements organized around transitory demands, social movements could not perform the same role as political parties. Scott Main waring, “Grassroots Popular Move¬ ments and the Struggle for Democracy: Nova Iguagu,” in Alfred Stepan, ed., Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation (1989), re¬ vealed that the efficacy of even one of the most successful neighborhood asso¬ ciations in Brazil, that of Nova Iguagu in the state of Rio de Janeiro, was limited. The only noteworthy studies of Brazilian labor in the 1960s and early 1970s

Brazil

/

245

were conducted by Leoncio Martins Rodrigues, Conflicto industrial e sindicalismo no Brasil (1966), Leoncio Martins Rodrigues, ed., Sindicalismo e sociedade (1968), and Juarez Ruben Brandao Lopes, Sociedade industrial no Brasil (1971). In the latter part of the 1970s, researchers placed the study of labor in the context of the corporatist controls placed upon it since its initial incorporation into politics by Vargas’s New State. Kenneth Paul Erickson, The Brazilian Corporative State and Working Class Politics (1977), demonstrated that, in such a political context, labor leaders did not desire nor seek real autonomy from the state and that their political power derived from the threat of the political strike and from their roles in labor and welfare bureaucracies, especially social security. When, in 1964, labor leaders attempted to use this power, they discovered it was hollow. Kenneth S. Mericle, “Corporatist Control of the Working Class: Authoritarian Brazil Since 1964,” in James M. Malloy, ed., Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America (1977), focused on how existing corporatist controls were seized upon by the military to repress the working class after 1964. Research presented by Youssef Cohen in “ ‘The Benevolent Leviathan’: Political Consciousness among Urban Workers under State Corporatism’’ (1982), which draws from more than 600 interviews of industrial workers in southeastern Brazil, found that in an authoritarian system in which the workers had historically been ex¬ tremely dependent for benefits on the state, these workers viewed the state as the provider of goods and services, a “benevolent leviathan,’’ not as a repressive force, and unions not as a potential instrument to defend class interests but as organs to dispense social services made available by the state.3 In The Manip¬ ulation of Consent: The State and Working-Class Consciousness in Brazil (1989), the same author goes on to argue more provocatively that the majority of urban workers were in favor of the military, and he attributes the authoritarian beliefs and values of Brazilian workers, a socially deprived group, to the exercise of power by state elites. In the 1980s, studies of labor in Brazil have proliferated; the most important subject of research has been the “new unionism’’ which manifested itself most dramatically in the strikes staged by the metallurgical workers of the “ABC” region of Sao Paulo in 1978-1980. In marked contrast to the leaders of the corporatist unions introduced by Vargas and intervened by the military, leaders of the new unionism movement came from the shop floor, had few if any ties to government, and preferred collective bargaining to labor courts. Jose Alvaro Moises, “Current Issues in the Labor Movement in Brazil’’ (1979), viewed the new unionism as an expression at the institutional level of grievances voiced at the grass roots by local unions since 1972-1973. One of the most recognized authorities on the new unionism movement, Maria Hermfnia Tavares de Almeida, “Tendencias recentes da negociagao coletiva no Brasil” (1981), suggested that “the labor movement was powerful enough to throw the labor relations system into disarray, but not to create new forms of union organization and of collective bargaining” (1981:188), prompting the government to respond with a policy of “conservative reform.”

246

/

Comparative Politics

It was perhaps inevitable that the potential for organizational unity among a working class divided by the state and increasingly differentiated by the processes of production would be debated. In response to Maria Hermmia Tavares de Almeida and others who claimed that the segmentation of the working class complicated the potential for class-wide action, John Humphrey, in Capitalist Control and Workers’ Struggle in the Brazilian Automobile Industry (1982), a study of the metallurgical unions in which the new unionism movement was bom, argued that neither was labor in the relatively well-paid sectors substantially advantaged vis-a-vis the rest of the working class, nor did its gains fail to help improve living standards in traditional industry. In “O sindicalismo Brasileiro entre a conserva^ao e a mudan§a,” in Bernardo Sorj and Maria Hermmia Tavares de Almeida, eds., Sociedade epolitico no Brasil pos-64 (1983), Maria Hermmia Tavares de Almeida returned to this theme of divisions within the union movement. The final major area of political science scholarship about labor issues in Brazil was the relationship between the labor movement and politics. Maria Hermmia Tavares de Almeida, “Novo Sindicalismo and Politics in Brasil,” in John D. Wirth, Edson de Oliveira Nunes, and Thomas E. Bogenschild, eds., State and Society in Brazil: Continuity and Change (1987), charts the movement of the new unionism from challenging labor policies and corporatist institutions to its entry into partisan politics and the formation of a separate workers’ party. Jose Alvaro Moises, ‘‘Qual e a estrategia do novo sindicalismo?,” in Jose Alvaro Moises, ed., Alternativas populares da democracia: Brasil, anos 80 (1982), stresses that the new unionism is much more than merely a new, more effective union movement; it transcended bread-and-butter issues to demand social and political rights for a broader segment of the Brazilian popular classes and thus occupies an important place in the struggle for democracy in Brazil. Margaret E. Keck’s “The ‘New Unionism’ in the Brazilian Transition,” in Alfred Stepan, ed.. Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation (1989), is one of the best treatments of the new unionism movement and the transition from authoritarian rule.

RELIGION AND POLITICS The issue of church-state relations in Brazil was resolved by and large during the first Vargas reign. As the church has primarily been concerned since then with its relations with its members, political science research has focused as much, or more, on church-society relations than on church-state relations. Com¬ pared to the complaints of many authors in this volume, the study of the church in Brazil has not been neglected. Perhaps because of its bold and brave opposition to the military regime, the safe haven it offered from repression for those who were persecuted politically, and even the role many observers believed grass¬ roots church movements can play in fostering a democratic political culture, the

Brazil

/

247

Brazilian Catholic Church has inspired some of the finest work in the field of religion and politics in Latin American political science research. Work on the church in the 1960s, however, was sparse. One of the first, and only, articles in English of the decade was David E. Mutchler’s “Roman Ca¬ tholicism in Brazil” (1965). By and large, students of the church in the early 1960s focused on the single question that preoccupied most political science research about Brazil at that time: the potential for social and political change. Rowan Ireland, “The Catholic Church and Social Change in Brazil: An Eval¬ uation,” in Riordan Roett, ed., Brazil in the Sixties (1972), offered a pessimistic appraisal. This question also concerned Emanuel de Kadt, “Religion, the Church, and Social Change in Brazil,” in Claudio Veliz, ed., The Politics of Conformity in Latin America (1967), and Catholic Radicals in Brazil (1970). De Kadt’s book explored the origins of radicalism in the Catholic Church, but it was primarily a case study of the Movimento de Educagao de Base (MEB), an organization launched by the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops in 1961 and financed by the government, which began as a movement dedicated to literacy training in the rural areas of the northeast and other less developed parts of Brazil, but quickly became more radicalized to incorporate the concept of conscientizagao. The MEB was deflated by the military coup of 1964; by 1966, it had become a rump organization. Although the church officially supported the revolution of 1964, after the coup it opposed the excesses of authoritarianism and became firmly committed to the defense of human rights, social change, and the poor—a position consistent with Vatican II and Medellin and supported by its priests and nuns. Political science research on the church of the next decade brought to its study of this shift a broader scope of inquiry. Studies of the church in Brazil in the 1970s and 1980s illuminated the religious beliefs of the faithful, the organizational interests of the institution, the role of the church in promoting change at both the grass¬ roots and macro-political levels, and the way in which the church has adapted to its political context. One of the most important works of the decade was Thomas C. Bruneau’s The Political Transformation of the Brazilian Catholic Church (1974), which, armed with rich empirical material, presented perhaps the first sophisticated analysis of the accommodation of the church after 1916 to its separate role; the design of the neo-Christendom model of Cardinal Leme; the church’s quest for expanded influence in the years leading up to the military coup; and the church-state conflict in the post-1964 period. Paulo Krischke, in A igreja e as crises politicos (1979), a series of essays written by the author over the course of a decade, examines church-state relations in three periods: the late 1960s, the 1970s, and the populist era. In the 1970s, several works reexamined the potential of the church to act as an agent of social change. The study of Ralph Della Cava, “Catholicism and Society in Twentieth Century Brazil” (1976), which spanned the period from 1916 to 1964, found that when confronted with the erosion of its monopoly over Brazilian religious life (as manifested by the crisis of vocations, weak levels of

248

/

Comparative Politics

lay religiosity, and the defections of the faithful to alternative creeds, including Pentecostalism, Spiritualism, Umbanda, and Candomble), the church above all promoted its own interests, whether or not these overlapped those of the state. Marcio Moreira Alves, in Igreja e a politica (1979), a slightly revised version of his 1973 doctoral dissertation, concludes pessimistically that even given the rise of the eclesiastical base communities (CEBs) and the exacerbation of churchstate relations in the years since his dissertation was completed, the church would be unable to lead a social transformation because of its internal hierarchical, nondemocratic structure. Given the role the church played in propelling democratization, it is not surprising that interest in the church did not wane in the 1980s. Thomas C. Bruneau’s second book, The Church in Brazil: The Politics of Religion (1982), examined the institutional influence of the church on the beliefs and practices of Catholics in eight dioceses. The focus of Scott Mainwaring’s The Catholic Church and Politics in Brazil, 1916-1985 (1986) was on the origins, develop¬ ment, and dilemmas of what the author calls the “popular” or “progressive” church, and especially its role in the transition to democracy in Brazil. His account disputed the conventional wisdom that the church acts to defend its institutional interest and that the fundamental cleavage in the church is between hierarchy and base. He argued instead that the church is divided according to different conceptions of its mission and that this division crosscuts the boundaries between bishops, priests and nuns, and lay workers. Thus, the church cannot merely defend its institutional interests, since what those interests should be is itself contested. The emergence, relationship with the hierarchy, and involvement in the politics of the popular church, as embodied by the CEBs, have been the subjects of numerous other studies. To name a few representative works: Luiz Gonzaga de Souza Lima, “Notas sobre as comunidades eclesiais de base e a organiza$ao polftica,” in Jose Alvaro Moises, ed., Alternativas populares da democracia: Brasil, anos 80 (1982); Ralph Della Cava, “The ‘People’s Church,’ the Vatican, and Abertura," in Alfred Stepan, ed., Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Tran¬ sition and Consolidation (1989); and Scott Mainwaring, “Grass-roots Catholic Groups and Politics in Brazil,” in Scott Mainwaring and Alexander Wilde, eds., The Progressive Church in Latin America (1989).

AGRARIAN ISSUES AND THE PEASANTRY Brazil’s agrarian issues are somewhat unique in Latin America, and the lit¬ erature has come to reflect this, slowly. Movements for land and the incipient mobilization of the peasantry in independent peasant leagues in the early 1960s generated studies whose perspectives were not that far removed from those describing countries where land was a scarce commodity. In Brazil, of course, the population is concentrated where the land is poorest and the climate most prone to drought, the northeast; the richest lands are to the south, particularly

Brazil

/

249

Sao Paulo and Parana, and to the west, in the frontier states of Para, Goias, and Mato Grosso. Commercial agriculture is also perhaps more extensive here than elsewhere on the continent. The most prominent agrarian issue of the 1960s was the mobilization of the Brazilian peasantry. The best works on this subject appearing late in the decade and in the early 1970s were by Cynthia N. Hewitt, “Brazil: The Peasant Move¬ ment of Pernambuco, 1961-1964,” in Henry A. Landsberger, ed., Latin Amer¬ ican Peasant Movements (1969); Shepard Forman, The Brazilian Peasantry (1975); and Aspasia Alcantara de Camargo, Bresil Nord-est: Mouvements Paysans et Crise Populiste (1973). From an insider’s point of view, Clodomir Moraes, “Peasant Leagues in Brazil,” in Rodolfo Stavenhagen, ed., Agrarian Problems and Peasant Movements in Latin America (1970), discusses the reasons for the ultimate failure of the peasant leagues led by Francisco Juliao. A second theme of the 1960s was a debate familiar in the Latin American literature: whether agriculture was “feudal” or “capitalist.” One of the most forceful advocates of the view that Brazilian agriculture was capitalist was Andre Gunder Frank, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil (1967). Virtually no one studied the agrarian reform decreed by the military, probably not the least because it was never really implemented. The one book on the subject was Marta Cehelsky’s Land Reform in Brazil: The Management of Social Change (1979), a replica edition of her doctoral dissertation. The subject was not taken up again until the 1980s, when expectations were awakened by the New Republic. In the 1970s, the focus of inquiry about agrarian issues shifted to accompany the modernization of agriculture. One important issue was the frontier and cap¬ italism. Otavio Guilherme Velho, Capitalismo autoritario e campesinato (1976), placed the role of the frontier in Brazilian agriculture in comparative perspective and claimed that, because the latifundia were not divided, both the state and the peasants had to look to the frontier of economic necessity. Once frontier areas were opened up by migrating peasants, capitalist agriculture took a greater interest in them. The state, whose interest lay in promoting commercial agriculture for export, had to strike a balance between the large enterprises, which needed peasant labor, and the peasants who settled in the area. This interpretation differs slightly from Joe Foweraker’s The Struggle for Land: A Political Economy of the Pioneer Frontier in Brazil from 1930 to the Present Day (1981), which characterizes the pattern of settlement in the frontier areas of Parana, southern Mato Grosso, and southern Para as one in which colonization is initially earned out by peasants who are later expelled from the land through fraud and violence by large landowners. Another important theme taken up by researchers in the 1970s and 1980s was the change taking place in the relations of production in agriculture and the transformation of the rural class structure. Smallholding, renting, sharecropping, and other traditional forms of labor organization declined, and former peasants

250

/

Comparative Politics

were transformed into a wage-earning agricultural labor force. Maria Conceigao D’Incao, O boia-fria: acumulagao e miseria (1975), applied a Marxist analysis to the emergence of the phenomenon of the boia-fria, the nonresident, casual agricultural wage laborer; she viewed it as part and parcel of the advance of capitalism in the countryside. Bernardo Sorj, Estado e classes sociais na agricultura Brasileira (1980), placed greater emphasis on the role of the state, and particularly on the social legislation introduced in 1963, in the expulsion of permanent workers and the changing rural class structure. Once formed, these new agrarian classes became politicized. The central thesis of Jose de Souza Martins’s Os camponeses e a politica no Brasil (1981) is that popular struggles in the countryside have outstripped the pace at which the political parties have addressed the agrarian question. The parties have resisted recognizing the political importance of current peasant struggles and their place in the construction of a political democracy in Brazil. In A militarizagao da questao agraria no Brasil (1984), the same author argued that the state has treated the increased political organization of wage laborers, tenants, sharecrop¬ pers, and landless laborers, brought on by the mechanization and consolidation of large estates and the decline of traditional patron-client relationships, as a security problem rather than a social problem. In the 1980s, various agrarian issues have resurfaced on the political agenda and, hence, have become the object of renewned interest among political sci¬ entists. The most prominent of these is agrarian reform. Vilma Figueiredo, “A questao agraria e as ‘estrategias’ do govemo,” in Helgio Trindade, ed., Brasil em perspectiva: dilemas da abertura politica (1982), argued that agriculture occupied a central place in the military government’s economic and legitimation strategies of the early 1980s. Ricardo Abramovay, “O velho poder dos baroes da Terra,” in Flavio Koutzii, ed., A Nova Republica: um balango (1986), explores the political obstacles to the implementation of agrarian reform.

EDUCATION There has been little political science research on education in Brazil, and only two contributions by North Americans. Douglas Hume Graham’s “The Growth, Change, and Reform of Higher Education in Brazil: A Review and Commentary on Selected Problems and Issues,” in Riordan Roett, ed., Brazil in the Sixties (1972), is a comprehensive treatment of the role of higher education in Brazil’s future development. Education policy was one of the three policy areas investigated by Barry Ames (1973). What the proper role of the university should be in Brazilian society and national development has long been debated by the Brazilian government and the scholarly community, and this concern was elevated by Brazilian researchers after the military government promulgated a university reform in 1968. A reform of education was important to the military’s plans for national development, and the reform expanded educational opportunity especially but not exclusively of

Brazil

/

251

middle-class students. Barbara Freitag, Escola, estado e sociedade (1977), iden¬ tified an emerging dualism whereby the graduates of the public (federal) uni¬ versities took up leading positions in the modem sectors of the economy, and their counterparts from the inferior private universities became an “industrial reserve army.” The most recent contributors to the ongoing debate about Bra¬ zilian universities in the 1980s are Simon Schwartzman, Ciencia, universidade e ideologia: a politica do conhecimento (1981), and Edmundo Campos Coelho, A sinecura academica: a etica universitaria em questao (1988). With the advent of the New Republic, attention has been redirected toward the lower levels of instruction and the pressing need for improving the educational levels of the Brazilian populace. Cauldio de Moura Castro, “O que esta acontecendo com a educagao no Brasil,” in Edmar Lisboa Bacha and Herbert S. Klein, eds., A transigao incomplete: Brasil desde 1945, vol. II, Desigualdade social, educagao, saude e previdencia (1986), examines distinct issues con¬ fronting each level of instruction; he especially criticizes the deficiencies of primary education in Brazil stemming from excessive centralization, insufficient funds, and a lack of imagination and political commitment. Barbara Freitag, “Pianos, verbas e boas intengoes,” in Flavio Koutzii, A Nova Republica: um balango (1986), reviews the various proposals for educational reform in the New Republic and, in examining the degree of commitment of the new government to education, feared that the exit of Marco Maciel from the Education Ministry would jeopardize educational reforms.

COUNTRY AND COMPARATIVE STUDIES Given the wealth of political science research on Brazil, country studies are surprisingly sparse and their potential relatively untapped. Riordan Roett’s Brazil: Politics in a Patrimonial Society (1983), now in its third edition, is a basic introduction to Brazilian politics whose virtue of simplicity makes it accessible for undergraduate teaching but less compelling as an analysis of the political system. Peter Flynn, in Brazil: A Political Analysis (1978), a lengthy and detailed overview of politics in the twentieth century, interprets the imposition of au¬ thoritarianism as an outcome of contending social-class interests. Ronald M. Schneider’s The Political System of Brazil: Emergence of a ‘Modernizing’ Au¬ thoritarian Regime, 1964-1970 (1971) is a largely descriptive account of the early years of the military regime. The chapter by Kenneth Paul Erickson, “Brazil: Corporative Authoritarianism, Democratization, and Dependency,” in Howard J. Wiarda and Harvey F. Kline, eds., Latin American Politics and Development (1985), which analyzes Brazilian politics within a corporatist and dependency framework, is a useful, if brief, introduction to Brazilian politics. What should be added to this category are the books whose broad strokes cover substantial facets of Brazilian politics over extended periods of time. Maria Helena Moreira Alves, State and Opposition in Military Brazil (1985), focuses on the national security state and the societal opposition it spawned and repressed

252

/

Comparative Politics

with varying degrees of success over time. An important overview of the entire military period is Thomas E. Skidmore’s The Politics of Military Rule in Brazil, 1964-1985 (1988). Skidmore, one of the leading North American historians of Brazil, is well known for his earlier book, Politics in Brazil, 1930-1964: An Experiment in Democracy (1967). Another important work, by Luiz Carlos Bresser Pereira, Development and Crisis in Brazil, 1930-1983 (1984), spans five decades of Brazilian development. Although each of these books has an important place in Brazilian studies, the definitive political science country study of Brazil has yet to be written. That we have come so far in Brazilian studies without such a work is presumably attributable to the wealth of excellent edited volumes which have been generously cited throughout this chapter.

CONCLUSION: STATE AND FUTURE OF POLITICAL RESEARCH Today, the state of political science research on Brazil is excellent. Political science research has swept aside such myths as the marginality of the urban poor, the existence of privileged labor aristocracies, the political radicalism of the lower classes, and the homogeneity of the various elites, and it has uncovered more complex realities. Whereas most political scientists may hope for greater change toward stable democracy and socioeconomic equality, they do so today from a better informed base than their predecessors in 1964, whose miscalcu¬ lations had severe repercussions for Brazilians. The transformation of various societal actors, including the church and labor, the hoped for tipping of the balance of state-society relations, the development of democratic political institutions, a new and democratic political culture, and grass-roots democracy, have all dominated the research of the 1980s. As studies of Brazilian authoritarianism were prototypical, so, too, have been studies of regime transition in Brazil. In addition to the theoretical works cited above, overviews are provided by Sebastiao Velasco e Cruz and Carlos Estevam Martins, “De Castello a Figueiredo: uma incursao na pre-historia da ‘abertura’,” in Bernardo Sorj and Maria Hermfnia Tavares de Almeida, eds., Sociedade e politico no Brasil pos-64 (1983), and by Robert Wesson and David V. Fleischer, Brazil in Transition (1983). Eli Diniz, “The Political Transition in Brazil: A Reappraisal of the Dynamics of the Political Opening” (1986), argues that the transition cannot be understood as either “state-directed” or “society-directed” but as a result of the mutual interaction of forces from above and below. To the many edited volumes related to the regime transition which have been cited in this chapter may be added Wayne Selcher’s edited volume Political Liberali¬ zation in Brazil (1986) and Fabio Wanderley Reis and Guillermo O’Donnell’s edited volume Democracia no Brasil: dilemas e perspectivas (1988). Looking ahead to the 1990s, as the optimism over the resurrection of civil society begins to fade, more attention might be paid to formal political institutions, including political parties, the legislature, and the courts, especially as the latter gain more

Brazil

/

253

power under the new constitution. More studies are also likely to emerge about the battle over the Brazilian environment, as ecologists and concerned scientists from Brazil and around the world who have decried the destruction of the Amazon rain forest are confronted by a hostile Brazilian state. Hopefully, researchers will focus more attention beyond the Rio-Sao Paulo nexus: More regional studies are needed of a country in which centralization has often been more the dream of the military than the reality. In particular, good studies of politics in the northeast are rare. Finally, Brazil’s foreign debt, the largest in the world, will continue to draw scholarly attention to economic issues. The persistent question is likely to be how the ever-present debt crisis will constrain Brazilian democracy. As should by now be evident, research on Brazil did not suffer from North American disinterest; it was not too small a country upon which to build academic careers, nor did it lack universities with worldwide reputations and research institutes of superior quality. The outlook for the near future is even brighter. A new and growing generation of researchers, undaunted as were many of their predecessors by the Portuguese language, have an excellent base of empirical material and innovative methodologies upon which to build. Each year the num¬ ber of North American dissertations in progress appears to grow exponentially, and the new generation of Brazilian political scientists, who have taken the place of their teachers trained abroad, is itself ready to spawn a third generation. Hopefully, as the number of Brazilian students taking doctorates at home rises and as the sources of support for North American doctoral research abroad shrinks, this trend will not reverse itself. Political science research about Brazil for three decades has flourished as a result of the cross-fertilization of ideas; it would be a tragedy if scholarly interchange did not continue.

NOTES I wish to thank Elisa Pereira Reis and Scott Mainwaring for their input in the preparation of this chapter and Anthony Pereira for his valuable research assistance. 1. Until 1965, only one institution, the University of Sao Paulo, granted masters and doctoral degrees in sociology, political science, and history. In all three fields, only 41 theses were defended between 1948 and 1965, and 158 between 1966 and 1977. In contrast, in 1979 and 1980, there were 233 masters students and 46 doctoral candidates enrolled in political science programs alone. Data are from Otavio Guilherme Velho, “Processos sociais no Brasil pos-64: as ciencias sociais,” in Bernardo Soij and Maria Hermlnia Tavares de Almeida, edsSociedade epolitico no Brasil pos-64 (1983), p. 246. 2. The Myth of Marginality won the prestigious C. Wright Mills award of the American Sociological Association in 1976. 3. These data form part of a larger collection of survey data. See Youssef Cohen, Philip E. Converse, Amaury G. de Souza, and Peter J. McDonough, Representation and Development in Brazil (1980).

254

/

Comparative Politics

REFERENCES Abramovay, Ricardo. 1986. “O velho poder dos baroes de terra.” In Flavio Koutzii, ed., A Nova Republica: um balango. Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul: L&PM Editores. Abranches, Sergio Henrique Hudson de. 1973. ‘‘O legislativo no processo politico do Brasil.” Master’s thesis, Universidade de Brasilia. Abranches, Sergio Henrique Hudson de, and Glaucio Ary Dillon Soares. 1973. ‘‘As fungoes do legislativo.” Revista de Administraqao Publica. Almeida, Maria Hermmia Tavares de. 1981. “Tendencias recentes da negociagao coletiva no Brasil.” Dados 24, no. 2: 161-89. -. 1983. “O sindicalismo brasileiro entre a conservagao e a mudanga.” In Bernardo Sorj and Maria Herminia Tavares de Almeida, eds., Sociedade epolitico no Brasil pds-64. Sao Paulo: Brasiliense. -. 1987. “Novo Sindicalismo and Politics in Brazil.” In John D. Wirth, Edson de Oliveira Nunes, and Thomas E. Bogenschild, eds., State and Society in Brazil: Continuity and Change. Boulder, Colo.: West view Press. Alves, Marcio Moreira. 1979. Igreja e a politico. Sao Paulo: Brasiliense. Alves, Maria Helena Moreira. 1985. State and Opposition in Military Brazil. Austin: University of Texas Press. Ames, Barry. 1973. Rhetoric and Reality in a Militarized Regime: Brazil since 1964. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. -. 1987. Political Survival: Politicians and Public Policy in Latin America. Berke¬ ley: University of California Press. Astiz, Carlos A. 1975. “O papel atual do congresso brasileiro.” In Candido Mendes, ed., O legislativo e a tecnocracia. Rio de Janeiro: Imago/Conjunto Universitario Candido Mendes. Bacha, Edmar. 1977. ‘‘Issues and Evidence on Recent Brazilian Economic Growth.” World Development 5, no. 1/2: 47-67. Bacha, Edmar L., and Herbert S. Klein, eds. 1989. Social Change in Brazil, 1945-1985: The Incomplete Transition. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Bacha, Edmar, and Pedro S. Malan. 1989. ‘‘Brazil’s Debt: From the Miracle to the Fund.” In Alfred Stepan, ed., Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation. New York: Oxford University Press. Baer, Wemer, Richard Newfarmer, and Thomas Trebat. 1976. ‘‘On State Capitalism in Brazil: Some New Issues and Questions.” Inter-American Economic Affairs 30 (Winter): 69-96. Barros, Alexandre. 1990. ‘‘The Brazilian Military in the Late 1980s and Early 1990s: Is the Risk of Intervention Gone?” In Louis W. Goodman, Johanna S. R. Mendelson, and Juan Rial, eds., The Military and Democracy: The Future of Civil-Military Relations in Latin America. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. Barzelay, Michael. 1986. The Politicized Market Economy: Alcohol in Brazil’s Energy Strategy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Benevides, Maria Victoria de Mesquita. 1981. A UDN e o udenismo: ambigiiidades do liberalismo brasileiro (1945-1965). Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. -. 1989. O PTB e o trabalhismo: partido e sindicato em Sao Paulo (1945-1964). Sao Paulo: Brasiliense/CEDEC.

Brazil

/

255

Boschi, Renato Raul. 1979. Elites industrials e democracia: hegemonia burguesa e mudanga politico no Brasil. Gloria, Rio de Janeiro: Graal. -. 1987. “Social Movements and the New Political Order in Brazil.” In John D. Wirth, Edson de Oliveira Nunes, and Thomas E. Bogenschild, eds., State and Society in Brazil: Continuity and Change. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Boschi, Renato Raul, ed. 1983. Movimentos coletivas no Brasil urbano. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar/IUPERJ. Bruneau, Thomas C. 1974. The Political Transformation of the Brazilian Catholic Church. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. -. 1982. The Church in Brazil: The Politics of Religion. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bunker, Stephen G. 1983. “Policy Implementation in an Authoritarian State: A Case from Brazil.” Latin American Research Review 18, no. 1: 33-58. Caldeira, Teresa Pires do Rio. 1984. A politico dos outros: o cotidiano dos moradores da periferia e o que pensam do poder e dos poderosos. Sao Paulo: Brasiliense. Camargo, Aspasia Alcantara de. 1973. “Bresil Nord-est: Mouvements Paysans et Crise Populiste.” Ph.D. diss., Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris. Cammack, Paul. 1982. “Clientelism and Military Government in Brazil.” In Christopher Clapham, ed., Private Patronage and Public Power. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique. 1964. O empresario industrial e o desenvolvimento economico. Sao Paulo: DIFEL. -. 1973. “Associated-Dependent Development: Theoretical and Practical Impli¬ cations.” In Alfred Stepan, ed., Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. -. 1975. Autoritarismo e democratizagao. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. -. 1986. “Entrepreneurs and the Transition Process: The Brazilian Case.” In Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, eds., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Part III, Comparative Perspectives. Balti¬ more, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. -. 1989. “Associated-Dependent Development and Democratic Theory.” In Alfred Stepan, ed., Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation. New York: Oxford University Press. Cardoso, Ruth C. L. 1983. “Movimentos sociais urbanos: balan?o crftico.” In Bernardo Sorj and Maria Hermmia Tavares de Almeida, eds., Sociedade epolitico no Brasil pds-64. Sao Paulo: Brasiliense. Carvalho, Jose Murilo de. 1966. “Barbacena: a famflia, a politica, e uma hipotese.” Revista Brasileira de Estudos Politicos 20 (January): 153-93. -. 1980. A construgao da ordem: a elite politico imperial. Brasilia: Editora Universidade de Brasilia. Carvalho, Orlando M. 1958. Ensaios de sociologia eleitoral. Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais: RBEP. Castro, Claudio de Moura. 1986. “O que esta acontecendo com a educa$ao no Brasil.” In Edmar Lisboa Bacha and Herbert S. Klein, eds., A transigao incompleta: Brasil desde 1945, vol. II, Desigualdade social, educagao, saiide e previdencia. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Cavalcanti, Themistocles, and Reisky Dubnic, eds. 1964. Comportamento eleitoral no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Fundagao Getulio Vargas.

256

/

Comparative Politics

Cehelsky, Marta. 1979. Land Reform in Brazil: The Management of Social Change. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Chilcote, Ronald H. 1974. The Brazilian Communist Party: Conflict and Integration, 1922-1972. New York: Oxford University Press. Cintra, Antonio Otavio. 1979. “Traditional Brazilian Politics: An Interpretation of Re¬ lations between Center and Periphery.” In Neuma Aguiar, ed., The Structure of Brazilian Development. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Coelho, Edmundo Campos. 1976. Em busca de identidade: o exercito e a politico na sociedade brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Forense-Universitaria. -. 1988. A sinecura academica: a etica universitaria em questao. Sao Paulo: Vertice. Cohen, Youssef. 1982. “ ‘The Benevolent Leviathan’: Political Consciousness among Urban Workers under State Corporatism.” American Political Science Review 76 (March): 46-59. -. 1989. The Manipulation of Consent: The State and Working-Class Consciousness in Brazil. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Cohen, Youssef, Philip E. Converse, Amaury G. de Souza, and Peter J. McDonough. 1980. Representation and Development in Brazil. Data file number 7712, Ann Arbor, Mich.: Inter-University Consortium for Political Science Research. Coniff, Michael L. 1981. Urban Politics in Brazil: The Rise of Populism, 1925-1945. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Cruz, Sebastiao Velasco e, and Carlos Estevam Martins. 1983. “De Castello a Figueiredo: uma incursao na pre-historia da ‘abertura’.” In Bernardo Sorj and Maria Hermi'nia Tavares de Almeida, eds., Sociedade e politico no Brasil pos-64. Sao Paulo: Brasiliense. Daland, Robert T. 1967. Brazilian Planning: Development Politics and Administration. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. -. 1981. Explaining Brazilian Bureaucracy: Performance and Pathology. Wash¬ ington, D.C.: University Press of America. Della Cava, Ralph. 1976. “Catholicism and Society in Twentienth Century Brazil.” Latin American Research Review 11: 7-50. -. 1989. “The ‘People’s Church,’ the Vatican, and Abertura." In Alfred Stepan, ed., Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation. New York: Oxford University Press. D’lncao, Maria Concei§ao. 1975. O boia-fria: acumulaqao e miseria. Petropolis, Rio de Janeiro: Vozes. Diniz, Eli. 1978. Empresariado, estado e capitalismo no Brasil: 1930-1945. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. -. 1982. “O empresariado e a nova conjuntura.” In Helgio Trindade, ed., Brasil em perspectiva: dilemas da abertura politico. Porto Alegre, Brasil: Sulina. -. 1982. Voto e maquina politico: patronagem e clientelismo no Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. -. 1986. “The Political Transition in Brazil: A Reappraisal of the Dynamics of the Political Opening.” Studies in Comparative International Development 21, no. 2 (Summer): 63-73. Diniz, Eli, and Renato Raul Boschi. 1978. Empresariado nacional e estado no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Forense-Universitaria.

Brazil

/

257

Dreifuss, Rene Armand. 1981. 1964: a conquista do estado: agao politico, poder, e golpe de classe. Petropolis, Brasil: Vozes. -. 1986. “Nova Republica. novo exercito?” In Flavio Koutzii, ed., A Nova Republica: um balango. Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul: L&PM Editores. Dreifuss, Rene Armand, and Otavio Soares Dulci. 1983. “As formas armadas e apolltica.” In Bernardo Sorj and Maria Hermlnia Tavares de Almeida, eds., Sociedade e politico no Brasil pds-64. Sao Paulo: Brasiliense. Erickson, Kenneth Paul. 1977. The Brazilian Corporative State and Working Class Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. -. 1985. “Brazil: Corporative Authoritarianism, Democratization, and Depend¬ ency.” In Howard J. Wiarda and Harvey F. Klein, eds., Latin American Politics and Development. 2d ed. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Evans, Peter. 1979. Dependent Development: The Alliance of Multinational, State, and Local Capital in Brazil. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Faoro, Raymundo. 1958. Os donos do poder: formagao do patronato politico Brasileiro. Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul: Globo. Faria, Vilmar. 1983. “Desenvolvimento, urbanizagao e mudangas na estrutura de emprego: a experiencia Brasileira dos ultimos trinta anos.” In Bernardo Sorj and Maria Herminia Tavares de Almeida, eds., Sociedade e politico no Brasil pos64. Sao Paulo: Brasiliense. Faucher, Philippe. 1981. “The Paradise That Never Was: The Breakdown of the Brazilian Authoritarian Order.” In Thomas C. Bruneau and Philippe Faucher, eds., Au¬ thoritarian Capitalism: Brazil’s Contemporary Economic and Political Devel¬ opment. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Figueiredo, Vilma. 1982. “A questao agraria e as ‘estrategias’ do govemo.” In Helgio Trindade, ed., Brasil em perspectiva: dilemas da abertura politico. Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul: Sulina. Fishlow, Albert. 1973. “Some Reflections on Post-1964 Brazilian Economic Policy.” In Alfred Stepan, ed., Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. -. 1989. “A Tale of Two Presidents: The Political Economy of Crisis Manage¬ ment.” In Alfred Stepan, ed., Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation. New York: Oxford University Press. Fleischer, David V. 1973. “O trampolim politico: mudangas nos padroes de recrutamento polltica em Minas Gerais.” Revista de Administragao Publica 7. -. 1977. “A Bancada Federal Mineira: trinta anos de recrutamento politico, 1945/ 1975.” Revista Brasileira de Estudos Politicos 45 (July): 7-58. Fleischer, David V., ed. 1981. Os partidos politicos no Brasil. 2 vols. Brasilia: Editora Universidade de Brasilia. Flynn, Peter. 1978. Brazil: A Political Analysis. London: Ernest Benn. Forman, Shepard. 1975. The Brazilian Peasantry. New York: Columbia University Press. Foweraker, Joe. 1981. The Struggle for Land: A Political Economy of the Pioneer Frontier in Brazil from 1930 to the Present Day. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni¬ versity Press. Frank, Andre Gunder. 1967. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America: His¬ torical Studies of Chile and Brazil. New York: Monthly Review Press. Freitag, Barbara. 1977. Escola, estado e sociedade. Sao Paulo: EDART.

258

/

Comparative Politics

-. 1986. “Pianos, verbas e boas inten$oes.” In Flavio Koutzii, ed., A Nova Republica: um balango. Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul: L&PM Editores. Goes, Walder de. 1988. “Militares e politica, uma estrategia para a democracia.” In Fabio Wanderley Reis and Guillermo O’Donnell, eds., A democracia no Brasil: dilemas e perspectivas. Sao Paulo: Venice. Graham, Douglas Hume. 1972. “The Growth, Change, and Reform of Higher Education in Brazil: A Review and Commentary on Selected Problems and Issues.” In Riordan Roett, ed., Brazil in the Sixties. Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University Press. Graham, Lawrence S. 1968. Civil Service Reform in Brazil: Principles versus Practice. Austin: University of Texas Press. Hagopian, Frances. 1986. “The Politics of Oligarchy: The Persistence of Traditional Elites in Contemporary Brazil.” Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hewitt, Cynthia N. 1969. “Brazil: The Peasant Movement of Pernambuco, 1961-1964.” In Henry A. Landsberger, ed., Latin American Peasant Movements. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Hewlett, Sylvia Ann. 1980. The Cruel Dilemmas of Development: Twentieth Century Brazil. New York: Basic Books. Hippolito, Lucia. 1985. De raposas e reformistas—o PSD e a experiencia democratica Brasileira (1945-64). Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Humphrey, John. 1982. Capitalist Control and Workers’ Struggle in the Brazilian Au¬ tomobile Industry. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Ianni, Octavio. 1968. O colapso do populismo no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Civilizagao Brasileira. Instituto Brasileiro de Administragao Municipal (IBAM). 1960. Municipios do Brasil: organizaqao e atividades governamentais. Rio de Janeiro: IBAM. -. 1975. Municipios do Brasil: quinze anos depois. Rio de Janeiro: IBAM. -. 1975. O prefeito brasileiro: caracteristicas epercepqoes. Rio de Janeiro: IBAM. Ireland, Rowan. 1972. “The Catholic Church and Social Change in Brazil: An Evalu¬ ation.” In Riordan Roett, ed., Brazil in the Sixties. Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University Press. Jaguaribe, Helio. 1968. Economic and Political Development: A Theoretical Approach and a Brazilian Case Study. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Jaguaribe, Helio, et al. 1986. Brasil 2000—para um novo pacto social. Rio de Janeiro: Paz y Terra. Kadt, Emanuel de. 1967. “Religion, the Church, and Social Change in Brazil.” In Claudio Veliz, ed., The Politics of Conformity in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press. -. 1970. Catholic Radicals in Brazil. New York: Oxford University Press. Keck, Margaret E. 1986. “From Movement to Politics: The Formation of the Workers’ Party in Brazil.” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University. -. 1989. “The ‘New Unionism’ in the Brazilian Transition.” In Alfred Stepan, ed., Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation. New York: Oxford University Press. Kinzo, Mario D’Alva Gil. 1988. Legal Opposition Politics under Authoritarian Rule in Brazil: The Case of the MDB, 1966-1979. London: Macmillan/St. Antony’s College, Oxford.

Brazil

/

259

Krischke, Paulo. 1979. A igreja e as crises pollticas. Petropolis, Rio de Janeiro: Editora Vozes. Lafer, Celso. 1970. “The Planning Process and the Political System in Brazil: A Study of Kubitschek’s Target Plan—1956-1961.” Ph.D. diss., Cornell University. Lamounier, Bolivar. 1980. “O voto em Sao Paulo, 1970-1978.” In Bolivar Lamounier, ed., Voto de desconfianga: eleigdes e mudanga politico no Brasil, 1970-1979. Sao Paulo: Vozes/CEBRAP. -. 1989. “Authoritarian Brazil Revisited: The Impact of Elections on the Abertura.” In Alfred Stepan, ed., Democratizing Brazil: Prospects of Transition and Consolidation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lamounier, Bolivar, ed. 1980. Voto de desconfianga: eleigdes e mudanga politico no Brasil, 1970-1979. Sao Paulo: Vozes/CEBRAP. Lamounier, Bolivar, and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, eds. 1975. Ospartidos e as eleigdes no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Lamounier, Bolivar, and Rachel Meneguello. 1986. Partidos politicos e consolidagao democratica: o caso Brasileiro. Sao Paulo: Brasiliense. [A shorter version ap¬ peared earlier in English under the same title (“Political Parties and Democratic Consolidation: The Brazilian Case”) as Working Paper no. 165 of the Wilson Center.] Leeds, Anthony. 1964. “Brazilian Careers and Social Structure: An Evolutionary Model and Case History.” American Anthropologist 66: 1321-47. Leff, Nathaniel H. 1968. Economic Policy-Making and Development in Brazil, 19471964. New York: John Wiley. Lima, Luiz Gonzaga de Souza. 1982. “Notas sobre as comunidades eclesiais de base e a organizagao polftica.” In Jose Alvaro Moises, ed., Alternativas populares da democracia: Brasil, anos 80. Petropolis, Rio Grande do Sul: Vozes. Lima Junior, Olavo Brasil de. 1977. “Mudanga polftica e processo decisorio: analise da polftica orgamentaria brasileira.” Dados 14: 141-63. -. 1983. Os partidos politicos brasileiros: a experiencia federal e regional: 1945/ 64. Gloria, Rio de Janeiro: Graal. Linz, Juan J. 1973. “The Future of an Authoritarian Situation or the Institutionalization of an Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Brazil.” In Alfred Stepan, ed.. Au¬ thoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Uni¬ versity Press. Lopes, Juarez Ruben Brandao. 1971. Sociedade industrial no Brasil. Sao Paulo: DIFEL. McDonough, Peter. 1981. Power and Ideology in Brazil. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Mainwaring, Scott. 1986. The Catholic Church and Politics in Brazil, 1916-1985. Stan¬ ford Calif.: Stanford University Press. -. 1989. “Grass-roots Catholic Groups and Politics in Brazil.” In Scott Mainwaring and Alexander Wilde, eds., The Progressive Church in Latin America. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press. -. 1989. “Grassroots Popular Movements and the Struggle for Democracy: Nova Iguagu.” In Alfred Stepan, ed., Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation. New York: Oxford University Press. Malloy, James M. 1979. The Politics of Social Security in Brazil. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Uni¬ versity of Pittsburgh Press.

260

/

Comparative Politics

Martins, Carlos Estevam, ed.

1977. Estado e capitalismo no Brasil. Sao Paulo:

HUCITEC-CEBRAP. Martins, Jose de Souza. 1981. Os camponeses e a politico no Brasil. Petropolis, Rio Grande do Sul: Vozes. -. 1984. A militarizagao da questao agraria no Brasil. Petropolis, Rio Grande do Sul. Vozes. Martins, Luciano. 1968. Industrializagao, burguesia nacional e desenvolvimento. Rio de Janeiro: Saga. -. 1985. Estado capitalista e burocracia no Brasil pds-64. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. -. 1986. “The ‘Liberalization’ of Authoritarian Rule in Brazil.” In Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, eds., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule; Part II, Latin America. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Medeiros, Antonio Carlos de. 1986. Politics and Intergovernmental Relations in Brazil, 1964-1982. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. (Ph.D. diss., London School of Economics, 1983) Mendes, Candido. 1975. “O congresso Brasileiro pos-64: um legislative para a tecnocracia.” In Candido Mendes, ed., O legislativo e a tecnocracia? Rio de Janeiro: Imago/Conjunto Universitario Candido Mendes. Mendes, Candido, ed. 1975. O legislativo e a tecnocracia (Seminario sobre legislativo e desenvolvimento). Rio de Janeiro: Imago/Conjunto Universitario Candido Mendes. Mericle, Kenneth S. 1977. “Corporatist Control of the Working Class: Authoritarian Brazil since 1964.” In James M. Malloy, ed., Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Miceli, Sergio. 1979. Intelectuais e classe diregente no Brasil (1920-1945). Sao Paulo: DIFEL. Moises, Jose Alvaro. 1979. “Current Issues in the Labor Movement in Brazil.” Latin American Perspectives 6, no. 4 (Fall): 51-70. -. 1982. “Qual e a estrategia do novo sindicalismo?” In Jose Alvaro Moises, ed., Alternativaspopulares da democracia: Brasil, anos 80. Petropolis, Brasil: Vozes. Moraes, Clodomir. 1970. “Peasant Leagues in Brazil.” In Rodolfo Stavenhagen, ed., Agrarian Problems and Peasant Movements in Latin America. New York: Anchor Press. Mutchler, David E. 1965. “Roman Catholicism in Brazil.” Studies in Comparative International Development 1, no. 8: 103-17. Nunes, Edson de Oliveira. 1978. “Legislativo, polltica e recrutamento de elites no Brasil.” Dados 17: 53-78. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1973. Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California. Oliveira, Eliezer Rizzo de, et al. 1987. As forgas armadas no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Espa$o e Tempo Ltda. Packenham, Robert. 1971. “Functions of the Brazilian National Congress.” In Weston Agor, ed., Latin American Legislatures: Their Role and Influence. New York: Praeger.

Brazil

/

261

Paiva, Vanilda P. 1980. “Estado, sociedade e educagao no Brasil.” Encontros com a civilizagao brasileira, 22. Pang, Eul-Soo. 1979. Bahia in the First Brazilian Republic: Coronelismo and Oligarchies, 1889-1934. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. -. 1989. “Debt, Adjustment, and Democratic Cacophony in Brazil.” In Barbara Stallings and Robert Kaufman, eds., Debt and Democracy in Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Pereira, Luiz Carlos Bresser. 1978. O colapso de uma alianga de classes. Sao Paulo: Brasiliense. -. 1984. Development and Crisis in Brazil, 1930-1983. Translated by Marcia Van Dyke. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Perlman, Janice. 1976. The Myth of Marginality: Urban Poverty and Politics in Rio de Janeiro. Berkeley: University of California Press. Peterson, Phyllis J. 1962. “Brazilian Political Parties: Formation, Organization, and Leadership, 1945-1959.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan. Reis, Elisa Maria Pereira. 1982. “Elites agrarias, State-Building, e autoritarismo.” Dados 25, no. 3: 331-48. Reis, Fabio Wanderley. 1974. “Solidariedade, interesses e desenvolvimento politico: um marco teorico e o caso brasileiro.” In Jorge Balan, ed., Centro e periferia no desenvolvimento Brasileiro. Sao Paulo: DIFEL. Reis, Fabio Wanderley, ed. 1978. Os partidos e o regime: a logica do processo eleitoral Brasileiro. Sao Paulo: Edigoes Simbolo. Reis, Fabio Wanderley, and Guillermo O’Donnell, eds. 1988. Democracia no Brasil: dilemas e perspectivas. Sao Paulo: Vertice. Rodrigues, Leoncio Martins. 1966. Conflicto industrial e sindicalismo no Brasil. Sao Paulo: DIFEL. Rodrigues, Leoncio Martins, ed. 1968. Sindicalismo e sociedade. Sao Paulo: DIFEL. Roett, Riordan. 1983. Brazil: Politics in a Patrimonial Society. 3rd ed. New York: Praeger. Santos, Wanderley Guilherme dos. 1977. “Liberalism in Brazil: Ideology and Praxis.” In Morris J. Blachman and Ronald G. Heilman, eds., Terms of Conflict: Ideology in Latin American Politics. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. -. 1978. Ordem burguesa e liberalismopolitico. Sao Paulo: Livraria Duas Cidades. -. 1979. “The Calculus of Conflict: Impasse in Brazilian Politics and the Crisis of 1964.” Ph.D. diss., Stanford University. Sarles, Margaret J. 1982. “Maintaining Political Control through Parties: The Brazilian Strategy.” Comparative Politics 15, no. 1 (October): 41-71. Schmitter, Philippe C. 1971. Interest Conflict and Political Change in Brazil. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. -. 1973. “The ‘Portugalization’ of Brazil?” In Alfred Stepan, ed.. Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Schneider, Ronald M. 1971. The Political System of Brazil: Emergence of a ‘Modernizing’ Authoritarian Regime, 1964-1970. New York: Columbia University Press. Schwartzman, Simon. 1970. “Representa^ao e coopta?ao polftica no Brasil.” Dados 7: 9-41. -. 1975. Sao Paulo e o estado nacional. Sao Paulo: DIFEL. -. 1981. Ciencia, universidade e ideologia: a politico do conhecimento. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar.

262

/

Comparative Politics

-. 1982. Bases do autoritarismo Brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro: Campus. Selcher, Wayne, ed. 1986. Political Liberalization in Brazil. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Serra, Jose. 1979. “Three Mistaken Theses Regarding the Connection between Indus¬ trialization and Authoritarian Regimes.” In David Collier, ed., The New Au¬ thoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Sherwood, Frank P. 1967. Institutionalizing the Grassroots in Brazil: A Study in Com¬ parative Local Government. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing. Singer, Paul, and Vinicius Caldeira Brandt, eds. 1980. Sao Paulo: opovo em movimento. Petropolis, Rio Grande do Sul: Vozes. Skidmore, Thomas E. 1967. Politics in Brazil, 1930-1964: An Experiment in Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press. -. 1973. “Politics and Economic Policy Making in Authoritarian Brazil, 193771.” In Alfred Stepan, ed., Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. -. 1988. The Politics of Military Rule in Brazil, 1964-1985. New York: Oxford University Press. Soares, Glaucio Ary Dillon. 1967. “The Politics of Uneven Development: The Case of Brazil.” In Seymour M. Lipset and Stein Rokkan, eds.. Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: The Free Press. -. 1973. Sociedade e politico no Brasil. Sao Paulo: DIFEL. Sorj, Bernardo. 1980. Estado e classes sociais na agricultura Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar. Souza, Maria do Carmo Campello de. 1976. Estado e partidospoliticos no Brasil (19301964). Sao Paulo: Alfa-Omega. -. 1989. “The Brazilian ‘New Republic’: Under the ‘Sword of Damocles’.” In Alfred Stepan, ed., Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consoli¬ dation. New York: Oxford University Press. Stepan, Alfred. 1971. The Military in Politics: Changing Patterns in Brazil. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. -. 1973. ‘The ‘New Professionalism’ of Internal Warfare and Military Role Ex¬ pansion.” In Alfred Stepan, ed., Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. -. 1978. “Political Leadership and Regime Breakdown: Brazil.” In Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, eds., The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Latin America. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. -. 1988. Rethinking Military Politics: Brazil and the Southern Cone. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Stepan, Alfred, ed. 1973. Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. -. 1989. Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation. New York: Oxford University Press. Uricoechea, Fernando. 1980. The Patrimonial Foundations of the Brazilian Bureaucratic State. Berkeley: University of California Press. Velho, Otavio Guilherme. 1976. Capitalismo autoritario e campesinato. Sao Paulo: DIFEL. -. 1983. “Processos sociais no Brasil pos-64: as ciencias sociais.” In Bernardo

Brazil

/

263

Sorj and Maria Hermmia Tavares de Almeida, eds., Sociedade e politico no Brasil pos-64. Sao Paulo: Brasiliense. Wallerstein, Michael. 1980. “The Collapse of Democracy in Brazil: Its Economic De¬ terminants.” Latin American Research Review 15, no. 3: 3-40. Weffort, Francisco C. 1970. “State and Mass in Brazil.” In Irving Louis Horowitz, ed., Masses in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press. ————. 1978. O populismo na politico Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Wesson, Robert, and David V. Fleischer. 1983. Brazil in Transition. New York: Praeger/ Stanford, Hoover Institution Press.

13 ARGENTINA, PARAGUAY, AND URUGUAY Gary W. Wynia

Political scientists displayed little interest in the Southern Cone nations before the middle of this century, and only in the 1960s did the volume of published research become substantial. Argentina received more attention than either Par¬ aguay or Uruguay, but that is not surprising given its larger size and its contro¬ versial domestic and foreign politics after World War II. Yet, even today, fewer North Americans write books and articles on Argentine politics than they do on politics in Mexico, Central America, and Chile. Argentine scholars continue to provide most of the scholarship on their nation. Increasingly, there are more younger ones who were trained in political science at North American and European universities. Moreover, their work, as well as that of foreign political scientists, continues to be supplemented by that of historians, economists, and sociologists in Argentina and abroad who share their interest in contemporary political behavior. Democracy, authoritarianism, the armed forces, national elections, violence, economic interest groups, and political economy have all received substantial attention, as has Peronism and its performance in and out of government. Spe¬ cialization has grown, narrowing the focus of most contemporary publications, and theorizing, though often quite superficial, is not uncommon, especially among Argentine scholars who feel compelled to explain their nation’s politics. Approaches have ranged from the application of conventional theories of com¬ petitive political behavior to reliance on structuralist and Marxist ideas about political change or the lack of it. Current events also influence the research agendas of those who study politics in Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay, just as they do elsewhere. They condition one’s access to the subjects of study, sometimes prohibiting field work, as when authoritarian governments prevent free speech, and intense violence occasionally

266

/

Comparative Politics

prohibits research altogether; at other times unanticipated events open new op¬ portunities, as when constitutional government was restored throughout the area in the 1980s, allowing scholars to return and take advantage of new access to political actors and government institutions. In Argentina, where the armed forces have ruled in a very authoritarian manner during sixteen of the past thirty years, research has been heavily influenced by such political changes; publications on the nation’s politics rose in the early 1960s, only to be cut off substantially by military governments after 1966. They increased again in the early 1970s when the military pulled back, were halted completely after 1976, and then accelerated at a record pace in 1983 when civilians were allowed to return.

THE FIRST WAVE OF RESEARCH: 1950-1970 Juan Peron provoked some of the first studies made of Argentine politics by North Americans, in 1951 Robert Alexander wrote about Peronist politics and economics in The Peron Era, and two years later George Blanksten did likewise in Peron s Argentina (1953). Their books, which described the Peronist move¬ ment, were critical of the manner in which General Juan Peron governed the country after his election in 1945; both made unflattering comparisons of Peronism with European fascism. Disagreements with such critical interpretations arose later, but these two books are still valuable since they are among the few that were written when the Peronists governed for the first time. In the 1960s a very different kind of research began, some of it far more theoretical; the most acclaimed were the works of two Argentine sociologists, Gino Germani and Jose Luis de Imaz. Germani’s Politico y sociedad en una epoca de transicion (1962) remains something of a classic in Argentina. It addressed the nation’s political instability and the forces that produced Peronism as well as the intense political conflict that accompanied it. Germani insisted that it was the inevitable social mobilization of the masses in this rapidly ur¬ banizing society that provoked the populist response of Peronism. In contrast, Imaz’s Los que mandan (1969) sought to uncover the Argentine power structure by examining the economic and political elites most active in the nation. He drew attention not only to big business and agriculture, but also to organized labor, the military, and even the middle class. His book was not only a sensation in Argentina but also a pathfinder which provoked others to examine the elites he describes more accurately than they had ever been described before.

AN AGE OF INTERMITTENT RESEARCH ABUNDANCE: 1970-1990 Research and publication on Argentine politics became more plentiful after 1970, coming in two waves, the first in the early 1970s and the rest after the Proceso (1976-1983) when the freedom of the press was restored and numerous Argentine scholars published works that had been kept under wraps for as much

Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay

/

267

as a decade. Some of these works were the products of doctoral dissertations written by Argentines at universities abroad and others were essays written at home. Because the volume grew fast, it is appropriate that this review be or¬ ganized by subject matter rather than just by chronological order. Efforts to “explain” Argentina are common, not surprisingly. Many derived their notions of politics from the “structuralism” that was developed by students of dependencia. Dependencia as a concept was articulated at the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America where sociologists like Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto prepared their Dependency and Development in Latin America (1979), a volume of social and economic history that became very popular, especially among Latin American scholars who were eager to account for their nations’ relative deprivation in the world economic system and the persistence of authoritarian politics in many nations. Few studies were made of Argentina’s dependency, per se, despite the obvious appeal of such a notion. Instead, Argentine scholars like Guillermo O’Donnell adapted the concept to a need to explain the specific political changes that had produced military gov¬ ernments in the 1960s. In a series of papers that he wrote while a graduate student at Yale University, O’Donnell developed his notion of “bureaucratic authoritarianism” and pre¬ sented it in Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics (1973). Partially to criticize prevailing theories of moderni¬ zation but also to demonstrate how a new class of military regimes came with changes in their nations’ economic and social structures, he offered a structuralist analysis of political evolution which appealed to anyone who was receptive to linking political behavior to the larger society. Unavoidably, this approach raised as many questions as it answered about the causes and effects of the new au¬ thoritarianism, but in doing so it generated a host of responses from North American and Latin American scholars during the 1970s. Some criticized O’Donnell’s arguments, but none more thoroughly than Karen L. Remmer and Gilbert W. Merkx in their article, “Bureaucratic Authoritari¬ anism Revisited” (1982). By reexamining the modem history of economic de¬ velopment and political change in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile, they concluded that O’Donnell had overestimated the associations between economic structures and the creation of bureaucratic authoritarianism. They called for much more specification of the model before the causation implied in O’Donnell’s argument could be accepted. Attempts to understand the rise of military authoritarian government in Uru¬ guay in the 1970s were less ambitious conceptually than works like O’Donnell’s. Nevertheless, most of them were far more sophisticated than the first systematic studies of Uruguayan politics, such as Philip Taylor’s monograph Government and Politics of Uruguay (1960). Taylor had surveyed the history of the nation’s politics in this century, concentrating on the development of its party system and the way in which it worked to sustain democratic government during the first sixty years of this century. Unfortunately, a decade later, its democratic

268

/

Comparative Politics

government was tom apart by economic woes, urban violence, and military intervention. In 1975 Martin Weinstein tried to explain the demise of Uruguay’s renowned democracy. In Uruguay: The Politics of Failure, he drew attention to the eco¬ nomic and political costs of social democracy which became increasingly hard to pay and to the intensification of political conflict within the country that led to democracy’s suspension by the armed forces in 1983. Edy Kaufman added his own interpretation of events in Uruguay in Transition: From Civilian to Military Rule (1979). Though the book claims to be a systematic analysis of causes and their effects in the political process, it is largely a description of the breakdowns in politics that generated terrorist groups like the Tupamaros and the intense conflicts among factions in political parties. Kaufman based much of his book on the research that he did for Amnesty International. More recently, Martin Weinstein added another monograph, which is both an introduction to Uruguayan politics and an analysis of its transition back to democracy in the late 1980s: Uruguay: Democracy at a Crossroads (1988). Dependency concepts as well as holistic neo-Marxist ones, though still popular among a few scholars, had become less prominent by the mid-1980s. In part this was due to the exhaustion of dependency’s ability to explain variations in national political behaviors. Moreover, when military regimes were replaced by democratic ones in several countries, attention turned from structures to politi¬ cians, the traditional subject of political science. But dependency analysis has left its mark, for today few dare study a Latin American nation without examining its economic and political structures, external relationships, and the effects eco¬ nomic forces have on those who make policy, as was evidenced in Juan Corradi’s The Fitful Republic: Economy, Politics, and Society in Argentina (1985), which drew heavily on dependista notions of development to introduce students to Argentina. Not surprisingly, far fewer efforts have been made to interpret Paraguayan politics, though this may gradually begin to change as a result of dictator Stroessner’s removal in 1988 and a subsequent fresh attempt to create a more demo¬ cratic, constitutional government. In the meantime we must rely heavily on just a few sources, such as Paul H. Lewis’s book, Paraguay under Stroessner (1980). Beginning with the origins of the Stroessner regime, he systematically examines the ways by which it retained control, including patronage, party organization, and repression. It is also a close look at an authoritarianism that was far more sophisticated than it appeared to the casual observer. In Socialism, Liberalism, and Dictatorship in Paraguay (1982), Lewis contributes a less ambitious volume directed more at students and laypersons unfamiliar with Paraguay than scholars. In it Lewis narrates Stroessner’s origins, his rise to power, his dictatorship, and his policies. Occasionally an insightful article is written; one of these was Ronald H. McDonald’s “The Emerging New Politics in Paraguay” (1981), in which he argues that the country’s fragmented elite and the competition for political power

Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay

/

269

were eroding Stroessner’s once monolithic system. It was a weakness that led to Stroessner’s removal seven years later. Carlos R. Miranda’s The Stroessner Era: Authoritarian Rule in Paraguay (1990), examines a wide range of variables that helped Stroessner sustain his long tenure as well as the forces that brought about the end of his authoritarian regime. Not surprisingly, research increased in Uruguay when democracy was restored in the mid-1980s. In “Uruguay, 1980-1981: An Unexpected Opening” (1983), Luis Gonzalez has provided a much needed analysis of the Uruguayan electorate that rejected military government in a plebiscite called by the armed forces in 1980. Using Gallop poll data, he concludes that the opposition actually came from all social classes. Simultaneously, Cesar Aguiar and Gisela Argenti pub¬ lished Elecciones uruguayas: un marco de analisis preliminar (1983), an in¬ formative, more general, introduction to Uruguayan voting behavior. The authors examine the 1971 election, the 1980 plebiscite, and the internal party elections in 1982, statistically relating votes to demographics using aggregate data. Juan Rial Roade wrote a brief but careful survey of party history in 1984 entitled Partidos politicos, democracia y autoritarismo. Equally important, Charles Gillespie edited a group of excellent papers by Uruguayan, English, and North American scholars—Transicion del autoritarismo a la democracia (1984)—on the recent transition from authoritarianism to democracy, which were originally presented at the Smithsonian’s Woodrow Wilson Center and then published in Uruguay.

Peronism Juan Peron’s accomplishments have attracted continuous inquiry since they began nearly a half century ago. Between 1955 and 1973 the Peronist (or Justicialista) party was outlawed (except for brief restorations in 1962 and 1965), and much of its original leadership was forced to live in exile for a time. There was no party to study. Nevertheless, people who claimed a belief in the movement did not disappear; instead, they either worked through the General Confederation of Labor or through surrogate parties that were occasionally formed to advocate the legalization of Peronism. The nature of Peronism is subject to much debate, as Eldon Kenworthy dem¬ onstrated in his article: “The Function of the Little-known Case in Theory Formation, or What Peronism Wasn’t” (1973). Ideology was never as important to its operation as were individuals like Juan Peron and his notion of a “verticalist” power structure in which orders were given by him alone, whether president at home or in exile. No matter what Peronists within Argentina intended to do, they could not make significant moves without Peron’s direction. Argentine historian Felix Luna wrote the most detailed study of the rise of Peron and his successful campaign for the presidency in his book El 45 (1971). Although many other scholars have narrated the events and intrigues during 1945 that led to Peron’s election, no account is more complete than Luna’s. A more

270

/

Comparative Politics

theoretical attempt to explain the rise of Peronism in the sociological manner of Gino Germani was made by Miguel Murmis and Juan C. Portantiero in Estudios sobre los origines del Peronismo (1971). As to the government created by Juan Peron after 1945, Hugo Gambini offers two brief but very informative analyses, El primer gobierno peronista (1971) and El peronismo y la iglesia (1971), as does Peter Waldmann, El peronismo, 1943-1955 (1981). In a mammoth narrative Argentina 1516-1982: From Spanish Colonization to the Falklands War (1985), David Rock also provides insights into the origins and evolution of Peronism. More recently Carlos Waisman advanced a more comprehensive and daring interpretation of Peron’s original political success in his book Reversal of De¬ velopment in Argentina: Postwar Counterrevolutionary Policies and Their Struc¬ tural Consequences (1987). He not only stresses the obvious changes in Argentine society already identified by others, but also emphasizes how Peron played on middle- and upper-class fears of working-class radicalization to secure their tacit approval of his leading organized labor to populism rather than Marxism. Wais¬ man’s work is one of the most provocative interpretations of Argentine politics since O’Donnell’s effort almost two decades before. Peronist voters are also being examined in some detail lately. Manuel Mora y Araujo and Ignacio Llorante edited a massive volume of articles on Peronist voting behavior before 1980 entitled El voto peronista (1980). Three years later North American Lars Schoultz published his book, The Populist Challenge: Argentine Electoral Behavior in the Postwar Era (1983). Using aggregate data, such as the votes in Argentine elections from 1946 to 1973, and multivariate regression statistical techniques, Schoultz searched for the sources of support for the Peronist party. Not surprisingly, he found that most of the support came from the working class; at the same time, as much as one-third of it came from the middle class, especially from small business and government employees. Perhaps the greatest value of the study is its research design which illustrates how much one can accomplish in the study of electoral behavior in countries like Argentina where substantial data are available. A new effort to explain Peronism was undertaken from a variety of disciplinary perspectives in edited volumes, for example, Juan Peron and the Reshaping of Argentina (1983), which was assembled by Frederick Turner and Jose Miguens. Its topics range from political economy and electoral behavior to the contributions of Evita Peron. By joining the scholarship of Argentine and North American scholars to account for Peronism, they produced an abundance of material that merits consultation, especially by anyone interested in the return of the Peronists to government in 1973 and the fate they met in 1976. Oddly, despite all of the interest in Peronism, few political biographies on the general existed until North American lawyer Joseph Page wrote the lengthy book Peron in 1983. Though based almost entirely on secondary sources, and devoted more to describing Peron’s behavior before 1955 than after, this is one of the most comprehensive accounts of his social origins, military career, and first government.

Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay

/

271

There are many books on Eva Peron, a substantial number of them written in the early 1980s when the musical Evita became popular in London and New York. Most are composed by journalists and are only minimally informative. One exception is a very efficient little volume written by Nicolas Fraser and Marysa Navarro entitled, Eva Peron (1980). An unsensational, well-researched narrative of the role she played in her husband’s government, it deflates much of the Peronist mythology about her. A different kind of literature followed Juan Peron’s return to Argentina in 1973 and his brief presidency. Analyses of the raucous events that surrounded his government offer new insights into many problems within Peronism. Guido Di Tella’s Peron-Peron, 1973-1976 (1983), an excellent account of the gov¬ ernment’s economics, relates how several predicaments arose that forced it to attempt austerity measures that undermined Isabel Peron’s support among mem¬ bers of the working class after Juan Peron’s death. Horacio Maceyra’s little book, Campora/Peron/Isabel (1983), complements Di Tella’s by concentrating almost entirely on political conflicts between 1973 and 1976. More recently efforts were made to analyze the 1983 presidential election that the Peronists lost to radical Raul Alfonsin. In El voto peronista ’83: perfil electoral y causas de la derrota (1985), authors Leticia Maronese, Ana Cafiero de Nazar, and Victor Waisman, who are sympathetic to the renovator movement within the Peronist party, offer explanations for the party’s failure. They stress the adverse effects of divisions within Peronism on its public appeal as well as too much emphasis on the past and too little innovation in ideas for the future, pointing out how the party even lost votes among its most ardent supporters within the lower class who had lost confidence in its ability to govern the nation.

Radical Party Any examination of the Radical party should begin with its origins and the way in which it governed the nation for over a decade before the 1929 depression struck and provoked its eviction from office by the armed forces and their conservative supporters. One place to start is David Rock’s Politics in Argentina, 1890-1930: The Rise and Fall of Radicalism (1975). Also informative are Dario Canton’s Elecciones y partidos politicos en la Argentina (1971) and Alfredo Galletti’s La realidad argentina en el siglo XX: la politica y los partidos politicos (1961). More recent Radical party history is discussed in Marcelo Luis Acuna’s De Frondizi a Alfonsin: la tradicion politica del Radicalismo, vols. 1 and 2 (1984). Originally written as a doctoral dissertation at York University in Canada, it is a detailed look at conflicts within the party during the past two decades. The timing of its publication could not have been better for, in the process of tracing the party’s decline and defeat by the Peronists in 1973, it also traces the rise of Raul Alfonsin and his dissident movement within the party and his defeat of the old guard prior to the 1983 elections. Political campaigns are infrequent in Argentina and studies of them even rarer.

272

/

Comparative Politics

One of the most intriguing is the one conducted in 1983, which led to Radical Raul Alfonsm’s upset of Peronist Italo Luder in the presidential race. In Como se hace un presidente (1984), Alberto Borrini, one of Alfonsm’s political ad¬ vertising experts, describes the techniques used and the tactical reasons for them, offering unusual insights into the campaign itself, insights that are seldom given by writers on Argentine politics. Another volume essential to understanding the Alfonsm presidency, even though it does not focus directly on it, is Edgardo Catterberg’s Los argentinos frente a la politico (1989). The author, a member of a small but rapidly expanding community of public opinion analysts, examines survey data collected annually during the 1980s regarding public views on eco¬ nomic and political realities. In an effort to assess the probability of democratic government’s surviving in Argentina, he compares changes in opinion over time and discovers that the Argentines’ expectations have exceeded their satisfactions repeatedly, causing pessimism to increase toward the end of the Alfonsm admin¬ istration. Nevertheless, he concludes this interesting exercise by asserting that, with a gradual decline in exaggerated expectations, democracy’s chances should actually improve. Interestingly, the book was published during the same month that the Radicals were defeated by the Peronists in the May 1989 presidential election.

Armed Forces The Argentine armed forces and the governments they created after 1930 have attracted considerable attention. Historian Robert Potash has written two volumes of detailed narrative on the political conduct of military officers between 1928 and 1962: The Army and Politics in Argentina, 1928-1945: Yrigoyen to Peron (1969) and The Army and Politics in Argentina, 1945-1962: Peron to Frondizi (1980). Both offer essential insights into the conduct of military commanders and the ambience in which they operated. French sociologist Alain Rouquie’s monumental two volumes on the armed forces were published first in French and then in Spanish in the early 1980s as Poder militar y sociedad politico en la argentina (1978), as was his edited volume Argentina hoy (1982), which included one of his essays. He examined in detail the interventions of the armed forces into political and economic life from 1930 to 1973. He was especially interested in the organization of the armed forces and the internal politics that accompanied it, as well as the relations of the military with all social classes, including those that supplied its officers. In an attempt to explain the rise of militarism, Rouquie suggests causal connections between military penetration of national politics and social mobilization, political party conflict, cyclical variations in the nation’s economy, and the influence of elites on military decisions to govern. His conclusion, which is not really original, asserts that the military exercises a kind of “substitution hegemony” largely because the divided and wearied ruling class cannot govern on its own as it does

Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay

/

273

in more peaceful and prosperous societies. All of the books by Potash and Rouquie became best-sellers in Buenos Aires. Military government also received substantial attention when the armed forces ruled between 1966 and 1983. In Ongania, Levingston, and Lanusse: los militares en la politico Argentina (1983), Ruben Perina examines several conven¬ tional hypotheses about the causes of military government and concludes that it was not to serve the middle class or because they were the only coherent political force in society, as some contend, but it was a desire to fill a perceived political vacuum that had created substantial political instability in the nation. Yet, the military did not achieve its ends because of divisions within its own ranks that sooner or later prohibited its supervision of the nation that it sought to reconstruct. Guillermo O’Donnell, who had previously tried to determine the causes of military government, later published one of the most thorough analyses of one such government. The enormous volume, entitled El estado burocratico (1982), is far less theoretical in its intent than is his previous work; instead, it is a lengthy, detailed analysis of the military government that Argentines created in 1966. By closely examining and narrating the events prior to and just after General Juan Carlos Ongania was made president by his fellow officers, O’Donnell provides a close look at a military government and the forces behind it. The book is one of the most informative pieces ever written on military authorities within Argentina. Not to be ignored is the informative essay of historian Felix Luna. In Golpes militares y salidas electorates (1983), he traces repeated transitions from con¬ stitutional government to military government over the past half century and attempts to demonstrate how the first military coup in 1930 created a pattern of political combat that made the creation of legitimate government all but impos¬ sible thereafter. Although there are few surprises in the essay, it should be a required starting point for anyone seeking to understand the recent political behavior of civilians and military officers in Argentina. Today we are just beginning to witness studies of the military’s second sevenyear stint at ruling the nation, from 1976 to 1983, known as the Proceso. One narrative, written by retired military officer and political analyst Rosendo Fraga, entitled Ejercito: del escarnio al poder, 1973-1976 (1988), provides far more detail on what happened within the armed forces prior to the coup than anything else we have read to date. That alone justifies its perusal by anyone interested in the recent political comportment of the armed forces. Marcelo Cavarozzi also focused on what caused the Proceso in his little book Autoritarismo y democracia: 1955-1983 (1983), in which he presents a collection of presidential addresses, interviews, and other political documents from the past two decades and prefaces them with an eighty-page essay on Argentine politics during the 1955-1983 period. He suggests that the dynamics of Argentine politics changed after 1966 when the military took it upon itself to rule the country after a decade of unsuccessful experiments with rigged democracies. He also points to what he claims is the Argentines’ unusually high tolerance of

274

/

Comparative Politics

autocratic government as one of the principal causes of military dictatorships in recent times. More recently, in The Transition from Military Rule to Liberal Democracy: The Case of Argentina (1988), Carlos Waisman and Monica PeraltaRamos have edited a volume on the demise of the Proceso in 1983 and its replacement by constitutional government, which examines some of the questions raised by Cavarozzi about democracy’s feasibility in Argentina. Finally, David Pion-Berlin recently published an informative analysis of the military ideology during the Proceso, The Ideology of State Terror: Economic Doctrine and Po¬ litical Repression in Argentina and Peru (1989).

Political Economy If one needs a textbook on Argentine political economy there is no better place to start than with Roberto Alemann’s Cur so de politico economica argentina (1970), which describes the basic structure of the Argentine economy and the political management of it, especially after 1930. Marcelo Diamand offers an¬ other instructive introduction in his book Doctrinas economicas, desarrollo, e independencia (1973), which compares the goals and results of the economic strategies followed in Argentina during this century. Efforts have been made to explain economic policy by focusing on economic conditions and policy responses to them. Richard Mallon and Juan V. Sourrouille’s Economic Policy Making in a Conflict Society (1975) focused primarily on the decisions made during the presidency of Arturo Illia (1963-1966). In Argentina in the Postwar Era: Economic Policy Making in a Divided Society (1978), Gary W. Wynia compares the policy-making processes in Peronist, military, and civilian governments between 1945 and 1976, focusing on the conduct of groups representing agriculture, industry, and labor and the authorities they sought to influence. Together they constructed a zero-sum type of conflict in which short-term sectoral interests prevailed over long-term public ones in the making of policy. Moreover, although each form of government had some advantages initially in its approach to resolving these conflicts, none was able to sustain a process that could really change policy-making behavior. In 1986 Wynia added Argentina: Illusions and Realities (1986), which focuses primarily on the economic and political causes of the military’s fall and its replacement by constitutional democracy in 1983. New efforts were undertaken to examine economic policy-making after the armed forces launched a new campaign to liberalize the economy in 1976. In a long and perceptive essay entitled Martinez de Hoz: la logica politico de la politico economica (1983), Jorge Schvarzer dissects and criticizes the military’s economic program between 1976 and 1981, stressing obvious obstacles to eco¬ nomic liberalization and financial mismanagement. It is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand why military regimes seldom succeed in their efforts to discipline the Argentine economy using market mechanisms. With similar insight in Argentina 1976-81: el endeudamiento externo como pivote de

Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay

/

275

la especulacion financier a (1983), Schvarzer examines the causes of the financial crisis that resulted from the military’s economic liberalization measures in 1979 and 1980, and he documents the indebtedness that resulted from it. It is easy to overlook occasional journal articles that often seem merely to review well-known events. One that should not be missed is Jan Peter Wogart’s “Combining Price Stabilization with Trade and Financial Liberalization Policies: The Argentine Experience, 1976-1981” (1983). Wogart, an economist at the World Bank, looked closely at Minister of Economy Martinez de Hoz’s policies. He makes no effort to criticize the program, but he does provide the most complete summary of it and its effects that is currently available in English. Moreover, he provides an abundance of data on the performance of agriculture, industry, banking, foreign trade, and borrowing. Currently we await articles of similar quality that analyze the Argentine government’s performance under dem¬ ocratic government after 1983.

Organized Labor Ever since Juan Peron reorganized and mobilized the General Confederation of Labor, it has played a prominent role in Argentine politics at all levels of the political process. Its national organization supported Peron’s government, worked hard to prevent any other civilian or military government from func¬ tioning during Peron’s eighteen-year exile, mobilized massive support for his return in 1973, and eventually turned against Peron’s wife and successor, Isabel, when she came under the influence of conservatives within the party in 1975. Today the organization is smaller than in the past thanks to the military’s dein¬ dustrialization campaign in the late 1970s, but it remains prominent in politics as well as in private and public sector economics. Despite its importance, only recently has it received the attention that it deserves from scholars. Among the first studies undertaken in this field were Samuel Bailey’s Labor, Nationalism, and Politics in Argentina (1967) and Ruben Rotondaro’s Realidad y cambio en el sindicalismo (1971), both fine introductory political histories of the General Labor Confederation (CGT). More recently, Japanese scholar Hiroshi Matsushita wrote a superb, detailed study of the CGT’s origins and po¬ liticization in his Movimiento obrero argentino: 1930-1945 (1983). A thoroughly documented analysis of Peron’s meddling with unions, the volume stresses the fundamental changes in posture by the government and the old labor leadership in May 1944 when opportunism won out over ideology on both sides and created the basis for Peron’s capture of the labor movement during the following year. Equally interesting, though more contemporary in its focus, is Ruben H. Zorrilla’s El liderazgo sindical argentino: desde sus origenes hasta 1975 (1983), a brief study which offers substantial data on labor leaders during the 1970s and how their origins changed with changes in the nation’s economy and politics after 1955. Marcelo Cavarozzi presents an interpretation of the way in which labor conducted itself politically without Peron after his expulsion in 1955. In

276

/

Comparative Politics

Consolidation del sindicalismo peronista y emergencia de la formula politico argentina durante el gobierno frondizista (1979) and in Sindicatos y politicos en Argentina, 1955-1958 (1979), he presented a detailed account of the labor movement’s reorganization and reactivation in the early 1960s and its political impact on the government of president Arturo Frondizi. He argues that the political process was substantially changed during this period as labor and gov¬ ernment struggled to redefine the country’s new political rules at a critical time. Others also examined the behavior of Peronists after Peron’s departure, among them Peter Ranis, in “Peronismo without Peron: Ten Years after the Fall (1955— 1965)” (1966). Similarly, Gilbert Merkx, in his “Sectoral Clashes and Political Change: The Argentine Experience” (1969), examines the many conflicts that consumed society during Peron’s exile, many of Peron’s own making. More recently others have explored the fate of organized labor under military authoritarian regimes like those that ruled over Argentina from 1966 to 1973 and from 1976 to 1983. Alvaro Abos, for example, in his Las organizaciones sindicales y el poder militar: 1976-1983 (1984), examines how labor responded to its repression by the Videla regime after the Peronist government was over¬ thrown in 1976. The narrative relies heavily on summations of documents issued by authorities and labor leaders. In contrast, Paul Buchanan, in his article “State Corporatism in Argentina: Labor Administration under Peron and Onganfa” (1985), compares the ways in which Juan Peron prevailed over organized labor during his first presidency with how the military did it when it governed between 1966 and 1979, emphasizing the different ways authorities in each regime used corporatist notions of state-private relations to sustain control over the working class. The piece is informative because of the data it offers on the government’s labor ministry and its relations with the labor movement’s bureaucracy. Far more research is needed for us to comprehend the complexity of govern¬ ment-labor relations in Argentina and the ways in which politics and organizations within the labor movement affect those relations. Research on activities within major unions and their national confederations and the ways in which they deal with changing political and economic conditions are necessary if we are to build on the fundamental knowledge that we are only now beginning to accumulate.

Insurrections Nothing has shaken the Argentine society more than the terrorist violence that arose in the late 1960s and the military repression that followed. Unfortunately, terrorism is not easily researched, especially when it involves clandestine activ¬ ities by the likes of the Montoneros and the People’s Revolutionary Army (ERP). Reports in the press between 1970 and 1976 are abundant, but there are few studies that closely examine the conduct of either organization. The most notable exception is Richard Gillespie’s study of the Montoneros, Soldiers of Peron: Argentina’s Montoneros (1983). In it Gillespie provides a detailed narrative of the origins of the Montonero movement, its efforts to become part of the Peronist

Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay

/

277

government in 1973, its expulsion by conservative Peronist labor leaders, and the terrorism that followed, ending with the military taking over in 1976 and killing or expelling the movement’s most active members. How accurate this study of a very secretive organization is, one cannot tell, but for anyone interested in terrorist movements the book is worthy of examination. Donald Clark Hodges takes a different approach in Argentina: 1943-1987: The National Revolution and Resistance (1988), concentrating primarily on the ideologies that informed revolutionary movements in Argentina, large and small, and demonstrating the variety and incoherence of the many attempts to create totally different ap¬ proaches to the nation’s governance. During the time the military fought against domestic insurrectionists in Uru¬ guay (1973 to 1984), publications were scarce, just as they were in Argentina during the 1976-1983 Proceso. Later a few studies of the Tupamaro rebels who provoked military repression did appear; one of the most fascinating of these was an anonymous volume entitled Actas Tupamaras: una experiencia de guer¬ rilla urbana (1982). It is a compilation of recollections by Tupamaro members who fought and lost their insurrection in the early 1970s. Over a dozen of their operations, from robberies to kidnappings, are briefly recounted.

Foreign Policy The Malvinas war drew new attention to Argentine foreign policy in the 1980s, though more initially from journalists than scholars who are not yet permitted access to the files of those who directed the war from London and Buenos Aires. The most informative was a volume by three Clarin reporters, O. R. Cardoso, R. Kirschbaum, and E. Van Der Kooy, Malvinas: la trama secreta (1983). These journalists from the Buenos Aires daily Clarin offer a fascinating history of the decisions that went into the planning and waging of the war in the Malvinas Islands in 1982. Drawn from interviews with officials in Argentina, London, and Washington, D.C., their story offers unusual insights into the behavior of officials in the Galtieri administration. It is an example of investigative journalism at its best, and the Argentines’ appreciation of it is evident in the sale of fourteen separate printings during the first nine months after its publication. It is essential reading for students of the conflict. In the wake of the war some scholars have focused on the need for serious critiques of past Argentine behavior in its approach to foreign relations. Among the most provocative inquiries is La Argentina: paria internacional? (1984). The book contains two essays by Carlos Escude, a young historian who is critical of Argentina’s traditional approach to foreign policy. He argues that miscon¬ ceptions of power that rely too much on the possession of territory and diplomatic defiance of other nations actually weaken Argentina’s position internationally. Argentina could advance its interests more successfully by engaging the rest of the world in a more flexible and pragmatic manner. More generally, some have written new histories of post-World War II foreign

278

/

Comparative Politics

relations. The best among them so far is Juan Archibaldo Lanus’s De Chapultepec al Beagle: politica exterior Argentina, 1945-1980 (1984). It is organized topi¬ cally and focuses on such issues as Argentina’s place in the East-West conflict, its votes in the United Nations, and the events leading to conflicts with Chile over the Beagle Channel islands and with Britain over the Malvinas. It does not examine the Malvinas war and its aftermath. Concern about Argentina’s nuclear technology and policy have been expressed far more by foreigners than by Argentines themselves. One of the best efforts to describe the industry accurately was made by Leonard Spector in his book Nuclear Proliferation Today (1984) which brings us up to date on the nuclear production capabilities in several Third World nations. Of interest to students of Latin America are lengthy chapters on Argentina and Brazil which provide substantial detail on their respective nuclear technologies and plans for further development.

CONCLUSION In sum, this brief survey of some major works that deal primarily with Ar¬ gentine politics indicates several things. Clearly, Argentine scholars continue to publish most of the material, though books and articles written by North Amer¬ ican, French, and English scholars are common. Moreover, Argentine schol¬ arship has become more empirical and reliant on the political science concepts that are employed by their colleagues abroad than they were previously. Never¬ theless, it would be incorrect to assume that the tradition of writing essays based more on contemplation than systematic investigation is about to cease. Second, publications tend to come in waves, the biggest of which in the Argentine case occurred in the early 1980s when freedom was restored and dozens of manuscripts were gathered up by eager publishers. This phase yielded the most sophisticated work yet, but it virtually ceased a few years after it began. No doubt, many social scientists chose to practice politics rather than write about it when democracy was restored, some as consultants to governments and others as candidates. Moreover, others who rejoined university faculties found little time and almost no money to support basic research. Argentina and Uruguay also fell on hard times economically in the 1980s, especially within the public sector, and there is less surplus than ever to support social science research. Regarding the future one can only speculate. First of all, there are several political subjects that still lack basic kinds of research. Almost nothing has been written about the politics of the Roman Catholic Church in Argentina, Paraguay, or Uruguay. This is due in part to the conservative nature of most of the clergy and nearly all of the church leadership, especially in Argentina where grass¬ roots religious radicalism like that found in Brazil is meager or nonexistent. Governments themselves deserve closer study, especially at this time when authorities are trying to privatize much of their government-owned industry. We know little more than what critics of the status quo tell us about politics within

Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay

/

279

government bureaucracies and how it will be affected by privatization. Some dissertations have been written about particular government agencies, but almost none of them have reached publication. It is also time to study the legislative institutions as they begin to develop new roles in Argentina, Uruguay, and even Paraguay. We also need more study of women in politics. Feminist movements have been discouraged by tradition and male politicians, but they do exist. Moreover, far more women are employed now than ever before in Argentina, and they are taking a larger role in labor organization and business. Yet we know almost nothing about their political efforts and the effects they are having on everything from voting behavior to the distribution of power within political parties. Finally, we barely understand what Argentines, Uruguayans, and Paraguayans call democracy. To be sure, the first two had tried it before, but we still need to know more about how the public understands it and how elected officials in different organizations deal with one another and with their constituents. For example, we know very little about how much influence the Argentine legislature exercises over the nation’s president, how much discipline political parties guar¬ antee their leaders, and how policy experts in congress deal with their peers in the bureaucracy. Nor at this point in time do we understand how a decade of declining income and consumption among the masses in Argentina and Uruguay is affecting democracy’s prospects. Public opinion analysis is just beginning to be done, but far more study of public and elite behavior is needed if we are to do more than speculate about democracy’s survival in these countries. In short, much excellent research now fills our libraries, but far more needs to be done on nearly everything if we are to understand politics in the region.

REFERENCES Abos, Alvaro. 1984. Las organizaciones sindicales y elpoder militar: 1976-1983. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de America Latina. Actas Tupamaras: una experiencia de guerrilla urbana. Madrid, Spain: Editorial Revolucion. Acuna, Marcelo Luis. 1984. De Frondizi a Alfonsin: la tradicion politica delRadicalismo. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de America Latina. Aguiar, Cesar, and Gisela Argenti. 1983. Elecciones uruguayas: un marco de analisis preliminar. Montevideo: Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios sobre del Desarrollo Uruguayo. Alemann, Roberto.

1970. Curso de politica economica argentina. Buenos Aires:

EUDEBA. Alexander, Robert. 1951. The Peron Era. New York: Columbia University Press. Bailey, Samuel. 1967. Labor, Nationalism, and Politics in Argentina. New Brunswick; N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Blanksten, George. 1953. Peron’s Argentina. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Borrini, Alberto. 1984. Como se hace unpresidente. Buenos Aires: El Cronista Comercial.

280

/

Comparative Politics

Buchanan, Paul. 1985. “State Corporatism in Argentina: Labor Administration under Peron and Ongama.” Latin American Research Review 20, no. 1: 61-95. Canton, Dario. 1971. Elecciones y partidos politicos en la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, and Enzo Faletto. 1979. Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cardoso, O. R., R. Kirschbaum, and E. Van Der Kooy. 1983. Malvinas: la trama seer eta. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana/Planeta. Catterberg, Edgardo. 1989. Los argentinos frente a la politico. Buenos Aires: Planeta. Cavarozzi, Marcelo. 1979. Consolidacion del sindicalismo peronista y emergencia de la formula politico argentina durante el gobierno frondizista. Buenos Aires: Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES). -. 1979. Sindicatos y politicos en Argentina, 1955-1958. Buenos Aires: Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES). -. 1983. Autoritarismo y democracia: 1955-1983. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de America Latina. Corradi, Juan. 1985. The Fitful Republic: Economy, Politics, and Society in Argentina. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Diamand, Marcelo. 1973. Doctrinas economicas, desarrollo, e independencia. Buenos Aires: Paidos. Di Telia, Guido. 1983. Peron-Peron, 1973-1976. Buenos Aires: Sudamerica. Escude, Carlos. 1984. La Argentina: paria internacional? Buenos Aires: Editorial de Belgrano. Fraga, Rosendo. 1988. Ejercito: del escarnio al poder, 1973-1976. Buenos Aires: Planeta. Fraser, Nicolas, and Marysa Navarro. 1980. Eva Peron. New York: Norton. Galletti, Alfredo. 1961. La realidad argentina en el siglo XX: la politico y los partidos politicos. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica. Gambini, Hugo. 1971. Elperonismo y la iglesia. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de America Latina. -. 1971. El primer gobierno peronista. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de America Latina. Germani, Gino. 1962. Politico y sociedad en una epoca de transicion. Buenos Aires: Paidos. Gillespie, Charles, ed. 1984. Transicion del autoritarismo a la democracia. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental. Gillespie, Richard. 1983. Soldiers of Peron: Argentina's Montoneros New York: Oxford University Press. Gonzalez, Luis. 1983. “Uruguay, 1980-1981: An Unexpected Opening. ” Latin American Research Review 19, no. 3: 63-76. Hodges, Donald Clark. 1988. Argentina 1943-1987: The National Revolution and Re¬ sistance. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Imaz, Jose Luis de. 1969. Los que mandan. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA. Kaufman, Edy. 1979. Uruguay in Transition: From Civilian to Military Rule. New Brunswick N.J.: Transaction Books. Kenworthy, Eldon. 1973. “The Function of the Little-known Case in Theory Formation, or What Peronism Wasn’t.” Comparative Politics 6, no. 1: 1-35.

Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay

/

281

Lanus, Juan Archibaldo. 1984. De Chapultepec al Beagle: politica exterior Argentina, 1945-1980. Buenos Aires: EMECE. Lewis, Paul H. 1980. Paraguay under Stroessner. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. -. 1982. Socialism, Liberalism, and Dictatorship in Paraguay. New York: Praeger. Luna, Felix. 1971. El 45. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamerica. -. 1983. Golpes militaresy salidas electorales. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamerica. McDonald, Ronald H. 1981. “The Emerging New Politics in Paraguay.” Interamerican Economic Affairs 35, no. 1 (Summer): 25-44. Maceyra, Horacio. 1983. Campora/Perdn/Isabel. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de America Latina. Mallon, Richard, and Juan V. Sourrouille. 1975. Economic Policy-Making in a Conflict Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Maronese, Leticia, Ana Cafiero de Nazar, and Victor Waisman. 1985. El voto peronista '83: perfil electoral y causas de la derrota. Buenos Aires: El Cid Editor. Matsushita, Hiroshi. 1983. Movimiento obrero argentino: 1930-1945. Buenos Aires: Siglo Veinte. Merkx, Gilbert. 1969. “Sectoral Clashes and Political Change: The Argentine Experi¬ ence.” Latin American Research Review 4, no. 1: 89-114. Miranda, Carlos R. 1990. The Stroessner Era: Authoritarian Rule in Paraguay. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Mora y Araujo, Manuel, and Ignacio Llorante, eds. 1980. El voto peronista. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamerica. Murmis, Miguel, and Juan C. Portantiero. 1971. Estudios sobre los origines del peronismo. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXL O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1973. Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. -. 1982. El estado burocratico. Buenos Aires: Editorial de Belgrano. Page, Joseph. 1983. Peron. New York: Random House. Perina, Ruben. 1983. Ongania, Levingston, and Lanusse: los militares en la politica argentina. Buenos Aires: Editorial de Belgrano. Pion-Berlin, David. 1989. The Ideology of State Terror: Economic Doctrine and Political Repression in Argentina and Peru. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner. Potash, Robert. 1969. The Army and Politics in Argentina, 1928-1945: Yrigoyen to Peron. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. -. 1980. The Army and Politics in Argentina, 1945-1962: Peron to Frondizi. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Ranis, Peter. 1966. “Peronismo without Peron: Ten Years after the Fall (1955-1965).” Journal of Interamerican Studies 8, no. 1: 112-28. Remmer, Karen L., and Gilbert W. Merkx. 1982. “Bureaucratic Authoritarianism Re¬ visited.” Latin American Research Review 17, no. 2: 3-40. Rial Roade, Juan. 1984. Partidos politicos, democracia, y autoritarismo. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental. Rock, David. 1975. Politics in Argentina, 1890-1930: The Rise and Fall of Radicalism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. _. 1985. Argentina 1516-1982: From Spanish Colonization to the Falklands War. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rotondaro, Ruben. 1971. Realidad y cambio en el sindicalismo. Buenos Aires: Pleamar.

282

/

Comparative Politics

Rouquie, Alain. 1978. Poder militar y sociedadpolitico, en la argentina. Buenos Aires: EMECE. -. 1982. Argentina hoy. Mexico City: Siglo XXI. Schoultz, Lars. 1983. The Populist Challenge: Argentine Electoral Behavior in the Post¬ war Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Schvarzer, Jorge. 1983. Argentina 1976-81: el endeudamiento externo como pivote de la especulacion financiera. Buenos Aires: Centro de Investigaciones Sociales sobre el Estado y la Administracion. -. 1983. Martinez de Hoz: la logica politico de la politico economica. Buenos Aires: Centro de Investigaciones Sociales sobre el Estado y la Administracion. Spector, Leonard. 1984. Nuclear Proliferation Today. New York: Vintage Books. Taylor, Philip. 1960. Government and Politics of Uruguay. New Orleans, La.: Tulane University Press. Turner, Frederick, and Jose Miguens, eds. 1983. Juan Peron and the Reshaping of Argentina. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Waisman, Carlos. 1987. Reversal of Development in Argentina: Postwar Counterrevo¬ lutionary Policies and Their Structural Consequences. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Waisman, Carlos, and Monica Peralta-Ramos, eds. 1988. The Transition from Military Rule to Liberal Democracy: The Case of Argentina. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Waldmann, Peter. 1981. El peronismo, 1943-1955. Buenos Aires: Sudamerica. Weinstein, Martin. 1975. Uruguay: The Politics of Failure. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. -. 1988. Uruguay: Democracy at a Crossroads. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Wogart, Jan Peter. 1983. “Combining Price Stabilization with Trade and Financial Lib¬ eralization Policies: The Argentine Experience, 1976-1981.” Journal of InterAmerican Studies and World Affairs 25, no. 4 (November): 445-76. Wynia, Gary W. 1978. Argentina in the Postwar Era: Economic Policy Making in a Divided Society. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. -. 1986. Argentina: Illusions and Realities. New York: Holmes and Meier. Zorrilla, Ruben H. 1983. El liderazgo sindical argentino: desde sus orlgenes hasta 1975. Buenos Aires: Siglo Veinte.

Part II International Relations: Countries and Regions

14 PATTERNS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS RESEARCH G. Pope Atkins

The past three decades are an appropriate time period for identifying and ap¬ praising the trends in political science research on the international relations of Latin America. Thirty years ago the field was still largely restricted to a handful of academic pioneers in a few institutions in the United States, Europe, and Latin America; coverage of the varied components of international relations was relatively scarce and of uneven quality. The expansion of scholarly attention that began in the early 1960s has continued over the past three decades so that today the volume and scope of the literature have expanded and are accompanied by more sophisticated methodological techniques. Diversity today characterizes the literature and reflects the complexity and dynamism of Latin America’s international relations, the variety of academic approaches, and the calibre of the scholarly work in the United States, Latin America, and Western Europe. The following appraisal surveys some of the literature but does not include a detailed inventory; because it has become too voluminous to mention even all of the most important works that have appeared, only a representative sampling is cited. This chapter first offers a broad assessment of the expansion of research in the field since 1960 then identifies major trends in the analysis of the foreign policies of the principal actors and of the international structures in which they operate. Some references to specific instrumentalities, interactions, and issues are included in the larger contexts but are not dealt with directly or extensively. From time to time, U.S. and Latin American scholars have evaluated the state of Latin American international relations research. Some of the more useful surveys that have variously addressed the institutional developments, research methods, and thematic substance of the field are as follows: Jorge I. Dominguez, “Consensus and Divergence: The State of the Literature on Inter-American Relations in the 1970s” (1978); Alberto Cisneros-Lavaller, “Old Wine in New

286

/

International Relations

Bottles: An Essay on the Study of Inter-American Relations” (1982); Abraham F. Lowenthal, “Research in Latin America and the Caribbean on International Relations and Foreign Policy: Some Impressions” (1983); Alberto van Klaveren, “The Analysis of Latin American Foreign Policies: Theoretical Perspectives,” in Heraldo Munoz and Joseph S. Tulchin, edsLatin American Nations in World Politics (1984); Ruben Perina, ed., El estudio de las relaciones internacionales en America Latina y el Caribe (1985); and Heraldo Munoz, “The Dominant Themes in the Study of Latin America’s Foreign Relations” (1987). These six works provide a helpful starting point in assessing the major trends in the in¬ ternational relations research on Latin America by political scientists.

GENERAL RESEARCH PATTERNS General patterns of international relations research over the past three decades are understood primarily in terms of the important developments in centers of research in the United States, Europe, and Latin America. Certain advancements have been made in numerous other countries as well.

The United States The decade of the 1960s witnessed a burgeoning of Latin American studies in the United States, with notable increases in the number of political scientists specializing in the region’s international relations. The breadth and depth of studies also expanded, with a proliferation of research designs and methodolo¬ gies. The prior work by pioneering scholars, most of whom were historians or political scientists originally trained as historians, focused on the diplomatic history of U.S. relations with the region or individual countries or on institutionallegal treatments of Pan Americanism and the formal structures and processes of the Inter-American System. They produced comprehensive studies and trained later generations of scholars who, in turn, have advanced the study of interna¬ tional relations in the region. The pattern of dramatically increased interest in Latin American international relations was given initial impetus by the Cuban Revolution of 1959 and its subsequent implications for and impact on U.S. policy, especially as reflected in the Alliance for Progress. The quantity of work in the 1960s initially out¬ stripped the quality, however, with a proliferation of impressionistic, journalistic, dogmatic, and polemical material. By then the “traditionalists” in political science had been attacked for being too descriptive, formal, and atheoretical; the discipline and the international relations subfield changed, and a strong emphasis was placed on rigorously developed empirical theory. Those special¬ izing in Latin America were influenced by the innovations, but by and large they were not designers of the new methods and theories and were slow to adopt them. But the significance and intricacy of Latin American issues also attracted young political scientists to the region who joined in the search for theory. By

Patterns

/

287

the mid-1970s the heightened and more sustained scholarly interest in Latin America’s role in world affairs was a fixture of U.S. political science; Latin American scholarship reflected the broader disciplinary tendencies, as well as the debates and disagreements going on in the field. The study of Latin American international relations in the United States today generally conforms with the study of international relations in general (although with some special characteristics that are noted below). Within the discipline of political science, specialists have come to distinguish between the analysis of foreign policy (focusing on the attributes of nation-states and the way in which decision makers formulate and execute policies) and the analysis of international politics (the patterns of interaction among states, including the distribution of power and international institutions); at the same time, a renewed emphasis has been placed on international political economy (the interrelationship of foreign political and economic policies and processes and their mutual influence on the international political and economic systems). Within these frameworks, the principal efforts are devoted to the search for empirical theory and to policy analysis and prescription. Furthermore, historians declined interest in diplomatic history, and economists’ restricted definition of politics, has further centered the study of international relations in political science. The departure with tra¬ dition, however, has not been total, certainly not on the part of Latin Ameri¬ canists. International history, legal-institutional analyses, current events, and various ideological and philosophical schools have persisted to the present day, but more often than not they are integrated with the newer modes of analysis.

Europe Latin American institutes in the European countries also increased in numbers, each with research and publications programs that addressed regional interna¬ tional relations. The strongest centers for Latin American research were in the United Kingdom and Germany, where such activities had long been notable. Although resources for Latin American studies expanded in the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1970s and 1980s, they declined in the United Kingdom (although the quality of work by a small number of scholars remained high) along with official interest and government funding; British students with a primary interest in Latin American international relations began to migrate to the United States for graduate study. France, Italy, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries also expanded teaching and research into Latin American international relations. The European community indicated an increased interest when it sponsored the founding of the Institute for European-Latin American Relations, Instituto de Relaciones Europeo-Latinoamericanas (IRELA), in 1984. Located in Madrid and directed by the German Latin Americanist Wolf Grabendorff, IRELA is a small but active organization which, among other things, organizes conferences and colloquies and publishes papers, reports, documents, and bibliographies.

288

/

International Relations

While juridical, historical, and ideological traditions remain strong in the European countries, the mainstream of international relations study in most of Europe today resembles that in the United States. That is, it concentrates on the search for theory and policy within the foreign policy-international politicsinternational political economy distinctions. To the contrary, however, the sub¬ stantive focus reflects dissatisfaction with U.S. government strategic perceptions of Lafin America and the power politics it employs, and it searches for a new independent European role in the area.

Latin America The sustained escalation in scholarship by Latin American researchers has been particularly notable. International relations as a social science field in Latin America is relatively new; the most important growth has occurred during the three-decade period covered in this book. Until the decade of the 1960s, Latin American writers, mostly historians, lawyers, and diplomats, emphasized inter¬ national law, diplomatic history, or, in Brazil and the Southern Cone, geopolitics; also common were polemical nationalist writings with little concern for evidence or inference. An increasing number of young Latin American scholars then began to adopt the more behavioral methods prevalent among U.S. and European specialists alongside the historical, legal, juridical, geopolitical, and prescriptive approaches. Not only have they shown an unprecedented interest in the study of Latin American international relations, they have, beginning in the mid-1970s and continuing through the 1980s, produced some of the best theoretical and policy studies in the field. International political economy and developmental economies have been major enterprises. A great deal of writing has also been undertaken by civilians and officers in some of the war colleges and other armed forces institutes and by analysts in foreign ministries and other government agencies. The overall development of scholarly advances in the field, however, has been uneven. Leading the way in the development of academic centers for international relations research were the Instituto de Estudios Intemacionales at the University of Chile and El Colegio de Mexico in Mexico City. In time, Latin American research was undertaken in a host of newly consolidated or created institutions, some based in universities but many not; professional journals were established, and publications multiplied. Sophisticated and productive centers of teaching and research expanded—in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, Trinidad, Uruguay, and Venezuela, for example; at least some efforts were made in most countries throughout the region. In contrast to the United States, inter¬ national relations has tended to be organized as an autonomous multidisciplinary academic field rather than focused in political science. Latin American research is more heavily influenced by traditional historical, institutional, and legal per¬ spectives than it is in the United States and Europe. At the same time, that

Patterns

/

289

research has enlarged the use of the methods and theories associated with modem political science, particularly political sociology and political economy. Other chapters in this volume give further information on the centers of Latin American politics research, as do the general surveys cited above. Nevertheless, certain developments of a general nature should be mentioned here. An important early effort to coordinate Latin American social science research, including international relations, occurred in 1967. In that year the multidisciplinary Consejo Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO) was organized; today eighty-two Latin American research centers participate in its regular meetings and commissions, among which are those dealing with international studies and transnational studies. Significant publications have resulted from their work. In the early 1980s, several institutions in Latin America joined in the formation of the Programa de Estudios Conjuntos Sobre las Relaciones Intemacionales America Latina (RIAL) to provide a supportive network for their mutual efforts. RIAL was first headed by Gabriel Valdes, formerly foreign minister of Chile under President Eduardo Frei, who sought to foster interaction between govern¬ ment and academic communities. He was succeeded by Luciano Tomassini, a Chilean professor of international relations, who concentrated on linking schol¬ arly efforts. Since 1985 RIAL has sponsored an annual monographic series, titled El Sistema Internacional y America Latina, in which Latin American experts from various countries analyze an array of subjects. In January 1984, Chilean scholar Heraldo Munoz organized El Programa de Seguimiento de las Politicas Exteriores de Latinoamericana (PROSPEL) to de¬ velop systematic analyses of Latin American foreign policies and international relations. Beginning in 1985, PROSPEL has published the annual monographic series, Anuario de Politicas Exteriores Latinoamericanas, in which numerous experts (not only Latin Americans) analyze the foreign policies of each country of Latin America and the Caribbean during the past year and address sundry regional and functional themes. Latin American scholars and institutions have encountered serious difficulties involving politics and finances which have eroded their efforts to institutionalize the study of international relations. Democratically elected governments have usually (but not always) honored academic freedoms, but authoritarian regimes have tended (but with exceptions) to disallow critical scholarly activity. Extremist groups on both the right and the left have harassed scholars and universities in most of these countries at one time or another. Consequently, over the years, some Latin American scholars left the profession, continued to write at their own risk, or departed from their countries for positions elsewhere in Latin America or in the United States, Europe, or other countries. Latin American scholarship was given impetus by the return to more open political systems in South America in the 1980s (although Chilean scholars were also able to maintain their independence). At the same time, the long-established facts of relatively low levels of funding and maldistribution of scholarly resources continued to erode the research process in Latin America and to stall its development. This

290

/

International Relations

situation has been exacerbated by the severe economic dislocations throughout the region in the 1980s. The positive developments in international relations study in Latin America are largely a consequence of the growing appreciation of their relationship to national development. There is an awareness not only of the practical necessity to train specialists in international relations as the countries of the region become more actively involved in international affairs, but also of the value of having scholars devoted to a more rigorous understanding of the international system and its impact on the region and its constituent countries. Latin American social scientists have questioned the analytic validity of as¬ sumptions employed by scholars in the developed world. They recognize ethnocentrism when it occurs in the work of U.S., European, and other external analysts. They address questions about policy alternatives and diversification of international relations as Latin Americans seek more independent roles in the international system. The survey by Munoz (1987) reveals three recurrent topics among Latin Americans interested in international relations: the desire to max¬ imize national and regional autonomy, the need to develop more viable economies and legitimate political systems, and the decisive importance of the United States for all the countries of the region. The annual RIAL publication includes con¬ tributions from competing viewpoints but, in the editor’s words, “always from a markedly Latin American perspective.” According to Perina (1985), the goal of the rapidly growing academic centers in Latin America is to reduce “knowl¬ edge dependency” on the outside world and to be able to promote the interests and values of the individual countries of the region as they operate in the inter¬ national system. These motivations should not be interpreted as indicating a general condition of Latin American scholarly nationalism. Many of the most prominent Latin American scholars have studied in the United States or in Europe and have returned home to teach and write. Scholarship has been carried out on a cross¬ national basis with North American and European colleagues, and some of the most useful efforts have resulted from such collaborations. Latin American in¬ dividuals and institutions have been supported by the Social Science Research Council, Ford Foundation, Inter-American Foundation, Tinker Foundation, and Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, all based in the United States. (In addition, since 1980, the Regional Studies and Social Science program of the Organization of American States has supported them.)

Scholarly Convergence and Divergence Elements of both divergence and convergence are evident in the scholarly approaches in different parts of the world. Divergences stem essentially from different academic traditions and the fact that many scholars tend to undertake research relating to their own country’s or region’s primary concerns and perhaps to adopt, even if unwittingly, nationalist or ethnocentric perspectives. Research

Patterns

/

291

priorities and methods in the United States, Europe, Latin America, and else¬ where inevitably differ; they have distinguishing intellectual heritages, differing current methodological emphases and resource situations, and dissimilar outlooks on international relations and the related issues. The stronger tendency, in my view, is the convergence of disciplinary trends among North American, European, and Latin American political scientists. One is struck by the generally broadened thematic coverage and increased method¬ ological and theoretical sophistication that has accompanied the sheer expanded volume of writing in various parts of the globe. Social scientists specializing in Latin American international relations have increasingly adopted concepts and methods developed in the study of international relations in general; they have also engaged in productive multinational collaborative efforts. While these de¬ velopments have influenced writers and institutions in various parts of the world in different ways, they have conditioned to some degree Latin American inter¬ national relations research almost everywhere, even as differences in emphasis have remained. This phenomenon is evident, for example, in the conscious “globalization” of such U.S.-centered professional organizations as the Latin American Studies Association (LASA) and the International Studies Association (ISA). A partial result of the training of Latin American scholars in the United States and Europe and the multinational research has been to dim distinctions in scholarship. Likewise, the multinational collaborative research projects have led to comparative perspectives going beyond parochial country or regional foci. Furthermore, Latin Americans have influenced others just as they have been influenced: Distinctions are further blurred, as Michael J. Francis and Timothy J. Power point out in Chapter 17 of this volume, by the fact that many U.S. scholars (and European, it may be added) tend to adopt the Latin American list of topics studied and to share a reluctance to discard the traditional methodol¬ ogies. Thus, while consensus and globalization should not be exaggerated, the social science language and agenda of issues are understood and increasingly shared by all parties. Alongside the advancements in understanding, certain weaknesses are also evident. On a fundamental level, whether modem disciplinary developments are appropriate or desirable is a matter of debate. The substance of epistemological argumentation is beyond the scope of this essay, but it may be noted that con¬ siderable disagreement about the validity of international theory has accompanied the expansion of international relations research on Latin America. Some schol¬ ars, such as Yale Ferguson, have concluded that general international relations theory is relatively useless for analyzing and explaining Latin American phe¬ nomena. Others, such as Howard Wiarda, have argued for a distinct Latin American sociology. On the other hand, Alberto van Klaveren has seen certain general theoretical perspectives to be promising for Latin American foreign policy analysis. In addition, the theoretical evolution by scholars, whatever their national origins, has been relatively slow, and the choice of topics to be studied or not

292

/

International Relations

has followed the rise and fall of sometimes ephemeral current events. As a result, much of the work has avoided long-term phenomena and has contributed little to cumulative knowledge or theory building. This is not to say that policy analysis is unimportant; to the contrary, in my view, scholars not only have a role but a responsibility in that enterprise. If one assumes, however, that good policy is grounded in good theory, then one is also impressed by the degree to which theoretical progression has been surpassed by the rapid changes in the real world of Latin American international relations. In sum, great strides have been made in explaining Latin American international relations, but important gaps exist in our knowledge. One wonders, however, if Latin Americanists have any more theoretical limitations than do international relations generalists or other regionalists. Soviet Union Mention should be made about research in the Soviet Union, where the volume of academic work on Latin America has increased significantly since the Cuban Revolution of 1959 and the Soviet Union’s attachment to it and subsequent broadening of hemispheric relations. The quantity of effort has been accompanied by a modest rise in quality. Beginning from a base characterized by predictable tedious polemics and unsophisticated ideological propagandizing, revealing little understanding of Latin America, attempts emerged to engage in serious analysis that paid attention to propositions and evidence. Most Soviet articles come from the journal America Latina, published in Spanish by the Latin American Institute at the Academy of Sciences of the USSR; a few appear in English in the journal International Affairs. Most of them are set in the current time frame, although a substantial number of historical treatments are found, which deal with an array of topics. In the 1980s the Soviets seemed to be attempting to develop academics specializing in broad areas of Latin American international relations and going beyond crude propaganda (although work in this old genre continues). Almost all Soviet Latin Americanists base their research on Marxist theory with, in this reviewer’s opinion, the limitations imposed when applied to the Latin American scene; the overall level of scholarly sophistication leaves something to be desired. Nevertheless, there is more emphasis on documentation, analysis, and logical argument over polemics. Whether this portends a broader, more subtle, and better informed Soviet understanding of Latin American international relations is open to question. Despite Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost reforms, Soviet anal¬ ysis of Latin America seems to have leveled off at this improved but still modest academic state of affairs. ACTORS AND POLICIES The United States Writing on the Latin American policies of the United States has mostly focused on shifting crises, events, issues, and orientations associated with changing

Patterns

/

293

presidential administrations. Unfortunately, a promising but limited debate about the formulation process seems to have declined. Major topics in the former category may be traced beginning with Latin America’s new significance for U.S. policy after the Cuban Revolution of 1959. With the Alliance for Progress, specialists treated economic development as a matter of foreign policy, related it to hemispheric security, and debated actions against dictatorship and for democracy. They probed the Cuban issue, an activity that has continued to the present day. The U.S. intervention in the Dominican Republic in 1965 marked the beginning of a sense of malaise in U.S. policy among many analysts, although there has been no shortage of subsequent policy recommendations as well. While attention was paid to the Nixon administration’s call for a “new dialogue’’ and a “good partner” policy, analysis focused on the simultaneous overt and covert pressures against the Allende government in Chile and emphasized the end of a U.S.-Latin American “special relationship.” President Carter’s elevation of human rights to the fundamental tenet of policy revived an old debate, which continued through the Reagan administration, about whether U.S. values regarding political, social, and economic justice could or should be “exported” and about the consequences of economic and military aid as policy instruments. The continuing Panama Canal issue also came to a vitriolic climax with the adoption of a new set of treaties in 1979 that elicited a great deal of analytic attention. Neoconservative and radical right-wing writings ac¬ companied Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign and early administration. Reminiscent of the ideological anticommunism of the 1950s more than schol¬ arship, proponents contended that vital national interests in the hemisphere were threatened by Soviet expansionism in league with its Cuban surrogate. In time that perception, and analyses of it, were overwhelmingly focused on Central America and other parts of the Caribbean basin (which included the military invasion of Grenada). Academic opinion by and large strongly opposed Reagan’s policies; some responded in ideological kind from the left; right-wing commen¬ tators also complained when those policies confronted reality and were compro¬ mised. In time, security issues were joined (and in many minds transcended) by those regarding Latin American external debt, illicit drug trafficking, interna¬ tional migrations, and environmental degradation as part of a need to rethink U.S. interests in the region. A number of general surveys of U.S. policies appeared. Such works had previously been diplomatic histories which focused on regional and bilateral interactions and emphasized narrative detail. Some U.S. scholars continued this mode of analysis into the period under discussion. Graham H. Stuart, whose first edition of Latin America and the United States was published in 1922, coauthored a sixth edition with James Tigner in 1975. Also in this tradition was a book by J. Lloyd Mecham, A Survey of United States-Latin American Relations (1965), and a more analytical and recent treatment by Harold Molineu, U.S. Policy toward Latin America: From Regionalism to Globalism (rev. ed., 1990). Political science surveys by U.S. researchers have appeared and superseded the narrative histories. Margaret Daly Hayes, Latin America and the U.S. Na-

294

/

International Relations

tional Interest: A Basis for U.S. Foreign Policy (1984), assumes that U.S. interests are served by hemispheric unity and by Latin American economic prosperity and stable domestic and international politics; she analyzes Latin America’s role in the world economy, U.S. regional security interests, and the particular challenges to U.S. interests in Brazil, the Caribbean basin, and Mexico (the chapter on Mexico is authored by Bruce Bagley). Cole Blasier, The Hovering Giant: U.S. Responses to Revolutionary Change in Latin America (1985), ad¬ dresses the U.S. response to Latin American revolutions in the twentieth century and provides some guidelines for U.S. policymakers in future situations. The first edition (1976) ranged from the Mexican Revolution of 1910, to the Do¬ minican civil war in 1965, the Velasco reformist military regime in Peru, and the Marxist Allende government in Chile; the second edition (1985) extended the scope to include the responses of Carter and Reagan to situations in Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Abraham F. Lowenthal’s Partners in Conflict: The United States and Latin America (rev. ed., 1990), which focuses on the time frame from 1960 to the end of the 1980s, includes chapters on Mexico, Brazil, and the Caribbean basin; he accuses U.S. policy¬ makers of inadequate understanding of Latin America’s transformation along several dimensions, and he argues for a policy that moves from narrow security thinking to a stress on hemispheric cooperation. Lars Schoultz, Human Rights and United States Policy toward Latin America (1981), deals with the substance of the titled subject in the broad context of the U.S. foreign policy process. Schoultz applied a similar approach in his National Security and United States Policy toward Latin America (1987), in which he focuses on U.S. policymakers’ core concerns with the causes and consequences of Latin American instability for U.S. security interests. Michael J. Kryzanek, U.S.-Latin American Relations (1985), discusses the evolution of U.S. policy, aspects of policy formulation, and a number of salient issues. John D. Martz’s edited volume, United States Policy in Latin America: A Quarter Century of Crisis and Challenge, 19611986 (1988), contains twelve essays by established U.S. experts who discuss national policy objectives, policy perspectives, and patterns of crisis management. Analysts from other countries also continued to focus on the perennial concern with U.S. policies. Two examples are illustrative of this pattern. Robert Wesson and Heraldo Munoz, eds., in their Latin American Views of U.S. Policy (1986), brought together eight Latin American authors from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico to analyze the Reagan administration’s policies toward the InterAmerican System, Central America, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and inter-American commerce. Soviet perceptions are illustrated by Anatolii N. Glinkin, Boris F. Martynov, and Petr P. Yakovlev’s La evolucion de la politico de EE. UU. en America Latina (1984), in which three senior Latin Americanists argue that U.S. regional policies are essentially hegemonic, militarily aggressive, and desperately allied with Latin American dictators and other reactionary elements. Periods of noninterventionism, they say, merely disguise continued U.S. imperialism, and

Patterns

/

295

the espousal of human rights is a cosmetic undertaking to divert attention from disastrous aggressive policies. A debate has been carried on about the relevance of particular models of foreign policy-making for understanding the Latin American policies of the United States. Two fundamental positions emerged, with significantly differing approaches within each category. One of them, which adheres to the “rational model” of foreign policy-making, argues that U.S. policy either is or should be a consistent or unified whole governed by some perception of interests, values, and capabilities shared by key policymakers. There is no consensus among analysts, however, as to what constitutes the rational model; they inevitably disagree over what the motivations of policymakers really are as well as what values should underlie them. Some analysts argue that the goals of U.S. policy, whether right or wrong, have been relatively constant over the years even as the instrumental means have varied; normative “realists,” “idealists,” “liberals,” “neoconservatives,” and “radicals” have criticized and prescribed policy ends and means from their own philosophical perspectives. The second general category deals with the formulation process itself in terms of the domestic political and internal bureaucratic influences on policy decisions. The “bureaucratic model” views policy outcomes as the result of struggles among competing entities within the executive branch. A more general approach analyzes outcomes in terms of the larger domestic political process involving a broad range of factors—accommodation to pressures from Congress, interest groups, political parties, and public opinion, as well as bureaucratic competition. Analysts tend to see policies as variable and the process as fragmented, conflictual, and partisan. Interest in this important and potentially fruitful area of analysis has dwindled. A number of works have addressed the U.S. policy formulation process. In 1973, Abraham F. Lowenthal published a provocative article, “United States Policy toward Latin America: ‘Liberal’, ‘Radical’, and ‘Bureaucratic’ Perspec¬ tives,” in which he attempted to explain the failure of the Alliance for Progress by analyzing the three policy perspectives contained in the title. The liberal and radical (dependency) views assumed rationality; the former observed an unin¬ tended discontinuity between U.S. policy goals and the actual consequences, and the latter saw U.S. policies as designed to defend private overseas economic interests. The bureaucratic perspective blamed competing governmental units for subverting rational goals in the very implementation process. Lowenthal leaned to the bureaucratic explanation in his own analysis, with some qualifications. These models were further explored by contributors to Julio Cotier and Richard R. Fagen, eds., Latin America and the United States: The Changing Political Realities (1974), which included the Lowenthal essay (1973). Unlike Lowenthal and other North Americans, the radical scholars, in particular, found bureaucratic considerations to be virtually irrelevant for understanding the nature of U.S. foreign policy-making. In his most recent work, Lowenthal (1990) also engages in rational model analysis and prescription in which he proposes a new U.S.

296

/

International Relations

policy approach which deemphasizes traditional narrow security concerns and emphasizes cooperative relations to resolve critical hemispheric problems. Robert A. Packenham’s Liberal America and the Third World: Political Development Ideas in Foreign Aid and Social Science (1973) is a particularly cogent explo¬ ration of “liberal” assumptions and their tendency to come to naught as policy. Hayes (1984) is a good example of the rational model from a dispassionate “realist” perspective. The purpose of her book is ultimately prescriptive; prudent policy recommendations grow logically out of the prior analysis based on the idea of enlightened national interest. Blasier (1985) says that perceived threats (including ideological) from outsiders explains U.S. policy toward revolutionary movements and governments. He further reflects the rational model when he laments that U.S. policymakers have learned so little from their experience and continue patterns of action that do not serve U.S. interests and then he concludes that bureaucratic politics have had relatively minor influence on policy decisions. Martz (1988) addresses U.S. policy-making, with crisis management a major aspect. Kryzanek (1985) has useful sections on governmental and nongovern¬ mental participants in Latin American policy-making. Schoultz’s two books (1981, 1987) are particularly important; they analyze not only the content and implementation of U.S. human rights and security policies, respectively, but also the perceptions and values of policymakers and the influences and constraints exercised by interest groups, bureaucratic processes, Congress, and public opin¬ ion. In the 1987 book he concludes that “the core” of U.S. policy toward Latin America was a concern with security, a rational paradigm; policymakers are deeply divided, however, over what constitutes a security threat, and here matters of variability and fragmentation come into play.

Latin America The study of Latin American foreign policies has until recently been a largely neglected scholarly pursuit. It has become a major research focus, however, aimed at rectifying the limited literature explicitly analyzing policy-making. Traditional studies of Latin American policies, mostly written by Latin Amer¬ icans themselves, tended toward atheoretical histories and legal expositions, concerned essentially with interactions rather than policy formulation. They addressed such matters as Latin American relations with Europe and the United States and policies pursued in local territorial and boundary disputes; certain Brazilian and Southern Cone writers pursued geopolitical theories. Much of the literature continues to emphasize descriptions of policy outcomes rather than the analysis of the factors behind decision making. In the last few years, however, more research has been dedicated to foreign policy analysis, using concepts from the general (multinational) study of international relations, but adding special regional considerations such as the impact of regime types on foreign policy outcomes and the crucial importance of economic considerations. Most of this work has been undertaken by U.S. and Latin American scholars,

Patterns

/

297

sometimes in collaboration, with some contributions by European authors. The first comprehensive attempt at comparative Latin American foreign policy anal¬ ysis was made by Harold E. Davis, Larman C. Wilson, et al., in Latin American Foreign Policies (1975), which contains chapters on various general topics and on the foreign policy processes of almost all of the regional states. Since then the enterprise has grown. Elizabeth G. Ferris and Jennie K. Lincoln have edited two good anthologies, Latin American Foreign Policies: Global and Regional Dimensions (Ferris and Lincoln, 1981) and The Dynamics of Latin American Foreign Policies (Lincoln and Ferris, 1984); both are overt attempts to compare policies within a theoretical framework. Gerhard Drekonja K. and Juan G. Tokatlian’s edited volume, Teoria y practica de la politico exterior latinoamericana (1983), is a broadly conceived set of twenty essays, about evenly divided between theoretical, topical concerns and individual Latin American national policies. A collection of essays and commentaries on them by fifteen Latin American scholars edited by Juan Carlos Puig, America Latina: politicos exteriores comparadas (1984), explores economic and political aspects of the foreign policies of most Latin American states. The collection of essays on contemporary Latin American foreign policies edited by Heraldo Munoz and Joseph S. Tulchin, Latin American Nations in World Politics (1984), is the result of a conference of scholars from the Universidad de Chile and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; most of the countries of the region are covered, and a solid effort was made to integrate theoretical considerations. Van Klaveren, in Munoz and Tulchin (1984), cogently critiques the effort at specific Latin American foreign policy analysis. He acknowledges that the work that has emerged only since the mid-1970s has been a significant contribution, but the body of literature overall is of uneven coverage and quality, real cross¬ national studies are conspicuously absent, and differences between traditional diplomatic history and foreign policy analysis have not always been evident. Van Klaveren applauds the explicit theoretical concern and the attempt to go beyond historical and descriptive perspectives, but, he says, most of the works fall short of their ambitious aims. In sum, van Klaveren concludes that the many “disparate elements” available for comparative Latin American foreign policy analysis “have yet to be systematized and integrated into a coherent and com¬ prehensive approach” that combines case studies with a general theoretical framework.

Other States In the early 1960s, Latin American relations with nonhemispheric states at¬ tracted the attention of researchers. Soviet relations with Cuba and activities in other parts of the hemisphere, and the actions of other Communist countries, have been of constant interest. The European presence had long been a concern of Latin America writers. In the early 1970s, as Latin Americans actively sought to broaden their bilateral relations and as the economic and political activities

298

/

International Relations

of various external powers expanded, research increased in several quarters and has been sustained to the present day. European policies have become a major subject of research, and those of Japan, Canada, and other states in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East increasingly so. Little attention has been directed to the process of Latin American policy formulation in these countries beyond the identification of interests and capabilities. The first notable study of the Latin American policies of external states in general was the pioneering effort by Herbert Goldhamer, The Foreign Powers in Latin America (1972); it was a comparative foreign policy analysis in the sense of focusing on interaction processes rather than applying a country-bycountry organization. More recently, William Perry and Peter Wehner edited The Latin American Policies of U.S. Allies: Balancing Global Interests and Regional Concerns (1985), a useful collection of essays, with chapters devoted to West German, British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Canadian, Japanese, and Israeli involvement in Latin America. The West European presence and potential in Latin America is an important area of analysis. Primary themes are the potential for Europe to recapture an important regional role (most expectations are modest) and especially its actions toward the Central American conflict, external debt, and redemocratization (es¬ pecially in South America). Wolf Grabendorff and Riordan Roett, Latin America, Western Europe, and the United States (1985), coedited a set of contributions by fourteen U.S., Latin American, and European specialists. The central theme is the expansion of Latin American relations with Europe, Europe’s growing economic and political influence, and the simultaneous decline of U.S. hemi¬ spheric dominance, which forms a complex triangular set of new relationships. Esperanza Duran’s European Interests in Latin America (1985) is an excellent general treatment by a Mexican analyst. British scholar Glenn Mower, Jr., in The European Community and Latin America: A Case Study in Global Role Expansion (1982), studies European community (EC) economic policies from an international political economy perspective; it traces the evolution of European community actions in Latin America and identifies the factors most likely to condition future relations. A special interest has been indicated in the Iberian states’ policies toward Latin America as they developed their democracies and more actively joined Europe. Howard J. Wiarda directed an exceptionally thor¬ ough, multiauthored effort, Iberian-Latin American Connection: Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy (1986), in which fourteen contributors explore a broad range of aspects about Spanish and, to a lesser extent, Portuguese policies toward Latin America, with due attention to implications for the United States. Soviet policies have spawned a substantial literature; they have taken on regional parameters that are explored in other chapters in this volume. As a general matter, Cole Blasier’s book, The Giant’s Rival: The USSR and Latin America (rev. ed., 1988), should be singled out for comment. While he ac¬ knowledges a steadily increased Soviet presence in Latin America, Blasier argues that the export of revolution is not a high Soviet priority, and he notes the Soviet

Patterns

/

299

emphasis on regular state-to-state diplomatic and trade relations. Soviet Latin Americanists have also written extensively; they stress the themes of declining U.S. influence and the limits of the Western European alternative, the desire of even “bourgeois” and anticommunist Latin American governments to diversify dependency and therefore to respond to Soviet overtures, and the benign intent of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. Soviet works shed no light, other than by implication, on the way in which Soviet foreign policies toward Latin America are formulated. Augusto Varas, a Chilean scholar associated with the Latin American School of Social Sciences (FLACSO) in Santiago, edited a number of important analyses in Soviet-Latin American Relations in the 1980s (1987). FLACSO-Santiago publishes the bulletin America Latina-Union Sovietica, an important source for the study of Soviet-Latin American relations. With regard to increasingly significant Canadian policies toward Latin Amer¬ ica, the reader is referred to Graeme S. Mount and Edelgard E. Mahant, “Review of Recent Literature on Canadian-Latin American Relations” (1985). These Canadian scholars thoroughly review the subject with reference to fifty-three sources. This research is bound to expand in the 1990s now that Canada has become a full member of the Organization of American States (OAS).

Nonstate Actors Increasing attention to non-nation-state actors has been a notable trend in the general study of international relations over the past three decades; it has been of special interest in the study of Latin America, where those actors have been of particular significance. International relations specialists have concluded that traditional state-centric analysis slights the profound impact of other kinds of international actors capable of initiating cross-national interaction in the Latin American context. Among the many nonstate actors operating in the region, five of them have emerged as the most significant although they have captured the attention of writers in widely varying degrees: the Roman Catholic Church, multinational corporations (MNCs), international labor organizations, guerrilla insurgency groups, and transnational political parties. The Roman Catholic Church—specifically, the Holy See as a sovereign entity with the Vatican City as its territorial base—has been particularly active since the late 1960s, with numerous papal visits to the region, complex positions regarding social justice, and actions as a third party in regional conflict. The Holy See also enjoys Permanent Observer status in the OAS. The best literature, however, has included an analysis of the Holy See as an international actor as part of treatments of the larger panorama of church-state relations. Multinational corporations have been prominent regional actors since their accelerated growth after World War II, showing a high degree of autonomy and playing central international roles. Analytic treatments of MNCs reached their height in the mid to late 1970s; they have since declined along with external investment itself in the region. Transnational political parties—most prominently the European-based

300

/

International Relations

parties organized with their Latin American and other regional counterparts in the Socialist International and the Christian Democratic World Union—have quickened their operations since the mid-1970s and are especially active as of the late 1980s. A definitive work, however, remains to be written. A multitude of international labor organizations in Latin America, often tied to transnational political parties and churches, as well as to international labor movements, take positions across the political and ideological spectrum. The literature on the subject is sparse. The literature on guerrilla groups and insurgency, however, is extensive. The writing in the 1960s in the wake of the Cuban Revolution and its universalist pretensions tended to focus on the connections of Latin American guerrilla groups with Cuba and on competing ideologies among insurgents, with a great deal of analysis offidelismo as espoused by Fidel Castro, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, and Regis Debray. The revived interest in the 1980s has tended to focus on country studies; Peru, Colombia, Nicaragua, and El Salvador especially have received extensive attention.

INTERNATIONAL STRUCTURES Contemporary analyses of the Latin American region’s international interac¬ tions and place and role in the international political system are reflected in traditional diplomatic history, analyses of formal international institutions, de¬ pendency theories, and international systems theory. Prior to 1960, several com¬ prehensive histories detailed the broad range of Latin America’s international diplomatic, economic, and cultural interactions. Some good efforts in the his¬ torical tradition of interest to political scientists carried forward into the period under review. For example, Harold Eugene Davis, John J. Finan, and F. Taylor Peck, Latin American Diplomatic History: An Introduction (1977), provided a solid international history emphasizing Latin American points of view; and Demetrio Boersner’s Relaciones internacionales de America Latina: breve historia (1982) is a significant study by a Latin American scholar. Since 1960, however, regional Latin American conceptions have been primarily related to institutional, dependency, and systemic considerations.

Formal Institutions Over the past three decades, scholars of all nationalities have paid a great deal of attention to international organizations at all levels: Latin American economic integration efforts and other associations, the Western Hemispheric InterAmerican System, Third World and other extrahemispheric affiliations (such as commodities agreements), and numerous aspects of the global United Nations Organization. The volume of writing has risen and fallen with the activities and fortunes of the organizations themselves. A general decline in scholarly interest is observable, which parallels the long period of decline in the effectiveness of

Patterns

/

301

the organizations themselves, but the subject has never been abandoned, and, in fact, high-quality work continues to be done. The array of organizations and related principles, procedures, and regimes is staggering. Scholarship on Latin American international relations prior to 1960 placed heavy emphasis on Pan Americanism and the Inter-American System. A number of comprehensive studies of the Inter-American System carried on in this tradition in the early part of the current period under discussion. Also carrying over from the post-World War II period was a massive literature on the series of Latin American economic integration schemes (Central American Common Market [CACM], Latin American Free Trade Association [LAFTA], Andean Common Market [ANCOM], Latin American Integration Association [ALADI], Caribbean Free Trade Association [CARIFTA], Caribbean Common Market, Caribbean Community [CARICOM]) and other associations for intra-Latin American cooperation (Special Latin American Coordinating Committee [CECLA], Latin American Economic System [SELA], the Cartagena consensus to coordinate policies on the debt, and the Contadora groups), as well as Latin American participation in the United Nations system. Scholarly attention fol¬ lowed the increasing Latin American membership and leadership in Third World groupings. In 1961 Cuba was the first Latin American state to join the Nonaligned Movement (they number sixteen at the end of 1989), and almost all of the Latin American states belong to the New International Economic Order, which traces its beginnings to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD I) in 1964. The law of the sea and international arms control regimes have been of particular interest with reference to Latin America. The two Latin American members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)—Venezuela and Ecuador—have generated a number of studies related to international energy policy.

Dependency Theory The rising impact and subsequent decline of dependency thinking have been discussed by most of the other contributors to this volume, so that only a summary is needed here in terms of general international relations. Dependencia does not denote a single theory or a homogeneous body of literature. It has been con¬ ceptualized in two fundamental ways: structuralist and neo-Marxist; a third pos¬ sible category is an updated version of the ancient concept of unequal power relations. Structural dependency was pioneered by the Argentine economist Raul Prebisch after World War II as a theory of Latin American economic development. It visualizes the world economy in terms of a “center-periphery” structure, with industrialized states forming the center and underdeveloped ones the periphery. Underdevelopment in the periphery, the theory goes, is perpetuated by unfair terms of trade imposed by the center, which constitutes a form of colonialism. Structuralists advocated prescriptions for the development of peripheral econo-

302

/

International Relations

mies involving convergent domestic and international reforms; the theories served as the basis for foreign policies of import substitution industrialization, inter¬ national (subregional) economic integration, the urging of preferential trade, and commodities agreements among producers and exporters of primary products. A subsequent school of dependency theory employed a generally Marxist frame of reference that went beyond the economic parameters of the structuralists to construct a general sociopolitical as well as an economic theory of international relations. The related theories blossomed in the 1960s; influential works included a volume by Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto, Dependencia y desarrollo en America Latina (1969), and the highly militant essays by Andre Gunder Frank, Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution; Essays on the Development of Underdevelopment and the Immediate Enemy (1969). Some subsequent studies especially addressed Latin American foreign policy-making in terms of economic dependence, such as Susanne Bodenheimer’s The Ideology of Developmentalism: The American Paradigm-Surrogate for Latin American Studies (1971) and A. Syzmanski’s The Logic of Imperialism (1981). The basic premise of these dependistas is that Latin American economic development has been determined by the interests and activities of external capitalist states and MNCs operating in the world capitalist market over which Latin Americans have little control. Further, the expansionist tendencies of capitalist economies, es¬ pecially in the United States, are invariably detrimental to the recipient—eco¬ nomic dependence has a profound effect on internal Latin American political, social, and economic systems. They reject the structuralists’ “reform the system” approach and advocate radical revolutionary change. Whether or not analysts accepted the tenets of structuralist or neo-Marxist dependency theory, most recognized some kind of dependency inasmuch as economic and other linkages with outside powers formed an often compelling environment within which Latin American foreign policy decisions were made. In fact, some critics of dependencia challenge the assertion that dependence is a necessary consequence of capitalist economies by arguing that the basis for dependency is not capitalism but a disparity of power in which weak actors are vulnerable to exploitation in whatever kind of markets they operate. Other critics note that dependency theory ignores or obscures alternative policies that could significantly reduce dependency and which have, in fact, characterized the main Latin American foreign policy efforts. In this regard, a persistent debate since the late 1960s has been carried on about the relative power and influence of the United States in Latin America. Many U.S. scholars argue its relative decline; some Latin Americans and Eu¬ ropeans agree (and, it seems, increasingly so) but a common assumption by both has been that the region constitutes a U.S. sphere of influence; others say that the debt crisis has created a new dependency situation. A more useful approach to the question, in my view, is to differentiate the U.S. role in the various Latin American subregions, as well as in sectors of interaction, and to pay close attention to internal U.S. policy conflict and fragmentation; a more accurate view

Patterns

/

303

of patterns of relationships emerges involving economic linkages, Latin American capabilities, and the presence of other states as well as transnational actors. Some of the recent literature dealing with the distribution of international power and influence are Robert Wesson’s edited volume, U.S. Influence in Latin America in the 1980s (1982), which considers the declining U.S. influence in Latin America in the 1980s in terms of its bilateral relations with ten countries; and Kevin J. Middlebrook and Carlos Rico’s edited volume, The United States and Latin America in the 1980s: Contending Perspectives on a Decade of Crisis (1986), in which twenty-four leading scholars from Latin America, the United States, and Europe explore a wide range of instrumentalities and issues. Soviet theorists have also tended to reject dependencia approaches; studies over the past two decades by Marxist scholars at the Institute of Latin American Studies at the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (Moscow) have emphasized the growing independence of many Latin American states from U.S. domination, a position ideologically consistent with Leninism in that anti-imperialism must assume that independence is possible. It is also consonant with cautious Soviet policies that emphasize diplomacy with Latin American states rather than subversion.

Systems Perspectives Treatments of the broad panorama of Latin American international relations have increasingly become the province of the systems brand of thinking in political science. A systems approach ideally takes into account the broad array of structures and processes, not only informal power relationships and formal international institutions, but also state action, roles of nonstate actors, and all kinds of cooperative and conflictual interactions. Norman A. Bailey, Latin Amer¬ ica in World Politics (1967), was one of the first to integrate the panorama of Latin American international politics within a comprehensive analytic frame¬ work; his study was by design not concerned with foreign policy processes. G. Pope Atkins’s Latin America in the International Political System (1989) is the most comprehensive effort to be concerned with overall Latin American inter¬ national relations in overtly systemic terms, viewing the Latin American region as a separate subsystem with its own characteristics within the global system. The primary focus is on the international political system and its constituent structures and processes, within which foreign policy analyses of both state and nonstate actors are integrated, and international political economy is referred to as a crucial consideration. Latin American scholars who have evaluated a broad range of phenomena in terms of the international system and Latin America’s place in it include Gustavo Lagos Matus, ed., Las relaciones entre America Latina, Estados Unidos y Europa Occidental (1979); Luciano Tomassini, ed., Relaciones internacionales de la America Latina (1981); and Helio Jaguaribe, El nuevo escenario internacional (1985).

304

/

International Relations

Regional Conceptions An important overall trend in research, especially since the mid-1970s, has been a decline in general and regional writing and greater attention to the in¬ dividual countries and subregions within Latin America. The literature has in¬ creasingly indicated suspicion about region-wide conceptualizations, and it has focused on Mexico, Central America and the rest of the Caribbean, Brazil, and the Southern Cone. This is an extension of the old conundrum for Latin Amer¬ icanists about the degree to which Latin America forms a coherent region or to which it is a series of unique nation-states. I argue that all three levels of analysis—region, subregion, and nation—are necessary; collectively, they give an accurate picture of the structure of Latin America’s international relations. In any event, current analysis emphasizes the diversity of political patterns in Latin America; the attention focused on general Latin American international relations has declined, Mexico has increased as a matter of special interest, writing about Central America has proliferated, more has been published about the rest of the Caribbean basin, and in South America local conflict, democra¬ tization, and Antarctic issues have added to the quantity of literature on that subregion. This reality is reflected in the scope of the other chapters on inter¬ national relations that follow.

REFERENCES Atkins, G. Pope. 1989. Latin America in the International Political System. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Bailey, Norman A. 1967. Latin America in World Politics. New York: Walker. Blasier, Cole. 1985. The Hovering Giant: U.S. Responses to Revolutionary Change in Latin America. Rev. ed. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. -. 1988. The Giant’s Rival: The USSR and Latin America. Rev. ed. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Bodenheimer, Susanne. 1971. The Ideology of Developmentalism: The American Paradigm-Surrogate for Latin American Studies. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Boersner, Demetrio. 1982. Relaciones internacionales de America Latina: breve historia. Caracas: Nueva Sociedad. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, and Enzo Faletto. 1969. Dependencia y desarrollo en America Latina. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores. Cisneros-Lavaller, Alberto. 1982. “Old Wine in New Bottles: An Essay on the Study of Inter-American Relations.” The New Scholar 8: 267-88. Cotier, Julio, and Richard R. Fagen, eds. 1974. Latin America and the United States: The Changing Political Realities. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Davis, Harold Eugene, John J. Finan, and F. Taylor Peck. 1977. Latin American Dip¬ lomatic History: An Introduction. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Davis, Harold E., Larman C. Wilson, et al. 1975. Latin American Foreign Policies. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Dominguez, Jorge I. 1978. “Consensus and Divergence: The State of the Literature on

Patterns

/

305

Inter-American Relations in the 1970s.” Latin American Research Review 13, no. 1: 87-126. Drekonja K., Gerhard, and Juan G. Tokatlian, eds. 1983. Teoria y practica de la politica exterior latinoamericana. Bogota: Universidad de los Andes. Duran, Esperanza. 1985. European Interests in Latin America. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul for the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Ferris, Elizabeth G., and Jennie K. Lincoln, eds. 1981. Latin American Foreign Policies: Global and Regional Dimensions. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Frank, Andre Gunder. 1969. Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution: Essays on the Development of Underdevelopment and the Immediate Enemy. New York: Monthly Review Press. Glinkin, Anatolii N., Boris F. Martynov, and Petr P. Yakovlev. 1984. La evolucion de la politica de EE. UU. en America Latina. Moscu: Editorial Progreso. Goldhamer, Herbert. 1972. The Foreign Powers in Latin America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Grabendorff, Wolf, and Riordan Roett, eds. 1985. Latin America, Western Europe, and the United States. New York: Praeger. Hayes, Margaret Daly. 1984. Latin America and the U.S. National Interest: A Basis for U.S. Foreign Policy. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Jaguaribe, Helio. 1985. El nuevo escenario internacional. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica. Kryzanek, Michael J. 1985. U.S.-Latin American Relations. New York: Praeger. Lagos Matus, Gustavo, ed. 1979. Las relaciones entre America Latina, Estados Unidos y Europa Occidental. Santiago: Universidad de Chile. Lincoln, Jennie K., and Elizabeth G. Ferris, eds. 1984. The Dynamics of Latin American Foreign Policies. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Lowenthal, Abraham F. 1973. ‘‘United States Policy toward Latin America: ‘Liberal,’ ‘Radical,’ and ‘Bureaucratic’ Perspectives.” Latin American Research Review 8, no. 3: 3-25. -. 1983. ‘‘Research in Latin America and the Caribbean on International Relations and Foreign Policy: Some Impressions.” Latin American Research Review 18, no. 1: 154-74. -. 1990. Partners in Conflict: The United States and Latin America. Rev. ed. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Martz, John D., ed. 1988. United States Policy in Latin America: A Quarter Century of Crisis and Challenge, 1961-1986. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Mecham, J. Lloyd. 1965. A Survey of United States-Latin American Relations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Middlebrook, Kevin J., and Carlos Rico, eds. 1986. The United States and Latin America in the 1980s: Contending Perspectives on a Decade of Crisis. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Molineu, Harold. 1990. U.S. Policy toward Latin America: From Regionalism to Glob¬ alism. Rev. ed. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Mount, Graeme S., and Edelgard E. Mahant. 1985. ‘‘Review of Recent Literature on Canadian-Latin American Relations.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 27, no. 2: 127-51. Mower, Glenn, Jr. 1982. The European Community and Latin America: A Case Study in Global Role Expansion. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

306

/

International Relations

Munoz, Heraldo. 1987. “The Dominant Themes in the Study of Latin America’s Foreign Relations.” World Affairs 8 (Fall): 129-46. Munoz, Heraldo, and Joseph S. Tulchin, eds. 1984. Latin American Nations in World Politics. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Packenham, Robert A. 1973. Liberal America and the Third World: Political Development Ideas in Foreign Aid and Social Science. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Perina, Ruben, ed. 1985. El estudio de las relaciones internacionales en America Latina y el Caribe. Buenos Aires: Grupo Editor Latinoamericano. Perry, William, and Peter Wehner, eds. 1985. The Latin American Policies ofU.S. Allies: Balancing Global Interests and Regional Concerns. New York: Praeger. Puig, Juan Carlos, ed. 1984. America Latina: politicos exteriores comparadas. Buenos Aires: Grupo Editor Latinoamericano. Schoultz, Lars. 1981. Human Rights and United States Policy toward Latin America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. -. 1987. National Security and United States Policy toward Latin America. Prince¬ ton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Stuart, Graham H., and James Tigner. 1975. Latin America and the United States. 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Syzmanski, A. 1981. The Logic of Imperialism. New York: Praeger. Tomassini, Luciano, ed. 1981. Relaciones internacionales de la America Latina. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica. Van Klaveren, Alberto. 1984. “The Analysis of Latin American Foreign Policies: The¬ oretical Perspectives.” In Heraldo Munoz and Joseph S. Tulchin, eds., Latin American Nations in World Politics. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Varas, Augusto, ed. 1987. Soviet-Latin American Relations in the 1980s. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Wesson, Robert, ed. 1982. U.S. Influence in Latin America in the 1980s. New York: Praeger. Wesson, Robert, and Heraldo Munoz, eds. 1986. Latin American Views of U.S. Policy. New York: Praeger. Wiarda, Howard J., ed. 1986. Iberian-Latin American Connection: Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

15 MEXICO’S INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Dale Story

The research on the international relations of Mexico has experienced consid¬ erable growth and improvement over the past three decades. As G. Pope Atkins points out in Chapter 14, in 1960 only a few scholars were exploring the diverse world of international relations in Latin America. This dearth of research was particularly true of Mexico. Despite its proximity to the United States, a sense of complacency in this country had evolved in terms of the significance of U.S.Mexico relations. The focus of attention was on Cuba and the problems that revolution presented for U.S. foreign policy. To a lesser extent, the international role of some South American nations, especially Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, and Peru, was also of increasing concern. But Mexico remained largely ignored (or taken for granted) by policymakers and social scientists alike. A few excep¬ tions in terms of published works did occur; the most well-known example is Howard F. Cline’s lengthy volume entitled The United States and Mexico (1963). However, this work was actually written in 1950 with only bibliographical updates to 1962, and, typical of its genre, the analysis was exclusively historical and descriptive. Even today much of the work on Mexican foreign relations remains atheoretical and limited to a time-specific mode. Quite often scholars (undoubtedly swayed by the general public, publisher demands, and political winds) have responded to current events, especially those deemed of “crisis” proportions, rather than focusing on analysis of long-term linkages and theory building. One of the best works of the early 1960s was by a Mexican scholar but published in the United States. Jorge Castaneda’s “Revolution and Foreign Policy: Mexico’s Experiences” (1963) provided an important analysis of Mex¬ ican foreign policy in relation to the aims and objectives of the Mexican Rev¬ olution. This essay laid a groundwork for the first theoretical investigations into

308

/

International Relations

the topics of nationalism and dependency. The Mexican Revolution was even¬ tually rediscovered as the precursor to nationalist sentiments in Mexico, and scholars on both sides of the border began to examine Mexico-U.S. relations in terms of a dependency framework: The behavior of a weaker or satellite state (such as Mexico) is determined by its vulnerable and subordinate role vis-a-vis a more powerful metropole (such as the United States). In terms of institutions, some of the most important seeds of research were being planted in Mexico in the mid-1960s. Scholars at El Colegio de Mexico, with institutional support and publication outlets, were the first important source of information on Mexican foreign policy. Undeniably the most important serial publication (then and now) on this topic is Foro Internacional (published by El Colegio). In fact, the earliest significant contribution to the literature was the special issue of Foro Internacional (FI) published in the winter of 1965—1966 (vol. 6, no. 2/3) to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of El Colegio. The issue focused exclusively on Mexican foreign relations and, interestingly, provided very little on U.S.-Mexico foreign relations. The bulk of the material covered multilateral relations, specifically, Mexico and the world community or Mexico and nuclear nonproliferation. Another institutional base of research on foreign affairs (particularly in terms of the dependency framework) was also evolving in Mexico in the mid-1960s: Centro Intercultural de Documentation (CIDOC), founded by Ivan Illich in Cuernavaca. Though of a completely different scale and perspective than the work being done at El Colegio, CIDOC attracted many radical U.S. and Mexican scholars to its conferences and provided an “open” educational environment for students and faculty alike. Its publications were not as impressive as those of El Colegio and its tenure was short lived, but CIDOC still made numerous contributions to the study of Mexican foreign policy as its scholars stressed the role of the church and the unequal relations between the rich and poor countries. CIDOC had a definite impact in the United States as an impetus to much neoMarxist research, as exemplified in the creation of the journal Latin American Perspectives by U.S. social scientists in Southern California. Other Mexican research institutions worth noting are the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM) and the much smaller Centro de Investigation y Docencia Economicas (CIDE). In 1972, UNAM’s Facultad de Ciencias Polfticas y Sociales produced the Cronologia de la politico exterior de Mexico: 1970-1971 (1972) as a detailed summary of events in those years. Most of UNAM’s publications on Mexican foreign policy are however much more strident than this work. Whereas El Colegio tends to produce more objective (and thus higher quality research), the faculty research at UNAM is much more polemical. A good example of this type of research is David Barkin’s Las relaciones MexicoEstados Unidos (1980), which is a caustic critique of U.S. policy toward its southern neighbor. The scholarship at CIDE lies somewhere between that of El Colegio and UNAM in terms of quality research. As a smaller Mexican think tank, CIDE

Mexico’s International Relations

/

309

was particularly recognized for initiating in the 1980s the only Mexican serial publication to focus exclusively on the United States—entitled, appropriately, Estados Unidos. This publication did much to try to provide a U.S. perspective to a Mexican academic audience. Finally, the Mexican Foreign Ministry has on occasion provided useful publications on intergovernmental organizations such as Testimonios de 40 ahos de presencia de Mexico en las Naciones Unidas (1985) by Luis Padilla Nervo, et al. In the 1970s, the administration of Luis Echeverrfa and its accompanying tercermundista ideology had a tremendous impact on studies of Mexican foreign policy. Greater attention was given to Mexico as it began to challenge the United States as never before in the postwar era. Also, the themes of nationalism and dependency seemed to become particularly relevant. Finally, scholars began to focus on outcomes and possible causal factors. In the case of Echeverrfa, the debate was over how much (or if) Mexican foreign policy had shifted and why. One of the crucial issues became the linkages between domestic politics and foreign policy, and a classic argument in the context of Mexico appeared. A leftist bent in Mexican foreign policy was posited to be due to the realities of domestic political dynamics. A conservative economic orientation in the postwar period was balanced by a more revolutionary approach to international relations. Especially after the rightist regime of Diaz Ordaz and the infamous Tlatelolco massacre of 1968, Echeverrfa was required to mollify the Mexican left through a progressive approach to foreign policy. By the 1980s, a policy approach had been incorporated into most studies of Mexican international relations. Some works tried to examine the policy process as it related to understanding the dynamics of an authoritarian, one-party state. However, most of the policy studies focused on the outputs—the eventual de¬ cisions, possible alternatives, and probable impacts. Of course, the predominant theme here was the bilateral relations between Mexico and the United States, especially in the area of economic issues. Yet, the literature still tended to be descriptive; few researchers attempted to develop models, test hypotheses, or examine relations between dependent and independent variables. What follows is a discussion of five key aspects of international relations research on Mexico: theory, U.S.-Mexico relations, issue areas (immigration, trade, energy, drugs and the environment, and Central America), the impact of the Echeverrfa admin¬ istration, and policy perspectives.

THEORY The literature on Mexican foreign policy is notoriously atheoretical, with a few exceptions in recent years. Most of the research in this subject area is in the form of case studies of particular issues in U.S.-Mexico relations which are largely descriptive. The exceptions have tended to fall into one of two areas: those stressing a common theme of nationalism or those utilizing the dependency framework to describe relations between weak and strong nations.

310

/

International Relations

One of the first and most important works in the nationalist theme was Fred¬ erick C. Turner’s The Dynamic of Mexican Nationalism (1968). This historical monograph analyzed the role of nationalism during and after the Mexican Rev¬ olution. The ideology of nationalism then became an important predictor of later events in Mexican foreign policy. Robert Freeman Smith, The United States and Revolutionary Nationalism in Mexico: 1916-1932 (1972), provided further his¬ torical insights to the growing confrontation between Mexican nationalism arising from the revolution and the national interests of the United States. A few years later, Lynn Darrell Bender, “Contained Nationalism: The Mexican Foreign Pol¬ icy Example” (1975), argued that Mexican nationalism was being tempered by U.S. pressures. Though not always as explicit as in the above works, the theme of nationalism has permeated much additional writing on specific topics. An excellent example of this genre is Lorenzo Meyer’s Mexico and the United States in the Oil Controversy (1977), which posits that nationalist pressures in the petroleum industry simply increased the inequality of international economic relations in other sectors of the Mexican economy. The genesis of the dependency phase of political science research on Latin America is usually associated with the publication of a book by two Latin American scholars: Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto, Dependencia y desarrollo en America Latina (1969). Shortly after being published, Cardoso and Faletto’s book was recognized as the most important theory for the study of Latin American international relations, and it had a major impact on research trends for the next decade. The initial thrust to apply the dependency framework in Mexico came from El Colegio de Mexico and its publication, FI. A special issue of FI in 1972 (vol. 13, no. 2) stressed the dependency theme and included the earliest analysis of the debt issue, thus predating the explosion of interest in this issue by a decade. Much research material was to follow from both the United States and Mexico on dependency themes. In 1974, Carlos A. Astiz, “Mexico’s Foreign Policy: Disguised Dependency” (1974), argued that Mexican foreign policy was tom between its own nationalist ideology and the dominance of the United States. This theme is continued by David Barkin, “Mexico’s Albatross: The U.S. Economy” (1975), who offers one of the most radical perspectives on the impact of U.S. domination and the international capitalist system on the impoverishment of the Mexican masses. Taking a broader view, Richard R. Fagen, “The Realities of U.S.-Mexican Relations” (1977), links economic dependence to income inequality and suggests that new-found petro¬ leum wealth was no panacea for Mexico’s predicament. Along these same lines, Meyer (1977) provided a historical view of dependency in the petroleum industry. Tomas Penaloza, “Mecanismos de la dependencia: el caso de Mexico, 197075,” (1976), provides one of the more detailed analyses of economic dependence between Mexico and the United States. One of the best case studies of dependency analysis to emerge in the 1980s was Douglas C. Bennett and Kenneth E. Sharpe’s Transnational Corporations versus the State: The Political Economy of the Mexican Auto Industry (1985).

Mexico’s International Relations

/

311

The impact of foreign investment in Latin America had been a concern of many social scientists since the 1950s. The work by Bennett and Sharpe (1985) is a well-substantiated case of the distortions that a multinational corporation can create in the economy of a developing nation. As with the nationalism literature, the above works on dependency set the stage for the incorporation of this theory into the various issue areas studied in the 1980s. Yet, most of the work on dependency theory that followed was neither expanded through empirical case studies nor examined in a more longitudinal perspective.

U.S.-MEXICO RELATIONS Understandably, the overriding focus of Mexico’s international relations is the bilateral (sometimes referred to in the literature as “special”) relationship with the United States. Before covering specific areas, several important works of broad interest are worth noting. First, and still one of the best histories, is Karl Schmitt’s Mexico and the United States, 1821-1973: Conflict and Coex¬ istence (1974). Several years later, as Mexico became recognized even more as a significant neighbor, Susan Kaufman Purcell produced two works covering broad aspects of U.S.-Mexico relations: Mexico-U.S. Relations (1981) and her edited volume Mexico in Transition: Implications for U.S. Policy (1988). A very topical and popular trade book in the 1980s was Alan Riding’s Distant Neighbors: A Portrait of the Mexicans (1984). Also in the mid-1980s Peter H. Smith provided a very balanced view of the bilateral relationship in “U.S.-Mexican Relations: The 1980s and Beyond” (1985). Comparable to the Riding book as a volume intended for a general audience is Limits to Friendship: The United States and Mexico (1989) by Robert A. Pastor and Jorge G. Castaneda. These two wellknown U.S. and Mexican scholars and policy advisors present their respective views from each side of the border on bilateral issues. Also, a noted panel of Mexican and U.S. citizens was formed as the Bilateral Commission on the Future of United States-Mexican Relations and produced The Challenge of Interde¬ pendence: Mexico and the United States (1989). The final report from many meetings and commissioned essays provides a number of broad recommendations designed to promote a more cooperative and equitable relationship between the two nations. Many studies of U.S.-Mexico relations in the 1980s have recognized the growing importance of economic linkages between the two nations. The debt issue has been critical at least since 1982 when Mexico was first unable to meet its international obligations. Other areas, including trade, foreign investment, energy, and labor flows, have been equally significant. An important work in the first half of the 1980s was Clark W. Reynolds and Carlos Tello’s U.S.Mexico Relations: Economic and Social Aspects (1983). Although it was written before the debt crisis hit, this book did provide useful information on other components of the economic relationship. The most recent academic work in

312

/

International Relations

this area is Riordan Roett’s, ed., Mexico and the United States: Managing the Relationship (1988), which details the “economic agenda” with articles on foreign investment, debt, and trade by noted scholars from both sides of the border. Various volumes from a Mexican perspective are also worth noting. In 1970, El Colegio de Mexico scholars produced Lecturas de politico exterior mexicana (1970), which focuses exclusively on Mexico-U.S. relations. From CIDE, Olga Pellicer de Brody, et al.. La politico exterior de Mexico: desafios de los ochenta (1983), contributed one of the best series of essays in the “post-boom” era, even branching into north-south relations. Though published in the United States, two Mexican historians—Josefina Zoraida Vazquez and Lorenzo Meyer, The United States and Mexico (1985)—emphasize the important Mexican perspective of the deep-rooted resentment toward their powerful neighbor to the north. For primary sources, the extensive four-volume set published by the Secretarfa de Relaciones Exteriores, Politico exterior de Mexico: 175 ahos de historia (1985), is invaluable. El Colegio has now started an annual volume on Mexico-U.S. relations; the latest edition, Gerardo M. Bueno, ed., Mexico-Estados Unidos, 1986 (1987), covers a wide range of topics of importance to those doing research in this area.

ISSUE AREAS Of interest to the general public, although carrying less theoretical weight in the analysis, are the many case studies of particular issue areas in the bilateral relationship between Mexico and the United States. The most common areas are immigration and the border, energy, trade, narcotics and the environment, and Central America.

Immigration and the Border The border or frontier between the United States and Mexico is often referred to as an autonomous region, independent of both nations. As such, it has received considerable attention as the focus of many areas of disagreement between the two countries. One of the first studies to document an important border dispute was Sheldon B. Liss’s A Century of Disagreement: The Chamizal Conflict, 18641964 (1965), a study which reviewed the resolution of this long-standing terri¬ torial dispute during the Kennedy administration. Over a decade later, Jorge A. Bustamente, “El estudio de la zona fronteriza Mexico-Estados Unidos” (1979), summarized the range of major topics affecting this region. In a gloomy as¬ sessment, Raul A. Fernandez, The U.S.-Mexico Border: A Politico-Economic Profile (1977), focused on the issues from an economic perspective. In Niles Hansen’s The Border Economy: Regional Development in the Southwest (1981), the author applies comparative theories of border region development to the Mexican case. Two important works analyze border relations from the Mexican

Mexico’s International Relations

/

313

perspective: Jesus Tamayo and Jose Luis Fernandez, Zonas frouter has: MexicoEstados Unidos (1983), and El Colegio de Mexico, La frontera del norte: in¬ tegration y desarrollo (1981). Long before immigration reform was finally accomplished in the 1980s, schol¬ ars had been examining the impact on both countries of the massive migration of Mexican laborers into the United States and the policy implications for the two countries. One of the earliest U.S. programs was the so-called bracero program, which allowed Mexican workers into the United States as “guest workers.” An excellent analysis of this policy can be found in Richard B. Craig’s The Bracero Program: Interest Groups and Foreign Policy (1971). This study not only viewed the immigration program as a foreign policy issue, but also stressed its implications for domestic politics on both sides of the border. Another analysis that explored immigration in the context of domestic politics was Stephen P. Mumme’s “Mexican Politics and the Prospects for Emigration Policy: A Policy Perspective” (1978). Mumme argues that Mexican policymakers would not assign a high priority to emigration policy because the issue was overly divisive and contrary to the regime’s preference for consensus. A similar study, which also tied Mexican decisions on emigration to the broader panorama of U.S.-Mexico relations, was Wayne A. Cornelius’s Immigration, Mexican De¬ velopment Policy, and the Future of U.S -Mexican Relations (1981). In a very readable analysis of the U.S. policy perspective, James Fallows, “Immigration: How It’s Affecting Us” (1983), argues that many obstacles exist to the passage of immigration reform in the United States. Despite the eventual implementation of Simpson-Mazzoli, Fallows’s thesis regarding the contending forces at play in the policy drama are as valid now as they were when he wrote his article. In Sylvia Ann Hewlett’s “Coping with Illegal Immigrants” (1981— 1982), the problems facing the U.S. policy process are examined with consid¬ erable objectivity—from both the U.S. and Mexican perspectives. The issue of immigration, partly because of its economic significance, is one of those areas of U.S.-Mexico relations most amenable to quantification and theory building. For example, William T. Toney, A Descriptive Study of the Control of Illegal Mexican Migration in the Southwestern U.S. (1978), provided a wealth of useful information, statistics, and tables, despite the descriptive nature of the study. In a very objective and methodologically sound monograph, Juan Diez-Canedo Ruiz, La migration indocumentada de Mexico a los Estados Unidos: un nuevo enfoque (1984), utilized interviews with undocumented work¬ ers as well as a wealth of economic statistics to reach conclusions on both the causes and the consequences of illegal immigration.

Trade Mexico not only sends workers across its U.S. border, but also buys and sells a myriad of products in its commercial relations with the United States. The United States has always been Mexico’s dominant trading partner (dwarfing trade

314

/

International Relations

with all other nations combined), and Mexico has consistently been in the top three trading partners of the United States. Despite the volume of bilateral trade, this economic relationship has frequently been a conflictual one owing to the unequal nature of the exchange of goods and services. In the international division of labor, Mexico has always complained of its peripheral and dependent status as an exporter of primary products and an importer of manufactured goods. Of the top Mexican scholars working in the trade area, the research of Olga Pellicer de Brody, “Las relaciones comerciales de Mexico: una prueba para la nueva pobtica exterior” (1976), is of particular importance because it links the Mexican trade policy of the 1970s with its dependent relationship with the United States. A particularly informative study which appeared in the early 1980s was by the Instituto Mexicano de Comercio Exterior, El comercio exterior de Mexico (1982), an exhaustive three-volume series on foreign trade. Some of the best analyses have been case studies, for example, Donald K. Freebaim’s “Agri¬ cultural Interaction between Mexico and the United States” (1983), which pro¬ vides an overview of agricultural concentration and bilateral trade relations. Dale B. Truett and Lila Flory Truett, “Mexico and GSP: Problems and Prospects” (1980), argue that the controversial U.S. system of preferential trade treatment was ineffective in stimulating Mexican exports. In an excellent study of agri¬ cultural exports from Mexico, David R. Mares, Penetrating the International Market: Theoretical Considerations and a Mexican Case Study (1987), makes one of those exceptional contributions to linking empirical information to de¬ veloping generalizable theories as he examines the winter vegetable market of Mexico. One of the liveliest subjects has been the idea of a free trade relation between the United States and Mexico, a theme that is developed with considerable skill in Sidney Weintraub’s, Free Trade between Mexico and the United States? (1984). Weintraub’s discussion predates the U.S.-Canada accord and the ensuing talks of a similar deal between the United States and Mexico. Finally, Mexican authors, such as Luis Enrique Franco de Leon and Jose Gallardo Taboada, “Reflexiones sobre la pobtica exterior de Mexico hacia la comunidad economica europea” (1980), have recognized the possibilities of diversifying Mexico’s trade relations away from dependency on the United States to a commercial accord with the European community.

Energy Since the mid-1970 “rediscovery” of petroleum in Mexico, energy policy has been a critical area in Mexican foreign policy. With most of its petroleum exports going to the United States, the bilateral aspect of Mexico’s energy program has been the focus of considerable study. For the United States, Mexico is an important, non-OPEC supplier (and the first and only nation to sell to the Strategic Reserve); for Mexico, the level of and price of Mexican crude exports to the United States have been quite controversial.

Mexico’s International Relations

/

315

Two U.S. political scientists—George W. Grayson and Edward J. Williams— have provided the most insightful examinations of the Mexican energy policy. George W. Grayson, “Mexico and the United States: The Natural Gas Contro¬ versy” (1978), published the first exploration of U.S.-Mexico conflicts over energy in the case of President Carter’s clash with Mexico over natural gas prices. Later, Grayson published “Oil and U.S.-Mexican Relations” (1979), which included a discussion of policy-making on both sides, and his book, The Politics of Mexican Oil (1981), which provided an excellent overview of the issue, including substantial historical background information. Finally, in Oil and Mexican Foreign Policy (1988), Grayson explored linkages between external forces and the domestic decision-making process in Mexican foreign policy. Another North American perspective on the Mexican energy policy process is contained in two excellent articles by Edward J. Williams: “Oil in MexicanU.S. Relations: Analysis and Bargaining Scenario” (1978) and “Mexican Hydro¬ carbon Export Policy: Ambition and Reality,” in Robert M. Lawrence and Martin O. Heisler, eds., International Energy Policy (1980). In the former, he explores the potential for using petroleum as a lever in the bargaining process. In addition to these two articles, Williams wrote The Rebirth of the Mexican Petroleum Industry: Developmental Directions and Policy Implications (1979), in which he zeros in on the key events in the development of the petroleum policy after 1975. A number of Mexican scholars interested in this subject have adopted a more radical approach to the analysis of energy relations with emphasis on a depen¬ dency or neo-Marxist framework. One of the most well-known of these is John Saxe-Femandez’s Petroleo y estrategia: Mexico y Estados Unidos en el contexto de la politica global (1980), which warns that petroleum is not a panacea to economic bottlenecks but rather a tool of dependent relations. In a similar vein, Enrique Ruiz Garcia, La estrategia mundial del petroleo: una teorla del poder, una teorla de la dependencia (1982), posited that Mexican petroleum devel¬ opment was following the classic pattern of capitalist exploitation of a finite resource.

Drugs and the Environment Though unrelated, two additional issue areas found in the literature on U.S.Mexico relations are narcotics trafficking and environmental impact. Concern about narcotic flows obviously receives a high priority in the press and among policymakers. Media stories of corruption, cult-like killings, and kidnappings attract considerable attention from the general public. And certainly antinarcotics campaigns are very popular among policymakers in the United States. Yet this policy area has received little scholarly attention due, in large part, to the lack of concrete data and the dangers of doing empirical work in this area. In one of the few academic pieces, Peter A. Lupsha, “Drug Trafficking: Mexico and Colombia in Comparative Perspective” (1981), maintains that antidrug cam-

316

/

International Relations

paigns are most successful in countries with a strong central government, such as Mexico. A less perilous focus of research is found in a variety of environmental and health issues in Mexico. One of the earliest studies of water scarcity along the border is found in Norris Hundley, Jr., Dividing the Waters: A Century of Controversy between the United States and Mexico (1966). It is important to note that Norris’s subtitle reveals how long standing some of these feuds are and the low priority they receive in policy circles on both sides of the Rio Grande. Showing that international bilateral issues can also have a local impact, C. Richard Bath, “Health and Environmental Problems: The Role of the Border in El Paso-Ciudad Juarez Coordination’’ (1982), looks at a host of health con¬ cerns in a specific border area. These are among the most significant of the environmental studies to be published in the 1980s, but the literature here is considerably more expansive than that on illicit drug trafficking.

Central America Beginning with its role in the Nicaraguan revolution in 1979, Mexican foreign policy (at least up to the Salinas de Gortari administration) has given considerable attention to the affairs of Central America. Especially notable has been Mexico’s independence from the United States on this issue. Mexican involvement in the small Central American countries to its south is best illustrated by its early and long-standing support of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua; its continued economic assistance to the region; its active involvement in the Contadora Process with Venezuela, Colombia, and Panama; and its recognition (in a now famous joint statement with France) of the Frente Farabundo Marti de Liberation Nacional (FMLN) in El Salvador as a “legitimate political force.” All of these events have been well noted in the literature on Mexico’s growing international role in the region. A brief, yet commendable, commentary on Mexican policy in Central America, in what he calls a “reasonable alternative,” is Bruce Michael Bagley’s “Mexican Foreign Policy: The Decline of a Regional Power?” (1983). One of the most influential pieces written during the 1980s is Jorge G. Castaneda’s “Don’t Comer Mexico!” (1985), in which the author argues that Mexican policy toward Central America failed because of U.S. opposition and intransigence and that this form of obstructionism in turn posed a threat to Mexican internal stability. Rene Herrera Zuniga has written two of the best analyses of Mexico’s role in Central America during the early 1980s. In “Mexico en Contadora: una busqueda de limites a su compromiso en Centroamerica” (1984), he and coauthor Manuel Chavarria focus on Mexico’s return to its “traditional limits” of foreign policy in the Contadora Process. His mono¬ graph (coauthored with Mario Ojeda), La politico de Mexico hacia Centroamerica, 1979-1982 (1983), provides an excellent overview of Mexican policy initiatives in the Central American region in the aftermath of the Nicaraguan revolution.

Mexico’s International Relations

/

317

Mexico’s Central American policy is one of the most crucial areas for ad¬ vancing the literature in terms of hypothesis testing. David R. Mares, in “Mex¬ ico’s Foreign Policy as a Middle Power: The Nicaraguan Connection’’ (1988), does precisely that. Mares addresses a major deficiency in the literature as he evaluates four historical periods of Mexican policy toward Nicaragua by con¬ trasting various theories and possible causal factors.

THE ECHEVERRIA IMPACT Luis Echevema was elected president of Mexico in 1970, and his six-year administration produced practically a cottage industry of studies examining and reexamining changes in Mexican foreign policy. Following a perceived conser¬ vative president and the momentous 1968 massacre of students and workers at Tlatelolco, Echevema foreign policies pitched Mexican politics (at least at the rhetorical level) in a leftward direction. His policy shifts, and particularly the symbolism behind them, were most notable in foreign relations. Echevema became known as the tercermundista president for his strong stands on behalf of so-called Third World, or southern, viewpoints in the debate with the devel¬ oped, or northern, nations over what was called the New International Economic Order (NIEO). Even after his presidency, Echevema established his controversial Third World Institute in Mexico and flirted with a variety of international and diplomatic posts, including the secretary-generalship of the United Nations. The argument of a new direction in Mexican foreign policy in the 1970s was initially cast in Guy E. Poitras’s “Mexico’s ‘New’ Foreign Policy” (1974), which documents both the continuities and the new elements of Echevema’s foreign policies. Soon afterward, Harvey J. Kaye, “How ‘New’ is Mexico’s Foreign Policy?” (1975), and William H. Hamilton, “Mexico’s ‘New’ Foreign Policy: A Reexamination” (1975), joined the intellectual debate by suggesting that Echevema’s policy initiatives were simply predictable shifts in a historical swing in Mexican politics from the left to the right and back again. In a review essay of several El Colegio de Mexico publications, Wolf Grabendorff, in “Mex¬ ico’s Foreign Policy: Indeed a Foreign Policy?” (1978), erroneously suggested that Mexican foreign policy, particularly under Echevema, was not a “real” foreign policy since it was used as a tool for achieving domestic stability. Grabendorff had the facts correct in this case, but his semantical conclusions ignored the “real” linkages between domestic and foreign policy. Many other contributions to the literature on Echevema’s policies focused less on any new shifts and simply stressed the perceived significance of his programs. In Errol D. Jones and David LaFrance’s “Mexico’s Foreign Affairs under President Echevema: The Special Case of Chile” (1978), the authors point out the irony between such “radical” features of Echevema’s policies as the support for Allende’s Chile and a more ambivalent domestic policy regarding inequality and dependence. Yoram Shapira, “Mexican Foreign Policy under Echevema: A Retrospect” (1978), maintains that Echevema’s leftist foreign

318

/

International Relations

policy was an outgrowth of his frustrated attempts at domestic reform and, again, points out the linkages between domestic and foreign policies in Mexico. Scholars at El Colegio de Mexico certainly recognized the dynamics at work in Mexican foreign policy during the Echeverrfa years. Mario Ojeda, Alcances y limites de la politica exterior de Mexico (1976), analyzed the internal and external constraints on Mexico’s international position, as illustrated during the time when Luis Echeverrfa was in power. In another important work, Mario Ojeda, Mexico: El surgimiento de una politico exterior activa (1986), carefully documented the evolution of Mexican foreign policy after 1970. Finally, Olga Pellicer de Brody stressed the diversification of Mexican relations in her “El acercamiento de Mexico a America Latina: una interpretacion polftica,” in In¬ ternational Congress of Mexican History, vol. IV, Contemporary Mexico: Papers (1976) and the continued economic vulnerability of Mexico in “La crisis mexicana: hacia una nueva dependencia” (1977).

POLICY PERSPECTIVES Too much of the foreign policy literature on Mexico has emphasized descrip¬ tive studies of policy outputs rather than analyses of the policy process, a problem common to a great deal of political science research on Latin America. Such is the case for the majority of studies above on specific issue areas. Most of the focus on the institutions and the process of decision making has come from the domestic politics literature. Although a preoccupation with the outcomes of the political arena is laudatory, foreign policy specialists have been too inclined to ignore the factors behind those outcomes or the interrelationships among the systemic inputs, the decision-making institutions, and the policy outcomes. A few studies have provided some exceptions to this trend of ignoring policy relationships. In an important article, Clark W. Reynolds, “Mexico and Brazil: Models for Leadership in Latin America?,” in International Congress of Mexican History, vol. IV, Contemporary Mexico: Papers (1976), not only offers a view of the policy process but also a fine comparative perspective on the literature on international influence. He coined the concept of “policy space”—the balance between growth and equity considerations—and argued that sound political lead¬ ership has given Mexico the opportunity to break out of the cycle of development versus reform. Other authors have furthered the analysis of linkages between domestic politics and international relations. Angela Delli Sante, in “La intervencion ideologica de la empresa transnacional en paises dependientes: el caso de Mexico” (1977), documents the multinational advertising boycott against the newspaper Excelsior over editorial support for Salvador Allende in Chile. Delli Sante’s article focuses on the inputs to the system—interest groups and the media—more than on the process itself. Victor Batta Fonseca, ‘ ‘Es realmente progresista la politica exterior de Mexico?” (1984), raises various questions about contradictory linkages be¬ tween a conservative domestic policy and progressive foreign policy. Alan C.

Mexico’s International Relations

/

319

Lamborr and Stephen P. Mumme, Statecraft, Domestic Politics, and Foreign Policy Making: The El Chamizal Dispute (1988), examine this classical case study of bilateral territorial conflict in the historical period from 1911 until 1963 and place the issues in the important context of the domestic political situations, particularly in Mexico. Finally, two interesting studies have focused on the policy deliberations of Mexico’s decision to join the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Dale Story, “Trade Politics in the Third World: A Case Study of the Mexican GATT Decision” (1982), examines the role of nationalist interest groups in preventing Mexican entry in the early 1980s. In a companion article, Brigit S. Helms, “Pluralismo limitado en Mexico: estudio de un caso de consulta publica sobre la membresla del GATT” (1985), not only describes the history of the relations between Mexico and the GATT but also analyzes the impact of various domestic actors on the president’s decision.

CONCLUSION The scholarship on Mexican international relations in 1960 began with a scarcity of works, most of which were historical summaries of diplomatic events. Of course, most fields of study must of necessity begin with a knowledge of what has happened before one can hope to understand why certain events or trends occur. The first informed analysis regarding Mexican foreign policy was initiated by the theoretical linkages with nationalism and dependency. Mexican relations with other nations came to be understood in the context of its nationalist heritage and of its dependent relationship vis-a-vis the advanced, industrial coun¬ tries, especially the United States. The Echevema administration of the early 1970s motivated researchers to explore the capacity for change in Mexican foreign policy as well as the domestic dynamics possibly motivating policy initiatives in the international arena. Finally, a policy perspective was emphasized in the literature in the 1980s. While some authors examined the policy process, most focused on policy outcomes and alternative choices for decision makers. Despite the evolution of research in this field, great weaknesses remain in the literature on the international role of Mexico, including: (1) atheoretical tenden¬ cies to describe rather than analyze international relations events; (2) a timespecific mode of simply reacting to current events (a problem found also in the comparative politics literature on Latin America); (3) a lack of focus on the “downstream” linkages of policy output to the policy process and systemic inputs. However, rather than overstate the negatives, it should be recognized that some important contributions have been made to correct some of these flaws. The literature on the dependency framework is probably the most important theoretical work that has been done, especially by those authors who examine the concrete and objective manifestations of an unequal relationship between a very rich and a relatively poor nation. Some work has also been done to place Mexican foreign policy in a longitudinal perspective. For example, rather than

320

/

International Relations

seeing the Echeverrfa administration as an anomaly, it can be viewed in the context of historical cycles providing a balance to Mexican politics. Finally, some studies have emphasized the appropriate ties between domestic decision making and foreign policy. Yet, much remains to be done in the area of international relations research on Mexico. The dependency literature has tended to drift toward political rhetoric, and no quantitative, longitudinal analysis exists of the readily measured economic relationships across time between the United States and Mexico. And the “policy perspective’’ studies have been too limited by case studies. Very little theoretical work has focused on the policy process as it relates to international affairs. Decisions regarding foreign policy are no less important than those on domestic policy. Nor are foreign policy decisions made in a vacuum. Yet the literature continues to ignore policy analysis as it relates to international politics in Mexico. Thus, scholars still have much to learn about the theoretical implications of Mexican foreign policy, the long-term cycles of foreign policy behavior, and the policy process in Mexican international relations.

REFERENCES Astiz, Carlos A. 1974. “Mexico’s Foreign Policy: Disguised Dependency.” Current History 66 (May): 220-25. Bagley, Bruce Michael. 1983. “Mexican Foreign Policy: The Decline of a Regional Power?” Current History 82 (December): 406-9. Barkin, David. 1975. “Mexico’s Albatross: The U.S. Economy.” Latin American Per¬ spectives 2, no. 2 (Summer): 64-80. -. 1980. Las relaciones Mexico-Estados LJnidos. Mexico City: Universidad Na¬ tional Autonoma de Mexico. Bath, C. Richard. 1982. “Health and Environmental Problems: The Role of the Border in El Paso-Ciudad Juarez Coordination.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 24, no. 3 (August): 375-92. Batta Fonseca, Victor. 1984. “Es realmente progresista la politica exterior de Mexico?” Relations Internacionales 11, no. 32 (abril/junio): 93-100. Bender, Lynn Darrell. 1975. “Contained Nationalism: The Mexican Foreign Policy Example.” Revista Interamericana Review 5, no. 1 (Spring): 1-4. Bennett, Douglas C., and Kenneth E. Sharpe. 1985. Transnational Corporations versus the State: The Political Economy of the Mexican Auto Industry. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Bilateral Commission on the Future of United States-Mexican Relations. 1989. The Challenge of Interdependence: Mexico and the United States. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. Bueno, Gerardo M., ed. 1987. Mexico-Estados Unidos. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico. Bustamante, Jorge A. 1979. “El estudio de la zona fronteriza Mexico-Estados Unidos.” Foro Internacional 19, no. 3 (enero/marzo): 471-516. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, and Enzo Faletto. 1969. Dependencia y desarrollo en America Latina. Mexico: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.

Mexico’s International Relations

/

321

Castaneda, Jorge. 1963. “Revolution and Foreign Policy: Mexico’s Experiences.” Po¬ litical Science Quarterly 78, no. 3 (September): 391-417. Castaneda, Jorge G. -. 1985. “Don’t Comer Mexico!” Foreign Policy 60 (Fall): 75-90. Cline, Howard F. 1963. The United States and Mexico. New York: Atheneum. El Colegio de Mexico. 1970. Lecturas de politico exterior mexicana. Mexico: Centro de Estudios Intemacionales, El Colegio de Mexico. El comercio exterior de Mexico. 1982. Coedited by Instituto Mexicano de Comercio Exterior and Academia de Arbitraje y Comercio Intemacional. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores. Cornelius, Wayne A. 1981. Immigration, Mexican Development Policy, and the Future of U.S.-Mexican Relations. La Jolla: Program in U.S.-Mexican Studies, Uni¬ versity of California, San Diego. Craig, Richard B. 1971. The Bracero Program: Interest Groups and Foreign Policy. Austin: University of Texas Press. Delli Sante, Angela. 1977. “La intervention ideologica de la empresa transnacional en palses dependientes: el caso de Mexico.” Revista Mexicana de Sociologla 39, no. 1 (enero-marzo): 303-23. Diez-Canedo Ruiz, Juan. 1984. La migracion indocumentada de Mexico a los Estados Unidos: un nuevo enfoque. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica. -. 1981. La frontera del norte: integracion y desarrollo. Mexico City: Centro de Estudios Intemacionales, El Colegio de Mexico. Fagen, Richard R. 1977. “The Realities of U.S.-Mexican Relations.” Foreign Affairs 55, no. 4 (July): 683-700. Fallows, James. 1983. “Immigration: How It’s Affecting Us.” The Atlantic 252, no. 2 (November): 45-106. Fernandez, Raul A. 1977. The U.S.-Mexico Border: A Politico-Economic Profile. South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press. Franco de Leon, Luis Enrique, and Jose Gallardo Taboada. 1980. “Reflexiones sobre la polftica exterior de Mexico hacia la comunidad economica europea.” Relaciones Intemacionales 8, no. 29 (abril/junio): 23-38. Freebaim, Donald K. 1983. “Agricultural Interaction between Mexico and the United States.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 25, no. 3 (August): 275-98. Grabendorff, Wolf. 1978. “Mexico’s Foreign Policy: Indeed a Foreign Policy?” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 20, no. 1 (February): 85-92. Grayson, George W. 1978. “Mexico and the United States: The Natural Gas Contro¬ versy.” Inter-American Economic Affairs 32, no. 3 (Winter): 3-27. -. 1979. “Oil and U.S.-Mexican Relations.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 21, no. 4 (November): 427-56. -. 1981. The Politics of Mexican Oil. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. -. 1988. Oil and Mexican Foreign Policy. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Hamilton, William H. 1975. “Mexico’s ‘New’ Foreign Policy: A Reexamination.” InterAmerican Economic Affairs 29, no. 3 (Winter): 51-58. Hansen, Niles. 1981. The Border Economy: Regional Development in the Southwest. Austin: University of Texas Press.

322

/

International Relations

Helms, Brigit S. 1985. “Pluralismo limitado en Mexico: estudio de un caso de consulta publica sobre la membresfa del GATT.” Foro Internacional 26, no. 2 (octubre/ diciembre): 172-89. Herrera Zuniga, Rene, and Manuel Chavarria. 1984. ‘‘Mexico en Contadora: una busqueda de h'mites a su compromiso en Centroamerica.” Foro Internacional 24, no. 4 (abril/junio): 458-83. Herrera Zuniga, Rene, and Mario Ojeda. 1983. La politico de Mexico hacia Centroam¬ erica, 1979-1982. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico. Hewlett, Sylvia Ann. 1981-1982. ‘‘Coping with Illegal Immigrants.” Foreign Affairs 60, no. 2 (Winter): 358-78. Hundley, Norris, Jr. 1966. Dividing the Waters: A Century of Controversy between the United States and Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jones, Errol D., and David LaFrance. 1978. “Mexico’s Foreign Affairs under President Echeverrfa: The Special Case of Chile.” Inter-American Economic Affairs 30, no. 1 (September): 45-78. Kaye, Harvey J. 1975. “How ‘New’ Is Mexico’s Foreign Policy?” Inter-American Economic Affairs 28, no. 4 (Spring): 87-92. Lamborr, Alan C., and Stephen P. Mumme. 1988. Statecraft, Domestic Politics, and Foreign Policy Making: The El Chamizal Dispute. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Liss, Sheldon B. 1965. A Century of Disagreement: The Chamizal Conflict, 1864-1964. Washington, D.C.: University Press. Lupsha, Peter A. 1981. “Drug Trafficking: Mexico and Colombia in Comparative Per¬ spective.” Journal of International Affairs 35, no. 1 (Spring/Summer): 95-115. Mares, David R. 1987. Penetrating the International Market: Theoretical Considerations and a Mexican Case Study. New York: Columbia University Press. -. 1988. “Mexico’s Foreign Policy as a Middle Power: The Nicaraguan Con¬ nection.” Latin American Research Review 23, no. 3: 81-107. Meyer, Lorenzo. 1977. Mexico and the United States in the Oil Controversy. Austin: University of Texas Press. Mumme, Stephen P. 1978. “Mexican Politics and the Prospects for Emigration Policy: A Policy Perspective.” Inter-American Economic Affairs 32, no. 1 (Summer): 67-94. Ojeda, Mario. 1976. Alcances y limites de la politico exterior de Mexico. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico. -. 1986. Mexico: el surgimiento de una politico exterior activa. Mexico: Secretarfa de Educacion Publica. Padilla Nervo, Luis, et al. 1985. Testimonios de 40 ahos de presencia de Mexico en las Naciones Unidas. Mexico City: Secretarfa de Relaciones Exteriores. Pastor, Robert A., and Jorge G. Castaneda. 1989. Limits to Friendship: The United States and Mexico. New York: Vintage Books. Pellicer de Brody, Olga. 1976. “El acercamiento de Mexico a America Latina: una interpretacion polftica.” In International Congress of Mexican History, vol. IV, Contemporary Mexico: Papers. Los Angeles: University of California, Latin American Center. -. 1976. “Las relaciones comerciales de Mexico: una prueba para la nueva polftica exterior.” Foro Internacional 17, no. 1 (julio/septiembre): 37-50.

Mexico’s International Relations

/

323

-. 1977. “La crisis mexicana: hacia una nueva dependencia.” Cuadernos Politico 14 (octubre/diciembre): 45-55. Pellicer de Brody, Olga, et al. 1983. La politico exterior de Mexico: desafios en los ochenta. Mexico City: Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas. Penaloza, Tomas. 1976. “Mecanismos de la dependencia: el caso de Mexico, 197075.” Foro Internacional 17, no. 1 (julio/septiembre): 10-36. Poitras, Guy E. 1974. “Mexico’s ‘New’ Foreign Policy.” Inter-American Economic Affairs 28, no. 3 (Winter): 59-77. Purcell, Susan Kaufman. 1981. Mexico-U.S. Relations. New York: Academy of Political Science. Purcell, Susan Kaufman, ed. 1988. Mexico in Transition: Implications for U.S. Policy. New York: Council on Foreign Relations. Reynolds, Clark W. 1976. “Mexico and Brazil: Models for Leadership in Latin Amer¬ ica?” In International Congress of Mexican History, vol. IV, Contemporary Mexico: Papers. Los Angeles: University of California, Latin American Center. Reynolds, Clark W., and Carlos Tello. 1983. U.S.-Mexico Relations: Economic and Social Aspects. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Riding, Alan. 1984. Distant Neighbors: A Portrait of the Mexicans. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Roett, Riordan, ed. 1988. Mexico and the United States: Managing the Relationship. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Ruiz Garcia, Enrique. 1982. La estrategia mundial del petroleo: una teorla del poder, una teorla de la dependencia. Mexico: Editorial Nueva Imagen. Saxe-Femandez, John. 1980. Petroleo y estrategia: Mexico y Estados Unidos en el contexto de la political global. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores. Schmitt, Karl. 1974. Mexico and the United States, 1821-1973: Conflict and Coexistence. New York: John Wiley. Secretarfa de Relaciones Exteriores. 1985. Politico exterior de Mexico: 175 ahos de historia. Mexico: Secretarfa de Relaciones Exteriores. Shapira, Yoram. 1978. “Mexican Foreign Policy under Echeverria: A Retrospect.” InterAmerican Economic Affairs 31, no. 4 (Spring): 29-61. Smith, Peter H. 1985. “U.S.-Mexican Relations: The 1980s and Beyond.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 27, no. 1 (February): 91-101. Smith, Robert Freeman. 1972. The United States and Revolutionary Nationalism in Mexico, 1916-1932. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Story, Dale. 1982. “Trade Politics in the Third World: A Case Study of the Mexican GATT Decision.” International Organization 36, no. 4 (Autumn): 767-94. Tamayo, Jesus, and Jose Luis Fernandez. 1983. Zonas fronterizas: Mexico-Estados Unidos. Mexico: CIDE. Toney, William T. 1978. A Descriptive Study of the Control of Illegal Mexican Migration in the Southwestern U.S. San Francisco: R & E Research Associates. Truett, Dale B., and Lila Flory Truett. 1980. “Mexico and GSP: Problems and Pros¬ pects.” Inter-American Economic Affairs 34, no. 2 (Autumn): 67-85. Turner, Frederick C. 1968. The Dynamic of Mexican Nationalism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. 1972. Cronologla de la politico exterior de Mexico: 1970-1971. Mexico City: UNAM, Centro de Relaciones Intemacionales.

324

/

International Relations

Vazquez, Josefina Zoraida, and Lorenzo Meyer. 1985. The United States and Mexico. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Weintraub, Sidney. 1984. Free Trade between Mexico and the United States? Washing¬ ton, D.C.: Brookings Institution. Williams, Edward J. 1978. “Oil in Mexican-U.S. Relations: Analysis and Bargaining Scenario.” Orbis 22, no. 1 (Spring): 201-16. -. 1979. The Rebirth of the Mexican Petroleum Industry: Developmental Directions and Policy Implications. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. -. 1980. “Mexican Hydro-carbon Export Policy: Ambition and Reality.” In Robert M. Lawrence and Martin O. Heisler, eds., International Energy Policy. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

16 CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Damian J. Fernandez

Central America and the Caribbean have been regions of international com¬ petition and conflict since the discovery of the New World close to five hundred years ago. Because of their size, location, natural resources, and po¬ litical institutions, the countries in the Caribbean and in the Central American isthmus, more so than other parts of the hemisphere, have been vulnerable to intervention from other parts of the world.1 Two major political events over the past thirty years—the Cuban Revolution in 1959 and the Nicaraguan Rev¬ olution twenty years later—have contributed to the nature of scholarly debates; in each case, political scientists responded by rapidly expanding the amount of literature devoted to the international relations of the region. The dramatic in¬ crease in the quantity of research materials, however, was not matched by the quality in the production of solid theoretical and empirical works. The major criticisms of the literature—atheoretical, journalistic, polemic—seemed to fit a pattern in which the increased demand for knowledge about a poorly under¬ stood region clashed with the exigencies of responding to revolutionary change. This resulted in a pattern of boom and doom literature. Any assess¬ ment of the scholarship on the region leads one to the sobering conclusion that the power of political science research to ameliorate, not to mention solve, real life problems is quite limited. The scholarly debates on the international relations of the Caribbean and Central America have been framed by two basic approaches to political analysis: the realist (i.e., power politics) and the neo-Marxist (i.e., dependency and world system) paradigms. Both contain underlying value judgments and stress the external elements of the international system as a key explanatory variable. While conceptual frameworks have sometimes resulted in a certain faddishness in re¬ search trends, recent publications point to important new directions in foreign

326

/

International Relations

policy studies, including more emphasis on the connection between domestic factors (including sociocultural ones) and external behavior. Up until the 1960s, most analysts approached their subject matter according to legalistic and historical traditions, emphasizing various aspects of international law and diplomatic history. For example, much of the political science research (mostly in Spanish) on the Caribbean and Central America before the mid-1960s was limited to memorias of the country’s ministry of foreign relations, diplomatic histories, and nationalistic tracts attacking the hegemony of the United States. These works were both ethnocentric and Eurocentric which in turn thwarted the conceptual and analytic quality of the meager quantity of research being done on the area. Within the two main approaches to international relations, the following topics have received most of the research attention: U.S. policy toward the region, revolutionary Cuba and its foreign policy, the international aspects of the Central American crisis, regional integration efforts, and border disputes. The first three topics have been of particular interest to North American scholars working in the international relations area, although the literature continues to suffer from a lack of continuity in investigation over time. Prior to the dramatic growth in scholarly attention devoted to Central America beginning in 1979, the Caribbean ministates received most of the scholarly attention. The following works on Caribbean foreign relations illustrate this pattern: Emanuel de Kadt, ed., Patterns of Foreign Influence in the Caribbean (1972); Vaughan A. Lewis, ed., Size, Self-Determination and International Relations: The Caribbean (1976); Leslie F. Manigat, ed., The Caribbean Yearbook of International Relations: 1975 (1976); Basil Ince, ed.. Contemporary International Relations of the Caribbean (1979); and Roy Preiswerk, ed., Regionalism and the Commonwealth Caribbean (1969). The political turmoil that swept the region in the 1980s generated a vast amount of literature designed to understand the region from an international perspective: Richard Millett and W. Marvin Will, eds., The Restless Caribbean: Changing Patterns of International Relations (1979); Thomas D. Anderson, Geopolitics of the Caribbean: Ministates in a Wider World (1984); Alan Adelman and Reid R. Reiding, eds., Confrontation in the Caribbean Basin: International Per¬ spectives on Security, Sovereignty and Survival (1984); Georges Fauriol, Foreign Policy Behavior of Caribbean States: Guyana, Haiti and Jamaica (1984); Rich¬ ard E. Feinberg, ed., Central America: International Dimensions of the Crisis (1982); Morris J. Blachman, William M. LeoGrande, and Kenneth W. Sharpe, eds., Confronting Revolution: Security through Diplomacy in Central America (1986); and, Jorge Heine and Leslie F. Manigat, eds., The Caribbean and World Politics: Cross Currents and Cleavages (1988). The following discussion centers on the theoretical debates and topics of investigation that have followed the above trends over the past three decades.

Central America and the Caribbean

/

327

THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT After World War II, realism became the predominant approach to the study of international relations. As a result of the popularity of this approach, super¬ power competition quickly became the central thread in the tapestry of inter¬ national politics in the Caribbean. Concepts such as “hegemony” and “spheres of influence” were used to describe the position of the Central American and Caribbean states in the international system. This perspective, generally asso¬ ciated with a conservative ideology, continues to influence the literature and is well represented in Howard J. Wiarda and Mark Falcoff, eds., The Communist Challenge in the Caribbean and Central America (1987). Another strand of the realist paradigm—an outgrowth of the Reagan admin¬ istration’s “peace through strength” doctrine—focused on geopolitics and se¬ curity in the Caribbean basin. The problem with the power politics approach is that it says little about the substance or the process of foreign policy-making but, at the same time, assumes that small states have little autonomy in global politics. Unfortunately for these ministates, the concept of power politics confines their behavior to that of diplomatic passivity, political rhetoric focused on eco¬ nomic dependency and nonintervention, and a diminished sense of legal recourse through such international organizations as the United Nations and the Organi¬ zation of American States (OAS). With the exception of Cuba, most of the Caribbean states were treated as powerless and were therefore basically incon¬ sequential in the international arena. The dominant paradigm for conceptualizing international relations and foreign policy for most of the 1970s was provided by both dependency and world systems theories. The theoretical assumption underlying the dependency perspective is that the economic dependency of states (trade, finance, investment, single-crop economies) produces political subordination. Moreover, the interests of depen¬ dent states are subject to the needs of developed capitalist states and the inter¬ national economy, particularly the financial institutions they control such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and various multinational corporations. As an outgrowth of Marxist-Leninist theory, this paradigm employs both class anal¬ ysis (i.e., different classes of nation-states—rich versus poor) and the Leninist version of imperialism. Immanuel Wallerstein’s world system theory, influential since the 1970s and an intellectual offshoot of dependency theory, portrays the world economy in The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the Eu¬ ropean World Economy in the Sixteenth Century (1974) as a division of labor in which nation-states are only one component. As with dependency theory, Wallerstein’s world system theory argues that inequality in the distribution of economic benefits is a result of the evolution of capitalism. For example, late¬ comers—Central America and the Caribbean—to capitalist forms of development constitute the lower, but potentially changing, tier of a hierarchical political and economic structure. The world system links nation-states in a functional rela-

328

/

International Relations

tionship where the driving force is profit. The unequal relations among peripheral and core countries is the by-product of the motor that drives the system. Richard T. Tardanico’s edited volume, Crises in the Caribbean Basin (1987: 13) argues that “this conception does not regard the region’s history as a mere by-product of North American economic and political expansion.’’ The advantage of Wallerstein’s theory is that it allows one to choose from different levels of analysis— class, regional, national, and international—and then to interconnect data in a parsimonious manner. European scholars such as Wolf Grabendorff have ex¬ tended the parameters of investigation by developing an international perspective on the Central American crisis. In “The Internationalization of the Central American Crisis,” in Wolf Grabendorff et al., eds., Political Change in Central America: Internal and External Dimensions (1984), he sheds the bipolar models of conflict and presents three competing international tendencies in the region: the status quo alliance (the United States, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, and others); the revolutionary alliance (the Soviet Union, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Libya); and the social change alliance (Mexico, France, and nonstate actors such as the Socialist International). Over the past decade, the crude dependency approach that influenced much of the literature in the 1970s has been replaced by refined versions emphasizing structure, process, and various types of dependent relationships. Central Amer¬ ican political scientists such as Edelberto Torres-Rivas, Repression and Resis¬ tance: The Struggle for Democracy in Central America (1989), and Albelardo Morales, “Ajuste estructural vrs. integration: los vericuetos de la polltica re¬ gional de Costa Rica” (1989), have made valuable contributions in this regard. Morales employs the concept of margenes de accion (margins of action) to describe the “space” available to Central American states to pursue their own interests, despite structural and historical dependency. Few scholars have ventured past the conventional theoretical trends and par¬ adigms to chart new ground in the 1980s. One exception is Mark B. Rosenberg, “Pequenos pafses y potencias hegemonicas: Centroamerica y el Caribe en el contexto global” (1987), who claims that changes in the global setting, as well as the conceptual weaknesses inherent in dependency theory, proved to be in¬ adequate for either testing propositions or understanding the region. To escape from this theoretical cul-de-sac, he turns to James R. Rosenau’s theory of “cas¬ cading interdependence” in “A Pre-Theory Revisited: World Politics in an Era of Cascading Interdependence” (1984), to explain Central America’s political position in the international arena. In short, this theory argues that forces of both integration and disintegration are operating in the national and international spheres producing greater fragmentation of actors and more interdependence of groups and events. Scholars from both the realist and the neo-Marxist schools have begun to combine internal and external factors in their theories to explain why nations act the way they do. For example, Michael J. Kryzanek and Howard J. Wiarda, The Politics of External Influence in the Dominican Republic (1988), examine

Central America and the Caribbean

/

329

external influences and their impact on domestic institutions to demonstrate dependence and interdependence in the Dominican Republic. In Subditos o aliados? La politico exterior de Estados Unidos y Centroamerica, Francisco Rojas Aravena and Luis Guillermo Solis Rivera (1988) acknowledge that, although hegemony limits the autonomy of national actors, they frequently have margins of opportunity with which to pursue different alternatives. The crux of this debate is that dependency is no longer perceived as an immutable condition in which small states must live. The consensus among scholars today is one that views dependency not as a straitjacket, but as a much looser political phenomenon. The study of the international dimensions of the various conflicts in Central America has been undermined by the use of conventional models and partial vision. Most of the literature has been confined to the U.S.-Central American nexus or the Soviet Union-Cuba-Central America-U.S. axis. Only a few schol¬ ars—Jack Child, ed., Conflict in Central America: Approaches to Peace and Security (1986)—have ventured past these parameters to more rigorous theoret¬ ical conceptualizations of the Central American conflict. The Child volume advocates the application of confidence-building measures to decrease the ten¬ sions in the region. The literature dealing with the Central American crisis either is based on a bipolar system (East vs. West) or is relative deprivation theory based on a range of inequalities tied to northern-southern relations. Each approach expresses a certain bipolarity and reflects distinct ideological tendencies. The paradigm based on East-West tension asserts that ideological competition—communism versus capitalist democracy—is the underlying cause of the turmoil in the region. This perspective is represented in Jiri Valenta and Esperanza Duran, Conflict in Nic¬ aragua: A Multidimensional Perspective (1987), and in Jiri Valenta, “Nicaragua: Soviet Pawn or Non-Aligned Country?” (1986), where virtually all the political conflicts raging in the isthmus are part of the global confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. From this ideological perspective, the fires of revolution are fanned, if not ignited, by the Soviets and their Cuban proxies since the tenets of Marxism-Leninism posit an ideology of revolutionary expan¬ sionism. Thus, conflict is viewed as a zero-sum game, in which any gain for the Soviets, and by extension their Cuban pawns, is interpreted as a loss for the United States. Of course, this model of conflict downplays the national roots of civil and regional strife, the nationalism of revolutionary groups, and the mul¬ tiplicity of international actors involved in the region. The other mainstream explanation of conflict in the region is relative depri¬ vation theory. A distant cousin of the dependency (and the world system) ap¬ proach, this theoretical perspective focuses on U.S. efforts to maintain the status quo while the Central American and Caribbean states try to shake loose from a system that perpetuates an unequal distribution of resources, both nationally and internationally. The frustration arising from this type of relative deprivation leads to the emergence of nationalist revolutionary groups determined to break away from the hegemony of the United States and its international allies. The major

330

/

International Relations

proponent of this theory is Walter LaFeber; see, for example. Inevitable Revo¬ lutions: The United States in Central America (1983). Thomas W. Walker’s edited collection, Reagan versus the Sandinistas: The Undeclared War on Nic¬ aragua (1987), is a more refined version of the relative-deprivation paradigm directed at the U.S. assault on Sandinista Nicaragua. Proponents of this view tend to possess subtle ideological overtones which often endorse revolutionary transformation. The problem with the bipolar models of conflict is that they fail to address the unique dimensions of the Central American imbroglio in which conflict tends to be group centered, involving a long list of domestic and external actors. Conflict resolution strategies, specifically Contadora and the Arias Peace Plan, have generated considerable research attention during the last half of the 1980s. For example, Bruce Michael Bagley’s edited volume, Contadora and the Di¬ plomacy of Peace in Central America, vol. 2, From Contadora to Esquipulas (1989), is a detailed examination of the achievements and failures of the peace initiatives put forth to resolve the conflicts in Central America. Bagley’s work is designed to give a perspective that is broad in scope, ranging from issues that are national and regional to those that are hemispheric and international. The important political question as to why Contadora failed to bring peace to the region remains unanswered despite the ongoing debate as to whether the main culprit was U.S. foreign policy (the United States had little interest in a peace process that guaranteed that the Sandinistas would remain in power) or the unwillingness of the Contadora members themselves—Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Panama—to recognize fully the political and security interests of the United States. These arguments are considered in Tom J. Farer’s “Contadora: The Hidden Agenda” (1985). Despite the lack of consensus on the success of the Central American peace process, many scholars interpret the events as a watershed: a Latin American solution to a Latin American problem that was conceived and implemented without the United States. Until the major conflicts are resolved in Central America, political science research is unlikely to provide any definitive assessment of either Contadora or Esquipulas. The following discussion addresses some of the major trends in the literature, focusing on the topics of international relations research.

SUBJECTS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS RESEARCH United States Policy toward the Region Research on U.S. policy has dominated the scholarship on Central American and Caribbean international relations. Departing from different perspectives (such as the Western Hemisphere idea, dependency and neoimperialism, security, ideology, bureaucratic politics, and power politics), Latin Americanists have been captivated by the dramatic cases of U.S. intervention—the Bay of Pigs invasion, the armed interventions in the Dominican Republic and Grenada, and

Central America and the Caribbean

/

331

the undeclared war against Nicaragua—in the internal affairs of the region. The key problem confronting the analysts of U.S. policy toward the region is how to evaluate the contending approaches that characterize the field. Since no single paradigm has reached universal acceptance by those working in the area, the¬ oretical eclecticism tends to prevail, which is, at times, a costly alternative to developing an analytical consensus on how best to understand the international relations of the region. Moreover, Central American scholars—working out of universities and research institutes such as the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) in Guatemala and Costa Rica and the Institute of International Relations at the University of the West Indies (Trinidad)—are often concerned with topics of little interest to North American and European scholars. Scholars working in the region are more interested in regional integration, in¬ tergovernmental organizations, border disputes, and modes of conflict resolution than in theoretical and empirical approaches to American foreign policy toward the region. The overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Eisenhower administration produced a number of im¬ portant works on the foreign policy of intervention. One of the classic books on the subject is Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer’s Bitter Fruit: The Untold Story of the American Coup in Guatemala (1982), which uncovers the formal and informal connections between the United Fruit Company and U.S. officials, agencies, and foreign policy. Richard H. Immerman’s The CIA in Guatemala: The Foreign Policy of Intervention (1982) emphasizes the dynamics of the Cold War in the covert plans to rid Guatemala of President Arbenz. Immerman’s portrayal of U.S. policy is that of the colossus of the north asserting its hegemonic power over a “wayward” government in the hemisphere. Central American scholars put more emphasis on Guatemala’s dependency as the genesis of U.S. intervention in the Cold War era. Jose M. Aybar de Soto, Dependency and Intervention: The Case of Guatemala in 1954 (1978), assumes a dependency relationship but takes it a step further by combining it with the traditional realist concept of national interest. The attempt to formulate a policy toward Cuba in the aftermath of Castro’s revolution has been thoroughly studied by North American and European scholars interested in a wide variety of factors associated with the U.S. response to revolutionary change in Latin America. Some of the best works dealing with the early developments in the politics of hostility between the United States and Cuba are found in Richard E. Welch, Response to Revolution: The United States and the Cuban Revolution (1985), and Cole Blasier, The Hovering Giant: U.S. Responses to Revolutionary Change in Latin America, 1910-1985 (1985). These rich, sophisticated works explain the nature of the U.S. response to revolutionary change in Latin America. U.S.-Cuban relations are portrayed as a pas de deux in Cuba y Estados Unidos: dos enfogues, edited by Juan G. Tokatlian (1984). Other studies emphasize the U.S. side of the relationship pointing to Washing¬ ton’s intransigence, obsession, and missed opportunities vis-a-vis Havana. In

332

/

International Relations

this vein, see Wayne S. Smith’s The Closest of Enemies: A Personal and Dip¬ lomatic Account of U.S.-Cuban Relations since 1957 (1987) and Philip Brenner’s From Confrontation to Negotiation: U.S. Relations with Cuba (1988). Another valuable firsthand account is Philip Bonsai’s Cuba, Castro, and the United States (1971). Each of these studies asks whether the United States pushed Castro into the Soviet orbit or whether Castro was essentially a wiley fox intent on preserving the revolution at all costs. The Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis spawned a huge volume of literature during the 1961-1965 time period. One of the most revealing works is Peter Wyden’s Bay of Pigs: The Untold Story (1979). The best firsthand account of the Cuban missile crisis is Robert F. Kennedy’s Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis (1969). Raymond L. Garthoff’s Intelligence Assessment and Policymaking: A Decision Point in the Kennedy Administration (1984) analyzes the connection between intelligence and policy-making. The complete story has yet to be told, although the saga continues to unfold thanks to a research project at Harvard University and the collaboration of U.S., Soviet, and Cuban officials. James G. Blight and David A. Welch begin the process of understanding the missile crisis from the cumulative perspectives of the major actors involved in On the Brink: Americans and Soviets Reexamine the Cuban Missile Crisis (1989). The classic study of the Cuban missile crisis is Graham Allison’s Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (1971), in which the author applies different models of decision making to the event, and it is still useful for understanding certain aspects of the crisis. It is unfortunate that we do not have more Soviet scholarship on this topic and others, but there are some signs of growth in volume and quality. In large part, the lackluster quality of Soviet scholarship stems from the fact that the region suffers from a low priority on its foreign policy agenda and from the persistent theoretical problem of whether the countries in the region are ripe for a socialist revolution according to the tenets of Marxism-Leninism. Lyndon B. Johnson’s decision to send close to 25,000 U.S. forces into the Dominican Republic in 1965 generated a number of solid studies on the politics of intervention. Jerome Slater’s Intervention and Negotiation: The United States and the Dominican Republic (1970) claims that both the rationale for intervention and the post-intervention policy—bom out of an unwarranted fear of a second Cuba—eventually led to the strengthening of the military in the Dominican Republic. Abraham Lowenthal tackles similar issues in The Dominican Inter¬ vention (1972). G. Pope Atkins and Larman C. Wilson provide a solid historical background to the intervention in their book The United States and Trujillo Regime (1972) by analyzing a typical case of support for an anticommunist dictator. The Grenada intervention in 1983 produced dozens of publications about a Caribbean island which most people, including those in the Pentagon, could hardly locate on a map. Among the best overviews is Kai P. Schoenhals and Richard A. Melanson’s, Revolution and Intervention in Grenada: The New Jewel

Central America and the Caribbean

/

333

Movement, the United States and the Caribbean (1985). Laurence Whitehead’s “Sovereignty, Democracy, and Socialism: Reflections on the Grenadian Expe¬ rience,’’ (1986) takes up the questions of power, sovereignty, and ideology. The brevity of the intervention no doubt contributed to the lack of serious scholarship, even though the documents—Paul Seabury and Walter A. McDougall, eds.. The Grenada Papers (1984)—captured by U.S. forces contain a wealth of information for the interested researcher. The politics of the Carter-Torrijos Treaties ceding control of the Panama Canal to Panama at the end of the century produced a number of key works on the subject. One of the diplomats involved, William J. Jorden, U.S. ambassador to Panama from 1974 to 1978, offers an eyewitness account of the negotiating process in Panama Odyssey (1984). Three solid contributions from different angles are found in William I. Furlong and Margaret E. Scranton, The Dynamics of Foreign Policymaking: The President, the Congress, and the Panama Canal Treaties (1984); George D. Moffett III, The Limits of Victory: The Ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties (1985); and David N. Farnsworth and James W. McKenney, U.S.—Panama Relations, 1903-1978: A Study in Linkage Politics (1983). There are few firsthand accounts of U.S. policy toward Nicaragua during the Reagan years. Robert Pastor’s Condemned to Repetition: The United States and Nicaragua (1987) is one of the exceptions; it offers an exhaustive and insightful look at how the Carter administration responded to the downfall of Somoza and the rise of the Sandinistas. According to Pastor, director of Latin American affairs in the National Security Council, U.S. policy-making toward Nicaragua operated in the context of the “ghost of Cuba past,’’ and repeated the same mistakes that had been made in responding to Fidel Castro. Enrique Baloyra’s “Central America on the Reagan Watch” (1985) examines the Reagan doctrine and its application to Central America. One of the major tools of American foreign policy is economic aid and trade. With severe strains on the economies of the region has come a number of studies devoted to political economy and U.S. policy. Such topics as the Caribbean Basin Initiative, the foreign debt crisis, the role of multinational corporations, and the role of the IMF in solving economic problems have served to focus international relations research in the 1980s. The best of this genre are studies of political economy that take into account political factors and apply a macro¬ political framework. For example, Tardanico (1987) applies Wallerstein’s world system approach to an understanding of economic crises in the region. A consensus exists in the literature that U.S. policy toward the region has had a negative impact and has ended in failure for both Central America and the United States. However, there is virtually no agreement on the reasons behind the failure of U.S. policy. The drafting of alternative policy proposals for the area developed into a cottage industry during the Reagan years. Among the principal reports offering policy recommendations are the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America Report (or Kissinger Commission) (1984), the

334

/

International Relations

Atlantic Council’s “Western Interests and U.S. Policy Options in the Caribbean Basin (1983), and the three reports of the Inter-American Dialogue between 1983 and 1989. Most of the proposals indicate that problems confronting the area— debt, drugs, democracy, and security—defy quick and easy solutions. The lead¬ ing scholars and policymakers who authored these reports seem to agree that the elites in the region share some of the burden of responsibility for what some have come to call the “lost decade.” A still to be resolved controversy in the literature dealing with U.S. policy toward the region is the question of the decline of U.S. hegemony over the past several decades. From the late 1960s to the mid-1980s most observers agreed that both the willingness and ability of the United States to control political and economic events in the region were in decline. The battle frequently settled on Marxist scholars—who quickly seized the thesis that revolutions in Central Amer¬ ica were a sign of the decline in North American imperialism—and policymakers in Washington who were less likely to accept the decline-of-hegemony thesis, arguing that the Reagan-Bush policies have brought an increase in U.S. influence because of the return to civilian rule, the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), and the declining economic health in the region.

The Iran-Contra Affair The decision by the Reagan administration to sell arms to Iran and divert the profits to the “freedom fighters” in Central America spawned a great deal of interest in the politics of U.S. intervention and the constitutionality of covert presidential policy-making. As the scandal unfolded, international linkages were found to exist between U.S. policymakers, the Nicaraguan contras, hemispheric drug traffickers, and various allies of the United States, such as Israel, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia. The documents generated by the investigations carried out by Congress are essential ingredients for understanding Central America and the role of nonhemispheric states in the politics of the region. In the U.S. House of Representatives, Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair (1987), findings from the lengthy congressional investigation are provided along with recommendations and conclusions. This report was followed two years later by Senator John Kerry’s investigation—U.S. Senate, Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy: A Report on the Subcommittee on Narcotics, Terrorism, and International Operations (1989)—into allegations that the major elements of the supply network supporting the Nicaraguan contras were linked with hemispheric drug traffickers in Central America and the Ca¬ ribbean. On the basis of lengthy investigations and vast amounts of evidence, the Kerry subcommittee found that it is clear that individuals who provided support for the contras were involved in drug trafficking, the supply network of the contras was used by drug trafficking organizations, and elements of the contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assis-

Central America and the Caribbean

/

335

tance from drug traffickers. In each case, one or another agency of the U.S. government had information regarding the involvement either while it was occurring, or immediately thereafter. (1989:97-98)

Leslie Cockbum’s Out of Control (1987) also provides substantial material and evidence of a contra-drug trafficking connection, often relying on personal in¬ terviews with key participants. The contra war and its effects are treated in considerable length, with vast amounts of documents from U.S. government agencies, in Peter Kombluh, Nicaragua, The Price of Intervention: Reagan’s Wars against the Sandinistas (1987) and Walker (1987). According to Kombluh, the price of intervention was much greater than the costs of supporting a failed policy toward Nicaragua. Walker’s edited volume contains a wealth of information on all facets of the Reagan administration’s assault on Nicaragua, from media manipulation at home to the violation of international law. A conservative analysis of the secret war against Nicaragua—justified on the basis of the dramatic rise in Cuban and Soviet influence in Central America—is John Norton Moore’s Secret War in Nicaragua, Sandinista Assault on World Order (1987). The flaws in the U.S. policy to get rid of the Sandinistas by supporting thousands of paramilitary forces in Honduras and other parts of the region and its local effects have generated some interesting critiques of U.S. policy. Edgar Chamorro’s Packaging the Contras: A Case of CIA Disinformation (1987) is a firsthand account by a former contra devoted to showing how the Reagan admin¬ istration’s strategy of waving the red flag of “international communism’’ helped to convince Congress and some of the American people of the necessity of supporting the contra cause. In Mark B. Rosenberg, et al., Honduras: Pieza clave de la politica de Estados Unidos en Centroamerica (1986), a number of North American and Honduran political scientists and historians argue that Rea¬ gan’s objectives for Honduras—development, democracy, and defense—proved to be counterproductive despite large amounts of economic and military aid. In the Latin American Bureau’s Honduras: State for Sale (1985), British scholars demonstrate the counterproductive aspects of the U.S. policy of making Honduras the linchpin of U.S. military strategy to rid Nicaragua of the Sandinistas. On the basis of an interesting historical and theoretical treatment of U.S. policy toward Central America, Glen Caudill Dealy, An Honorable Peace in Central America (1988) argues that the United States should consider the possibility— from the perspective of national interest rather than ideological purity—that “soft on communism’’ might be a prudent policy toward the region. According to Dealy, “soft on local ‘isms,’ uncompromisingly tough toward Soviet power, acknowledging Central Americans’ right to swim in the same ocean—albeit respectfully—these would serve our interests and our honor” (1988: 60). No doubt more research attention will be devoted to this subject during the 1990s.

336

/

International Relations

Regional and Subregional Integration The study of economic integration has an uneven record of scholarly attention, but the subject has drawn the interest of those interested in the social and economic development of the area. Jose Roberto Lopez offers an optimistic view of integration in “Centroamerica: nuevas perspectivas de la integration econ¬ omica regional en la decada de los ochenta” (1984). Although Lopez realizes that the region has not been a hospitable arena for integration in the past, he argues that integration provides a way for Central America to improve its in¬ ternational economic position. Another positive outlook on integration is William G. Demas’s Seize the Time: Towards OECS Political Union (1987). Anthony J. Bryan, “Introduction: The International Dynamics of the Commonwealth Caribbean” (1989: 6) puts forth a sober analysis of integration in the Englishspeaking Caribbean, but agrees with the emerging consensus that “Few of these challenges [stemming from the emergence of giant global blocs] can be met without a coordinated foreign policy response.” Most studies, however, are either too general or too specific; few combine micro and macro political and economic perspectives.

Latin American and Caribbean Foreign Policies One of the latest trends is foreign policy studies focusing on internal sources of international behavior. Cuba’s relations with the superpowers and the Third World are the most studied subjects. In terms of Cuba’s foreign policy, political scientists have been most interested in the following research questions: (1) is Cuban foreign policy independent from, dependent on, or convergent with Soviet interests; (2) what role does ideology play in shaping Cuba’s international be¬ havior; (3) and what internal forces—including the role of Fidel Castro—explain Cuba’s dramatic foreign policy initiatives? Jorge I. Dominguez’s To Make the World Safe for Revolution: Cuba’s Foreign Policy (1989) is a comprehensive, insightful analysis of Cuban foreign policy. Gonzalez and Ronfeldt (1986) analyze foreign policy using a psychohistorical model. H. Michael Erisman brings out the nationalistic aspects of Cuban foreign policy in Cuba’s International Relations: The Anatomy of a Nationalistic Foreign Policy (1985). W. Raymond Duncan studies Cuban-Soviet relations since 1957 from the point of view of mutual, albeit unequal, influence in The Soviet Union and Cuba: Interests and Influence (1985). Cuba in Africa (1982), edited by Carmelo Mesa-Lago and June S. Belkin, is the classic on Cuba’s activities in Angola and Ethiopia, with ground-breaking contributions by leading Cubanists. Cuba’s Foreign Policy in the Middle East, by Damian J. Fernandez (1988), is one of the few studies of Cuba’s relations with the Arab countries. Despite the growing number of studies of Cuban foreign policy, political scientists still know far too little about how decisions are made and who participates in the process.

Central America and the Caribbean

/

337

Until Fidel Castro is no longer at the helm, this is likely to remain one of the major gaps in the literature. Mexico’s relations with the United States and Central America have received a considerable amount of attention, particularly in the area of trade patterns. Jorge Castanares, “Las relaciones comerciales de Mexico con Centroamerica: analisis y perspectivas (1979-1986)” (1987), suggests strategies to increase trade with Central America. Rene Herrera Zuniga, La politico exterior de Mejico hacia Centro America (1982) examines Mexico’s policy toward the Central American crisis at a time when Mexico was more vocal in its opposition to U.S. policy. Case studies of the foreign policy of the smaller states in the region are scarce because of the lack of access to information and their rather insignificant inter¬ national role. Jacqueline A. Braveboy-Wagner’s The Caribbean in World Affairs: The Foreign Policies of the English-Speaking States (1989) is one of the few volumes of this kind and the first to apply a framework of comparative foreign policy to the states of the region. The foreign policies of the Central American republics gained prominence as a research topic during the decade of the 1980s. One of the first to deal with Nicaragua was Arturo Cruz Sequeira’s “The Origins of Sandinista Foreign Pol¬ icy,” in Robert S. Leiken, ed., Central America: Anatomy of Conflict (1984). Cruz Sequeira outlines the ideological divisions within the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) and explains how these related to different foreign policy alternatives. He argues that, whereas the moderates advocated pursuing good relations with Washington and eschewing the Cuban model (advice which Castro himself seems to have offered the Nicaraguan leaders), the hard-liners within the FSLN rejected this policy direction. Mary Vanderlaan’s Revolution and Foreign Policy in Nicaragua (1986) presents the principles that undergird the Sandinista’s foreign policy using Sandinista sources. Thomas W. Walker’s, ed., Nicaragua: The First Five Years (1985) includes useful contributions by William M. LeoGrande, Harold Sims, and Max Azicri on Nicaragua’s relation¬ ship with the United States, the Communist bloc, and Latin America, respectively. Much of the debate on Nicaragua’s foreign policy centers on the degree of attachment to the Soviet Union and its nonaligned status. Contrasting views on the topic are offered by Harry E. Vanden and Waltraud Queiser Morales, “Nic¬ araguan Relations with the Non-Aligned Movement” (1985), who argue that Nicaragua’s foreign policy does embody the tenets of the nonaligned movement. Valenta (1986) argues that the FSLN, given its Marxist-Leninist ideology, has clearly aligned its foreign relations to that of the Soviet bloc. Ruben Berrios’s “Economic Relations between Nicaragua and the Socialist Countries” (1985) takes a middle ground position in his discussion of the economic relations between Nicaragua and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON). Some of the recent works on the foreign policy of smaller, less studied states are a welcome addition to the field. These would include Kryzanek and Wiarda (1988), who trace the impact of external factors on domestic institutions to

338

/

International Relations

demonstrate Dominican dependence and interdependence on external forces. Festus Brotherson, Jr., “The Foreign Policy of Guyana, 1970-1985: Forbes Burnham’s Search for Legitimacy” (1989), also looks at the interplay of internal and external dynamics in Guyana’s foreign policy and argues that foreign policy initiatives were used by the leadership to establish legitimacy abroad when it failed to materialize at home.

The Role of Nonhemispheric States The involvement of nonhemispheric actors in Central America and the Carib¬ bean is an important and growing topic of research. One of the common threads in this literature is the exaggerated role of the Soviet Union in the region. Wiarda et al. (1987) exemplifies this perspective in a work that magnifies the Soviet role in the region. The Soviet position is presented in Voytek Zubek’s “Soviet ‘New Thinking’ and the Central American Crisis” (1987). Victor Galvez Borrel’s “Las relaciones intemacionales de America Central: el caso de la URSS” (1988) is typical of the Central American perspective in arguing that Soviet policy toward the region, in contrast to Washington’s claims, has been cautious, mod¬ erate, traditional, and stabilizing. The Middle East is another region that has become increasingly active in Central America. As revealed in the Iran-Contra affair, Israel is one of the major nonhemispheric states with foreign policy interests in the region. Bishara Bahbah offers a thorough and balanced treatment of Israeli arms exports to Central America in Israel and Latin America: The Military Connection (1986). In Jane Hunter’s No Simple Proxy: Israel in Central America (1987), she argues that it is quite clear that Israel is neither a simple proxy nor a coerced client of the United States, but a government with distinct foreign policy interests—the need to establish and maintain markets for its growing arms industry—in Central America. The same argument is presented in more detail in Jonathan Marshall, Peter Dale Scott, and Jane Hunter, The Iran-Contra Connection: Secret Teams and Covert Operations in the Reagan Era (1987), in which the authors argue that the covert schemes to rid Central America of the Sandinistas are part of a long tradition in the United States of responding to revolutionary change in the region. In a separate chapter on “Israel and the Contras,” Marshall, Scott, and Hunter (1987:83) claim that “Israel was almost certainly the intellectual author of the plot to make Iran pay for the war against Nicaragua.” The connection between Israel, South Africa, and repressive governments in Central America (including Panama) is examined in Jane Hunter’s Israeli Foreign Policy: South Africa and Central America (1987), in which she argues that Israel is a key player in advancing U.S. security interests in the region. A broader treatment of the topic—including both Arab and Israeli relations with Central American countries and groups—is found in the edited volume by Damian J. Fernandez, Central America and the Middle East (1990). The role of Western Europe in Central America where the political crisis has

Central America and the Caribbean

/

339

had a negative impact on the Western Alliance is examined in Joseph Cirincione’s edited volume, Central America and the Western Alliance (1985). A more pos¬ itive view is offered by Eusebio Mujal-Leon in “The West German SPD and the Politics of Internationalism in Central America” (1987-1988).

International Organizations As U.S. foreign policy under Ronald Reagan became increasingly unilateral, or bilateral, work on the inter-American system declined. With the exception of the work of L. Ronald Scheman, The Inter-American Dilemma: The Search for Inter-American Cooperation at the Centennial of the Inter-American System (1988), little work was done on the Inter-American system after the “soccer war” between Honduras and El Salvador in 1969. Three factors explain the dearth of research on international organizations. First, the failure of the Rio Treaty to prevent the Falkland/Malvinas fracas and the U.S. tilt toward Great Britain severely weakened regional cooperation on a whole range of issues. Second, the U.S. decision to withhold its budget quota obligations to the OAS undermined the ability of this hemispheric organization to use its influence to deal with crises in the region. Third, the decline of the legal approach to the study of international relations was also a blow to the study of international organizations. One of the exceptions is Anselm A. Francis’s “La Organization de los Estados Americanos y los estados anglofonos del caribe: implicaciones legales” (1986).

CONCLUSION The struggle to bring about meaningful socioeconomic change in Central America and the Caribbean over the past thirty years sparked the interest of journalists, policymakers, and scholars, leading to a boom in the literature on the international relations of the region. To no one’s surprise, the scholarship that followed some of these historical events became enmeshed in the struggle within and between the internal and external forces dominant in the area. Al¬ though many gaps in the literature have been filled, the study of the international affairs of Central America and the Caribbean are still in need of more careful analysis. The trends mapped out above indicate that future research must over¬ come the weaknesses that characterize much of the literature. The theoretical underdevelopment of the literature is partly a result of the historical development of the field prior to the 1970s. The principal theoretical perspectives have stressed external factors to explain the international behavior of states. This has resulted in a situation in which both the power politics and the dependency approaches have generated narrow interpretations of events, although from different perspectives. The scholarly debates continue to focus on the concept of the state as a rational, unitary actor. Unfortunately, much of the research suffers from unsound methodology, confining parameters, and po-

340

/

International Relations

lemics. It is time for the experts tilling the field of international research to reexamine basic questions of epistemology, social science methodology, and value judgments. There continues to be controversy over the question of the rise or decline of U.S. hegemony. The end of hegemony thesis dominated the literature for most of the 1960s and 1970s inasmuch as the United States seemed less able to work its will in the region. The election of Ronald Reagan and the return of a new Cold War mentality, along with military muscle flexing in Grenada, Nicaragua, and Panama, led some to conclude that U.S. hegemony was back “standing tali’ ’ again. The debt crisis compounded the situation by undermining the strength of Latin American governments to forge policies independent of the United States. U.S. hegemony was not in decline but merely hybemating while American presidents recovered from the post-Vietnam syndrome. However, Europeans were quick to point out the connection between using force against small, de¬ fenseless nations and the decline of hegemony. In any case, the United States was not able to get the Nicaraguans to “say uncle” with the use of military force, and the prospects for an authentic democracy in El Salvador, despite billions of dollars in American aid, seemed more elusive than ever. Post-invasion Panama demonstrates the lingering need among the formulators of American foreign policy to maintain at least the fiction of continuing U.S. hegemony. Future research agendas should be guided by an emphasis on sound theory and empirical methods geared toward the elaboration of a model of comparative foreign policy in the region. Such a model should take into account leadership and ideology, the domestic political context, development strategies, the external context (operationalized through variables such as position in the global political economy), and how foreign policy is made in the area. This type of comparative approach is attractive because it can be applied between countries, across different time periods in one country, or to different issues. Morever, it provides a per¬ spective that dependency theory neglects and obscures. The Central American and the Caribbean states have a larger space in which to direct their foreign policy objectives than is generally assumed in the literature. The flood of research that occurred in the 1980s is not likely to continue into the 1990s as both superpowers pay less attention to the small, and vulnerable, countries in Central America and the Caribbean. In one of the ironies of political science research, this trend could augur well for both the state of scholarly work on the area and the chance for peaceful socioeconomic change.

NOTE 1. For a discussion of the definitional dilemmas associated with international relations research on the area, see William G. Demas, “Foreword,” in Richard Millett and W. Marvin Will, eds., The Restless Caribbean: Changing Patterns of International Relations (1979). The hidden values behind the labels associated with the Caribbean states are examined in Barry B. Levine’s “A Return to Innocence?: The Social Construction of

Central America and the Caribbean

/

341

the Geopolitical Climate of the Post-Invasion Caribbean” (1989). This chapter takes a rather broad view of the region including Mexico, Venezuela, Panama, Guyana, and Belize, particularly where their foreign policies intersect with the other countries in Central America and the Caribbean.

REFERENCES Adelman, Alan, and Reid R. Reiding, eds. 1984. Confrontation in the Caribbean Basin: International Perspectives on Security, Sovereignty and Survival. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Center for Latin American Studies, University Center for International Studies, University of Pittsburgh. Allison, Graham. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Bos¬ ton: Little, Brown. Anderson, Thomas D. 1984. Geopolitics of the Caribbean: Ministates in a Wider World. New York: Praeger. Atkins, Pope G., and Larman C. Wilson. 1972. The United States and the Trujillo Regime. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Atlantic Council. 1984. Western Interests and U.S. Policy Options in the Caribbean Basin: Report of Atlantic Council’s Working Group on the Caribbean Basin. Boston: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain. Aybar de Soto, Jose M. 1978. Dependency and Intervention: The Case of Guatemala in 1954. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Bagley, Bruce Michael, ed. 1989. Contadora and the Diplomacy of Peace in Central America, vol. 2. From Contadora to Esquipulas. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Bahbah, Bishara. 1986. Israel and Latin America: The Military Connection. New York: St. Martin’s Press in association with the Institute for Palestine Studies, Wash¬ ington, D.C. Baloyra, Enrique. 1985. “Central America on the Reagan Watch.” Journal of InterAmerican Studies and World Affairs 27, no. 1 (February): 35-62. Berrios, Ruben. 1985. “Economic Relations Between Nicaragua and the Socialist Coun¬ tries.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 27, no. 3 (Fall): 111-139. Blachman, Morris J., William M. LeoGrande, and Kenneth E. Sharpe, eds. 1986. Con¬ fronting Revolution: Security through Diplomacy in Central America. New York: Pantheon Books. Blasier, Cole. 1985. The Hovering Giant: U.S. Responses to Revolutionary Change in Latin America, 1910-1985. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Blight, James G., and David A. Welch. 1989. On the Brink: Americans and Soviets Reexamine the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Hill and Wang. Bonsai, Philip. 1971. Cuba, Castro, and the United States. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Braveboy-Wagner, Jacqueline A. 1989. The Caribbean in World Affairs: The Foreign Policies of the English-Speaking States. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Brenner, Philip. 1988. From Confrontation to Negotiation: U.S. Relations with Cuba. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Brotherson, Festus, Jr. 1989. “The Foreign Policy of Guyana, 1970-1985: Forbes Bumham’s Search for Legitimacy.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 31, no. 3 (Fall): 9-35.

342

/

International Relations

Bryan, Anthony J. 1989. “Introduction: The International Dynamics of the Common¬ wealth Caribbean.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 31, no. 3 (Fall): 1-7. Castanares, Jorge. 1987. “Las relaciones comerciales de Mexico con Centroamerica: analisis y perspectivas (1979-1986).” Foro Internacional 28, no. 1 (julio/septiembre): 82-104. Chamorro, Edgar. 1987. Packaging the Contras: A Case of CIA Disinformation. New York: Institute for Media Analysis. Child, Jack, ed. 1986. Conflict in Central America: Approaches to Peace and Security. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Cirincione, Joseph, ed. 1985. Central America and the Western Alliance. New York: Holmes and Meier for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Cockbum, Leslie. 1987. Out of Control. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press. Cruz Sequeira, Arturo. 1984. “The Origins of Sandinista Foreign Policy.” In Robert S. Leiken, ed., Central America: Anatomy of Conflict. Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon Press. Dealy, Glen Caudill. 1988. An Honorable Peace in Central America. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole. de Kadt, Emanuel, ed. 1972. Patterns of Foreign Influence in the Caribbean. London: Oxford University Press. Demas, William G. 1987. Seize the Time: Towards OECS Political Union. Bridgetown, Barbados: Caribbean Development Bank. Dominguez, Jorge I. 1989. To Make the World Safe for Revolution: Cuba's Foreign Policy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Duncan, W. Raymond. 1985. The Soviet Union and Cuba: Interests and Influence. New York: Praeger. Erisman, H. Michael. 1985. Cuba’s International Relations: The Anatomy of a Nation¬ alistic Foreign Policy. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Farer, Tom J. 1985. “Contadora: The Hidden Agenda.” Foreign Policy 59 (Summer): 59-72. Farnsworth, David N., and James W. McKenney 1983. U.S.-Panama Relations, 19031978: A Study in Linkage Politics. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Fauriol, Georges. 1984. Foreign Policy Behavior of Caribbean States: Guyana, Haiti and Jamaica. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. Feinberg, Richard E., ed. 1982. Central America: International Dimensions of the Crisis. New York: Holmes and Meier. Fernandez, Damian J. 1988. Cuba’s Foreign Policy in the Middle East. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Fernandez, Damian J., ed. 1990. Central America and the Middle East. Gainesville: University Presses of Florida. Francis, Anselm A. 1986. “La Organization de los Estados Americanos y los estados anglofonos del caribe: implicaciones legales.” Mundo Nuevo nos. 32/34. Furlong, William I., and Margaret E. Scranton. 1984. The Dynamics of Foreign Poli¬ cymaking: The President, the Congress, and the Panama Canal Treaties. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Galvez Borrel, Victor. 1988. “Las relaciones intemacionales de America Central: el caso de la URSS.” Foro Internacional 28, no. 4: 718-818.

Central America and the Caribbean

/

343

Garthoff, Raymond L. 1984. Intelligence Assessment and Policymaking: A Decision Point in the Kennedy Administration. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. Gonzalez, Edward, and David Ronfeldt. 1986. Castro, Cuba, and the World. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation. Grabendorff, Wolf. 1984. “The Internationalization of the Central American Crisis.’’ In Wolf Grabendorff, et al., eds., Political Change in Central America: Internal and External Dimensions. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Heine, Jorge, and Leslie Manigat, eds. 1988. The Caribbean and World Politics: Cross Currents and Cleavages. New York: Holmes and Meier. Herrera Zuniga, Rene. 1982. La politico exterior de Mejico hacia Centro America. Mexico City: COLMEX. Hunter, Jane. 1987. Israeli Foreign Policy: South Africa and Central America. Boston: South End Press. -. 1987. No Simple Proxy: Israel in Central America. Washington, D.C.: Wash¬ ington Middle East Associates. Immerman, Richard H. 1982. The CIA in Guatemala: The Foreign Policy of Intervention. Austin: University of Texas Press. Ince, Basil, ed. 1979. Contemporary International Relations of the Caribbean. St. Au¬ gustine, Trinidad: Institute of International Relations. Inter-American Dialogue. 1989. The Americas in 1989: Consensus for Action. Queens¬ town, Md.: The Aspen Institute. Jorden, William J. 1984. Panama Odyssey. Austin: University of Texas Press. Kennedy, Robert F. 1969. Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: New American Library. Kombluh, Peter. 1987. Nicaragua, the Price of Intervention: Reagan’s Wars against the Sandinistas. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Policy Studies. Kryzanek, Michael J., and Howard J. Wiarda. 1988. The Politics of External Influence in the Dominican Republic. New York: Praeger. LaFeber, Walter. 1983. Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America. New York: Norton. Latin American Bureau. 1985. Honduras: State for Sale. London: LAB; Boston, Mass.: Distributed by Oxfam America. Levine, Barry B. 1989. “A Return to Innocence?: The Social Construction of the Geo¬ political Climate of the Post-Invasion Caribbean.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 31, no. 3: 183—204. Lewis, Vaughan A., ed. 1976. Size, Self-Determination, and International Relations: The Caribbean. Kingston, Jamaica: Institute of Social and Economic Research. Lopez, Jose Roberto. 1984. “Centroamerica: nuevas perspectivas de la integracion econ¬ omica regional en la decada de los ochenta.” Estudios Sociales Centroamericanos 13, no. 39 (agosto/diciembre): 79-93. Lowenthal, Abraham F. 1972. The Dominican Intervention. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. McCoy, Terry L., and Timothy J. Power. 1987. “La cuenca del Caribe como subsistema regional.” Estudios Sociales Centroamericanos no. 43 (enero/abril): 13-26. Manigat, Leslie F., ed. 1976. The Caribbean Yearbook of International Relations 1975. Leyden, Netherlands: A. W. Sijthoff. -. 1977. The Caribbean Yearbook of International Relations 1976. Leyden, Neth¬ erlands: A. W. Sijthoff.

344

/

International Relations

Marshall, Jonathan, Peter Dale Scott, and Jane Hunter. 1987. The Iran-Contra Connec¬ tion: Secret Teams and Covert Operations in the Reagan Era. Boston: South End Press. Mesa-Lago, Carmelo, and June S. Belkin, eds. 1982. Cuba in Africa. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Millett, Richard, and W. Marvin Will, eds. 1979. The Restless Caribbean: Changing Patterns of International Relations. New York: Praeger. Moffett, George D., III. 1985. The Limits of Victory: The Ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Moore, John Norton. 1987. Secret War in Central America, Sandinista Assault on World Order. Frederick, Md.: University Publications of America. Morales, Abelardo. 1989. “Ajuste estructural vrs. integration: los vericuetos de la polftica regional de Costa Rica.” Polemica 7, no. 2: 27-38. Mujal-Leon, Eusebio. 1987-1988. ‘‘The West German SPD and the Politics of Inter¬ nationalism in Central America.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 29, no. 4: 89-123. National Bipartisan Commission on Central America. 1984. The Report of the President’s National Bipartisan Commission on Central America. New York: Macmillan Co. Pastor, Robert. 1987. Condemned to Repetition: The United States and Nicaragua. Prince¬ ton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Preiswerk, Roy, ed. 1969. Regionalism and the Commonwealth Caribbean. St. Augus¬ tine, Trinidad: Institute of International Relations. Rojas, Aravena Francisco, and Luis Guillermo Solis Rivera. 1988. Subditos o aliados? La polltica exterior de Estados Unidos y Centroamerica, San Jose, Costa Rica: FLACSO. Rosenberg, Mark B., et al. 1986. Honduras: Pieza clave de la polltica de Estados Unidos en Centroamerica. Tegucigalpa: Centro de Documentation de Honduras. -. 1987. ‘‘Pequenos palses y potencias hegemonicas: Centroamerica y el Caribe en el contexto global.” Estudios Sociales Centroamericanos no. 43 (enero/abril): 27-40. Rosenau, James R. 1984. “A Pre-Theory Revisited: World Politics In an Era of Cascading Interdependence.” International Studies Quarterly 28, no. 3 (September): 245-306. Scheman, L. Ronald. 1988. The Inter-American Dilemma: The Search for Inter-American Cooperation at the Centennial of the Inter-American System. New York: Praeger. Schlesinger, Stephen, and Stephen Kinzer. 1982. Bitter Fruit: The Untold Story of the American Coup in Guatemala. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Schoenhals, Kai P., and Richard A. Melanson. 1985. Revolution and Intervention in Grenada: The New Jewel Movement, the United States and the Caribbean. Boul¬ der, Colo.: Westview Press. Seabury, Paul, and Walter A. McDougall, eds. 1984. The Grenada Papers. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies. Slater, Jerome. 1970. Intervention and Negotiation: The United States and the Dominican Republic. New York: Harper and Row. Smith, Wayne S. 1987. The Closest of Enemies: A Personal and Diplomatic Account of U.S.-Cuban Relations since 1957. New York: Norton. Tardanico, Richard T., ed. 1987. Crises in the Caribbean Basin. Newberry Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Central America and the Caribbean

/

345

Tokatlian, Juan G., ed. 1984. Cuba y Estados Unidos: dos enfoques. Bogota: CEREC. Torres-Rivas, Edelberto. 1989. Repression and Resistance: The Struggle for Democracy in Central America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. United States Congress, U.S. House of Representatives. 1987. Report of the Congres¬ sional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. United States Congress, U.S. Senate. 1989. Subcommittee on Narcotics, Terrorism, and International Operations. Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy. A Report on the Subcommittee on Narcotics, Terrorism, and International Operations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Valenta, Jiri. 1985. “Nicaragua: Soviet Pawn or Non-Aligned Country?” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 27, no. 3 (Fall): 162-175. Valenta, Jiri, and Esperanza Duran. 1987. Conflict in Nicaragua: A Multidimensional Perspective. Boston: Allen and Unwin. Vanden, Harry E., and Waltraud Queiser Morales. 1985. “Nicaraguan Relations with the Non-Aligned Movement.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Af¬ fairs 27, no. 3 (Fall): 141-61. Vanderlaan, Mary. 1986. Revolution and Foreign Policy in Nicaragua. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Walker, Thomas W., ed. 1985. Nicaragua: The First Five Years. New York: Praeger. -. 1987. Reagan versus the Sandinistas: The Undeclared War on Nicaragua. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press. Welch, Richard E. 1985. Response to Revolution: The United States and the Cuban Revolution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Whitehead, Laurence. 1986. “Sovereignty, Democracy and Socialism: Reflections on the Grenadian Experience.” San German: Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico, Centro de Investigaciones del Caribe y America Latina. Wiarda, Howard, and Mark Falcoff, eds. 1987. The Communist Challenge in the Ca¬ ribbean and Central America. Washington, D.C.: America Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Wyden, Peter. 1979. Bay of Pigs: The Untold Story. New York: Simon and Schuster. Zubek, Voytek. 1987. “Soviet‘New Thinking’ and the Central American Crisis. "Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 29, no. 3 (Fall): 87—106.

SOUTH AMERICA Michael J. Francis and Timothy J. Power

Two important issues—methodology and subject matter—are integral to under¬ standing patterns of international relations research on South America. As will be noted below, there has been surprisingly little evolution in the methods used to study international relations among the South American countries, but the topics of study have changed at key junctures in the past thirty years, often reflecting important subjects of political debate among scholars interested in the region. In fact, it seems fair to conclude that a valuable perspective on the international relations research of South America at the present time can be gained by merely charting the rise and fall of various issues as reflected in what research subjects are being studied and, equally important, what topics are being left out. One question that deserves some attention before proceeding is whether the international relations of South America constitute a research focus separate from the general question of the international relations of Latin America, which is analyzed by G. Pope Atkins in Chapter 14. The best discussion of this important issue is found in Atkins’s book, Latin America in the International Political System (1989). Although the systematic boundary problems are often consid¬ erable, the authors of this chapter believe that there are several reasons why South America constitutes a separate unit of analysis in terms of international politics. First, the intellectual justification for the separation hinges on the fact that there is a regional international system among the South American states which shapes the foreign policies of those states. One way of describing that system is to see Brazil as a subhegemonic state related to the United States which dominated the continent geographically and in terms of population. Argentina has long contested Brazil’s paramount position, and Venezuela has increasingly

348

/

International Relations

come to try to generate a policy that gives it a certain amount of autonomy. The other South American states “float” as possible alliance partners in an environ¬ ment that in many ways resembles the nineteenth-century European balance of power situation. One finds this point made particularly clearly in such works as Samuel L. Bailey, The United States and the Development of South America, 1945-1975 (1976); Glen St. John Barclay, Struggle for a Continent: The Dip¬ lomatic History of South America, 1917—1945 (1971); Robert N. Burr, By Reason or Force: Chile and the Balancing of Power in South America, 1830-1905 (1967); and Jack Child, Geopolitics and Conflict in South America: Quarrels among Neighbors (1985). Second, separating South America is logical because the interests of the South American states are generally substantially different from those of Mexico, Cen¬ tral America, or the Caribbean (if for no other reason than the fact that generally they are less immediately subject to U.S. influence). However, it should also be observed that the neat separation between the international relations of Latin America generally and those of South America often becomes blurred when specific works or ideas are discussed, as the overlap of the chapters in this volume illustrates.

RESEARCH TRENDS The convenient place to begin our analysis is to look at the unrefined infor¬ mation, assembled in a rather crude form which does not attempt to distinguish between significant and less significant works. To accomplish this task, we examined and categorized the “International Relations” entries in the last eight editions (1973 to 1987) of the Handbook of Latin American Studies dealing exclusively with South America. One can, of course, raise some valid meth¬ odological objections to such an approach. For example, what is the process by which items to be reviewed were provided to those doing the Handbook essays? Did those who selected items for inclusion, wrote the review essays, and penned the annotations display a bias toward one type of work or another? Moreover, what is the overall impact of the publishing process when some books are chosen for publication and some rejected, and some articles are accepted and others refused? These are important matters for understanding international relations research on South America when it is evident that different editors would surely have made somewhat different publication decisions. This is no small issue, and it certainly represents a limitation to the empirical data under consideration in the first section of our analysis. However, based on our observation of the process, the Hispanic Division attempts to provide a broad cross-section of materials to the editors writing the Handbook essays, and most editors are relatively nonjudgmental in terms of deciding what items are included in the bibliographies (although they often express strong opinions in the review essays accompanying the bibliographical citations and in the annotations them¬ selves). But one must acknowledge the fact that, in the case of the subject matter

South America

/

349

under consideration in this chapter, many of the important evaluations were made by North American scholars with biases as to the relative value of various methodological approaches and discursive styles. For example, it may well be that polemical writing, which is not normally considered acceptable scholarship in North America, is taken less seriously than it should be, or that work totally inconsistent with the reigning international relations academic paradigms in the United States tends to be treated cavalierly. One hopes that the editors are significantly sensitive to Latin American scholarship so as to avoid a kind of intellectual imperialism, but only the most naive or methodologically insensitive would be willing to argue that this problem is not a serious caveat which must be taken into account when considering Table 17.1.

Latin American Foreign Policy In this category we place items dealing with individual countries and particular sets of general foreign policy issues. Overarching discussions, often of a pre¬ scriptive nature, have long been a staple of publications in the area. Topics such as the law of the sea controversies were placed in this category (although, from another perspective, they are also boundary conflicts) because these have been important foreign policy issues for most South American states. The form of analysis in much of the foreign policy writing is historical and legalistic in nature, and only recently has there been an increase in foreign policy analysis based more on political factors and less on formalisms. Although this is the largest category, it is also the most diverse. The rising tide of serious, nonpartisan political analysis among the South Americans writing on foreign policy seems to be stimulated by a large number of young scholars in South America who did their graduate studies in the United States and England, where the policy analysis, at least since World War II, is not generally legalistic. Many of these individuals are attached to various research institutes located throughout Latin America which frequently publish materials related to South American international issues. The two most prominent of these are Mexico’s Colegio de Mexico, publisher of Foro International, and Chile’s Instituto de Estudios Intemacionales (Universidad de Chile), publisher of Estudios Internationales. Founded in the late 1950s, Foro, although tending to focus on Mexican foreign policy at times, has been a model for the rest of Latin America. Estudios followed in the mid-1960s. Both have published wellbalanced academic work dealing with international issues in South America. Their early articles tended to be somewhat legalistic, but most of the articles now being published in those two journals would meet the standards of academic writing and policy research anywhere in the world. Most South American coun¬ tries now have institutes dealing with foreign policy issues which produce nonpolemical analyses. For example, the Centro Peruano de Estudios Intemacionales has recently produced a set of impressive papers, Relaciones intemacionales del Peru (1986) edited by Eduardo Ferrero Costa, based on a symposium the center

t^HOi't'toONmoONtrt rTrr4o4/N’_NOOO

o « vQ

O

ro

cn ° E =* a

—

’■*

t~o

O

V)

lO

O

On

OOC\r^rO(7NOO>oO'—'OO

00 $

(S

-H

-H

«-l

On

roroONOOONONOOOO Tf -h -h

£ £ On

£ ^

t-~ c«N

to *—1

r-) —H

no

r" ro

ro ^

rC4

•Nt

O

ro

NO

o

O

O

o

o

ON

£ ^

00

■**

ON

ooor~-otov>r~oooo

to

1"H

»-H

ON

8 2

5T o £ JS od Ed

r- to

° w-

s

03

° Sn & W t- ^ g." - «

to co 00

Os

ooococor-cooo^

00

tOCN'^f'^t^NOcO©

(M

CO

CO

S 0\

Table A.3 Political Science Entries for Central America by Country and HLAS Volume, 1961-1985

*-H Tf

1—(

«-H

CO

o

vo On

oo n©

-xt *-«

© *o

On C4

CO CM

n© Tf

vC tT

0» CO

O »-I

n© O

tJvS

p *-«

«n CO

CO On

p M-

n© ©

^ On

p cm

p

p co

p oo

© r>’

© cm

©

NO On

CM ^

CM On

p CM

p

p

p

p

p

•—


§5

V

8a

so j=

£

O

^

d “See explanatory footnote in Table 4.

Table A.5 Subjects of Political Research by Latin American Country, 1961-1985 (in percent)

11

Table A.6 Subject Areas of Research by Nationality: North American vs. Latin American, 1960-1985 (in percent)

Subject of Research

Armed Forces Church/State Issues Agrarian Issues Urban Issues Parties & Elections Gov’t. & Legal Institutions Economic Issues Women & Politics Education & Politics Intellectuals Revolutionary Issues Political Socialization Human Rights International Relations Media & Politics Country & Comparative Studies Political Leaders Theoretical & Empirical Analysis

Totals

North American

%

tt

8 3 4 5 7 7 5 1 2 — 15 1 1 16 1 14 5 5

(189) (74) (86) (111) (165) (152) (126) (23) (51)

100%

Latin American

%

# (304) (152) (125) (217) (478) (441) (232)

7 3 3 5 10 10 5 —

(9)

(355) (26) (28) (379) (28) (323) (105) (117)

1 1 22 1 2 8 2 7 11 3

(65) (44) (1000) (45) (82) (380) (70) (300) (484) (146)

(2349)

100%

(4574)

(ID

Table A.7 Type of Publication by Nationality: North American vs. Latin American, 19601985 (in percent)

Type of Publication

North American

%

#

Latin American

%

#

Books/Monographs

45

(1049)

72

(3293)

Journal Articles & Book Chapters

51

(1202)

25

(1139)

3

(79)

2

(113)

-

(17)

-

(32)

99%

(2347)

99%

(4577)

Government Documents Magazines

Totals

390

Table A.8 Entries in Selected Scholarly Journals for Central America by Country, Period, and Type of Journal, 1969-1984

1969 TO 1973

1974 TO 1978

1979 TO 1984

Region/Country

A.

B.

C.

D.

A.

B.

c.

D.

A.

B.

c.

D.

Total Region

0

0

6

0

2

0

9

2

0

0

25

12

Guatemala

1

0

4

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

9

3

Honduras

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

El Salvador

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

1

Nicaragua

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

13

2

Costa Rica

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

6

1

Panama

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

Belize

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Explanatory Notes: Column A journals are leading mainstream journals in Political Science in the United States, including American Political Science Review. Polity. American Journal of Political Science (formerly the Midwest Journal of Political Sciencel. Western Political Quarterly. Journal of Politics. Social Science Quarterly, and Political Science Quarterly. Column B journals are leading comparative politics journals in the United States, including: Comparative Political Studies. Comparative Politics. World Politics, and Studies in Comparative International Development. Column C journals are leading journals from the United States that focus on Latin America, including: Inter-American Economic Affairs. Latin American Perspectives, Journal of Latin American Studies and World Affairs, and the Latin American Research Review. Column D consists of data from the British Journal of Latin American Studies.

391

Appendix C MAJOR RESEARCH CENTERS AND INSTITUTES IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN David W. Dent

Research centers and institutes in Latin America and the Caribbean have grown at a dramatic rate over the past thirty years. Few of the centers and institutes listed in this appendix existed before 1960. The nature of political change in Latin America and the Caribbean, specialization within the field of political science, and the growth of graduate studies programs have all fostered the rise of research centers devoted to understanding political life and social change. Universities with libraries, and institutes, national libraries, and archives are no longer the only places where research documents and data can be obtained in Latin America and the Caribbean. The centers and institutes listed in this appendix are arranged alphabetically by country and item within each country. Each entry includes the name and address, and when possible, a brief annotation indicating what kind of docu¬ mentation/research is available at the center or institute. Other information of a less permanent nature—phone numbers, names of directors, and the size of the collection—was omitted. The relative ease of tracking down libraries, universities with Latin American Studies centers, research institutes, and consortia in the United States and Western Europe is the main reason this appendix was devoted exclusively to Latin America and the Caribbean. National libraries and archives— at times less valuable for specialized research on comparative politics and in¬ ternational relations—in Latin America and the Caribbean were kept to a min¬ imum of entries. However, The World of Learning [Europa Publications Limited, London], published annually, is an excellent source for locating national and university libraries and archives in all of the Latin American and Caribbean countries. Of equal value is Ann K. Nauman’s A Handbook of Latin American and Caribbean National Archives (1983). For Mexican libraries and archives, see Richard E. Greenleaf and Michael C. Meyer, eds.. Research in Mexican

394

/

Appendixes

History: Topics, Methodology, Sources, and a Practical Guide to Field Research (1973). The Hispanic Division of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., also has an up-to-date list of libraries, archives, academias, and institutes for those who have access to its fine collection. A few newspaper archives/libraries in major cities that contain excellent clipping files and other contemporary doc¬ umentation are also included; however, access, organization, and historical con¬ tinuity can be a problem for the political researcher. For those who are unfamiliar with the scope of research opportunities in the United States and Western Europe, the following published sources should pro¬ vide a useful starting point. Those in the Washington, D.C., area will want to consult Michael Grow, Scholar’s Guide to Washington, D .C. for Latin American and Caribbean Studies (1979). Kenneth J. Grieb, ed., Research Guide to Central America and the Caribbean (1985) is an excellent compilation for those doing research in Central America and the Caribbean. Those interested in data banks and archives will find William G. Tyler’s (ed.) Data Banks and Archives for Social Science Research on Latin America (1975) a valuable source, although now somewhat dated. For those interested in Latin American studies in the United States and Europe, Martin H. Sable, The Latin American Studies Direc¬ tory (1981), and Carmelo Mesa-Lago, Latin American Studies in Europe (1978?) are well-crafted volumes on the subject. It should be pointed out that this list of centers and institutes was compiled during the first three months of 1990, while important political changes were taking place inside Latin America and in the formulation of U.S. policy toward the region. The U.S. invasion of Panama and the capture of General Manuel Antonio Noriega and the electoral defeat of the FSLN in Nicaragua raise im¬ portant questions about the emergence of new centers and institutes and the life span of others spawned under different political environments. What kind of research will be possible in Nicaragua during the 1990s? What will happen to the research opportunities in Cuba if Fidel Castro abandons Marxism-Leninism? With a “democratic” resurgence in Latin America, is it a propitious time to study the military, or other key “actors” in Latin American politics? Will conservative “think tanks” and institutes expand as Latin American leaders attempt to solve over a decade of complex economic development issues with monetarist and libertarian economic theories? The failure of most polls to predict the UNO victory of Violeta Chamorro in Nicaragua, and the strength of the centrist candidate Alberto Fujimori in Peru’s presidential elections, will hopefully lead to a refinement of survey research and electoral studies under conditions of national upheaval and turmoil. The election of over seven center-right presidents in Latin America between 1989 and 1990 gives the United States an opportunity to restore its badly damaged image in the region while not having to fear new governments engaged in radical social experiments. The magnitude of Latin America’s economic woes—inflation, debt, drugs, unemployment—at a time when the United States is hard pressed to allocate more aid for Eastern Europe does not augur well for continuing a healthy

Research Centers

/

395

or objective research environment. In any case, much of the political science research being done in Latin America and the Caribbean will come from the centers and institutes compiled in this appendix.

ARGENTINA Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES). Address: Avenida Pueyrredon, 510-7°, 1032 Buenos Aires. Primary focus on relations between domestic and international economic policies and political processes. Centro de Estudios de Relaciones Internationales y de Estrategia Internacional (CERIEN). Address: Maipu 889, 2ndo. A, 1068 Buenos Aires. Research focus on strategic and foreign policy, emphasizing U.S. and European perspectives. Centro de Estudios Internacionales Argentinos (CEINAR). Address: Defensa 251, 1°B, 1065 Buenos Aires. Major focus on international law, geopolitics, and Latin Amer¬ ican integration. Centro de Investigaciones en Ciencias Sociales (CICSO). Address: Defensa 665, 5° Piso C, Buenos Aires. Comision Economica para America Latina (CEPAL). Address: Corrientes 2554, 6°, Buenos Aires. Argentine branch of the United Nations’ Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Consejo Argentino para las Relaciones Exteriores. Address: Uruguay 1734, 6° Piso, Buenos Aires. Major focus on Argentine-Brazil relations. Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO). Address: Federico Lacroze 2097-Belgrano, Casilla Postal 145, Sucursal 26, 1426 Buenos Aires. Fundacion Bariloche. Address: Casilla Postal 138, San Carlos de Bariloche, Neuquen. Major focus on limits of growth and world order modeling. Instituto Argentino de Estudios Estrategicos y de las Relaciones Internationales. Address: C. Pellegrini 983, 8° A, 1009 Buenos Aires. Major focus on geopolitics and military and political problems of Latin America and the southern hemisphere. Instituto de Desarrollo Economico y Social. Address: Araoz 2838, Buenos Aires. Instituto de Estudios Estrategicos, Universidad de Belgrano. Address: Federico Lac¬ roze 1959, Buenos Aires. Major focus on geopolitics. Instituto de Estudios Geopoliticos (IDEG). Address: Libertad 94, 6° L, Buenos Aires. Major focus on geopolitics in Argentina and the Southern Cone. Instituto de Estudios sobre Teona Social y Politicas Publicas (INSTEPO). Address: Buenos Aires. Research focuses on the study of economics, history, and public policy from a classical liberal perspective. Instituto de Investigation Europeo Latinoamericano (EURAL). Address: Avenida Corrientes 2554-3, Piso A, 1425 Buenos Aires. Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales. Address: Corrientes 1628, 2° Piso C, 1042 Buenos Aires. Instituto para la Integration de America Latina (INTAL). Address: Esmeralda 130, Casilla Postal 39, Sue. 1, 1401 Buenos Aires. Major focus on trade and Latin American economic integration.

396

/

Appendixes

Institute Torcuato di Telia, Centro de Investigaciones Economicas. Address: 11 de Septiembre 2139, 1428 Buenos Aires. La Nacion. Address: Bouchard 557, 1106 Buenos Aires. Use of reading room may require permission from cognizant authorities. La Prensa. Address: Avenida de Mayo 567, 1319 Buenos Aires. Use of reading room may require permission from cognizant authorities. Organizacion de Estados Iberoamericanos (OEI). Address: Austria 2549 PB A, 1425 Buenos Aires. Universidad de Belgrano, Institute of Strategic Studies. Address: Federico Lacroze 1959, 1426 Buenos Aires.

BARBADOS Institute of Social and Economic Research. Address: University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, POB Bridgetown.

BELIZE Belize Archives Department. Address: 26/28 Unity Blvd, Belmopan. St. John’s College. Address: P.O. Box 548, Belize City.

BOLIVIA Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia. Address: Casilla Postal 5829, Avenida 16 de Julio 1732, La Paz. Academia Nacional de la Historia. Address: Avenida Abel Iturralde 205, La Paz. May require permission from cognizant authorities. Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional. Address: Palacio Legislative, La Paz. May require permission from cognizant authorities. Centro Boliviano de Estudios Multidisciplinarios (CEBEM). Address: Avenida Arce 2105, Ed. Venus, Of. 3A, La Paz. Multidisciplinary research center devoted to cross¬ national studies of democratization, political economy, illicit drug trafficking, and social movements. Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Economica y Social (CERES). Address: Calle Campos 348, Casilla Postal 10018, La Paz. Multidisciplinary research center devoted to social policy and politics. Facultad Latinoamerica de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO). Address: C. Jacinto Benavente 2190 P.B., Esq. Fernando Guachalla, Casilla Postal 20.951, La Paz. Institute Latinoamericano de Investigaciones Sociales (ILDIS). Address: Edificio Torre de las Americas, Bloque B, Cajon Postal 8745. Multidisciplinary institute devoted to research on the informal sector, electoral analysis, U.S.-Bolivian relations, and democratization. Universidad Catolica Boliviana. Address: Casilla Postal 4805, La Paz. Departments of economics and social science engage in policy research.

Research Centers

/

397

Universidad Mayor de “San Andres.” Address: Casilla Postal 6042, La Paz. Number of attached research institutes focus on history, economics, and the social sciences.

BRAZIL Centro Brasileiro de Analise e Planejamento (CEBRAP). Address: Rua Morgado de Mateus 615, Vila Madalena, 04015 Sao Paulo, SP. Research focuses on the connections between Brazil’s economic model and its social, economic, and foreign policy. Centro Brasileiro de Estudos Estrategicos (CEBRES). Address: Av. Presidente An¬ tonio Carlos 375, Sala 1202, 20020 Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Research focuses on Brazilian geopolitics and strategic policy. Studies focus on Brazil’s geopolitical position in Africa, the South Atlantic, Antarctica, the Amazon, and Latin America. Centro de Documentagao e Informagao da Camara dos Deputados. Address: Palacio do Congresso Nacional, Praga dos Tres Poderes, 70160 Brasilia, DF. Best source for documentation on legislative studies. Centro de Estudos Afro-Asiaticos (CEAA), Conjunto Universitario Candido Mendes. Address: Rua Joana Angelica 63, 22042 Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Research focuses on the sociopolitical aspects of Asia and Africa and Brazil’s relations with these areas. Centro de Estudos de Cultura Contemporanea (CEDEC). Address: Rua Airosa Galvao 64, 05002, Sao Paulo, SP. Research focuses on working-class politics and mass organizations. Centro de Pesquisa e Documentagao de Historia Contemporanea do Brasil (CPDOC), Fundagao Getulio Vargas. Address: Praia de Botafogo 190, 22250 Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Research focuses on Brazil’s foreign policy and diplomatic history along with its internal development problems. Conselho Brasileiro de Relagoes Internacionais. Address: Caixa Postal 04-0289, Bras¬ ilia, DF. Forum coordinates the research of Brazilian specialists in international relations. Departamento de Ciencia Politica e Relagoes Internacionais, Universidade de Bras¬ ilia. Address: Asa Norte, 70910 Brasilia DF. Department specializes in international politics and law, and Latin American (especially Brazilian) foreign relations. Departamento de Geogralia e Historia, Universidade de Brasilia. Address: Asa Norte, 70910 Brasilia DF. Research focuses on diplomatic history and historical aspects of Brazilian foreign policy. Departamento de Direito Internacional, Escola de Direito, Universidade de Sao Paulo. Address: Largo de Sao Francisco 95, Sao Paulo, SP. Escola Superior de Guerra (ESG). Address: Fortaleza de Sao Joao, Urea, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, ZC 82. Research focus on national defense policy, international conflict, and national development. Facultad Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO). Address: Rua Alcindo Guanabara 24, Salas 507/508, 20031 Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Fundagao Centro de Estudos de Comercio Exterior. Address: Av. Rio Branco 120, Gr. 707, Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Research concentrates on Brazil’s international commercial and economic relations. Fundagao Getulio Vargas. Address: Praia de Botafogo 190, 22253 Rio de Janeiro, RJ.

398

/

Appendixes

Funda^ao Institute Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica. Address: Av. Franklin Roo¬ sevelt 166, 20021 Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Produces and analyzes demographic, socioeco¬ nomic, and environmental data. Fundagao Institute de Pesquisa Econdmica/Universidade de Sao Paulo (FIPE). Ad¬ dress: Caixa Postal 11.474, 05508 Sao Paulo, SP. Research focuses on economic policy and political economy with particular reference to Brazil’s economic development problems. Fundagao Joao Pinheiro. Address: Av. Joao Pinheiro 146, 30.000 Belo Horizonte, MG. Research focuses on general social science, public policy, and Brazilian foreign policy. Funda^ao Joaquim Nabuco. Address: Av. 17 de Agosto 2187, 50000 Recife, PE. Research focuses on socioeconomic studies of agrarian workers in Brazil’s north and northeast. Institute Brasileiro de Analises Sociais e Economicas. Address: Rua Vicente de Souza 29, 22251 Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Institute de Estudos Politicos e Sociais. Address: Rua Barao de Oliveira Castro 22, Jardim Botanico, 22460 Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Research focuses on the study of state and society, Brazil-Argentine relations, and sociopolitical and democratic trends in Latin America. Institute de Estudos Sociais, Economicos e Politicos de Sao Paulo (IDESP). Address: Av. Dr. Amaldo, 1973 Sao Paulo 01255, SP. Research focuses on redemocratization, political institutions and organizations, and social policy. Institute de Relates Internacionais, Pontifica Universidade Catolica, Rio de Janeiro. Address: Rua Marques de Sao Vicente 225, 22453 Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Research focus is on the economic, political, and international aspects of democratization. Institute de Relates Latinoamericanas (IRLA), Pontificia Universidade Catolica, Sao Paulo. Address: Rua Monte Alegre 977, Perdizes, 05014 Sao Paulo, SP. Research focus is on Latin American politics and political thought. Institute Universitario de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro (IUPERJ), Conjunto Uni¬ versitario Candido Mendes, Programa de Relagoes Internacionais. Address: Rua de Matriz 82, 22260 Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Research focus is on U.S.-Brazilian relations, comparative democratization, and the political implications of Brazil’s changing economy. Its journal, Dados, covers most of the social sciences. Jornal do Brasil. Address: Av. Brasil 500, 20949 Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Newspaper archives available for recent social, economic, and political issues. May require permission from cognizant authorities. O Estado de Sao Paulo. Address: Av. Eng. Caetano Alvares 55, 02550 Sao Paulo, SP. Excellent reading room with well-organized clipping files on social, political, and inter¬ national issues. May require permission from cognizant authorities. Programa de Estudios Conjuntos sobre Integration Economica Latinoamericana (ECIEL). Address: 740 Praia do Flamengo, 21884 Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Research focuses on national and international economic development. Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP). Address: C. Postal 1170, Cidade Universitaria, Barao Geraldo, 13100 Campinas, SP.

Research Centers

/

399

CHILE Academia Chilena de Ciencias Sociales. Address: Clasificador 1349, Correo Central, Santiago. Asociacion Chilena de Investigaciones para la Paz (ACHIP). Address: Casilla 80, Correo Miramontes, Santiago. Major focus is on interdisciplinary research devoted to the international economic order, militarism and disarmament policy, and human rights/peace education. Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional. Address: Edificio del Congreso Nacional, Valparaiso. Excellent source for periodicals devoted to politics and economics. May require permission from cognizant authorities. Centro de Estudios Publicos (CEP). Address: Monsenor Sotero Sauz, 175 Santiago. Holds seminars and colloquia on public policy, principally from a neoconservative point of view. Most of the scholars at CEP share the approach of the “Chicago School” of liberal economic theory. Centro Latinoamericano de Documentation Economica y Social (CLADES). Address: Casilla 179-D, Avda Dag Hammarskjold, Santiago. As part of the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America, the Center’s purpose is to provide easy access to economic and social information for Latin America and the Caribbean. Circulo de Estudios Internacionales, Academia de Humanismo Cristiano. Address: Catedral 1063, Santiago. Forum for discussion of East-West and North-South issues, and Chile’s foreign relations. Corporation de Investigaciones Economicas para Latinoamerica (CIEPLAN). Ad¬ dress: Avenida Cristobal Colon 3494, Santiago. Research focus is on political economy of semi-industrialized countries of Latin America is a rapidly changing international economy. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLA). Address: Casilla 179-D, Avenida Dag Hammerskold, Santiago. Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO). Address: Leopoldo Urrutia 1959 Nunoa, Casilla 3213/C, Santiago. Major research focus is on the impact of the arms race on South America, military intervention in politics and inter-American military relations with an emphasis on U.S. and Latin American security doctrines, and Chile’s role within the international political system. Instituto de Chile. Address: Almirante Montt 453, Clasificador 1349, Correo Central, Santiago. Instituto de Estudios Internacionales (IEI), Universidad de Chile. Address: Avenida Condell 249, Santiago. Major research focus is on international relations and regional economic integration with an emphasis on dependency themes and Latin American re¬ lations with Europe, the Pacific, and the United States. Instituto Latinoamericano de Estudios Transnacionales (ILET). Address: Casilla 16632, Correo 8, Santiago. Major research focus on transnational economic relations and authoritarian regimes in the Southern Cone. Instituto Latinoamericano de Planificacion Economica y Social (ILPES). Address: Edif. Naciones Unidas, Avda. Dag Hammarskjold, Casilla 1567, Santiago. Most of the research is devoted to the techniques of economic and social planning.

400

/

Appendixes

Program de Estudios Conjuntos sobre las Relaciones Internacionales de America Latina (RIAL). Address: Europa 2048, Clasificador 41, Correo 9, Santiago. RIAL’s major focus is on coordinating joint research efforts of Latin American scholars dealing with international structural changes and their impact on Latin America political systems and intra-Latin American relations. VECTOR—Centro de Estudios Economicos y Sociales. Address: Miraflores 590, Depto. 7, Santiago. Research focuses on Chile’s economy and its foreign economic relations.

COLOMBIA Asociacion Colombiana para el Estudio de la Poblacion (ACEP). Address: Cr. 23, No. 39-82, Bogota. Sources include information on gender research. Biblioteca “Luis-Angel Arango” del Banco de la Republica. Address: Calle 11, No. 4-14, Apdo. Aereo 3531, Bogota. An extensive general library. Requires permission from cognizant authorities. Centro de Estudios sobre Desarrollo Economico (CEDE). Address: Universidad de los Andes, Apdo. Aereo 4976. Location: Carrera IE, No. 18A-10, Bogota. Excellent sources for economic and social research. Centro de Investigation y Educacion Popular (CINEP). Address: Cr. 5 No. 33A-08, Bogota. Material on development and popular action. Centro Jorge Eliecer Gaitan. Address: Calle 42, No. 15-04, Bogota. Small library devoted to the memory of the popular leader who was assassinated in 1948; includes research materials on Colombian social problems. Departamento Administrative Nacional de Estadistica. Address: Centro Administra¬ tive Nacional, Apdo. Aereo 80043. Location: Avenida El Dorado-CAN, Bogota. Source for official census and economic data. Fundacion para la Educacion Superior y el Desarrollo (FEDESARROLLO). Mail Address: Apdo. Aereo 20513. Location: Calle No. 37, 20-27, Bogota. Research centers on economic development, export strategies, foreign debt, and development strategies. Instituto de Estudios Politicos y Relaciones Internacionales. Address: Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Apdo. Aereo 14490, Bogota. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Address: Carrera 7, No. 40-76, Apdo. Aereo 56710, Bogota. Several libraries contain a range of political science materials. Registraduria Nacional del Estado Civil, Section Publicaciones. Address: Cl. 41 No. 46-19 CAN, Bogota. Government source of election returns. Universidad de los Andes, Departamento de Ciencias Politicas. Mail Address: Apdo. Aereo 4976. Location: Calle 18-A with Carrera 1-E, Bogota. Centro de Estudios In¬ ternacionales focuses on U.S.-Colombian relations, and Latin American international relations. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Address: Ciudad Universitaria, Bogota. The Bi¬ blioteca Central and libraries of the faculties cover a range of political science subjects of investigation.

Research Centers

/

401

COSTA RICA Biblioteca de la Asamblea Legislativa. Address: Apdo. 75, San Jose. Requires per¬ mission from cognizant authorities. Biblioteca “Carlos Monge Alfaro” de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Address: Ciudad Universitaria, San Jose. Biblioteca “Alvaro Castro J.” Address: Calle 2, Avenida 4-6, Apdo. 10058, San Jose. As part of the Central Bank, it specializes in economic data and analysis. Biblioteca del Central Cultural Costarricense-Norteamericano. Address: Apdo. 1489, San Jose. Contains a wide range of journals and books published in English in the United States. Centro de Estudios Democraticos de America Latina (CEDAL). Address: Apdo. 874, San Jose. Multidisciplinary research devoted to democratization in Latin America. Centro de Investigacion y Adiestra Politico Administrative (CIAPA). Address: Apdo. 4224, San Jose. Conservative think tank that focuses on a wide range of political subjects. Centro Multinacional de Investigacion Educativa (CEMIE). Address: Ministerio de Education Publica, Edificio Raventos, 6 piso, Apdo. 10087, San Jose. Coalition Costarricense de Iniciativas de Desarrollo (CINDE). Address: Contact Dr. Manuel J. Baldares C., Director Instituto de Investigacion en Ciencias Economicas, Universidad de Costa Rica, Ciudad Universitaria “Rodrigo Facio,” San Pedro de Montes de Oca, San Jose. Direction General de Estadistica y Censos. Address: Apdo. 10163, San Jose. Good source for economic and demographic data. Escuela de Relaciones Internacionales. Address: Universidad Nacional Heredia, Apdo. 437, Heredia 3000. Major research focus is on international relations of the Central American countries. Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO). Address: Apdo. 5429, San Jose. Major focus on Latin American Studies. Instituto Centroamericano de Administration Publica (ICAP). Address: Apdo. 10025, San Jose. Documentation and research covers a wide range of disciplines including economics, political science, and public policy. Instituto Costarricense de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales. Address: Avenida 1-3, C.9, San Jose. Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales. Address: Universidad de Costa Rica, Ciudad Universitaria Rodrigo Facio, San Jose. Best source for documentation covering all of the social sciences.

CUBA Biblioteca Historica Cubana y Americana. Address: Municipio de La Habana, Oficina del Historiador de la Ciudad, La Habana. Lending library based on the private collection of Cuban scholars. Biblioteca Nacional Jose Marti. Address: Ciudad La Habana. May require permission from cognizant authorities.

402

/

Appendixes

Centro de Estudios de Alternativas Poh'ticas (CEAP-UH). Address: Universidad de La Habana, Ciudad de La Habana. Research focuses on demographic, social, and im¬ migration questions, with particular emphasis on the Cuban community in the United States. Centro de Estudios sobre los Estados Unidos (CESEU). Address: Calle 33-1421, Playa, La Habana. Centro de Estudios sobre America. Address: Avenida 3 No. 1805, Miramar, Playa, Ciudad La Habana 13. Interdisciplinary research focuses on economic and political de¬ velopments in Latin America and the Caribbean emphasizing class struggles, U.S. im¬ perialism, characteristics of the ruling classes in Latin America, and U.S.-Cuban relations. Other subjects of investigation include the politics of migration and the Cuban Community in the United States. Centro de Investigaciones sobre la Economi'a Mundial. Address: Calle 22, No. 309, Playa, Ciudad La Habana. Facultad Latinoamerica de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO). Address: Universidad de la Habana, San Lazaro y L, Ciudad La Habana. Instituto Cubano de Investigaciones y Orientacion de la Demanda Interna (ICIODI). Address: Calle Linea 157, Vedado, La Habana. Interdisciplinary research on various aspects of the internal consumer market. Instituto Superior de Relaciones Internacionales. Address: Calle 22, No. Ill, Playa, Ciudad La Habana. Junta Central de Planificacion. Address: 20 de Mayo, Plaza de la Revolucion, Ciudad La Habana. Oficina Regional de Cultura de la Unesco para America Latina y el Caribe. Address: Apdo. 4158, Ciudad La Habana 4. Universidad de la Habana, Departamento de Investigaciones sobre los Estados Un¬ idos. Address: Calle San Lazaro esq. L, Vedado, Ciudad La Habana 4.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Archivo General de la Nation. Address: Calle M.E. Diaz, Santo Domingo. Best and largest collection of Trujillo and post-Trujillo materials in the Dominican Republic. Biblioteca de la Pontificia Universidad Catolica Madre y Maestra. Address: Auto Pista Duarte, Santiago de la Caballeros, D.R. Relatively new university with a growing collection of modem social science materials on business, economic development, ed¬ ucation, and foreign relations. Biblioteca de la Secretaria de Estado de Relaciones Exteriores. Address: Estancia Ramfis, Santo Domingo. Contains special collections relating to international law. May require permission from cognizant authorities. Biblioteca de la Universidad Autonoma de Santo Domingo. Address: Ciudad Universitaria, Apdo. 1355, Santo Domingo. Excellent collection of documents and materials, including theses and dissertations. Facultad Latinoamerica de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO). Address: Avenida ProceresGala, Campus Universitario, Apartado Postal 332-9, Santo Domingo.

Research Centers

/

403

Fondo para el Avance de las Ciencias Sociales. Address: Calle de la Ataranzana 3 (altos), Santo Domingo. Instituto de Investigaciones Historicas. Address: Jose Reyes 24 (altos), Santo Domingo.

ECUADOR Archivo-Biblioteca de la Funcion Legislativa. Address: Palacio Legislative, Quito. Requires permission from cognizant authorities. Biblioteca del Banco Central del Ecuador. Address: Avenida 10 de Agosto 600 y Checa, Casilla 339, Quito. Useful periodical materials devoted to economics and public administration. Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO). Address: America 4000 y Abelardo Moncayo, Casilla 6362 CCI, Quito. Research focuses on all aspects of Latin American studies. Instituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales. Address: Calle Guayaquil 1974 y Briceno, Quito. Research focuses on Ecuador’s security and development policies. Instituto Latinoamericano de Investigaciones Sociales (ILDIS). Address: Casilla 367A, Quito. Best single source for research materials in economics, sociology, education, and political science.

EL SALVADOR Biblioteca Central de la Universidad de El Salvador. Address: Ciudad Universitaria, San Salvador. Biblioteca del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. Address: Carretera a Santa Tecla, San Salvador. Research requires permission from cognizant authorities. Universidad Centroamericana “Jose Simeon Canas.” Address: Apdo (01) 168, San Salvador.

GRENADA Grenada Public Library. Address: St. George’s.

GUATEMALA Asociacion de Investigation y Estudios Sociales (ASIES). Address: 10 Calle 7-60, Zona 9, Apdo. Postal 1005-A, Guatemala City. Specializes in research on current social, political, and economic events and trends. Biblioteca Central de la Universidad de San Carlos. Address: Ciudad Universitaria, Zona 12, Guatemala City. Biblioteca de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. Address: 9 Avenida 14-31, Zona 1, Guatemala City. Requires permission from cognizant authorities. Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional. Address: 9 Avenida 9-42, Zona 1, Guatemala City. Requires permission from cognizant authorities.

404

/

Appendixes

Biblioteca y Sala de Lectura de la Sociedad El Porvenir de los Obreros. Address: Edificio Social, 24 Avenida Sur 13, Guatemala City. Centro de Estudios Urbanos y Regionales (CEUR). Address: Ciudad Universitaria, Zona 12, Guatemala City. Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoamerica (CIRMA). Address: 5a Calle Oriente #5, Apdo. Postal 336, La Antigua. Excellent library with up-to-date journal collection, archives, and a useful map collection. Scholars may also contact CIRMA’s sister institution, Plumsock Mesoamerican Studies, P.O. Box 38, South Woodstock, VT 05071, for relevant materials. Centro de Investigaciones Sociales Maya (CISMA). Address: 5a Calle 14-54, Zona 3, Quetzaltenango. Useful center for field research, especially in highland Guatemala. Comision Guatemalteca de Cooperacion con la UNESCO. Address: 3a Avenida 8— 35, Zona 1, Guatemala City. Facultad Latinoamerica de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO). Address: 3 Calle 6—24, Zona 2, 01002 Guatemala City. Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Politicos (INCEP). Address: 12 Calle 6—40, Zona 9, Oficina #301, Guatemala City. Research focus is on contemporary political and economic events. Instituto Guatemalteco Americano (IGA). Address: Apdo. Postal 691, Ruta 1, 4-05, Zona 4, Guatemala City. Instituto Indigenista Nacional. Address: 6 Avenida 1-22, Zona 1, Guatemala City. Materials concern research undertaken for the government related to the economic and educational conditions of the indigenous population. Instituto de Nutricion de Centro America y Panama (INCAP). Address: Carretera Roosevelt, Zona 11, Guatemala City. Data exists for all the Central American countries including Panama in the areas of health and nutrition. Universidad Rafael Landivar. Address: Vista Hermosa III, Zona 16, Apdo. Postal 39C, Guatemala City. Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala. Address: Ciudad Universitaria, Guatemala 12.

GUYANA Guyana Institute of International Affairs. Address: POB 812, 189 Charlotte St., La¬ cy town, Georgetown. Information and Documentation Section, Caribbean Community Secretariat. Ad¬ dress: 4th Floor, Bank of Guyana Bldg., POB 10827, Georgetown. University of Guyana, Institute of Development Studies. Address: POB 101110, Georgetown.

HAITI Universite d’etat d’Haiti, Institut International d’Etudes Universitaires. Address: c/o Fondation Haitienne de Developpement, 106 ave Christophe, Port-au-Prince.

Research Centers

/

405

HONDURAS Banco Centroamericano de Integration Economica, Centro de Documentacion. Ad¬ dress: Apdo. Postal 772, Tegucigalpa. Biblioteca “Wilson Popenoe.” Address: Escuela Agricola Panamericano, Apdo. 93, Tegucigalpa. Biblioteca del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. Address: Tegucigalpa. Research requires permission from cognizant authorities. Biblioteca de la Universidad Nacional Autonoma. Address: Ciudad Universitaria, Tegucigalpa. Centro de Documentacion de Honduras (CEDOH). Address: Apdo. Postal 1882, Tegucigalpa. Research focus covers social science research devoted to Honduran devel¬ opment problems and U.S.-Honduran relations.

JAMAICA Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER). Address: University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston 7. Policy research devoted to the role of the Caribbean nations in the changing international system.

MEXICO Biblioteca del Congreso de la Union. Address: Edif. del ex-Convento de Santa Clara, Tacuba 29, Mexico, DF. May require permission from cognizant authorities. Biblioteca “Miguel Lerdo de Tejada” de la Secretaria de Hacienda y Credito Publico. Address: Avenida Republica de El Salvador 49, Mexico 1, DF. May require permission from cognizant authorities. Biblioteca Nacional de Mexico. Address: Insurgentes Sur s/n, Centro Cultural, Ciudad Universitaria, 04510 Mexico, DF. Centro de Estudios Economicos y Sociales del Tercer Mundo (CEESTEM). Address: Carretera Porfirio Diaz 50, San Jeronimo Lidice, Mexico 20, DF. Major research focus is on the new international economic order, Caribbean and Latin American studies, and projects related to women and rural development. Centro de Estudios Educativos, AC. Address: Avenida Revolution 1291, Col. Tlacopac, San Angel, Del. Alvaro Obregon, 01040 Mexico DF. Research focuses on the problems of education in Mexico and Latin America. Centro de Investigation y Docencia Economica (CIDE). Address: Apdo. Postal 41— 553, Mexico 10, DF. Major research focus is on the study of the United States and Mexico’s political economy. Periodical publications also deal with Latin America’s eco¬ nomic problems and prospects. Centro de Relaciones Internacionales. Address: Ciudad Universitaria, FCPS, UNAM, 04510 Mexico, DF. Coordinates and promotes research on all facets of international relations and Mexico’s foreign policy. El Colegio de Mexico. Address: Camino A1 Ajusco 20, 10740 Mexico, DF. Best general collection of political science materials, and the most accessible. Research focuses on

406

/

Appendixes

Mexican politics and international relations, foreign policy, the politics of energy, and U.S.-Mexican relations. Facultad de Ciencias Pollticas y Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM). Address: Torre de Humanidades, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacan, Mexico 21, DF. Research focuses on the foreign policies of Mexico, the United States, the USSR, and major Latin American countries. Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO). Address: Camino al Ajusco Km. 1.5, Delegacion Alvaro Obregon, Apdo. Postal 20021,01800, Mexico D.F. Hemeroteca Nacional de Mexico. Address: Insurgentes Sur s/n. Zona Cultural, Ciudad Universitaria, Mexico 20, DF. Excellent source for newspapers and periodicals dating back to the eighteenth century. Instituto Latinoamericano de Estudios Transnacionales (ILET). Address: Apdo. Postal 85025. Mexico 20, DF. Major research focus is on the political economy of Latin American agriculture, banking, communication, and transportation. Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo. Address: Eje Central L. Cardenas norte 152, POB 14805, 07730 Mexico, DF. Research focuses on the petroleum industry along with economic studies.

NICARAGUA Centro de Informacion y Estudios de Reforma Agraria (CIERA), Ministerio de Desarrollo Agropecuario e Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria. Address: Carretera Masaya, Km. 8, Apdo. Postal C-80, Managua. Policy research center contains a library and documentation on agricultural development and agrarian reform. Centro Ecumenico Antonia Valdivieso. Address: Apdo. 3205, Managua. Major center in Managua for the study of liberation theology. Centro de Informacion sobre la Costa Atlantica (CIDCA). Address: Apdo. A-189, Managua. Centro de Investigacion y Asesoria Socio-Economico (CINASE). Address: Frente al Rincon Espanol, Apdo. 4431, Managua. Centro de Investigacion de la Realidad Americana (CIRA). Address: Cd. Jardln, casa A-22. Coordinadora Regional de Investigaciones Economicas y Sociales (CRIES). Address: de la Iglesia del Carmen, 2 c. al lago, Apdo. C-163, Managua. Interdisciplinary research focuses on Central America and the Caribbean EcoTectura. Address: Cd. Jardln, casa N-51, de Piza Marla, 'A c. al sur, Managua. Instituto Centroamericano de Administration de Empresas (INCAE). Address: Apdo. 2485, Managua. Research focuses on business administration and management research. Instituto para los Estudios del Sandinismo (IES). Address: Apdo. C 186, Managua. Instituto Historico Centroamericano (IHCA). Address: Universidad Centroamericana, Reparto San Juan, Calle del Carmen, casa 523, Apdo. A-194, Managua. Research covers most of the social sciences from a historical and interdisciplinary perspective. Instituto de Investigaciones Economicas y Sociales (INIES). Address: de Los Antojitos,

Research Centers

/

407

2 c. al sur, Apdo. postal C-16, Managua. Interdisciplinary research focuses on the internal dimensions of change inside Nicaragua.

Instituto de Investigaciones y Estudios Sociales de la Empresa Privada (INIESEP). Address: del Restaurante Terraza, 3 c. abajo, 3 c. al sur, Managua.

Instituto Nicaraguense de la Mujer (INIM). Address: Apto. 5714, Managua. Itztani. Address: de los Antojitos, 2 c. arriba, 1 3A c. al sur, Apto. 1523.

PANAMA Biblioteca de la Oficina de Estudios del Canal Interoceanico. Apdo. 9650, Zona 4, Panama City.

Centro de Estudios y Accion Social Panameno (CEASPA). Address: Apdo. 6-133, El Dorado, Panama City. Private “think tank” devoted to social and religious devel¬ opment. Sponsors multidisciplinary research. Library and publications (Dialogo Social) focus on Panama and Central and South America.

Universidad Santa Maria la Antigua. Address: Apartado 6-1696, Estafeta El Dorado, Panama City.

PARAGUAY Biblioteca y Archivo del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. Address: Palacio de Gobiemo, Asuncion. Research requires permission from cognizant authorities.

Biblioteca Publica del Ministerio de Defensa Nacional. Address: Avenida Mariscal Lopez 1040, Asuncion. Research requires permission from cognizant authorities. Centro de Documentacion y Estudios. Address: Casilla de Correos 2558, Asuncion. Research focuses on contemporary political and social questions.

Centro Interdisciplinario de Derecho Social y Econonua Politica. Address: Casilla de Correo 1718, Asuncion.

Centro Paraguayo de Estudios Sociologies (CPES). Address: Eligio Ayala 973, Asun¬ cion. Research emphasizes social perspectives; Center publishes the Revista Paraguaya de Sociologia.

Fundacion Friedrich Naumann. Address: Coronel Sanchez 2778, Asuncion. Research focus is on political and policy studies.

PERU Biblioteca del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. Address: Palacio Torre Tagle, Lima. Research requires permission from cognizant authorities.

Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo y la Participacion (CEDEP). Address: Avenida Jose Faustino Sanchez Carrion 790, Lima 17. Research focuses on agricultural issues and political participation with a distinct leftist orientation. Center publishes Socialismo y Participacion.

Centro de Estudios Historico-Militares de Peru. Address: Paseo Colon 190, Lima. Centro Peruano de Estudios Internacionales (CEPEI). Address: San Ignacio de Loyola

408

/

Appendixes

554, Lima 18. Research emphasis is on international relations and Peruvian foreign policy with a politically independent but essentially centrist orientation. DESCO (Centro de Estudios y Promocion del Desarrollo). Address: Avenida Salaverry 1945, Lima 14. Research center formally affiliated with the Marxist left (Izquierda Unida); bookstore distributes scholarly books and papers of high quality. Grupo de Estudios para el Desarrollo (GREDES). Address: Valle Riestra 520, Lima 27. Relatively new, small center of research; emphasizes institutional analysis, industrial relations. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Address: Horacio Urteaga 694, Jesus 8 Maria, Lima 11. Best independent research center in economics, anthropology, and social sciences (sociology and political science); bookstore has the country’s best publication list in these areas. Instituto Indigenista Peruano. Address: Avenida Salaverry Cuadra 6 s/n, ler piso, Lima. Government agency charged with responsibility for indigenous peasant commu¬ nities; useful for research on Andean peasantry and forest and jungle people. Research requires permission from cognizant authorities. Instituto Libertad y Democracia. Address: Benavides 881, Apdo. Postal 18-1420, Lima 18. Best known for its controversial work on the informal sector. Despite its liberal ideological orientation, it cooperates with both APR A and IU in a number of policyrelated areas of mutual concern. Directed by Hernando de Soto. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica. Address: Apdo. Postal 2095, Avenida 28 de julio 1056, Lima 1. Government agency charged with responsibility for the census and for general data acquisition and analysis. Research requires permission from cognizant authorities. Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru. Address: Avenida Universitaria Cuadra 18, Apdo. Postal 1761, Lima 100. Peru’s best academic department of Social Sciences; faculty performs much innovative research. The university’s Biblioteca Central (same address) and departmental libraries are excellent for political research; many high-quality theses are on file. Written permission from a faculty member may be required to use libraries. Universidad Nacional San Antonio Abad. Address: Avenida de la Cultura s/n, Apdo. Postal 367, Cusco, Peru. Department of Economics performs research on the peasantry. Universidad del Pacifico. Address: Avenida Salaverry 2020, Apdo. Postal 4683, Jesus Maria, Lima 11. Research focus is on economics and social sciences, with small but useful research libraries (especially good for reports and documents).

PUERTO RICO Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Puertorriquena. Address: Apdo. 22200, Estacion UPR, San Juan, P.R. 00931. Interdisciplinary studies focus on the social, economic, and political aspects of Puerto Rico. Centro de Investigaciones Sociales. Address: Facultad de Ciencias SocialeS, Universidad de Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico 00931. Subjects of investigation include Puerto Rico’s social problems. Instituto de Estudios del Caribe. Address: Apdo. BM, Estacion Universidad de Puerto

Research Centers

/

409

Rico, Rio Piedras, PR 00931. Research focuses on interdisciplinary studies of the Caribbean. Inter-American University of Puerto Rico. Address: GPO Box 3255, San Juan, PR 00936. University of Puerto Rico Library. Address: Box C, UPR Station, Rio Piedras, PR 00931. Among nine departmental libraries is a College of Social Science Reserve Col¬ lection and a Law Library.

TRINIDAD Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER). Address: University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad. Interdisciplinary studies focus on the economic and social aspects of the British Caribbean. Institute of International Relations. Address: University of the West Indies, St. Au¬ gustine, Trinidad. Focus is on diplomatic training and postgraduate research in interna¬ tional relations. Interdisciplinary research emphasizes the international relations and international law of the Caribbean region.

URUGUAY Asociacion Sudamericana de Estudios Geopoliticos e Internacionales (ASEGI). Ad¬ dress: Quiebrayugos 4814, Casilla de Correos, Montevideo. Research focus is on the geopolitics of the Southern Cone. Centro de Estadisticas Nacionales y Comercio Internacional del Uruguay (CENCI). Address: Misiones 1361, Casilla de Correo 1510, Montevideo. Provides economic and statistical information for all the Latin American republics. Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudio Sobre el Desarrollo Uruguay (CIEDUR). Ad¬ dress: Joaquin Requena 1375, Montevideo. Direction General de Estadistica y Censos. Address: Cuareim 2052, Montevideo. May require permission from cognizant authorities. Instituto Artigas del Servicio Exterior. Address: Colonia esquina Cuareim, Montevideo. Organizes professional courses for diplomatic corp with a library devoted to diplomacy and foreign affairs. Instituto Interamericano del Nino. Address: Avenida 8 de Octubre 2904, Montevideo. Specialized organization of the Organization of American States with a library devoted to children’s issues throughout the hemisphere. Instituto Uruguayo de Estudios Geopoliticos. Address: Casilla de Correos 5039, Mon¬ tevideo. Research focuses on the geopolitics of the Southern Cone.

VENEZUELA Academia Nacional de la Historia. Address: Bolsa a San Francisco, Palacio de las Academias, Caracas 1010. May require permission from cognizant authorities. Academia de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales. Address: Bolsa a San Francisco, Caracas 1010. May require permission from cognizant authorities.

410

/

Appendixes

Sociedad Bolivariana de Venezuela. Address: Apdo. Postal 874, Caracas. Small library devoted to the life and works of Simon Bolivar. Centro de Estudios del Desarollo de la Universidad Central de Venezuela (CENDES). Address: Apdo. Postal 6622, Caracas 1010A. Many of the university’s foremost social science researchers operate from this center; good library specializes in development problems and planning. Instituto de Altos Estudios para la Defensa y Estrategia Nacional (IADEN). Address: Caracas. Research focus is on geopolitics and defense policy with particular emphasis on developing newer perspectives on Venezuela’s role in the Latin American region. Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administracion (IESA). Address: Av. Occidente, Edif. “IESA,” Apdo. Postal 1640, San Bernardino, Caracas 1010A. Private postgraduate school of business administration; faculty performs high-quality research on economic, social, and developmental issues. Excellent library contains many foreign and domestic books and documents; written permission from the director, and a small fee for student use, may be required. Instituto Venezolano de Analisis Economico y Social. Address: Apdo. Postal 6320, Caracas. Private institution for the study of economic and financial problems. Oficina Central de Estadistica e Informatica. Address: Apdo. Postal 4593 (San Martin), Caracas 1010. Publications focus on economic, social, demographic, and agricultural information. Universidad Central de Venezuela. Address: Ciudad Universitaria Los Chaguaramos, Apdo. Postal 104, Caracas 1051. Departamento de Ciencias Politicas focuses on U.S.Venezuelan relations; Escuela de Relaciones Intemacionales focuses on the teaching of international politics, law, and economics. Universidad Simon Bolivar, Instituto de Altos Estudios de America Latina. Address: Apdo. Postal 80659, Prados del Este, Caracas 1080. Research focus is on political leadership in Latin America, Brazilian studies, theories of international relations of Latin America, intervention, and the prospects for democratic development. Sistema Economico Latinoamericano (SELA). Address: Apdo. Postal 17035, El Conde, Caracas 101. Research focuses on New International Economic Order (NIEO) issues as they concern Latin America’s changing role in the world economy and the implications for Latin America’s relations with the United States, Europe, and Asia.

REFERENCES Greenleaf, Richard E., and Michael C. Meyer, eds. 1973. Research in Mexican History: Topics, Methodology, Sources, and a Practical Guide to Field Research. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Grieb, Kenneth J., ed. 1985. Research Guide to Central America and the Caribbean. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Grow, Michael. 1979. Scholar’s Guide to Washington, D.C. for Latin American and Caribbean Studies. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Mesa-Lago, Carmelo. 1978?. Latin American Studies in Europe. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Center for Latin American Studies. Nauman, Ann K. 1983. A Handbook of Latin American and Caribbean National Archives. Detroit: Blaine Ethridge Books.

Research Centers

/

411

Sable, Martin H. 1981. The Latin American Studies Directory. Detroit: Blaine Ethridge Books. Tyler, William G., ed. 1976. Data Banks and Archives for Social Science Research on Latin America. Gainesville, Fla.: Consortium of Latin American Studies Programs. The World of Learning 1989. 1989. London: Europa Publications.

NAME INDEX Abente Brun, Diego, 116, 117 Abos, Alvaro, 276 Abramovay, Ricardo, 250 Abranches, Sergio Henrique Hudson de, 240 Abugattas, Luis A., 198 Acker, Allison, 51 Ackroyd, William, 34 Adas Tupamaras: una experiencia de guerrilla urbana, 277 Acuna, Marcelo Luis, 271 Adams, Richard N., 49, 54, 57 Adelman, Alan, 326 Agor, Weston, 240 Aguero, Felipe, 121 Aguiar, Cesar, 269 Aguiar, Neuma, 243 Aguilar, Luis E., 80 Aguilera Peralta, Gabriel, 58, 63, 67 Alape, Arturo, 134 al-Qaddafi, Colonel Muammar. See Kadaffi, Colonel Muammar Alarco, German, 172

Alexander, Robert Jackson, 111, 114, 118, 189, 210, 218, 266, 340 Alfonsfn, Raul, 271, 272 Allende, Salvador, 6, 8, 12, 109, 207, 212, 318 Allison, Graham, 332, 366 Almarez Paz, Sergio, 191 Almeida, Maria Hermmia Tavares de, 235, 236, 244, 245, 246, 252, 253 n.l Almond, Gabriel A., 4, 12, 35, 86 Alonso, Jorge, 32 Alum, Rolando A., Jr., 104 Alvarado, Arturo, 32 Alvarez, Maria Eugenia, 136 Alves, Marcio Moreira, 248 Alves, Maria Helena Moreira, 136 Americas Watch, 63 Ameringer, Charles D., 52, 118 Ames, Barry, 32, 35, 240, 241, 250 Amnesty International, 63 Anderson, Charles W., 3, 28, 29 Anderson, Roger C., 28 Anderson, Thomas D., 326

Alemann, Roberto, 274

Anderson, Thomas P., 49, 59, 65 Andrain, Charles F., 15, 94, 109, 207 Angell, Alan, 171, 218 Annis, Sheldon, 183 n.17

Alessandri, Jorge, 207

Arango Jaramillo, Mario, 134

Alba, Victor, 218 Aldunate, Adolfo, 214 Alduncm, Enrique, 36

414

/

Name Index

Arauco, Isabel, 200 Araujo Garcia, Ana Elvira, 119 Arbenz, Jacobo, 331 Archer, Ronald P., 139 Ardaya, Gloria, 195 Argenti, Gisela, 269 Armstrong, Robert, 50 Amove, Robert F., 56, 61, 64 Amson, Cynthia, 50 Arosemena Monroy, Carlos, 152 Arriagada Herrera, Genaro, 210, 212, 215, 216 Arriola, Carlos, 29 Ashcraft, Norman, 55 Astiz, Carlos A., 310 Atkins, G. Pope, 101, 303, 310, 332, 347 Atlantic Council, 334 Aybar de Soto, Jose M., 331 Aylwin, Patricio, 207, 214 Azicri, Max, 84, 337 Bacha, Edmar, 234, 235, 251 Baer, Wemer, 155, 234 Bagley, Bruce Michael, 134, 137, 316, 330 Bahbah, Bishara, 338 Bailey, John J., 30, 137 Bailey, Norman A., 303 Bailey, Samuel L., 275, 348 Baklanoff, Eric N., 217 Balaguer, Joaquin, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104 Balan, Jorge, 232 Baldivia, Jose, 197 Ballon, Eduardo, 175, 178, 179, 180 Baloyra, Enrique A., 50, 56, 62, 69, 111, 112, 115, 121, 333 Banzer Suarez, General Hugo, 194, 195, 196 Barclay, Glen St. John, 348 Barco, Virgilio, 131, 133 Barkin, David, 308, 310 Barrientos, General Rene, 194 Barrios Moron, Raul 196 Barros, Alexandre, 237 Barsky, Osvaldo, 157 Bartra, Roger, 33

Barzelay, Michael, 241 Basanez, Miguel, 27 Bath, C. Richard, 316 Batista, Fulgencio, 81, 82, 89 Batta Fonseca, Victor, 318 Becker, David G., 170, 172, 175, 182 nn.8, 11 Bedregal, Guillermo, 192, 194 Bejar, Hector, 182 n.3 Bejar Navarro, Raul, 36 Belaunde, Fernando, 163, 164 Belkin, June S., 336 Bender, Lynn Darrell, 310 Benevides, Maria Victoria de Mesquita, 239 Benglesdorf, Carollee, 89 Bennett, Douglas C., 29, 310 Benveniste, Guy, 30 Bergquist, Charles, 219 Bermudez Rossi, Gonzalo, 143 Bernardo, Robert M., 83 Berrios Martinez, Ruben, 103 Berry, R. Albert, 135, 141 Bertram, Geoffrey, 171, 182 n.9 Betancourt, Romulo, 115 Betancur, Belisario, 131, 133, 143 Bigler, Gene E., 117, 120 Bilateral Commission on the Future of United States-Mexico Relations, 311 Biles, Robert E., 135, 144 Bill, James A., 65 Bims, Lawrence, 209 Bitar, Sergio, 211 Blachman, Morris J., 232, 326 Black, George, 54 Black, Jan Knippers, 59, 100, 362 Blank, David Eugene, 113, 114 Blanksten, George I., 150, 151, 266 Blasier, Cole, 294, 296, 298, 331 Blight, James G., 332 Blutstein, Howard I., 114 Bodenheimer, Susanne, 302 Boersner, Demetrio, 300 Bogenschild, Thomas E., 244, 246 Boils, Guillermo, 34 Bolland, O. Nigel, 52 Bonachea, Ramon L., 82 Bond, Robert D., 121

Name Index Bonilla, Frank, 118, 213 Bonsai, Philip, 332 Boorstein, Edward, 210 Booth, John A., 2, 36, 52, 57, 58, 59, 63, 65, 111, 133 Borge, Tomas, 71 n.2 Borrini, Alberto, 272 Borzutsky, Sylvia, 192 Bosch, Juan, 101, 102 Boschi, Renato Raul, 233, 244 Botero Zea, Fernando, 137 Bourne, Peter G., 85 Bourque, Susan C., 117 Bourricaud, Francois, 165, 182 n.4 Bowles, Samuel, 90 Branch, Taylor, 215 Brandenburg, Frank, 25, 27 Braveboy-Wagner, Jacqueline A., 337 Bravo Lira, Bernardino, 214 Brenner, Philip, 332 Brewer-Carfas, Allan Randolph, 117 Brill, William H., 193 Britnall, Douglas E., 58 Brockett, Charles D., 53, 65 Brodhead, Frank, 58 Brody, Reed, 63 Brotherson, Festus, Jr., 338 Brown, E. Leonard, 18 n.2 Brownrigg, Leslie, 155 Brundenius, Claes, 87, 88 Bruneau, Thomas C., 247, 248 Bryan, Anthony J., 336 Brzezinski, Zbigniew K., 100 Bucaram, Abdala, 152 Buchanan, Paul, 276 Bueno, Gerardo M., 312 Bulmer-Thomas, Victor, 54 Bunck, Julie Marie, 86, 89, 90 Bunker, Stephen C., 24 Burggraff, Winfield J., 120 Burgos-Debray, Elizabeth, 56 Burnett, Ben G., 151, 213 Burr, Robert N., 348 Bush, George, 334 Bustamante, Fernando, 153, 159 n.3 Bustamante, Jorge A., 312 Cadena, Marisol de la, 177 Cafiero de Nazar, Ana, 271

/

415

Caldeira, Teresa Pires do Rio, 244 Caldeira Brandt, Vinicius, 244 Caldera, Rafael, 113 Calderon, Fernando G., 192, 197, 200 Calderon, Jorge, 193 Camacho, Alvaro G., 134 Camargo, Aspasia Alcantara de, 249 Cammack, Paul, 243 Camp, Roderic A., 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34 Campero, Guillermo, 219 Campos, Judith Talbot de, 137 Campos Harriet, Fernando, 219 Cannon, Mark W., 119 Canton, Dario, 271 Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, 169, 230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 238, 267, 302, 310, 359 Cardoso, O. R., 277 Cardoso, Ruth C. L., 244 Careaga, Gabriel, 31 Carmack, Robert M., 63 Camaval Cristiani, Beatriz, 33 Carney, J. Guadalupe, 58 Carr, E. H., 358 Carrion, Julio, 180 Carvalho, Jose Murilo de, 242 Carvalho, Orlando M., 237 Castanares, Jorge, 337 Castaneda, Jorge (father), 307 Castaneda, Jorge G. (son), 311, 316 Castillo, Oscar, 180 Castillo Ochoa, Manuel, 175 Castro, Claudio de Moura, 251 Castro, Fidel, 2, 8, 79, 81, 83, 84, 8586, 91, 92, 93, 94, 111, 300, 336, 337, 366 Catterberg, Edgardo, 272 Cavalcanti, Themistocles, 237 Cavallo Castro, Ascanio, 212 Cavarozzi, Marcelo, 273, 275 Caviedes, Cesar L., 211 Cehelsky, Marta, 249 Cepeda Ulloa, Fernando, 136 Chamorro, Edgar, 335 Chang Mota, Roberto, 113 Chaplin, David, 167, 176 Chavarria, Manuel, 316

416

/

Name Index

Chavkin, Samuel, 211 Chen, J. Chi-Yi, 117 Chemick, Mark W., 134, 139 Chilcote, Ronald H., 238 Child, Jack, 329, 348, 355-56, 357, 362 Child Velez, Jorge, 134 Cintra, Antonio Otavio, 242 Cirincione, Joseph, 339 Cisneros-Lavaller, Alberto, 285 Clapham, Christopher, 243 Cleaves, Peter S., 35, 170, 213 Cline, Howard F., 307 Close, David H., 60 Cochrane, James D., 30, 116 Cockbum, Leslie, 335 Coelho, Edmundo Campos, 236, 251 Cohen, Isaac, 54, 55 Cohen, Youssef, 245, 253 n.3 Colburn, Forrest D., 60 Coleman, Kenneth L., 32, 37, 119 Collier, David, 15, 165, 169, 215, 234 Collins, Charles David, 143 Combellas, Ricardo, 113 Comite Interamericano de Desarrollo Agricola (CIDA), 218 Conaghan, Catherine M., 153, 154, 193, 198 Concerned Guatemala Scholars, 58-59 Coniff, Michael L., 118, 242 Conroy, Michael E., 61 Constable, Pamela, 212 Converse, Philip E., 253 n.3 Corbett, Charles D., 194 Cordoba, Marco A., 141 Cornelius, Wayne A., 36, 119, 157, 313 Corradi, Juan, 268 Corragio, Jose Luis, 61 Correa, Enrique, 219 Correa, Raquel, 216 Cosio Villegas, Daniel, 30 Cotier, Julio, 13, 166, 169, 173, 178, 295 Cout e Silva, General Golbery do, 356 Coutsoumaris, George, 122 Cout e Silva, General Gobery do, 356 Crabtree, John, 169 Crahan, Margaret E., 90 Craig, Richard B., 134, 313

Crassweller, Robert, 103 Cruz, Sebastiao Velasco e, 252 Cruz-Coke, Carlos, 214 Cruz Sequeira, Arturo, 337 Cueva Davila, Agustfn, 151, 157 Cueva Sanchez, Luis, 177 Cuzan, Alfred G., 60 Dahlman, Carl J., 90 Dahse, Fernando, 217 Daland, Robert T., 240 Dandler, Jorge, 200 Danielson, Ross, 90 Danopoulos, Constantine, 195 D’Antonio, William V., 27 Daugherty, Charles, 213 Davies, Thomas M., Jr., 213 Davila, Francisco R., 154 Davis, Charles L., 32, 37, 119 Davis, Harold Eugene, 297, 300 Davis, Nathaniel, 211 Davis, Shelton H., 63 Dealy, Glenn Caudill, 335 Debray, Regis, 82, 212 Degregori, Carlos Ivan, 180 De Kadt, Emanuel, 326 De la Garza, Rudolph O., 31 Del Aguila, Juan M., 85 Delarbe, Raul, 37 Delgado, Alvaro, 141 Delgado, Oscar, 137 Delgado Lersundy, Gladys, 136 Della Cava, Ralph, 247, 248 Delli Sante, Angela, 318 Delury, George E., 104, 117, 135, 156 Demas, William G., 336, 340 n.l Dent, David W., 5, 7, 117, 138 Denton, Charles F., 52, 55 De Oms, Juan, 209 Derossi, Flavia, 28, 29 De Soto, Hernando, 179, 183 n.19 Devlin, Robert, 173 Diamand, Marcelo, 274 Diaz, Antonio, 154 Diaz-Canedo Ruiz, Juan, 313 Diaz Ordaz, Gustavo, 309 Diederich, Bernard, 59 Dietz, Henry A., 165, 174, 179

Name Index Diez de Medina, Fernando, 194 D’Incao, Maria Concei?ao, 250 Diniz, Eli, 233, 238, 252 Di Telia, Guido, 271 Dix, Robert H., 140 Dominguez, Jorge I., 15, 85, 89, 93, 285, 336, 361 Donahue, John M., 64 Donoso Loers, Teresa, 219 Dorschner, John, 82 Drake, Paul, 213 Draper, Thomas, 16 Dreifuss, Rene Armand, 236 Drekonja-Komat, Gerhard, 155, 297 Dubnic, Reisky, 237 Dulci, Otavio Soares, 236 Duncan, W. Raymond, 336 Dunkerley, James, 50, 189, 191, 193, 195, 197 Duran, Esperanza, 298, 329 Durand, Francisco, 175 Eagleson, John, 219 Echeverrfa, Luis, 309, 317, 319-20 Echeverri Uruburu, Alvaro, 138 Eckstein, Susan, 36, 191 Edwards, Alejandra Cox, 217 Edwards, J. David, 84 Edwards, Sebastian, 217 Egas, Jose Maria, 153 Eguren, Fernando, 177 Einaudi, Luigi R., 176 El Colegio de Mexico, 312 Ellner, Steve, 112, 113, 118 Enge, Kjell, 63 English, Burt, 57 Erickson, Kenneth Paul, 245, 251 Erisman, H. Michael, 336 Escude, Carlos, 277 Espinoza, Juan G., 219 Etchison, Don L., 53 Evans, Les, 209 Evans, Peter, 234 Ewell, Judith, 117, 118 Fabricio, Roberto, 82 Fagen, Richard R., 13, 27, 55, 86, 173, 295, 310, 362

/

Falabella, Gonzalo, 219 Falcoff, Mark, 212, 327 Faletto, Enzo, 267, 310, 327 Fallows, James, 313 Fals Borda, Orlando, 133 Faoro, Raymundo, 231 Farber, Samuel, 81 Farer, Tom J. 330 Faria, Vilmar, 235 Farnsworth, David N., 333 Farrell, Gilda, 157 Farrell, Joseph, 219 Faucher, Philippe, 233 Faundez, Julio, 214 Fauriol, Georges, 50, 69 Febres Cordero, Leon, 153 Feinberg, Richard E., 209, 326 Ferguson, Yale, 367 n.l Fernandez, Damian J., 336, 338 Fernandez, Jose Luis, 313 Fernandez, Raul A., 312 Fernandez, Rodrigo, 71 n.3 Ferrero Costa, Eduardo, 349 Ferris, Elizabeth G., 63, 297 Ffrench-Davis, Ricardo, 217 Field, Arthur J., 138 Figueiredo, Vilma, 250 Figueroa, Adolfo, 171 Finan, John J., 300 Finifter, Ada W., 358 Fioravanti, Eduardo, 177, 194 Fischer, Kathleen B., 219 Fishlow, Albert, 234, 235 Fitch, John Samuel, 152, 159 n.4 Fitzgerald, E. V. K., 171, 182 n.9 Fitzgibbon, Russell, 14 FLACSO, 199 Fleet, Michael, 214 Fleischer, David V., 239, 242, 252 Flisfisch, Angel, 214 Flores Pinel, Fernando, 54 Fluharty, Vernon L., 140 Flynn, Peter, 251 Fonseca, Eugenio, 55 Fontaine Aldunate, Arturo, 217 Form, William H., 27 Forman, Shepard, 249 Fosler, R. Scott, 119

417

418

/

Name Index

Foweraker, Joe, 249 Foxley, Alejandro, 217 Fraga, Rosendo, 273 Francis, Anselm A., 339 Franco, Carlos, 170 Franco de Leon, Luis Enrique, 314 Frank, Andre Gunder, 249, 302 Fraser, Nicolas, 271 Freebaim, Donald K., 314 Frei, Eduardo, 207, 208, 212, 289 Freitag, Barbara, 251 Fried, Jonathan L., 71 n.2 Frieden, Jeff, 182 n.8 Friederick, Karl H., 159 n.7 Friedman, Milton, 217 Friedrich, Carl, 100 Frondizi, Arturo, 276 Frundt, Henry, 62 Fujimori, Alberto, 168 Furci, Carmelo, 214 Furlong, William I., 333 Gabbert, Jack B., 151 Gaitan, Jorge Eliecer, 138, 142, 143 Galeano, Eduardo, 49 Galfn, Pedro, 180 Gallardo Lozada, Jorge, 194 Gallardo Taboada, Jose, 314 Galletti, Alfredo, 271 Gallon Giraldo, Gustavo, 143 Galtieri, General Leopoldo, 277 Galvez Borrel, Victor, 338 Gamarra, Eduardo, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 200 Gambini, Hugo, 270 Garces, Joan E., 209 Garcia Meza, Luis, 195 Garcia Pdrez, Alan, 163, 172 Garcia Salvattecci, Hugo, 174 Garreton, Manuel Antonio, 211 Garrido, Jose, 218 Garrido, Luis Javier, 31 Garth, David, 113 Garthoff, Raymond L., 332 Garza Ramirez, Enrique, 32 Gatica Barrios, Jaime, 217 Gayle, Dennis, 193 Gentleman, Judith, 32, 38

Germani, Gino, 266 Gettelman, Marvin E., 71 n.2 Gil, Federico G., 18 n.l, 208, 209, 213 Gilbert, Dennis, 51, 52, 60 Gillespie, Charles, 269 Gillespie, Richard, 276 Gil Yepes, Jose Antonio, 115 Giulisaste Tagle, Sergio, 213 Glade, William P., 28, 29 Glaser, Myron, 213 Gleijeses, Piero, 101 Glinkin, Anatolii, 294 Goes, Walder de, 237 Golbery, do Couto e Silva, 356 Goldhamer, Herbert, 298 Goldrich, Daniel, 55, 56 Gomez, Juan Vicente, 120 Gomez, Rudolph, 165, 170 Gomez, Sergio, 218 Gomez Aristizabal, Horacio, 133 Gomez Gomez, Elsa, 137 Gomez Tagle, Silvia, 36 Gonzalez, Edward, 82, 336 Gonzalez, Feman E., 136 Gonzalez, Luis, 269 Gonzalez Casanova, Pablo, 27, 37 Gonzalez de Lecaros, Claudia, 136 Gonzalez Llaca, Edmundo, 30 Goodman, Louis W., 121, 237 Goodrich, Jonathan, 193 Goodsell, Charles T., 172 Gorbachev, Mikhail, 93, 292, 363, 366 Gorman, Stephen F., 168, 174 Goulart, Joao, 236, 240 Grabendorff, Wolf, 59, 298, 317, 328 Graham, Douglas Hume, 7, 250 Graham, Lawrence S., 27, 241 Grau San Martin, Ramon, 81 Grayson, George W., 34, 37, 213, 315 Greenberg, Martin H., 30 Greenwood, Jonathan Charles, 119, 120 Gregg, A. R., 52 Grindle, Merilee S., 26, 30 Gross, Leonard, 208 Gudeman, Stephen, 53 Gueron, Eva Josko de, 117 Guerrero, Andres, 157 Guevara, Ernesto Che, 82, 300

Name Index Gurr, Ted, 59 Gutierrez, Carlos Marfa, 104 Gutierrez, Gustavo, 183 n. 14 Gutierrez, Margo, 54 Guzman, Antonio, 99, 102 Guzman Campos, German, 138 Hageman, Alice, 89 Hagopian, Frances, 243 Hakim, Peter, 183 n.17 Halebsky, Sando, 92 Halperin, Ernst, 208 Halperin, Maurice, 83 Hamilton, William H., 317 Hammergren, Linn, 14 Handelman, Howard, 37, 155, 177 Handy, Jim, 50 Hanratty, Dennis M., 34 Hansen, Niles, 312 Hansen, Roger, 28 Hansen, Roy Allen, 215 Harberger, Arnold, 217 Hardgrave, Robert L., Jr., 65-66 Harding, Colin, 177 Hartlyn, Jonathan, 135, 141 Hart wig, Richard, 140 Hassan, M. F., 116 Hauser, Thomas, 210 Haya de la Torre, Victor Raul, 167, 173, 174 Hayes, Margaret Daly, 293, 296 Heckinger, Fred, 18 n.4 Heggen, Richard J., 60 Heine, Jorge, 326 Heisler, Martin O., 315 Heilman, Judith, 28 Heilman, Ronald G., 135, 141, 232 Helms, Brigit S., 319 Henderson, James D., 133, 135, 143 Henry, Paget, 103 Herman, Donald L., 112, 116, 141 Herman, Edward S., 58 Hernandez Medina, Alberto, 36 Herrera Zuniga, Rene, 316, 337 Hewitt, Cynthia N., 249 Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, 37, 235, 313 Hilliker, Grant, 165 Hippolito, Lucia, 239

/

419

Hirschman, Albert O., 3, 216 Hodges, Donald Clark, 60, 277 Hodson, Julie, 63 Hoffmann, Renata, 197 Holt-Seeland, Inger, 89 Hopkins, Jack W., 165, 170 Horman, Charles, 210 Home, Alistair, 209 Horowitz, Irving Louis, 89, 242 Hoskin, Gary, 138 Huberman, Leo, 83 Huerta, Maria Antonieta, 219 Humphrey, John, 246 Hundley, Norris, Jr., 316 Huneeus, Carlos, 214, 219 Hunt, Shane, 172 Hunter, Jane, 338 Huntington, Samuel P., 4, 15 Hurtado, Osvaldo, 151 Ianni, Octavio, 242 Illia, Arturo, 274 Illich, Ivan, 308 Imaz, Jose Luis de, 266 Immerman, Richard H., 331 Ince, Basil, 326 Ingram, George, 217 Instituto Brasileiro de Administragao Mu¬ nicipal (IBAM), 241 Instituto Mexicano de Comercio Exterior, 314 Inter-American Dialogue, 334 Ireland, Rowan, 247 Iriarte Ontiveros, Luis Alejandro, 200 Izquierdo Corser, Norma, 117 Jacome, Nicanor, 154 Jaguaribe, Helio, 230, 235, 303 Jamail, Milton, 54 Jaramillo, Jaime E., 134 Jarvis, Lovell S., 218 Jinadu, L. Adele, 12 Jobet, Julio Cesar, 213 Johnson, Dale C., 209 Johnson, John J., 3, 18 n.l Johnson, Kenneth F., 28, 63, 151 Johnson, Lyndon B., 332 Jonas, Susanne, 49

420

/

Name Index

Jones, Errol D., 317 Jorden, William J., 333 Joxe, Alain, 215 Juliao, Francisco, 249

Kubitschek, Juscelino, 240 Kurth, James, 352, 363 Kuznesof, Elizabeth Anne, 68 Labastida Martin del Campo, Julio, 26

Kadaffi, Colonel Muammar, 366 Kadt, Emmanuel de, 247 Kahl, Joseph, 358 Kantor, Harry, 183 n. 12 Karl, Terry Lynn, 115 Karol, K. S., 82 Karst, Kenneth L., 119 Kaufman, Edy, 211, 268 Kaufman, Robert R., 67, 68, 172, 215, 218, 235, 367 n.3 Kaye, Harvey J., 317 Kearney, Richard, 104 Keck, Margaret E., 239, 246 Kelly, Jonathan, 189, 191 Kelly, Philip, 357 Kemper, Robert V., 119, 157 Kennedy, John J., 216 Kennedy, Robert F., 332 Kenworthy, Eldon, 269 Keohane, Robert O., 358, 367 n.2 Kerry, Senator John, 334 Kim, Jae-on, 137 Kinzer, Stephen, 331 Kinzo, Mario D’Alva Gil, 239 Kirk, John M., 92 Kirschbaum, R., 277 Kissinger, Henry, 358 Klaren, Peter F., 173 Klein, Herbert S., 189, 191, 196, 235, 251 Kline, Harvey F., 140, 151, 191, 251 Kling, Merle, 3, 4, 5, 31 Knight, Peter T., 183 n.17 Knudson, Jerry, 194 Kombluh, Peter, 335 Korovkin, Tanya, 176 Koutzii, Flavio, 236, 250, 251 Kozol, Jonathan, 90 Krischke, Paulo, 247 Krueger, Kris, 63 Kruijt, Dirk, 177 Kryzanek, Michael J., 100, 102, 103, 294, 296, 328, 337

Lacava, Gloria, 113 Ladman, Jerry, 189, 192, 199 LaFeber, Walter, 58, 330, Lafer, Cel so, 240 LaFrance, David, 317 Lagos, Ricardo, 216 Lagos Matus, Gustavo, 303 Lamborr, Alan C., 319 Lamounier, Bolivar, 232, 238 Landsberger, Henry A., 249 Lang, Richard, 104 Lanus, Juan Archibaldo, 278 Lanzetta, Monica, 137 Lapper, Richard, 51 La Roche, Humberto, 117 Lasema, Roberto, 197, 199 Latin American Bureau, 335 Latorre, Mario, 136 Lavaud, Jean-Pierre, 196 Lavin, Joaquin, 217 Lawrence, Robert M., 315 Lazarte, Jorge, 198, 199 Leal, Juan Felipe, 32 Leal Buitrago, Francisco, 139, 141, 142 Lechner, Norbert, 208 Leeds, Anthony, 179, 242 Leeds, Elizabeth, 179 Lefeber, Louis, 157 Leff, Nathaniel H., 240 Lehr, Volker G., 32 Leiken, Robert S., 337 Leiner, Marvin, 90 Lener, Bertha, 15 LeoGrande, William M., 86, 88, 89, 326, 337 Leon de Leal, Magdalena, 143 Letelier, Orlando, 215 Levine, Barry, 340 n.l Levine, Daniel H., 90, 115, 120, 123, 141 Levinson, Jerome, 209 Levy, Daniel, 28, 35 Lewis, Paul H., 268

Name Index Lewis, Vaughan A., 326 Lieu wen, Edwin, 33 Lima, Luiz Gonzaga de Souza, 248 Lima Junior, Olavo Brasil de, 239, 240 Lincoln, Jennie, 297 Linke, Lilo, 152 Linz, Juan J., 142, 232, 236 Lipset, Seymour M., 237 Liss, Sheldon B., 312 Lleras Camargo, Alberto, 131 Llerena, Mario, 82 Llorante, Ignacio, 270 Loaeza, Soledad, 34 Lobo, Susan, 179 Lomnitz, Larissa, 35 Long, Norman, 177 Lopes, Juarez Rubens Brandao, 245 Lopez, George A., 1 Lopez, Jose Roberto, 336 Lopez Portillo, Felicitas, 120 Lopez Rosado, Diego G., 30 Lora, Guillermo, 197, 199 Losada Lora, Rodrigo, 136, 137, 139 Loser, Eva, 50, 69 Loveman, Brian, 211, 213, 218 Lowenthal, Abraham F., 16, 34, 155, 159 n.4, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173, 182 n.9, 10, 183 n. 17, 191, 215, 286, 294, 295, 332, 351, 352, 361, 363 Lozoya, Jorge Alberto, 33 Luder, Italo, 272 Lujan, Herman D., 57 Luna, Felix, 269, 273 Lupsha, Peter A., 315 Luzuriaga, Carlos, 157 Lynch, Edward, 119 Mabry, Donald, 31, 35 Macaulay, Neill, 89 McCamant, John, 55 MacCameron, Robert, 62, 65 Maciel, Marco, 251 McClintock, Cynthia, 168, 172, 173, 180, 182 n.9, 10 McClintock, Michael, 63 McCoy, Jennifer L., 122 McDonald, Ronald H., 54, 113, 135, 268

/

421

McDonough, Peter J., 243, 253 n.3 McDougall, Walter A., 333 MacEoin, Gary, 209 Maceyra, Horacio, 271 Maciel, Marco, 251 McKenney, James W., 333 McLeod, Jack, 159 n.7 McNelly, John T„ 55 Magdoff, Harry, 209 Mahant, Edelgard E., 299 Maier, Georg, 158 n.l Mainwaring, Scott, 244, 248 Maira, Luis, 363 Malan, Pedro S., 235 Mallon, Richard, 274 Malloy, James M., 13, 14, 15, 29, 39 n.l, 137, 154, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 202, 241, 245 Mamalakis, Markos, 216, 217 Manigat, Leslie F., 326 Mansbach, Richard, 367 n.l Mansilla, H. C. F., 192 Manz, Beatriz, 63 Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), 180 Mares, David R., 314, 317 Margiotta, Frank D., 33 Mariategui, Jose Carlos, 174 Maronese, Leticia, 271 Marshall, Jonathan, 338 Martin, Dolores M., 7, 14 Martin, John Bartlow, 102, 103 Martin, Jose F., 137 Martins, Carlos Estevam, 234, 252 Martins, Jose de Souza, 250 Martins, Luciano, 233, 241 Martynov, Boris F., 294 Martz, John D., 11, 39 n.l, 111, 112, 114, 115, 119, 121, 122, 151, 152, 153, 156, 294, 296, 361 Masotti, Louis H., 179 Mateo, Ramon Martin, 117 Matos Mar, Jose, 165, 179 Matsushita, Hiroshi, 275 Matthews, Herbert, 85 Maxfield, Sylvia, 29, 38 Mayorga, Rene Antonio, 192, 193, 195, 199, 200

422

/

Name Index

Mecham, J. Lloyd, 293 Medeiros, Antonio Carlos de, 241 Medina, Medofilo, 135 Melanson, Richard A., 332 Melville, Marjorie, 53 Melville, Thomas, 53 Mendelson, Johanna S. R., 121, 237 Mendes, Candido, 240 Meneguello, Rachel, 238 Menendez Carrion, Amparo, 154 Mericle, Kenneth S., 245 Merkx, Gilbert W., 267, 276 Merrill, Andrea T., 211, 215 Mesa-Lago, Carmelo, 3, 84, 87, 88, 90, 92, 336 Meyer, Lorenzo, 26, 310, 312 Miceli, Sergio, 242 Michl, Sara, 165 Middlebrook, Kevin J., 27, 37, 303, 352, 366 Middleton, Alan, 157 Miguens, Jose, 270 Millan, Rene, 36 Millett, Richard L., 59, 326, 340 n.l, Mills, C. Wright, 31 Mills, Nick D., 155 Miranda, Carlos R., 269 Mitchell, Christopher, 2, 189, 194, 196, 199 Moffett, George D., Ill, 333 Mois6s, Jose Alvaro, 245, 246, 248 Molina, Gerardo, 142 Molina, Sergio, 209 Molinar Horcasitas, Juan, 32 Molineu, Harold, 293, 352, 363 Moncayo, Patricio, 154 Montealegre, Heman, 216 Montgomery, Tommie Sue, 50 Moore, John Norton, 335 Moore, Richard J., 157 Mora y Araujo, Manuel, 270 Moraes, Clodomir, 249 Morales, Abelardo, 328 Morales, Juan Antonio, 192 Morales, Rolando, 193 Morales Bermudez, General Francisco, 166 Moran, Theodore, 217

Moreno, Jose A., 82 Morgenthau, Hans, 358 Morris, James A., 51, 52 Morton, Ward, 32 Moss, Robert, 209 Moulian, Tomas, 213, 214 Mount, Graeme S., 299 Mower, Glenn, Jr., 298 Moya Pons, Frank, 101 Mujal-Leon, Eusebio, 339 Mumme, Stephen P., 313, 319 Munoz, Heraldo, 286, 290, 294, 297, 357, 359, 365 Murillo, Gabriel, 135, 137 Murmis, Miguel, 270 Mutchler, David E., 141, 219, 247 Myers, David J., Ill, 112, 113, 114, 119 Naim, Moises, 114 National Bipartisan Commission on Cen¬ tral America, 333 Navarro, Marysa, 271 Needleman, Carolyn, 26, 37 Needleman, Martin, 26, 37 Needier, Martin C., 26, 152 Nef, Jorge, 69 Nelson, Lowry, 81 Newell, Roberto, 29 Newfarmer, Richard, 234 Nie, Norman H., 137 Njaim, Humberto, 114 Nolan, David, 60 Noriega, General Manuel Antonio, 47, 365 North, Liisa, 175, 176, 215 North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA), 104 Novoa Monreal, Eduardo, 217 Nunes, Edson de Oliveira, 242, 244, 246 Nunn, Frederick M., 215 Nye, Joseph, 54 O’Connor, James, 82 O’Connor, Robert, 112 O’Donnell, Guillermo A., 14, 15, 166, 169, 192, 215, 232, 233, 237, 252, 267, 273

Name Index Ojeda, Mario, 316, 318 Olavam'a Bravo, Arturo, 209, 212 Oliveira, Eliezer Rizzo de, 237 Onganfa, General Juan Carlos, 273 Oquist, Paul H., 133 Omes, German, 100 Oropeza, Luis J., 114 Orrego Vicuna, Francisco, 210, 367 O’Shaughnessy, Laura Nuzzi, 61 Osterling, Jorge Pablo, 136 Pacheco, Maximo, 216 Pacheco Pastene, Luis, 219 Packenham, Robert A., 240, 296 Padgett, L. Vincent, 25, 27, 39 n.l Padilla Nervo, Luis, 309 Page, Joseph, 270 Painter, James, 50, 51 Palacios, Jorge, 210 Palma, Diego, 180 Palmer, David Scott, 177, 180 Pang, Eul-Soo, 235, 243 Parodi, Jorge, 178 Parra Sandoval, Rodrigo, 142 Parrish, Charles, 213 Pasara, Luis, 171, 173, 178 Pastor, Robert A., 311, 333 Pay eras, Mario, 58 Payne, James L., 140, 165, 177 Paz, Octavio, 28 Pease Garcia, Henry, 176, 182 n.5 Peck, F. Taylor, 300 Peckenham, Nancy, 71 n.2 Peeler, John A., 14, 62, 140 Pellicer de Brody, Olga, 55, 312, 314, 318 Penalosa, Tomas, 310 Penniman, Howard R., 113 Peralta-Ramos, Monica, 274 Pereira, Luiz Carlos Bresser, 232, 252 Perez, Carlos Andres, 109, 116 Perez, Louis A., Jr., 80, 89, 92 Perez Alfonso, Juan Pablo, 121 Perez Jimenez, General Marcos, 109, 118, 120 Perez-Lopez, Jorge, 87 Perez Safnz, Juan Pablo, 157 Perez-Stable, Marifeli, 90

/

423

Perina, Ruben, 273, 290 Perlman, Janice, 243 Peron, Eva (Evita), 270, 271 Peron, Isabel, 271, 275 Peron, Juan D., 8, 109, 266, 269, 270, 271, 275 Perry, William, 298 Pescatello, Ann, 89 Peterson, Phyllis J., 237 Petras, James, 208 Philip, George D. E., 176 Pike, Frederick B., 14, 208 Pinango, Ramon, 114 Pinelo, Adalberto J., 172 Pinochet Ugarte, Augusto, 207, 210, 212, 356 Pinzon, Patricia, 135 Pion-Berlin, David, 274 Plant, Roger, 50 Podesta, Bruno, 183 n.17 Poitras, Guy E., 317 Politzer, Patricia, 216 Pollack, Benny, 214 Pomerlau, Claude, 34 Portantiero, Juan C., 270 Posada, Antonio J., 139 Posada, Jeanne de, 139 Potash, Robert, 272 Powell, John Duncan, 122 Prado Salmon, Gary 196 Prats, Carlos, 216 Preiswerk, Roy, 326 Prio Socarras, Carlos, 81 Propper, Eugene M., 215 Puig, Juan Carlos, 297 Purcell, John F., 29 Purcell, Susan Kaufman, 26, 29, 30, 37, 38, 89, 212, 311 Pye, Lucian W., 86 Pyne, Peter, 156 Queiser Morales, Waltraud, 337 Quintero, Rafael, 154, 156 Quiroga Santa Cruz, Marcelo, 191 Rabinovitz, Francine F., 165 Ramirez Nicochea, Heman, 213 Ramos, Anna, 89

424

/

Name Index

Ramos, Joseph R., 217 Ramos Sanchez, Pablo, 192, 195 Randall, Margaret, 89 Rangel, Alberto Domingo, 111 Rangel, Jose Vicente, 120 Ranis, Peter, 5, 276 Raptis, Michael, 209 Ratcliff, Richard Earl, 218 Ray, Talton F., 119 Reagan, Ronald, 334, 339, 340, 363 Redclift, M. R., 157 Reich, Peter, 34 Reiding, Reid R., 326 Reis, Elisa Maria Pereira, 231 Reis, Fabio Wanderley, 232, 237, 238, 252 Remmer, Karen L., 15, 211, 213, 215, 267 Rey, Juan Carlos, 113 Reyna, Jose Luis, 14, 26 Reynolds, Clark, 311, 318 Rial Roade, Juan, 121, 237, 269 Rico, Carlos, 303, 352, 366 Riding, Alan, 311 Rivadeneira, Raul, 196 Rivera, Israel, 135 Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia, 199, 200 Riz, Liliana de, 211 Roberts, Bryan R., 177 Roca, Jose Luis, 197 Roca, Sergio, 88 Rock, David, 270, 271 Rodrigues, Leoncio Martins, 245 Rodriguez, Gumercindo, 115 Rodriguez, Linda Alexander, 155 Rodriguez Grez, Pablo, 214 Rodriguez Lara, General Guillermo, 153 Roett, Riordan, 247, 250, 251, 298, 312, 367 n.3 Rojas, Alejandro, 211 Rojas Aravena, Francisco, 329 Rojas Pinilla, Gustavo, 143 Rokkan, Stein, 237 Rol6n Anaya, Mario, 197 Romero, Salvador, 192, 197 Rondfelt, David, 33, 34, 336 Ropp, Steve C., 7, 8, 52 Rosada Granados, Hector, 58

Roseberry, William, 122 Rosenau, James R., 328 Rosenberg, Mark B., 7, 51, 64, 71 n.3, 328, 335 Rosenkranz, Heman, 214 Rosenthal, Gert, 55 Rosset, Peter, 71 n.2 Rotondaro, Ruben, 275 Rouquie, Alain, 272 Roxborough, Ian, 36, 210 Rubio, Luis, 29 Ruchwarger, Gary, 61 Ruhl, J. Mark, 113, 135, 143 Ruiz, Ramon Eduardo, 80, 81 Ruiz Garcia, Enrique, 315 Rush, Ramona, 159 n.7 Russell, Philip L., 50 Sachs, Jeffrey, 192 Salas, Luis, 86 Salgado, Rene, 117, 122 Salinas de Gortari, Carlos, 316 Sanderson, Steven, 26, 33 Sanderson, Susan Walsh, 33 Sandoval Peralta, Diego, 140 San Martin, Marta, 82 Santamaria, Ricardo, 142 Santana, Pedro, 141 Santos, Wanderley Guilherme dos, 232, 239 Sarles, Margaret J., 239 Saulniers, Alfred H., 171 Saxe-Femandez, John, 315 SCAAN (The Stanford Central America Action Network), 59 Scarpaci, Joseph, 218 Schaposnik, Eduard C., 121 Schatz, Sayre P., 11, 182 n.8 Scheman, L. Ronald, 339, 364 Schirmer, Jennifer, 56 Schlesinger, Stephen, 331 Schmidt, Steffen W., 136 Schmitt, Karl, 31, 34, 311 Schmitter, Philippe C., 14, 166, 192, 230, 232, 233 Schneider, Ronald M., 49, 251 Schodt, David W., 151, 155, 156 Schoenhals, Kai P., 332

Name Index Schoultz, Lars, 270, 294, 296, 366 Schvarzer, Jorge, 274, 275 Schwartzman, Simon, 231, 251 Schydlowsky, Daniel, 171 Scott, Peter Dale, 338 Scott, Robert C., 25, 27 Scranton, Margaret E., 333 Scurrah, Martin J., 170, 183 n.17 Seabury, Paul, 333 Seckinger, Ron, 54 Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores (Mex¬ ico), 312 Segovia, Rafael, 35 Selcher, Wayne A., 16, 252 Seligson, Mitchell A., 14, 36, 53, 57, 58, 65, 111, 133, 154 Selser, Gregorio, 51 Sepulveda Nino, Satumino, 135 Sereseres, Caesar D., 54 Serra, Jose, 234 Serra, Luis H., 61 Setzerkom, William David, 52 Shafer, Robert J., 29 Shapira, Yoram, 317 Sharpe, Kenneth Evan, 29, 105, 310 Sharpe, Kenneth W., 326 Sharpless, Richard E., 139 Shaw, Royce Q., 54 Shazo, Peter de, 219 Sheahan, John, 172 Shenk, Janet, 50 Shepherd, Philip L., 51 Sherwood, Frank P., 241 Shulz, Donald E., 7 Sideri, Sandro, 217 Sigmund, Paul E., 210, 211, 212, 215, 217, 218 Siles, Zuazo Heman, 196 Silva, Gabriel, 142 Silva, Patricio, 218 Silva-Michelena, Jose Agustfn, 112, 115 Silvert, Kalman H., 3, 208 Simon, Jean-Marie, 50 Sims, Harold, 337 Singer, Paul, 244 Skidmore, Thomas E., 240, 252 Sklar, Richard L., 182 n.8 Slater, Jerome, 332

/

425

Sloan, John M., 26, 37 Smimow, Gabriel, 210 Smith, Brian, 219 Smith, Peter H., 3, 31, 311 Smith, Robert Freeman, 310 Smith, Tony, 92 Smith, Wayne S., 332 Snarr, D. Neil, 18 n.2 Snow, Peter, 213 Soares, Glaucio Ary Dillon, 237, 238, 240 Solaun, Mauricio, 135, 137, 141 Solis Rivera, Luis Guillermo, 329 Sonntag, Heinz Rudolf, 112 Sorj, Bernardo, 235, 236, 244, 246, 250, 252, 253 n.l Sourrouille, Juan V., 274 Souza, Amaury G. de, 253 n.3 Souza, Maria do Carmo Campello de, 233, 238 Spalding, Rose J., 26, 61 Spector, Leonard, 278 Springer, P. B., 120 Stahler-Sholk, Richard, 2 Stallings, Barbara, 172, 173, 210, 235, 367 n.3 Stavenhagen, Rodolfo, 249 Stein, Edwin, 83 Stepan, Alfred, 14, 15, 142, 170, 176, 230, 232, 234, 235, 236, 240, 244, 246, 248 Stephens, Evelyn Huber, 178 Stevens, Evelyn P., 30, 36 Stohl, Michael, 1 Stoltz Chincilla, Norma, 54 Stone, Carl, 103 Story, Dale, 26, 29, 31, 319 Street, Annie, 71 n.2 Stritch, Thomas, 14 Stuart, Graham H., 293 Suarez, Andres, 82, 83 Suleiman, Ezra, 218 Sweezy, Paul M., 83, 209 Swift, Jeannine, 218 Syzmanski, A., 302 Szekely, Gabriel, 28 Szulc, Tad, 85

426

/

Name Index

Tamayo, Jesus, 313 Tardanico, Richard T., 328, 333 Tarre Murzi, Alfredo, 118 Taylor, Philip B., Jr., 120, 267 Teichman, Judith, 38 Tello, Carlos, 311 Thiesenhusen, William, 218 Thomas, Hugh, 85 Thom, Richard, 189 Thorp, Rosemary, 171, 182 n.9 Tigner, James, 296 Tirado Mejia, Alvaro, 140 Tirado Segura, Ricardo, 29 Tobis, David, 49 Tokatlian, Juan G., 134, 297, 331 Tomassini, Luciano, 303, 355 Toney, William T., 313 Toriello Garrido, Guillermo, 49 Torrealba Narvaez, Luis, 119 Torres, Camilo, 138, 142 Torres, General Juan Jose, 194 Torres Ocampo, Jorge E., 61 Torres-Rivas, Edelberto, 61, 328 Tovar Samanez, Teresa, 179 Trebat, Thomas, 234 Trejo, Hugo, 120 Treverton, Gregory F., 366 Trimberger, Ellen Kay, 169 Trindade, Helgio, 233, 250 Trueblood, Felicity M., 165 Truett, Dale B., 314 Truett, Lila Flory, 314 Trujillo, Rafael L., 99, 102, 103 Tucker, William P., 25 Tuesta Soldevilla, Fernando, 174 Tug well, Franklin, 111, 121 Tulchin, Joseph S., 7, 13, 18 n.5, 65, 286, 297 Tuohy, William, 27, 35, 36 Turner, Frederick C., 34, 36, 270, 310 Ugalde, Antonio, 27 Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mex¬ ico, 308 Uribe, Armando, 210 Uricoechea, Fernando, 231 Urrutia, Miguel, 138 Urzua Valenzuela, German, 213, 214

U.S. Congress, House of Representa¬ tives, 334 U.S. House of Representatives, Foreign Affairs Committee, 210 U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Intelli¬ gence Activities, Staff Report, 210 Valdes, Nelson P., 84, 88 Valenta, Jiri, 329, 337 Valenzuela, Arturo, 2, 4, 17, 210, 211,

212 Valenzuela, J. Samuel, 210, 211 Valenzuela, Jose A., 219 Vanden, Harry E., 174, 337 Van Der Kooy, E., 277 Vanderlaan, Mary, 337 Vandermeer, John, 71 n.2 Van Klaveren, Alberto, 286, 291, 297 Varas, Augusto, 153, 159 n.3, 214, 216, 299 Varas, Florencia, 215 Vargas, Getulio, 239, Vargas Llosa, Mario, 168 Vasquez, Patricia, 139 Vasquez Carrizosa, Alfredo, 134, 139 Vasquez Mendez, Paciente, 155 Vazquez, Josefina Zoraida, 312 Vega Carballo, Jose Luis, 52 Vega Centeno, Imelda, 173 Velasco Alvardo, General Juan, 166, 294 Velasco Ibarra, Jose Maria, 152 Velasquez, Ramon J., 117 Velazco, Ramiro, 199 Velez Bustillo, Eduardo, 137 Velho, Otavio Guilherme, 249, 253 n.l Veliz, Claudio, 247 Vellinga, Menno, 178 Venezuela, Comision de Administration Publica (CAP), 116 Verba, Sidney, 35, 86, 137 Vergara, Jose Manuel, 215 Vergara, Pilar, 217 Vemer, Joel G., 56, 66 Vernon, Raymond, 28, 29 Vetter, Stephen, 105 Viera-Gallo, Jose Antonio, 219 Vilas, Carlos Maria, 60 Villanueva, Victor, 176

Name Index Vuskovic, Pedro, 217 Vylder, Stefan de, 217 Wagley, Charles, 4 Waisman, Carlos, 270, 274 Waisman, Victor, 271 Waldmann, Peter, 270 Walker, Ignacio, 214 Walker, Malcolm T., 105 Walker, Thomas W., 2, 57, 59, 330, 337 Wallerstein, Immanuel, 327 Wallerstein, Michael, 234 Walton, Gary M., 217 Walton, John, 138, 179 Ward, Peter, 38 Warman, Arturo, 33 Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), 64 Waterbury, John, 218 Webb, Richard C., 171 Weber, Henri, 59, 60 Webre, Stephen, 57 Weeks, John, 55, 62 Weffort, Francisco C., 242 Wehner, Peter, 298 Weiner, Myron, 4, 15 Weinert, Richard S., 14, 26, 37, 133 Weinstein, Martin, 268 Weintraub, Sidney, 314 Welch, Claude E., Jr., 33 Welch, David A., 332 Welch, Richard E., 331 Welles, Sumner, 100 Wences Reza, Rosalio, 35 Wesson, Robert, 120, 215, 252, 294, 303 Whelan, James, 211, 212

/

427

Whitebook of the Change of Government in Chile: 11th of September, 1973, 210 Whiteford, Andrew Hunter, 138 Whitehead, Laurence, 14, 166, 192, 232, 233, 333 Whiting, Van R., Jr., 27 Wiarda, Howard J., 14, 16, 39 n.l, 54, 59, 100, 102, 103, 151, 191, 251, 291, 298, 327, 328, 337, 338 Wicht, Juan J., 171 Wilde, Alexander W., 142, 248 Wilkie, James W., 34 Will, W. Marvin, 326, 340 n.l Williams, Edward J., 315 Williams, Robert G., 53 Wils, Frits, 175 Wilson, Larman C., 297, 332 Winn, Peter, 219 Wirth, John D., 244, 246 Wise, Carol, 172 Witherspoon, Robert, 119 Wogart, Jan Peter, 275 Wyden, Peter, 332 Wynia, Gary W., 48, 49, 274 Yakovlev, Petr P., 294 Zammit, J. Ann, 209 Zanartu, Mario, 216 Zavaleta Mercardo, Rene, 191, 199 Zeitlin, Maurice, 90, 218 Zermeno, Sergio, 26 Ziems, Angel, 120 Zimbalist, Andrew, 88, 219 Zorrilla, Ruben H., 275 Zubek, Voytek, 338 Zuvekas, Clarence, Jr., 157

SUBJECT INDEX Academic refugees, 4 Academy of Christian Humanism (Chile), 214 Accion Democratica (AD, Venezuela), 109, 111, 118 Accion Popular (AP, Peru), 165, 168 Agrarian issues and policies: Bolivia, 200; Brazil, 248-50; Central America, 53; Chile, 218; Colombia, 137; Costa Rica, 53; Dominican Republic, 105; Ecuador, 157; Guatemala, 53; Mexico, 32-33; Panama, 53; Peru, 176-77; Venezuela, 122. See also names of specific countries and regions Alianga Renovadora Nacional (ARENA, Brazil), 238 Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Ameri¬ cana (APRA, Peru), 165, 167, 168, 172, 173, 177, 182 n.7 Alliance for Progress, 208, 209, 220, 286, 293, 295 Amazon Pact, 353 America Latina, 292 American Political Science Review, 11 Americas Watch, 216 Amnesty International, 216, 268 Andean Common Market (ANCOM), 301, 353

Andean Community. See Andean Com¬ mon Market Anuario de Politicos Exteriores Latinoamericanas (monograph series), 289 Aprismo, 173, 177 Argentina: armed forces, 272-74; author¬ itarianism, 267, 273-74, 276; bureau¬ cratic-authoritarianism, 267; civilmilitary relations, 273; corporatism, 276; debt, 274-75, 365; dependencia, 261, 268; economic issues, 274-75; election of 1983, 271; electoral behav¬ ior, 270; elites, 266, 275; El Proceso (1976-1983), 266, 273; foreign policy, 277-78; insurrections, 276-77; Justicialist Party, 269; labor leaders, 275; labor politics, 275-76; liberalization policies, 275; Malvinas/Falklands war, 277; Marxism, 270; military ideology, 274; military policy making, 274; Montoneros, 276; nuclear technology, 278; Peoples Revolutionary Army (ERP), 276; Peron and Peronism, 266, 269, 270, 271, 275, 276; political campaigns, 272; political economy, 270, 274-75; political parties, 271-72; populism, 266, 270; Radical Party, 271-72; regime transition, 274; reno-

430

/

Subject Index

vator movement, 271; “substitution hegemony,” 272; terrorism, 277; women and politics, 279 Arias Peace Plan, 33 Armed forces: Argentina, 272-74; Bo¬ livia, 193-96, 202; Brazil, 235-37; Central America, 54; Chile, 211-12, 215-16; Colombia, 143; Cuba, 88-89; Dominican Republic, 101—2; Ecuador, 152-53; El Salvador, 54; Guatemala, 53-54; Mexico, 33-34; Peru, 163, 164, 165, 166, 169, 170, 175-76; Vene¬ zuela, 120-21. See also names of spe¬ cific countries and regions Asociacion Nacional de Usuarios Campesinos (ANUC, Colombia), 137 Association of Exporters (ADEX, Peru),

1971), 194; miners and mining, 199; National Congress, 194, 200; neo-lib¬ eralism, 193; neo-patrimonial rule, 194-95; New Economic Policy (NPE), 193; peasant movements, 200; political culture, 198; political economy, 192— 93; political history, 191; political par¬ ties, 196-97; political scientists in, im¬ pact of European ideas on, 192; political theory, 191-92; political val¬ ues, 198; popular assembly, 194; presidente de turno, 194; pressure groups, 196-98; privatization debate, 193; re¬ gime transition, 192; Revolution of 1952, 189, 191, 195, 196, 198; schol¬ arly work on, 363; state, role of, 191, 200; state capitalism, 195; “uniformed

175 Authoritarianism, 14-15; Argentina, 267, 273-74, 276; Bolivia, 194, 200; Bra¬ zil, 230-33, 238, 239, 241, 244, 245, 247, 251; Chile, 215; Mexico, 26, 29, 36, 309; Paraguay, 268-69; Uruguay,

kleptocracy,” 195 Boundary disputes: Argentina and Chile, 351, 356; Bolivia and Peru, 351; Col¬ ombia and Venezuela, 351, 356; Peru and Chile, 351; Peru and Ecuador, 351; Venezuela and Guyana, 351 Brazil: “ABC” region of Sao Paulo, 245; abertura, 236, 243; agrarian is¬ sues, 248-50; agrarian reform, 249, 250; alcohol policy, 241; armed forces, 235-37; “associated-dependent devel¬ opment,” 230, 235; authoritarianism, 230-33, 238, 241, 244, 245, 247, 251; boia-fria, 250; bourgeoisie, 231, 232, 233, 236; breakdown of democracy, 239; bureaucracy, 240-41; bureau¬ cratic-authoritarianism, 231, 234; “cartorial state,” 230; Catholic Church, 247; Catholic defections, 248; civilmilitary relations, 237; clientelism, 239, 240, 242, 243; Communist Party, 238; congressional committee behavior, 241; comparative studies, 251-52; conscientizaqao, 247; “conservative re¬ form” policy, 245; coronelismo, 243; corporatism, 229, 244-45, 251; coup of 1964, 229, 230, 236, 238; debt, 235, 253, 365; democratization, 251; dependency theory and analysis, 229, 230, 233-34, 235, 251; ecclesiastical base communities (CEBs), 248; eco-

267, 269 Ayacucho (Peru), 180 Bahia (Brazil), 239, 243 Baja California Norte (Mexico), 27 Bay of Pigs invasion, 330, 332 Beagle Channel dispute, 278 Belize, comparative studies, 52 Betancourtismo, 118 Bogotazo (1948), 143 Bolivia: armed forces, 193-96, 202; au¬ thoritarianism, 194, 200; bureaucraticauthoritarianism, 195; campesinos, 200; comparative studies, 190-91; cor¬ poratism, 194; corruption, 195; demo¬ cratic theory, 192; democratization, 193, 194, 195, 197, 200; drug traffick¬ ing, 192; economic issues, 192; elec¬ tions and electoral analysis, 196-97; government and legal institutions, 191, 200; history of labor movement, 199; human rights, 195; hyperinflation, 193; judiciary, 200; labor politics, 197, 198-200; military coup of 1964, 193; military-populist interlude (1969—

Subject Index nomic issues, 233-35; economic mira¬ cle, 234; education and politics, 250; elections and electoral analysis, 23739; elite ideology, 243; elite recruit¬ ment, 242; environmental concerns, 253; Estado Novo, 230, 233, 236, 240, 251; favelados, 244; favelas, 243; golpe de estado, 235-37; government and legal institutions, 240-42; health care, 104; higher education reform, 250; human rights, 247; industrial en¬ trepreneurs, 233; intergovernmental re¬ lations, 241; labor politics, 243-46; leaders, 242-43; legal opposition, 239; legislature, 240; liberalism, 232; metal¬ lurgical unions, 246; military ideology, 236; military political behavior, 236; “moderator” role of armed forces, 235-36; multinational corporations, 233, 234; municipal government, 241; “nationalist capitalist” model of devel¬ opment, 230; national planning, 240; national security state, 251; neo-Chris¬ tendom model, 247; New Republic (see Brazil, Estado Novo)', “new unionism,” 245; Old Republic, 232, 242; party reform law of 1979, 239; patrimonial state, 231; peasant leagues, 249; peasant mobilization, 249; peas¬ antry, 248-50; policy making, 240; po¬ litical cooptation, 231; political groups, 237-39; political participation, 238, 242; political parties, 237-39; political survival strategies, 241; populism, 229, 242; Portuguese patrimonialism, 231; regime transition, 229, 232, 233, 236, 246, 252; religion and politics, 24648; rural class structure, transformation of, 249; social dimensions of economic growth, 235; social security policy, 241; state, role of, 232, 238, 242, 245, 249, 250; state capitalism, 234, 241; state governors, recruitment of, 242; subhegemonic state, 347-48; theory and analysis, 230-33; traditional politi¬ cal elite, 243; urban issues, 243-46; voluntary associations, 244; Weberian influence, 231

/

431

Brazilian Communist Party, 238 British Honduras. See Belize, compara¬ tive studies Bureaucracy: Brazil, 240-41; Peru, 170 Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Argentina, 267; Bolivia, 195; Brazil, 231, 234 Chile, 215, 220; Mexico, 26; Peru, 167 Caciques, 165 Caciquismo (Mexico), 33 Cali (Colombia), 134, 138 Campesinos. See Agrarian issues and policies Canadian research on Latin America, 16, 299 Caracas (Venezuela), 119 Caribbean Basin, 327 Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), 333, 334 Caribbean Common Market (CARICOM), 301 Caribbean Free Trade Association, 301 Carter, President Jimmy, 293-94 Carter-Torrijos Treaties, 47-48, 333 Catholic University of Chile (Institute of Political Science), 214 Cauca Valley Development Authority (CVC), 140 Caudillismo, 150, 155, 156 Center for Development Studies, Central University of Venezuela, 115, 118 Center for Economic Investigation on Latin America (CIEPLAN, Chile), 214, 218 Center for Higher Military Studies (CAEM, Peru), 176 Center for International Studies (MIT), 118 Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, Uni¬ versity of California, San Diego, 29, 34 Central America: agrarian issues, 52-53; armed forces, 53-54, 56; “cascading interdependence,” theory of, 328; comparative studies, 48-52; conflict resolution models, 329, 330; contras and drug trafficking, 334-35; criticisms of political science research, 7-8, 48;

432

/

Subject Index

dependency theory and analysis, 328; economic issues, 49, 55; elections and electoral analysis, 57-58; foreign rela¬ tions, 326; “freedom fighters,” 334; human rights, 62-63; Israel’s military involvement in, 54; leaders and elites, 56; margines de action, 328; MarxismLeninism, 329; and Mexico, 337; and nonhemispheric states, 334; peasantry, 52-53; political parties, 56-57; postbehavioral research in, 65; prospects for peace, 335; relative deprivation theory, 329; revolutionary issues, 2, 58-61; state terrorism, 62-63; trends in political science research, 47-48; U.S. involvement in, 53 Central America and the Caribbean: de¬ pendency theory and analysis, 325, 327; foreign policy, 326, 336, 337; in¬ ternational organizations, 339; Middle East, role in, 338; neo-Marxism, 325; Reagan Doctrine, 333; realist ap¬ proach, 325, 327; regional and subre¬ gional integration, 336; Israel, role in, 338; non-hemispheric states, role in, 338-39; South Africa, role in, 338; Soviet Union, role in, 338; U.S. pol¬ icy, 330-34; vulnerability to interven¬ tion, 325; Western Europe, role in, 338; Western Hemisphere idea, 330; world system paradigm, 325, 327-28 Central American Common Market (CACM), 54, 301 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 49, 83, 331 Central Obrera Boliviana (COB), 198, 199, 202 Centro Brasileiro de Analise e Planejamento (Brazil), 3 Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (Argentina), 3 Centro de Estudios Publicos (CEP, Chile), 214 Centro de Estudios y Promocion del Desarrollo (DESCO, Peru), 3, 182 n.2 Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economica (CIDE, Mexico), 308, 312

Centro de Investigacion y Educacion Popular (CINEP, Colombia), 132, 136 Centro Intercultural de Documentacion (CIDOC, Mexico), 308 Centro Peruano de Estudios Intemacionales (CEPEI, Peru), 182 n.2, 349 Chile: agrarian issues, 218; agrarian re¬ form, 218; anti-Allende coup (1973), 209-10, 211-12, 213, 215, 219, 220; armed forces, 211-12, 215-16; balance of power, 348; bourgeois democracy, 212; bureaucratic-authoritarianism, 215, 220; Catholic Church, 213, 214, 219; Christian Democratics, 208, 214; Christians for Socialism Movement, 219; civil-military relations, 215-16; communists, Communist Party, 211, 213, 214; comparative studies, 208-12; Constitution of 1980, 212; copper, “Chileanization” of, 208; copper in¬ dustry, 217; democratization, 211, 212, 221; dependency theory and anal¬ ysis, 220; economic issues, 216-18; education and politics, 219; elections and electoral analysis, 213-15; foreign relations, 210, 215, 221; Frei adminis¬ tration, 209; health care, 218; Hispanic tradition, 211; human rights, 216; La¬ bor Plan of 1979, 219; labor politics, 218-19; leaders and elites, 212-13; Marxism, 207, 209; Missing (CostaGavras film), 210; multinational corpo¬ rations, 217; neo-conservative policies, 217-18; peasant politics, 218; political economy, 217-18; political groups, 213-15; political parties, 208, 213-15; populism, 213; public sector reform, 218; regime transition, 207, 210; reli¬ gion and politics, 219; Revolution in Liberty, 208; socialism, 213-14; urban issues, 218-19 Chile-America, 213 Chilean Political Science Association,

220 Chilean Socialist Party, 214 Christian Democratic Party: Chile, 208; El Salvador, 57; Nicaragua, 57 Christian Democratic World Union, 300

Subject Index Church and state: Colombia, 141; Cuba, 90; Nicaragua, 61; Mexico, 34-35; Venezuela, 122-23. See also Religion and politics Ciudad Juarez (Mexico), 27 Civil-military relations: Argentina, 273; Brazil, 237; Chile, 215-16; Peru, 176 Clientelism: Brazil, 239, 240, 242, 243; Colombia, 136; Peru, 179 Colombia: armed forces, 143; breakdown of democracy, 142; clientelism, 136; Communist Party, 135; community power studies, 138; comparative stud¬ ies, 140-41; congressional studies, 139; conservatism, 143; Constitution of 1886, 140; corporatism, 137; democ¬ racy, 140-42; dependency theory and analysis, 142; drug cartels, 133; drug trafficking, 134, 141; elections and electoral analysis, 134, 136-37; elites, 138-39; government institutions and policy, 139; health care, 104; human rights, 143; interest groups, 137-38; labor politics, 141; leftist insurgency, 133-34; liberalism, 142; National Front, 135, 138, 140, 142, 144; news media, 143; oligarchy, 138; paros civicos, 141; peace process (1980s), 13334; peasants, 137; political behavior, 136-37; political biography, 138-39; political participation, 136; political parties, 134-35; political thought, 142; presidency, 139; public administration, 136; public policy analysis, 139-40; religion and politics, 141; revolutionary issues, 133-34; socialism, 142; survey research, 137; women and politics, 143-44 Comite de Organization Politica Electoral Independiente (COPEI, Venezuela), 111, 118 Comite Interamericano de Desarrollo Agricola (CIDE, Chile), 218 Committees for the Defense of the Revo¬ lution (CDR, Cuba), 86, 87 Communists, Communism, Communist Parties: Brazil, 238; Chile, 211, 213, 214;

/

433

Colombia, 135; Cuba, 81-83, 85; Guate¬ mala, 49; Mexico, 31; Venezuela, 111, 112, 113, 118 Comparative studies: Belize, 52; Bolivia, 190-91; Brazil, 251-52; Central Amer¬ ica, 48-52; Chile, 208-12; Colombia, 140-41; Costa Rica, 52; Cuba, 84-85; Dominican Republic, 99-101; Ecuador, 150; El Salvador, 50-51; Guatemala, 49-50; Honduras, 51-52; Mexico, 2728; Nicaragua, 52; Panama, 52; Vene¬ zuela, 113-14. See also names of spe¬ cific countries and regions Concentration de Fuerzas Populares (CFP, Ecuador), 156 Confederacion de Trabaj adores de la Revolution Peruano (CTRP), 183 n.16 Confederacion de Trabajadores del Peru (CTP), 183 n.16 Confederacion General de Trabajadores del Peru (CGTP), 183 n.16 Confederacion Nacional de Trabajadores (CNT, Peru), 183 n.16 Confederacion Sindical Unica de Trabaja¬ dores Campesinos de Bolivia (CSUTCB), 199-200 Confederation of Private Entrepreneurs (CEPB, Bolivia), 197 Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO), 289 Contadora Process, 301, 316, 330 Contras, 334 Corporation de Promotion Universitaria (Chile), 218 Corporatism, 14; Argentina, 226; Bolivia, 194; Brazil, 229, 243, 245, 251; Col¬ ombia, 137; Peru, 167, 169 Costa Rica: agrarian issues, 53; compara¬ tive studies, 52; education and politics, 55; elites and leaders, 56; policy stud¬ ies, 64; political parties, 57; political participation, 57 Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECOM), 88, 337 Criollismo, 179 Cuba: armed forces, 84, 85, 88-89, 92; bureaucracy, 84, 88; Castro’s move into Soviet orbit, 332; Catholic

434

/

Subject Index

Church, 90; civil-military relations, 89; communists in pre-revolutionary, 8082, 85-86; comparative studies, 84-85; Constitution of 1976, 84; day care, 90; dependency theory and analysis, 88; economic issues, 87-88; elitist mobili¬ zation system, 79, 85, 94; foreign pol¬ icy, 93, 336; government role in economy, 87-88; health services, 88, 90; historical studies of, 80-84; homo¬ sexuality, 87; income distribution, 88; insurrections, 80-81, 82, 88, 89jefe maximo, role of, 85, 195; leaders, elites, leadership, 85-86; mass mobili¬ zation, 84, 85, 86; mass organizations, 84; medicine, 90; and the Middle East, 94, 336; military role in Africa, 94; military role in Central America, 94; moral incentives, 88, 94; political cul¬ ture, 85, 86-87; political science re¬ search on, 91-95; “rectification” campaign, 93; regime characteristics, 94; regime performance, 87-88; social deviance, 86-87; socialism, 82; Sovietstyle government reforms, 94; and the Soviet Union, 336; sports and politics, 86, 90; suicide, 87; sugar harvest, 88; trade unions, 84, 90; U.S. trade em¬ bargo, 87; women and politics, 89-90; working class, 90 Cuban Communist Party (PCC), 89 Cuban Missile Crisis, 332 Cuban Revolution of 1959, 286, 292, 293, 300, 325; failures of, 87, 92; fu¬ ture of, 95; “humanist” stage of, 82; institutionalization of, 83-84, 88; mili¬ tary origins of, 89; obstacles to schol¬ arly research on, 91-93; Polish perspectives on, 82; post-revolutionary decade, 82-83; pre-revolutionary pe¬ riod, 81-82; rebel activity in, 81-82; roots of, 80; successes of, 85 Debt, Latin American, 367 n.3 Democracy, democratization, democratic theory: Bolivia, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 200; Brazil, 251; Chile, 211, 212, 221; Colombia, 140-42; Dominican

Republic, 102; Ecuador, 154; Peru, 167-69; Uruguay, 269; Venezuela, 110, 114-16. See also names of spe¬ cific countries and regions Democratic and Popular Union (UDP, Bolivia), 196 Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD, Mexico), 38 Department of Foreign Commerce (Bra¬ zil), 241 Dependency theory and analysis, 301-3; Argentina, 267, 268; Brazil, 229, 230, 233, 234, 251; Central America, 328, 330, 331; Chile, 220; critics of, 302; Ecuador, 151, 155; Guatemala, 331; neo-Marxist version, 302; Peru, 164, 167, 169, 170; structuralist version, 301-2. See also names of specific countries and regions Dominican Republic: agrarian issues, 105; armed forces, 101-2; civil ser¬ vice, 104; civil war, 1965, 101; com¬ parative studies, 99-101; corruption, 104; democratic development, 102; de¬ pendency theory and analysis, 103; dictatorship, 100, 103; economic is¬ sues, 102-3; elections and electoral analysis, 102; external factors on do¬ mestic policy, 100; foreign policy, 338; government and legal institutions, 103-4; health care, 104; historical de¬ velopment, 101; influx of Haitians, 101, 105; interest groups, 102; labor politics, 104; leaders and elites, 103, 105; multinational corporations, 103, 104; “passive intervention” of Carter administration, 102; peasants, 105; po¬ litical economy, 103; political parties, 102; theoretical analysis, 329; U.S. in¬ tervention, 1965, 99, 293, 330, 332; urban issues, 104 Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), 355 Drug trafficking: Bolivia, 192; Colombia, 134, 143 Economic issues: Argentina, 274-75; Be¬ lize, 55; Bolivia, 192; Brazil, 233-35; Central America, 54-55; Chile, 216-

Subject Index 18; Cuba, 87-88; Dominican Republic, 102-3; Ecuador, 155; Mexico, 28-29; Peru, 171-72; Venezuela, 121-22. See also names of specific countries and regions Ecuador: agrarian issues, 157; armed forces, 152-53; authoritarianism, 151, 152, 156, 158; Caudillos and caudillismo, 150, 155-56; comparative stud¬ ies, 150; Congress, 156; democratic pluralism, 152; democratization, 154; dependency theory and analysis, 151, 155; economic issues, 155; elections and electoral analysis, 154; executivelegislative relations, 156; factory work¬ ers, 157; foreign debt, 155; golpe de estado, 152-53; government and legal institutions, 156; interest groups, 154; labor politics, 155, 156-57; leaders and elites, 155-56; Marxist analysis, 151, 154, 155, 157; mass media, 159 n.7; “modernization and development” framework, 151; “pathology of de¬ mocracy,” 150; petroleum policy, 151-52; political culture, 151; political economy, 155; political parties, 15455; populism, 153-54, 155, 156, 158; public administration, 156; regime characteristics, 149, 152; suburbio, 157; trade unions, 155; urban issues, 156-57; Education and politics: Brazil, 250-51; Chile, 219; Costa Rica, 55; Cuba, 90; Mexico, 35; Nicaragua, 56; Panama, 55 El Colegio de Mexico (Mexico), 3, 288, 308, 310, 312, 313, 317, 318, 349 Elections and electoral analysis: Argen¬ tina, 270-71; Bolivia, 196-97; Brazil, 237-39; Central America, 57; Chile, 213-15; Colombia, 134, 136-37; Do¬ minican Republic, 58, 102; Ecuador, 154; El Salvador, 58; Guatemala, 58; Mexico, 31; Peru, 174; Uruguay, 269; Venezuela, 111-13. See also names of specific countries and regions El Programa de Seguimiento de las Polf-

/

435

ticas Exteriores de Latinoamericana (PROSPEL), 289 El Salvador: armed forces, 54; compara¬ tive studies, 50-51; dictatorship, 50; elections and electoral analysis, 58; elites, 50; Soccer war, 339; state ter¬ rorism, 63; theoretical analysis, 62 El Sistema Internacional y America La¬ tina (monograph series), 289 Engage scholarship, 8 Esquipulas. See Arias Peace Plan Estados Unidos (Mexico), 309 Estudios Intemacionales (Chile), 349 Estudios Publicos (Chile), 214, 218 European Community (EC), 298, 314

Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO), 3, 158, 159 n.6, 213, 216, 331 Fidelismo, 300 Ford Foundation, 229, 290, 363 Foreign Affairs, 351 Foreign Policy, 351 Foreign policy, foreign relations: Argen¬ tina, 277-78; Caribbean, 326; Chile, 210, 215, 221; Cuba, 92, 93, 336; Do¬ minican Republic, 338; Guyana, 338; Nicaragua, 337; United States, 210, 215, 221, 293-96, 303, 331, 335, 354, 363, 366. See also names of specific countries and regions Foro International, 308, 310, 349 Frente Democratico (FREDEMO, Peru), 168 Frente Farabundo Marti de Liberacion Nacional (FMLN, El Salvador), 316 Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional (FSLN, Nicaragua), 60, 316, 330, 333, 337 Fundacion para la Educacion Superior y el Desarrollo (FEDESARROLLO, Col¬ ombia), 132 Fundacion Friedrich Ebert de Colombia (FESCOL), 132

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 319

436

/

Subject Index

General Conferation of Labor (Argen¬

Industrial Development Council (Brazil),

tina), 269, 275 Geopolitics, 357 German Frankfurt school, 192

241 Informal sector: Ecuador, 157; Peru,

Germany, 287 Glasnost, 93, 94, 292 Good Partner policy, 293 Government and legal institutions: Bo¬ livia, 200; Brazil, 240-42; Colombia, 139; Cuba, 84, 85; Dominican Repub¬ lic, 103-4; Ecuador, 156; Mexico, 2930; Peru, 170-71; Venezuela, 116-118. See also names of specific countries Great Britain, 287, 322 Grenada, invasion of, 293, 294, 330, 332-33 Group of 77, 354 Grupo de Estudios para el Desarrollo (GREDES, Peru), 182 n.2 Guadalajara (Mexico), 138 Guanajuato (Mexico), 27 Guatemala: agrarian issues, 53; armed forces, 54, 56; comparative studies, 49-50; dependency theory and analysis, 49, 331; elections and electoral analy¬ sis, 58; human rights, 50, 62, 63; labor politics, 62; policy studies, 64; revolu¬ tionary issues, 58; state terrorism, 4950, 63; theoretical analysis, 61, 69; U.S. intervention in, 331 Guayaquil (Ecuador), 157 Guevaristas, 82 Gulf and Western Corporation (Domini¬ can Republic), 104 Handbook of Latin American Studies, 348, 359 Hegemony-in-decline thesis, 340 Holy See, 299 Honduras: comparative studies, 51—52; labor politics, 62; political economy, 51; Soccer war, 339 Hoover Institution, 213 Human rights: Bolivia, 195; Central America, 62-63; Chile, 216; Colom¬

178-80 Institute for European-Latin American Relations (IRELA), 287 Institute of International Relations, Uni¬ versity of the West Indies (Trinidad), 331 Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI, Mexico), 27 Instituto Brasileiro de A§ao Democratica (IBAD, Brazil), 236 Instituto de Estudios Intemacionales (Chile), 288, 349 Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP, Peru), 182 n.2 Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudos Sociais (IPES, Brazil), 236 Instituto Libertad y Democracia (ILD, Peru), 182 n.2 Instituto Universitario de Pesquisa do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 3 Insurrections, 276-77 Interamerican Commission on Agricul¬ tural Development (Chile), 218 Interamerican Development Bank, 103 Inter-American Foundation, 290 Inter-American System, 300-301, 339 Interest groups: Bolivia, 196-98; Brazil, 237-39; Chile, 213-15; Colombia, 137-38; Dominican Republic, 102; Ec¬ uador, 154; Mexico, 31-32 International Affairs, 292 International Monetary Fund (IMF), 327, 333 International relations research on Central America and the Caribbean: basic ana¬ lytical approaches, 325; Central Ameri¬ can scholars, 331; criticisms of, 32526; definitional dilemmas, 340-41 n.l; European scholars, 328; future research agendas, 340; gaps in the literature, 339; growth in scholarly attention, 326, 329; hegemony-in-decline debate,

bia, 143; Guatemala, 62-63; Nicara¬

334; subjects of investigation, 326,

gua, 63

330-39; theory, 325, 327-30, 339-40;

Subject Index trends since 1960, 325-26, 328, 33039 International relations research on Cuba: research questions, 336; Soviet schol¬ arship, 332 International relations research on Latin America: actors and policies, 292-300; characteristics of scholarly activity, 288-89; contrasting focus between Latin Americans and North Americans, 288; dependency theory, 301-3; devel¬ opments in Europe, 287-88; develop¬ ments in Latin America, 288-90; developments in the Soviet Union, 292; developments in the U.S., 28687; financial and political difficulties, 289; formal institutions, 300-301; gen¬ eral patterns since 1960, 286-92, 304; growth of scholarly activity, 285, 286287; international structures, 300-304; “knowledge dependency,” 290; re¬ gional conceptions, 304; scholarly con¬ vergence and divergence, 290-292; state of, 285-86; subjects of interest to Latin Americans, 290; systems per¬ spectives, 303; trends since 1960, 28586; weaknesses in, 291-92 International relations research on Mex¬ ico: dependency phase, 310-11; the Echeverria impact on, 317-18; growth of, 307; issue areas, 312-17; policy perspectives, 318-19; policy studies, 309; theory, 309-11; trends since 1960, 307, 319; U.S.-Mexico rela¬ tions, 311-12; weaknesses in, 307, 309, 318, 319-20 International relations research on South America: boundary disputes, 351, 366; British literature, 353; contrasting per¬ spectives, 360-63, 364, 366; decision¬ making structures, 366; dependency analysis, 352, 357-60, 362; foreign policy, 349-51; future agendas, 36367; ideological debates, 352; interna¬ tional organizations, 354; Malvinas/ Falklands war, 352-53; methodological issues, 347-60; nonstate actors, 35354; North American orientation, 360-

/

437

63; research contributions, 355; as a separate unit of analysis, 347-48; South American orientation, 360-63; theory, 354-55, 360-61, 367 n.l; top¬ ics of study, 347; trends, 348-49, 350; U.S. policy, 352 International Studies Association (ISA), 291 Iran-Contra affair, 334-35, 338 Israel, 54 Izquierda Unida (IU, Peru), 167, 173-74, 182 n.7 Jalapa (Mexico), 27 Japan, 358, 363 Journal of Politics, 11

Kissinger Commission, 333. See also Na¬ tional Bipartisan Commission on Cen¬ tral America Report (Name Index)

Labor politics: Argentina, 275-76; Bo¬ livia, 197, 198-200; Brazil, 243-46; Chile, 218-19; Colombia, 141; Cuba, 90; Dominican Republic, 104; Ecua¬ dor, 155, 156-57; Guatemala, 62; Honduras, 62; Mexico, 36-37; Peru, 165, 177-78; Venezuela, 119-20. See also names of specific countries Latin American Economic System (SELA), 301 Latin American Faculty of Social Sci¬ ences. See Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) Latin American foreign policies, 296-97; 349 Latin American Free Trade Association (LAFTA), 301 Latin American Institute, Academy of Sciences (USSR), 292, 303 Latin American Integration Association (ALADI), 301 Latin American policy of nonhemispheric states: Africa, 298; Asia, 298; Canada, 298; Holland, 298; Europe, 298; France, 298; Israel, 298; Japan, 298; Middle East, 298; Portugal, 298; So-

438

/

Subject Index

viet Union, 297; Spain, 298; West Germany, 298 Latin American Research Review, 11, 17 Latin American Studies Association (LASA), 17, 291 La violencia, 131, 133, 144 Leaders, elites, leadership: Argentina, 266, 275; Brazil, 242-43; Central America, 56; Chile, 212-13; Colom¬ bia, 138-39; Costa Rica, 56; Cuba, 85-86; Dominican Republic, 103; Ec¬ uador, 155-56; Guatemala, 56; Mex¬ ico, 30-31; Panama, 56; Peru, 173-74; Venezuela, 118-19. See also names of specific countries and regions Library of Congress, Hispanic Division, 16, 201, 348 Lima (Peru), 178, 179, 182 Machismo, 36, 49 Malvinas/Falklands war, 339, 351, 35253, 356 Marianismo, 36 Marxism, Marxist analysis, 327, 332; Ar¬ gentina, 270; Brazil, 250; Central America, 60, 70; Chile, 207; Ecuador, 151; in international relations research, 292 Medellin (Colombia), 134, 138 Mexican Federation of Labor (CTM), 38 Mexican Revolution, 307, 308, 310 Mexico: agrarian issues, 32-33; armed forces, 33-34; authoritarianism, 309; bourgeoisie, 32; bracero program, 313; bureaucracy, 30; bureaucratic-authori¬ tarianism, 26; business and public pol¬ icy, 29; and Central America, 316-17, 337; Chile, 317; church and state, 3435; comparative studies, 27-28; corpo¬ ratism, 26; debt, 310, 311-12; depend¬ ency theory and analysis, 308, 309-11, 315, 317, 319-20; as a developmental model, 28; dissent, government treat¬ ment of, 30; drug trafficking, 315-16; economic issues, 28-29; education and politics, 35; El Chamizal dispute, 319; elections and electoral analysis, 32; and El Salvador, 316; emigration pol¬

icy, 313; energy policy, 310, 314-15; environmental policy, 316; foreign pol¬ icy, 307, 308, 309, 311-12, 317-19; General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 319; government and legal institutions, 29-30; immigration and the border, 312-13; intellectuals and politics, 31; interest groups, 31, 318; international relations theory, 309-11; labor unions, 36-37; land re¬ form, 32-33; leaders and elites, 30-31, 34, 35; local politics, 27-28; mach¬ ismo, 36; marianismo, 36; media and foreign policy, 318; military, 33-34; multinational corporations, 318; na¬ tional gas controversy, 315; national¬ ism, 308, 309-10, 319; and Nicaragua, 317; peasants, 30; political biogra¬ phies, 30; political economy, 28-29; political parties, 31; political socializa¬ tion, 35; political values, 35-36; reli¬ gion and politics, 308; “special” relationship with U. S., 311; techno¬ crats, 26; tercermundista ideology, 309, 317; trade policy, 311-12, 31314; urban issues, 36; U.S.-Mexico re¬ lations, 309, 311-12; water policy, 316 Minas Gerais (Brazil), 239 Monterrey (Mexico), 138 Montoneros, 276 Morelos (Mexico), 33 Movement toward Socialism (MAS, Ven¬ ezuela), 112, 118 Movimento de Educagao de Base (MEB), 247 Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR, Venezuela), 118 Movimiento Democratico Brasileiro (MDB, Brazil), 238 Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionaria (MNR, Bolivia), 191, 193, 194, 196, 199 Multinational corporations, 354; Brazil, 233, 234; Central America and the Caribbean, 333; Chile, 217 Nasserism, 170 National Conference of Brazilian Bish¬ ops, 247

Subject Index

/

439

National Development Bank (Brazil), 241 National Industrial Society (SNI, Peru), 175 National Liberation Party (Costa Rica),

91, 100-101, 131, 150, 265, 290, 326, 330-39, 347, 355 Nova Igua?u (Brazil), 244

57 National Party (Chile), 214 National Peasant Federation (CNC, Mex¬

Organization of American States (OAS), 290, 299, 327, 339, 354, 364, 365 Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), 109, 121, 301

ico), 38 Neo-Marxist. See Dependency theory and analysis New Cuban Man, 83 New Dialogue policy, 293 New International Economic Order (NIEO), 301, 317 Nicaragua: comparative studies, 52; con¬ tra violence, 63; education and politics, 56; foreign policy, 337; health care, 64; mass organizations, 61; political economy, 61; political parties, 57; rev¬ olutionary issues, 58-61; and the So¬ viet Union, 329; U.S. war against, 330, 331, 335 Nicaraguan Revolution of 1979, 316, 325, 330, 337 Nixon, President Richard M., 293-94 Nonaligned Movement, 301, 337 Nonstate actors: guerrilla groups, 300; in¬ ternational labor organizations, 300; multinational corporations, 299; Roman Catholic Church, 299; transnational po¬ litical parties, 299-300 North American versus Latin American research perspectives: academic train¬ ing and programs, 3, 12-13, 25, 38, 39 n.l, 132, 167, 181, 191-92, 220; country of interest, 5-8, 201; criticisms of, 37, 39, 48, 64-67, 86, 92, 94-95, 105, 116, 132, 144, 158, 291-92, 307, 309, 318, 319-20, 325-26, 339; locus of research, 16, 182 n.2, 253 n.l; re¬ search orientation, 7-8, 13-16, 65, 91-95, 99, 106, 114, 131-32, 149, 153, 158, 191-92, 208, 220, 265-66, 288, 290-92, 301-2, 325, 327, 331, 352, 360-63; sources of scholarly pub¬ lication, 10-12, 132, 169, 181; sub¬ jects of investigation, 8-10, 79, 85-90,

Panama: agrarian issues, 53; canal issues, 293; comparative studies, 52; education and politics, 55 Panama Canal Treaties, 47-48 Panamericanism, 363 Paraguay: authoritarianism, 268-69; dic¬ tatorship, 268-69; liberalism, 268; scholarly work on, 363; socialism, 268; Stroessner regime, 268-69 Partido Comunista de Venezuela (PCV), 111 Partido de Action Nacional (PAN, Mex¬ ico), 31 Partido Obrero Revolucionario (POR, Bolivia), 199 Partido Popular Cristiano (PPC, Peru), 167 Partido Revolucionario Dominicano (PRD), 100 Partido Social Democratico (PSD, Bra¬ zil), 239 Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro (PTB, Bra¬ zil), 238, 239, 241 Peasant politics: Bolivia, 200; Brazil, 248-50; Central America, 52-53; Chile, 218; Colombia, 137-38; Domin¬ ican Republic, 105; Ecuador, 157; Guatemala, 53; Mexico, 32-33; Peru, 176-77; Venezuela, 122 Perestroika, 93 Peru: armed forces, 163, 164, 165, 166, 169, 170, 175-76; bank nationaliza¬ tion, 168; Bergsonian vitalism, 174; bourgeoisie, 170, 175; bureaucracy, 170; bureaucratic-authoritarianism, 167; caciques, 165; civil-military rela¬ tions, 176; clientelism, 179; communist party, 183 n. 13; corporatism, 167, 169; debt issue, 172, 173, 365; democ-

440

/

Subject Index

racy, 163, 167-69; dependency theory and analysis, 164, 167, 169, 170; dialogo de sordos, 166; direct foreign in¬ vestment, 172; discourse theory, 170; distributional economics, 171; eco¬ nomic issues, 171-72; elections and electoral analysis, 174; European struc¬ turalism, 167; golpe de estado of Octo¬ ber 1968, 166; government and legal institutions, 170-71; indirect invest¬ ment, 172-73; industrial class, 175; in¬ formal sector, 178; institutional analysis, 171; labor politics, 165, 177— 78; land reform, 170, 177; leadership, 173-74; liberation theology, 183 n.14; “marginalization,” 179; Marxism, 167, 170, 174, 183 n.13; mercantilism, 179- 80; “military developmentalism,” 170; military populism, 153; military reformism, 163; mine labor, 178; min¬ ing industry, 175; national security doctrine, 176; oligarchy, 163, 164, 165, 172, 176; peasantry, 176-77; po¬ litical behavior, 174; political econ¬ omy, 182 nn.l, 2; political history, 163; political participation, 178; politi¬ cal parties, 173—74; popular nationalist doctrine, 174; post-imperialism, 170; privatization, 173; presidential election of April, 1990, 168; public administra¬ tion, 165; public enterprises, 171; radi¬ cal nationalist one-party state, 166; regime transition, 166; religion and politics, 183 n.14; research institutes, 182 n.2; scholarly activity, 104; Sendero Luminoso, 164, 167, 168, 177, 180- 81, 183 n.15; social groups and movements, 174-80; “social prop¬ erty,” 166; theories of peasant revolu¬ tion, 180; transnational corporations, 172; urban issues, 165, 178-80; work¬ ing class, 177 Peruvian Thermidor, 166 Platt Amendment (Cuba), 80, 91 Policy analysis: Brazil, 240; Colombia, 139-40; Costa Rica, 64; Guatemala, 64; Nicaragua, 64; Bolivia, 198

Political culture: Cuba, 86-87; Ecuador, 151 Political economy: Argentina, 270, 27475; Bolivia, 192-93; Cuba, 87-88; Do¬ minican Republic, 103; Ecuador, 155; Mexico, 28-29; Nicaragua, 61; Peru, 182 nn.l, 2; Venezuela, 115 Political groups. See Interest groups Political participation: Brazil, 238, 242; Costa Rica, 57; Colombia, 136-37; Guatemala, 57 Political parties: Argentina, 271-72; Bo¬ livia, 196-97; Brazil, 237-39; Central America, 56-58; Chile, 208, 213-15; Colombia, 134-35; Costa Rica, 57; Dominican Republic, 102; Ecuador, 154-55; El Salvador, 57; Guatemala, 57; Mexico, 31-32; Nicaragua, 57; Peru, 173-74; Uruguay, 269; Vene¬ zuela, 111-13 Political science research on Argentina: theoretical approaches, 265; trends (1950-1970), 266, 278 Political science research on Bolivia: Bo¬ livian sociological analysis, 191-92; future agendas, 201-2; as a laboratory for comparative analysis, 190; lack of North American interest, 201; literary boom in the 1980s, 190, 201; paradox of, 202; state of, 189-90, 198, 200-2; trends since 1960, 189, 197, 201-2 Political science research on Brazil: dearth of country studies, 252; future agendas, 252-53; political science pro¬ grams in Brazil, 253 n.l; rational choice theories, 241; scholarly growth, 253; trends since 1960, 229, 252 Political science research on Central America: characteristics of, 48, 64-67; criticisms of, 48, 64-65; future agen¬ das, 67-70; international relations top¬ ics, 331; polemic arguments, 65-67, 69-70; theoretical weaknesses, 66; trends since 1980, 47, 48; units of analysis, 68 Political science research on Chile: as a case study, 207-8; “Chile watchers,” 208; future agendas, 220-21; ideologi-

Subject Index cal bias in, 220; loss of Chilean aca¬ demics after 1973, 220; research perspectives, 220; trends since 1960, 220-21; weaknesses in, 211 Political science research on Colombia: academic programs and sources, 132; dependency theory and analysis, 140, 142; founders of, 136; future agendas, 144-45; lack of continuity in, 144; ma¬ jor focus of, 131; nature of, 131-32; political parties, 135; recent develop¬ ments in, 132, 144; theoretical analy¬ sis, 141-43; weaknesses in, 132, 144 Political science research on Cuba: future agendas, 93-94; gaps in the literature, 86, 94-95; investigative puzzles in, 79, 91; paradox of, 92-93; scholarly de¬ bates, 92; state of, 79, 91—95; subjects of investigation, 85-90; weaknesses in, 92 Political science research on Dominican Republic: basis of research attention, 99, 106; categories of analysis, 100101; democratic models in, 100; future agendas, 105-6; weaknesses in, 105 Political science research on Ecuador: fu¬ ture agendas, 158; exile scholars, 151; lack of research attention, 149, 153, 158; “public law phase,’’ 150; subjects of investigation, 150; trends since 1960, 149; weaknesses in, 158 Political science research on Latin Amer¬ ica: academic programs, 3; achieve¬ ments in, 5; characteristics of in 1950s, 2, 13; contrasting functions of research publications, 10-11; critics of depend¬ ency, 4-5; declining interest among political science journals in U.S., 11; democratic optimists, 15-16; demo¬ cratic pessimists, 15; dependency the¬ ory and analysis, 3, 13-14; “depolemicalization’’ in, 352; Euro¬ pean interest in, 3; false distinction be¬ tween politics and economics, 359; history of, 18 n.l; intellectual imperi¬ alism, 349, 362; Latin American re¬ search tradition, 13; Latin American scholars, 3; legalistic tradition in, 4;

/

441

major changes since 1960, 13, 16-18; “modernization phase,” 4; North American versus Latin American per¬ spectives, 5-16, 357, 359, 367; peer review process, 10-11; pioneer schol¬ ars in, 3, 39 n.l; professional journals devoted to, 10; “public law phase,” 2; publishing asymmetries, 11; quality of, 4, 17; radicalization of Latin American intellectuals, 12; realist school, 358, 367 n.2; subjects of investigation, 910; theoretical and epistemological dif¬ ficulties in, 4-5; weaknesses in, 12 Political science research on Mexico: achievements in, 37-38; critics of, 3739; future agendas, 38-39; intellectual vacuum in, 25, 39 n.l; scholarly ex¬ change and joint collections, 38; state of, 37-39; theoretical developments, 25-27; trends since 1960, 25 Political science research on Peru: collab¬ orative projects, 167, 181; decline in interest in, 168, 181; future agendas, 181-82; growth in Peruvian publica¬ tions, 169, 181; period of democracy and its discontents (1980-1990), 167— 69; period of gradualist illusions (1960-1970), 164-66; period of “revo¬ lution” and reaction (1970-1980), 166-67, 176; theoretical developments, 169-70, 181; trends since 1960, 164, 167, 181-82; 182 n.l Political science research on the Southern Cone: democratization, 279; period of intermittent research abundance, 19701990, 266-69; research agendas, 26566, 278-79; subjects of investigation, 265; trends since 1960, 265-66, 27879 Political science research on Venezuela: future agendas, 123; lack of interest in, 109; scholarly debates, 110; structuralfunctional analysis, 114; subjects of in¬ vestigation, 123; trends since 1960, 123; weaknesses in, 116 Political socialization: Cuba, 86; Vene¬ zuela, 118

442

/

Subject Index

Political values: Bolivia, 198; Mexico, 35-36 Populism: Argentina, 266, 270; Brazil, 229, 242; Chile, 213; Ecuador, 15354, 155, 156, 158; Venezuela, 118 Post-authoritarian regimes, 2 Post-Vietnam syndrome, 340 Programa de Estudios Conjuntos Sobre las Relaciones Intemacionales America Latina (RIAL), 289, 290 Public administration: Colombia, 136, 140; Ecuador, 156; Peru, 165 Pueblos jovenes (Peru), 179 Quito (Ecuador), 148, 159 n.6

Social Science Research Council, 290 South America: balance of power, 348; Brazil’s paramount position in, 34748; dependency theory and analysis, 357-60, 362; drug trafficking, 355; economic integration, 353; foreign pol¬ icy, 349; geopolitics, 348, 353, 35557; international organizations, 354; in¬ ternational relations research, 347; na¬ tionalism, 351; non-hemispheric states, 353; nonstate actors, 353-54; northsouth issues, 354 Southern Cone, 356 Soviet Union: and Latin America, 29899; and Central America, 329; and Cuba, 329; and disengagement from

Reagan, President Ronald W., 8, 29394, 334, 354, 363 Reagan Doctrine, 333 Redemocratization, 14 Refugees, Central America, 63 Regime transition, 14; Argentina, 274; Bolivia, 192; Brazil, 229, 232, 233, 236, 246, 252; Chile, 210; contrasting patterns of, 2; Peru, 163, 166; Uru¬ guay, 267, 269 Relative deprivation theory, 59 Religion and politics: Brazil, 246-48; Chile, 219; Mexico, 308; Peru, 183 n.14 Revista de Ciencia Politico (Chile), 214 Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR,

Third World, 366 Special Latin American Coordinating Committee (CECLA), 301 Studies in Comparative International De¬ velopment, 11

Cuba), 89 Revolutionary issues: Central America, 58-59, 329; Colombia, 133-34; Cuba, 80-84; El Salvador, 50; Guatemala, 58-59; Nicaragua, 59-61 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 239, 243 Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil), 239

Uniao Democratica Nacional (UDN, Bra¬ zil), 239 Unidad Popular (Chile), 217 United Fruit Company, 331 United Nations, 300, 327 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD I), 301 United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (Santiago, Chile), 216 United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 200 United States and Latin American rela¬ tions: bureaucratic model of, 295; cri¬ sis management of, 294; declining hegemony in, 303, 354, 363, 366;

Sandinistas. See Frente Sandinista de Liberation Nacional Santa Cruz Civic Committee (Bolivia), 197 Sao Paulo (Brazil), 238, 239, 244, 249 Simpson-Mazzoli bill, 313 Soccer war, 339 Socialist International, 300, 328

Theoretical development: Bolivia, 191— 92; Brazil, 230-33; Central America, 61-62; Costa Rica, 62; Cuba, 82, 94; Guatemala, 61, 64-67; Mexico, 26-27 Third World, 358 Tinker Foundation, 290, 363 Tlatelolco massacre, 309, 317 Twenty-sixth of July Movement (M-267), 81, 82

Subject Index

/

443

flaws in, 335; general surveys of, 29396; governmental and non-govemmental participants in, 296; hemispheric

gime transition, 267, 269; Tupamaros, 268, 277; urban guerrillas, 277

cooperation, 294; human rights, 294, 295, 296; Latin American views of, 294; “liberal” research perspective on, 295-96; national security and, 294;

Velasquismo, 156, 158 n.l Venezuela: administrative reform, 117; agrarian issues and policies, 122; armed forces, 120-21; barrio politics, 119; budgets, 121; bureaucratic-author¬ itarianism, 109, 118; business interest groups, 121; campesinos, 122; Chris¬ tian democracy, 111, 112; church and state, 122-23; city planning, 119; civilmilitary relations, 121; coffee, 122; communists, communism, communist party, 111, 112, 118; comparative studies, 113-14; Congress and foreign policy, 117; corruption, 117-18; debt crisis, 122, 365; democracy in, 110, 115; economic issues, 121-22; eco¬ nomic pressure groups, 122; elections and electoral analysis, 111-13; golpe de estado of 1958, 120; government and legal institutions, 114, 116-18; government planning, 116-17; labor politics, 119-20; leadership and elites, 118-19; migration, 120; military his¬ tory, 120; military ideology, 120; pe¬ troleum policy, 121; pluralist reconciliation system, 110; political bi¬ ography, 118-19; political economy, 115; political parties, 111-13; political socialization, 118; political transforma¬ tion, 109-110, 115; populism, 118; presidency, 116; public administration, 117; regional planning, 120; state, role of, 117; urban issues, 119-20 Venezuelan democracy: consociational characteristics of, 116; cost of elections in, 113; ideological dualism in, 114; as model of development, 110; parallel subsystems in, 114; as pluralist recon¬ ciliation system, 115; reasons for suc¬ cess of, 114; reform in, 114; tutelary pluralism in, 114

policy formulation, 295; “rational” model of, 295; “realist” research per¬ spective on, 296; response to revolu¬ tionary change, 331; Soviet views of, 294 United States of America: and Central America, 329; and Chile, 210, 215, 220-21; and Cuba, 80-81, 331-32; and Honduras, 335; and Israel, 334; and Latin America, 352; and Mexico, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311-12, 313-14, 315, 316; and Nicaragua, 330, 335; and So¬ viet Union, 357-58 Universidad Catolica (Peru), 182 n.2 Universidad de Lima (Peru), 182 n.2 Universidad de los Andes (Bogota), 132, 137 Universidad del Paclfico (Lima, Peru), 172, 182 n.2 Universidad del Valle (Cali, Colombia), 132 Universidad de San Cristobal de Huamanga (Peru), 180 Universidad Javeriana (Bogota), 132 Universidad Nacional (Bogota), 132, 136 Universidad Nacional Agraria (La Mol¬ ina, Peru), 182 Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mex¬ ico (UNAM), 308 Urban issues: Brazil, 243-46; Central America, 62; Chile, 218-19; Domini¬ can Republic, 104; Ecuador, 156; Gua¬ temala, 62; Honduras, 62; Mexico, 3637; Peru, 165, 178-80; Venezuela, 119-20. See also names of specific countries and regions Uruguay: authoritarianism, 267; break¬ down of democracy, 267; democratiza¬ tion, 269; elections and electoral analysis, 269; political parties, 269; re¬

War of the Pacific (1879-1883), 176, 351 Western Europe, 358, 363; and Latin America, 296, 298

444

/

Subject Index

Women and politics: Colombia, 143-44; Cuba, 89-90 Woodrow Wilson Center (Washington, D.C.), 269, 290

World Bank, 103 World Politics, 11 York University (Canada), 158

ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS David W. Dent received his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota and is currently Professor of Political Science at Towson State University in Baltimore. He is the author of “Recent Trends in Political Science Research on Latin America,” Latin American Research Review (1986), and articles or chapters in Comparative Political Studies, Journal of Latin American Studies, and the En¬ cyclopedia of Political Systems and Parties. Since 1976 he has served as an editor of the Government and Politics section for Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador for the Handbook of Latin American Studies. G. Pope Atkins received his Ph.D. from the University of Texas, Austin, and is currently Professor of Political Science at the U.S. Naval Academy. He is the author or coauthor of more than a half dozen books on Latin American politics. His most current work is Latin America in the International Political System (1989). He is also the author of Arms and Politics in the Dominican Republic (1981). Since 1983 he has served as an editor of the International Relations section for the Handbook of Latin American Studies. David G. Becker received his Ph.D. from UCLA and is currently Associate Professor of Political Science at Dartmouth College. He is the author of The New Bourgeoisie and the Limits of Dependency, which focuses on changing class relations in the Peruvian mining sector, and is coauthor (with Jeff Frieden, Sayre P. Schatz, and Richard L. Sklar) of Postimperialism: International Cap¬ italism and Development in the Late Twentieth Century. His recent research on Venezuela is reported in articles appearing in Comparative Political Studies (1990) and, with Henricus J. Stander, III, in World Development (1990). He is

446

/

About the Editor and Contributors

now at work on a book that will treat Bolivian, Peruvian, and Venezuelan democracy comparatively. Robert E. Biles received his Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University and is Pro¬

fessor of Political Science at Sam Houston State University. He taught and did field work in Colombia in 1979, 1984-1985, and 1987, the first two under Fulbright grants. He has published Inter-American Relations: The Latin American Perspective and articles or chapters in the Latin American Research Review, Latin America and Caribbean Contemporary Record, Political Participation in Latin America, and the World Encyclopedia of Political Systems and Parties.

He is currently writing a monograph on women and politics in Colombia. Julie Marie Bunck received her Ph.D. from the University of Virginia and is an

Assistant Professor of Political Science at Tufts University. She has published several articles on Cuban domestic politics and is currently finishing a book on Cuban political culture. Roderic A. Camp is Professor of Political Science at Central College in Iowa.

He has published numerous books on Mexican politics and has a work in progress titled Entrepreneurs and Politics in Mexico. He is a contributing editor on Mexico for World Book Encyclopedia and, since 1982, has served as an editor of the Mexican Government and Politics section of the Handbook of Latin American Studies. Damian J. Fernandez is Assistant Professor of International Relations at Florida

International University in Miami where he specializes in Cuban domestic politics and foreign policy. He received his Ph.D. from the Graduate School of Inter¬ national Studies, University of Miami, and is the author of Cuba’s Foreign Policy in the Middle East (1988) and the editor or coeditor of several volumes on foreign policy and international relations in Latin America. He serves as editor of the International Relations (the Caribbean and the Guianas) materials for the Handbook of Latin American Studies. Michael J. Francis is Professor of Government at the University of Notre Dame

and a fellow of both the Kellogg Institute and the Institute for International Peace Studies. Besides numerous articles in scholarly journals dealing with U.S.-Latin American relations, he is the author of The Limits of Hegemony: United States Relations with Argentina and Chile during World War II (1977) and The Allende Victory: An Analysis of the 1970 Chilean Presidential Election (1973). He is a former editor of the International Relations (South America) section of the Hand¬ book of Latin American Studies. Eduardo A. Gamarra is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Florida In¬

ternational University in Miami. A native of Bolivia, he completed his graduate

About the Editor and Contributors

/

447

studies in political science in the United States. He is either editor or coauthor of several books on Bolivian politics including Ten Years of Democratic Struggles in Bolivia, Revolution and Reaction: Bolivia 1964-1985, and “Bolivia: 1985— 1987,” in Abraham F. Lowenthal, ed., Latin American and Caribbean Con¬ temporary Record. Frances Hagopian is Assistant Professor of Government and of Social Studies

and a Faculty Associate of the Center for International Affairs at Harvard Uni¬ versity. She received her Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and has published articles about democratization in Brazil. She is in the process of completing a book on the role of the traditional political elite in Brazil’s authoritarian regime and the transition to democracy. Peter T. Johnson is Princeton University’s Bibliographer for Latin America,

Spain, and Portugal and a Lecturer in the Program in Latin American Studies in which he teaches a seminar on research methods, sources, and trends. His current research interests focus on grass-roots movements and clandestine po¬ litical groups. Among his recent publications are “The Consistency of a Rev¬ olutionary Movement: Peru’s Sendero Luminoso and Its Texts, 1965-1986,” in Michael T. Martin and Terry R. Kandal, eds., Studies of Development and Change in the Modern World (1989) and “Cuban Academic Publishing and SelfPerceptions,” Cuban Studies 18 (1988). Michael J. Kryzanek is Professor of Political Science at Bridgewater State College

in Massachusetts. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts in Amherst and has published widely on the Dominican Republic, the Caribbean, and U.S.-Latin American Relations. He has written two books on the Dominican Republic with Howard Wiarda and is currently at work on a book about leaders, leadership, and U.S. policy in Latin America. Timothy J. Power is a doctoral candidate in Latin American politics at the

University of Notre Dame. He has written on the Carter administration’s human rights policy toward Brazil, as well as on political parties and transitions to democracy in Chile and Brazil. His dissertation topic deals with the response of Brazil’s civilian political right to the process of democratization that has been under way in Brazil since 1985. Paul E. Sigmund is Professor of Politics at Princeton University. He is the author

of fourteen books on Latin American politics and political theory, including The Overthrow of Allende and the Politics of Chile, 1964-1976 (1977), Multina¬ tionals in Latin America: The Politics of Nationalization (1980), The Politics of Income Distribution in Mexico (edited with Pedro Aspe, 1983), the English translation of Alan Rouquie, The Military and the State in Latin America (1988), and Liberation Theology at the Crossroads: Democracy or Revolution? (1990).

448

/

About the Editor and Contributors

Dale Story is Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Department at the

University of Texas at Arlington. He received his Ph.D. from Indiana University and has published numerous articles and monographs on Mexico including In¬ dustry, the State, and Public Policy in Mexico (1986) and The Mexican Ruling Party: Stability and Authority (1986). As a contributing editor for the Handbook of Latin American Studies, he covers the International Relations literature for Mexico and Central America. Robert H. Trudeau received his Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina,

Chapel Hill, and is currently Professor of Political Science and Director of Latin American Studies at Providence College. Dr. Trudeau has lived in Honduras (1965-1966) where he served as a Peace Corps volunteer and Costa Rica (1970) where he carried out field work for his doctoral dissertation. He is the author of several papers and published pieces on current Guatemalan political affairs and on U.S. policy toward Guatemala. He currently has a work in progress titled Guatemala: The Promise of Democracy? Gary W. Wynia received his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin and is

Professor of Political Science at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota. A specialist on Argentine politics, he is the author of Argentina in the Postwar Era: Economic Policy-Making in a Divided Society (1978) and Argentina: Il¬ lusions and Realities (1986). His textbook, The Politics of Latin American De¬ velopment (1990), is now in its third edition. He is a former contributing editor of the Government and Politics (Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay) section for the Handbook of Latin American Studies.

Ref JA84.L3 H36 1990 ok of political science researc

□ □□3DL.75 3

DENISON UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES