Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:51:19.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodological Problems in the Study of Political Leadership in Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2022

William A. Welsh
William A. Welsh*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Study of Political Leadership is Important for an Understanding of any society. Political leaders participate in, or influence the making of, decisions that allocate resources within and among social units. These acts of choice constitute the major component of the governing process. It seems obvious, then, that an understanding of any social order rests fundamentally on a systematic grasp of the background attributes, careers, value and issue orientations, behaviors and environmental context of political leaders.

Type
Topical Review
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , Fall 1970 , pp. 3 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 by the University of Texas Press

References

NOTES

1. Martin C. Needler, Latin American Politics in Perspective (Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1963), 33.

2. Charles W. Anderson, Toward a Theory of Latin American Politics (Nashville, Tennessee:

Vanderbilt University, Graduate Center for Latin American Studies, Occasional Paper No. 2, February, 1964). An increasing interest in studying elites and leadership in Latin America is hopefully reflected in the publication of a collection of essays on Elites in Latin America, edited by S. M. Lipset and Aldo Solari (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967). Unfortunately, only two of the 15 chapters deal directly with political or military elites. Of these two chapters, only that by Horowitz on the military reports any specific data. It should also be mentioned that there are useful studies of political elites and leadership in Latin America which are not referred to specifically in this paper .Four of the best examples are Daniel Goldrich, Sons of the Establishment: Elite Youth in Panama and Costa Rica (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966); W. V. D'Antonio and W. H. Form, Political Influentials in Two Border Cities (Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press, 1964); José Luiz de Imaz, Los que mandan (Buenos Aires, 1964); and Dario Cantón, El parlamento argentino en épocas de cambio: 1890, 1916 y 1946 (Buenos Aires: Editorial del Instituto Torcuato Di Tella, 1966).

3. See Kalman H. Silvert, “Leadership Formation and Modernization in Latin America,” Journal of International Affairs, 20:2 (1966), 318-331.

4. For example, see Waldermiro Bazzanella, “Priority Areas for Social Research in Latin America,” in E. de Vries and J. Medina Echavarria (eds.), Social Aspects of Economic Development in Latin America (Paris: UNESCO, 1963), 361-380; also see James L. Payne, Patterns of Conflict in Colombia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968).

5. For a discussion of recent trends in model-building in comparative politics, see this writer's “Some Leading Approaches Methodologically Viewed, I: The Comparative Study of Political Systems,” in Robert T. Golembiewski, William A. Welsh, and William J. Crotty, A Methodological Primer for Political Scientists (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969), 229, 241-261.

6. See David E. Apter, “A Comparative Method for the Study of Politics,” American Journal of Sociology, 64 (Nov., 1958), 221-237.

7. The basic model was advanced in David Easton, “An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems,” World Politics, 9:3 (April, 1957), 383-400.

8. Karl W. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control (New York: The Free Press, 1966); also see his “Social Mobilization and Political Development,” American Political Science Review, 55:3 (1961), 493-514.

9. Herbert J. Spiro, “Comparative Politics: A Comprehensive Approach,” American Political Science Review, 56:3 (Sept., 1962), 577-595.

10. Inter-American Economic Affairs, 21:1 (1968), 61-72.

11. Inter-American Economic Affairs, 21:1 (1968), 3-30.

12. Inter-American Economic Affairs, 18:2 (1964), 3-45.

13. Inter-American Economic Affairs, 17:3 (1963), 3-18.

14. Inter-American Economic Affairs, 16:4 (1963), 11-19.

15. Journal of Inter-American Studies, 3:1 (1961), 81-95.

16. Journal of Inter-American Studies, 8:1 (1966), 112-128.

17. Journal of Inter-American Studies, 9:2 (1967), 236-247.

18. Journal of Inter-American Studies, 9:2 (1967), 283-295.

19. M. Mörner, “Caudillos y militares en la evolución hispanoamericano,” Journal of Inter-American Studies, 2:1 (1960), 295-310; J. León Helguera, “The Changing Role of the Military in Colombia,” 3:3 (1961), 351-358; Edwin Lieuwen, “The Changing Role of the Military in Latin America,” 3:4 (1961), 559-570; R. A. Potash, “The Changing Role of the Military in Argentina,” 3:4 (1961), 571-578; Daniel Goldrich, “Panamanian Students' Orientations toward Government and Democracy,” 5:3 (1963), 379-404; L. Ronald Scheman, “The Brazilian Law Student: Background, Habits, Attitudes,” 5:3 (1963), 333-356; Harry Kantor, “Los partidos populares de América Latina,” 6:2 (1964), 221-234; John D. Martz, “Venezeula's 'Generation of '28': The Genesis of Political Democracy,” 6:1 (1964), 17-32; Thomas M. Millington, “President Arturo Illía and the Argentine Military,” 6:3 (1964); 405-424; Jordan M. Young, “Some Permanent Political Characteristics of Contemporary Brazil,” 6:3 (1964), 287-301; Kenneth F. Johnson, “Political Radicalism in Colombia: Electoral Dynamics of 1962 and 1964,” 7:1 (1965), 15-26; Albert Lauterbach, “Government and Development: Managerial Attitudes in Latin America,” 7:2 (1965), 201-225; Aaron Lipman, “Social Background of the Bogotá Entrepreneur,” 7:2 (1965), 227-235; Leonard D. Therry, “Dominant Power Components in the Brazilian University Student Movement prior to April, 1964,” 7:1 (1965), 27-48; Franklin Tugwell, “The Christian Democrats of Venezuela,” 7:2 (1965), 245-247; Howard Wiarda, “The Politics of Civil-Military Relations in the Dominican Republic,” 7:4 (1965), 465-484; Ronald C. Newton, “Students and the Political System of the University of Buenos Aires,” 8:4 (1966), 633-656; Frederic Hicks, “Politics, Power, and the Role of the Village Priest in Paraguay,” 9:2 (1967), 273-282; Orville G. Cope, “The 1965 Congressional Election in Chile: An Analysis,” 10:2 (1968), 256-276; Michael J. Francis, “Revolutionary Labor in Latin America: The CLASC,” 10:4 (1968), 597-616; Robert H. Rehder, “Managerial Resource Development in Peru: Directions and Implications,” 10:4 (1968), 571-586; Jaime Suchlicki, “Stirrings of Cuban Nationalism: The Student Generation of 1930,” 10:3 (1968), 350-368; and Charles H. Weston, Jr., “An Ideology of Modernization: The Case of the Bolivian MNR,” 10:1 (1968), 85-101.

20. For an excellent discussion of this theme, see Merle Kling, “The State of Research on Latin America: Political Science,” in Charles W. Wagley (ed.), Social Science Research on Latin America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1964), 168-207. Despite the fact that Kling wrote the article six years ago, his characterization of the field remains essentially accurate.

21. Frank Bonilla and José A. Silva Michelena (eds.), A Strategy for Research on Social Policy (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1967), 26.

22. Ibid., 175.

23. Ibid., 176.

24. Gabriela de Bronfenmajer, “Elite Evaluation of Role Performance,” ibid., 217.

25. Ibid. Also see Kalman H. Silvert and Frank Bonilla, Education and the Social Meaning of Development: A Preliminary Statement (New York: American Universities Field Staff, 1961).

26. Edwards.

27. Ranis.

28. Payne.

29. Peter G. Snow, “El político argentino,” Revista Española de Opinión Pública, No. 6 (Oct.-Dec.,1966), 135-149.

30. Richard R. Strout, The Recruitment of Candidates in Mendoza Province, Argentina (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968).

31. Golembiewski, Welsh, and Crotty, op. cit., 229.

32. Harold Lasswell, Daniel Lerner, and C. Easton Rothwell, The Comparative Study of Elites (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1952).

33. Carl Beck and James Malloy, Political Elites: A Mode of Analysis (Pittsburgh: Archive on Political Elites, University of Pittsburgh, n.d.).

34. Bonilla and Silva Michelena.

35. See Golembiewski, Welsh, and Crotty, op. cit., 241-261.

36. Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966).

37. Easton.

38. See John J. Johnson, The Military and Society in Latin America (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964).

39. Roger Vekemans and J. L. Segundo, “Essay of a Socio-Economic Typology of the Latin American Countries,” in de Vries and Medina Echavarría, op. cit., 67-94.

40. Silvert, “Leadership Formation …,” 319.

41. Ibid. It should be emphasized that Silvert's work is frequently singled out for comment in this paper not because his work is an easy target for criticism, but because in many ways his work is the best available.

42. François Bourricaud, “Structure and Function of the Peruvian Oligarchy,” Studies in Comparative International Development, 2:2 (1966), 17-31.

43. John D. Martz, “Dilemmas in the Study of Latin American Political Parties,” The Journal of Politics, 26:3 (Aug., 1964), 515.

44. Ibid., 519.

45. Rollie E. Poppino, “Who Are the Communists?” from his International Communism in Latin America (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964). Reprinted in Peter G. Snow (ed.), Government and Politics in Latin America: A Reader (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967). See p. 495 in Snow.

46. Silvert, “Leadership Formation …,” op. cit.; in addition see Gino Germani and Kalman Silvert, “Politics, Social Structure and Military Intervention in Latin America,” European Journal of Sociology, 2 (1961), 62-81; also see Germani, Política y sociedad en una época de transición (Buenos Aires: Editorial Paidos, 1963).

47. E.g., Vekemans and Segundo.

48. See Anatol Rapoport, Two-Person Game Theory: The Essential Ideas (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1966), 15-16.

49. Silvert, Leadership Formation..“

50. See Anderson. The Anderson typology is largely implicit.

51. François Bourricaud, “Las élites en América Latina,” Aportes, 1 (July, 1966), 121-123.

52. This problem also is severe in the literature on leadership in Communist systems. See Frederic J. Fleron, Jr., “Soviet Area Studies and the Social Sciences: Some Methodological Problems in Communist Studies,” in Fleron (ed.), Communist Studies and the Social Sciences: Essays on Methodology and Empirical Theory (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1969), 12-17.

53. Silvert, “Leadership Formation …,” op. cit., 326 (first emphasis in quote supplied).

54. “Elsewhere,” that is, in the same article. See ibid.

55. Ibid., 326-327.

56. Beck and Malloy. Their approach is based on Easton.

57. At the same time, the surfacing of concern for the study of informal political processes in Latin America is recent. In 1964, Kling still found an overwhelming concentration on formal governmental structures.

58. Silvert, “Political Leadership and Institutional Weakness ..,” op. cit., 95.

59. See Beck and Malloy, op. cit., 13-15; also, Laswell, Lerner, and Rothwell, op. cit., Ch. I.

60. The major efforts at explicating the concept “elite” are found in Beck and Malloy; Laswell, Lerner, and Rothwell; Geraint Parry, Political Elites (London: Georges Allen and Unwin, 1969); T. B. Bottomore, Eiltes and Society (London: Penguin Books, 1966); Michalina Clifford-Vaughn, “Some French Concepts of Elites,” British Journal of Sociology, 11:4 (Dec., 1960), 319-331; Hans P. Dreitzel, Elitebergriff und Sozialstruktur (Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke, 1962); S. F. Nadel, “The Concept of Social Elites,” International Social Science Bulletin, 8:3 (1956), 413-424; Marian W. Beth, “The Elite and the Elites,” American Journal of Sociology, 47 (March, 1942), 746-755; Ralph Gilbert Ross, “Elites and the Methodology of Politics,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 16 (Spring, 1952), 27-32; Robert A. Dahl, “A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model,” American Political Science Review, 52 (June, 1958), 463-469. The most useful of numerous efforts at explicating the concept “leadership” are Lewis J. Edinger, “Political Science and Political Biography, Reflections on the Study of Leadership,” Parts I and II, Journal of Politics, 26:2 (May, 1964), 423-439; and 26:3 (August, 1964), 648-676; Richard T. Morris and Melvin Seeman, “The Problem of Leadership: An Interdisciplinary Approach,” American Journal of Sociology, 56 (Sept., 1950), 149-155; Malcolm Moos and Bertram Koslin, “Political Leadership Re-examined: An Experimental Approach,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 15 (Fall, 1951), 563-574; and Robert Tannenbaum, and Fred Massarik, “Leadership: A Frame of Reference,” Management Science, 4 (Oct. 1957), 1-19.

61. See also his “National Values, Development, and Leaders and Followers,” International Social Science Journal, 15:4 (1963), 550-570.

62. It should be pointed out that The Conflict Society was not originally published in 1966, but in 1961.

63. Wilbert E. Moore, “Introduction: Social Change and Comparative Studies,” International Social Science Journal, 15:4 (1963), 519-527.

64. Ibid. The listing itself has been abstracted from the text of Moore's article.

65. See Germani's work referred to in n. 46, above.

66. Vekemans and Segundo.

67. Silvert, “Leadership Formation ..,” op. cit., 320.

68. Ibid.

69. Ibid., 324.

70. Ibid.

71. Vekemans and Segundo.

72. George Blanksten, “Latin America,” in Gabriel Almond and James S. Coleman (eds.), The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1960).

73. Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966). Hopefully, this comment does not apply to volumes on Latin American nations which might be published in the Little, Brown comparative politics country series.

74. The above-cited works by Bonilla and Silva Michelena, Payne, and Ranis all refer to these kinds of data-collection problems. In addition, the present writer has experienced considerable difficulty in using mail questionnaires in studying political elites in six of seven Latin American countries. Surprisngly, the response has been reasonably good for Uruguayan elites. See William A. Welsh, Political Leadership in Latin America (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, forthcoming).

75. Ranis, op. cit., 113.

76. Johnson.

77. Ibid., ix.

78. Ibid.

79. Rains, op. cit., 114.

80. Ole R. Holsti, “Content Analysis in Political Research,” paper, Computers and the Policy Making Community Institute (Livermore, Calif., April, 1966), 1. See his Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969).

81. Indeed, communication approaches may well emerge as being among the most useful types of theories for comparative political analysis. Especially see Deutsch, The Nerves of Government.

82. See Robert C. North, et al., Content Analysis (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1963), especially 105-128.

83. The Inquirer II System, a considerably revised version of the General Inquirer System, is described in Dennis J. Arp, J. Philip Miller, and George Psathas, An Introduction to the Inquirer II System of Content Analysis; and J. Philip Miller, Inquirer II Programmer's Guide. These publications are available through the Washington University Computer Facilities, St. Louis, Missouri.

84. For an elaboration of these desiderata, see Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964).

86. Waldemiro Bazzanella, op. cit., 375-376.

87. S. N. Eisenstadt, “Primitive Political Systems: A Comparative Analysis,” American Anthropologist, 61 (April, 1959), 200-220.

88. John J. Johnson, Political Change in Latin America, The Emergence of the Middle Sectors (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958). See especially Chs. 1 and 9.

89. One of the few systematic efforts at relating these variables is M. George Zaninovich, “Elites and Citizenry in Yugoslav Society,” chapter in Carl Beck, Frederic J. Fleron, Jr., Milton Lodge, William A. Welsh, and M. George Zaninovich, Comparative Communist Political Leadership (forthcoming).

90. James C. Abegglen and H. Manneri, “Leaders of Modern Japan, Social Origins and Mobility,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 4:2 (Oct., 1960), 109-134.

91. S. F. Nadel, “The Concept of Social Elites,” International Social Science Bulletin, 8 (Fall, 1956), 413-424.

92. Edward A. Shils, “The Intellectuals and the Powers,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1 (Oct., 1958), 5-22.

93. Irving Louis Horowitz, Three Worlds of Development: The Theory and Practice of International Stratification (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), 230; Alfred O. Hirschman, The Strategy of Economic Development (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958).

94. Morris Janowitz, Sociology and the Military Establishment (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1959).

95. Benjamin Higgins, “Requirements for Rapid Economic Development in Latin America,” in E. de Vries and J. Medina Echavarría, op. cit., 156.

96. Cochrane.

97. Ibid., 70.

98. Ibid., 71.

99. Kling, op. cit., 186.

100. See, for example, Russell H. Fitzgibbon and Kenneth F. Johnson, “Measurement of Latin American Political Change,” American Political Science Review, 55:3 (Sept., 1961), 515-526.

101. Kling, op. cit., 186.

The author is grateful to Peter Snow and Vernon Van Dyke for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.