180 likes | 327 Views
General Considerations. State = Project Closely tied to developmentPatterns of development are reflected in change in state formationCombination: Outside influencesInside pressuresInside pressures generally involve key role for middle classes. State Formations. Oligarchic state: 1820-1930Pop
E N D
1. The Art of the State in Latin America The Art of Dissolving States
27 September 2005
Gerard van der Ree
Leiden University
2. General Considerations State = Project
Closely tied to development
Patterns of development are reflected in change in state formation
Combination:
Outside influences
Inside pressures
Inside pressures generally involve key role for middle classes
3. State Formations Oligarchic state: 1820-1930
Populist state: 1930-1960s
Bureaucratic-authoritarian state: 1960s-1980s
Democratic/Neo-liberal state: 1980s-
Exceptions: Colombia (oligarchic until 1980s), Uruguay (early liberal democracy), Mexico, in some countries no Bureaucratic-authoritarian state
4. Oligarchic State Independence: not the result of rebellion
External: fall of Spanish and Portuguese crown
Internal: criollos vs peninsulares
5. First Phase: 1820-1870 State Building
States remained very weak and instable:
Economic stagnation
Maintenance of colonial social order
Protracted conflict between conservatives and liberals
Caudillismo
Exceptions: Chile, Costa Rica
6. Second Phase: 1870-1930 Consolidation state: liberal-authoritarian
Export-oriented growth
Orientation towards ‘progreso’
Examples of England, France
Positivism
Material modernisation
Foreign investment
Example: Porfirio Diaz
7. Transition to Populist State External: WWI and crash of 1929
Internal:
Erosion of the power of the oligarchy
Rise of urban masses
Contest for power: middle classes
Two routes:
Constitutional: Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica
Conflict: Mexican Revolution, Peronism
Exceptions: Vargas (Brazil) and APRA (Peru)
8. Populism Based upon-but not emanating from- popular mass mobilisation
Corporatism: state regulation of social sectors
Styles of leadership:
Civil: Betancourt (Venezuela 1958); APRA (Peru); Arbenz (Guatemala 1951)
Authoritarian: Cardenas (Mexico 1934); Perón (Argentina 1946); Vargas (Brazil 1930/37)
9. Populist Agenda Inward-looking development
Import-Substitution Industrialisation (ISI)
Social citizenship and integration
Social legislation
Incorporation of representative organisations
Centralisation of State
Nationalism
10. Breakdown of Populist State 1960s: emergence of violent authoritarian regimes
Brazil; Chile; Uruguay; Argentina; Peru; Guatemala; etc.
Unexpected: break of democratising trend, fall of caudillo-regimes (Batista, Trujillo)
11. Explanations External: Cold War and Cuban Revolution
Internal
José Nun: Middle Class Military Coup
Guillermo O’Donnell: Bureaucratic-Authoritarian coups
12. Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Coups Populist state: mobilisation of the masses. Was stable because of economic expansion
1960s: ISI model becomes exhausted
Mass mobilisation can no longer be mediated through economic growth
Attempts to reform antagonise the lower classes: social conflict
Military step in to de-activate the masses
13. Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Regimes Repression: doctrine of national security
Argentina, Guatemala: extremely violent
Brazil, Peru: more selective repression
Neutralisation of Politics
Chile/Argentina: parties suspended
Brazil: democratic façade
Technocratic leadership
Development:
Brazil: maintenance of ISI
Chile: neo-liberal project
Exceptions: Peru 1968-1980
14. Twilight of the Despots Early 1980s: return to democracy
Peru, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala
Causes
Internal erosion within coalition
Decay of legitimacy (debt crisis, Malvinas)
Growth of opposition and the creation of a viable democratic alternative
Falling external legitimacy for anti-communist dictatorship
15. Dual/Triple Transition From dictatorship to democracy
From state orientation to free market
External:
Pressure from IMF/World Bank
Globalisation
Internal:
Debt crisis + crisis ISI model
Demand for consumption by middle classes
Central America: from civil war to peace
16. Democratisation Mixed results
Democratically chosen governments in all L.A. countries (except Cuba)
Low risk of military takeovers
Executive: personalistic, abuse of power
Congress: weak party system, ineffectiveness, no clear ideological direction
Rule of Law: often arbitrary, ineffective, aimed against the poor
Legitimacy of democratic system declining
17. Neo-Liberalism In general: negative social impact
Especially income distribution and poverty
Different models
Neo-populism combined with radical neo-liberal reform: Argentina, Peru
Relatively stable growth:
Costa Rica, Uruguay
Muddle-through: Mexico,
Venezuela, Brazil
Chile
18. Conclusions State change in LA is the product of simultaneous internal and external pressures
It reflects both changes in developmental strategies as well as political readjustment
Transition to consolidated democracy and consistent economic model is far from complete