Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:27:11.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Democracy and Economic Crisis: The Latin American Experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Karen L. Remmer
Karen L. Remmer
Affiliation:
The University of New Mexico
Get access

Abstract

The debt crisis has raised serious concerns about the future of democratic governance in Latin America. The prevailing assumption is not merely that economic decline undercuts prospects for democratic consolidation; because of their vulnerability to popular political pressures, democracies—particularly new democracies—have been seen as incapable of mounting effective policy responses to critical economic challenges. A comparative study of policy outcomes in Latin America since the outbreak of the debt crisis challenges this assumption. If we control for the magnitude of the debt burden at the outbreak of the crisis, no statistically significant differences emerge between democratic and authoritarian regimes, or between new democracies and more established regimes. The findings suggest that the conventional wisdom about democracy and economic crisis exaggerates the relationship between political regime characteristics and policy choice, and fundamentally misconstrues the strengths and weaknesses of liberal democratic forms of governance.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , April 1990 , pp. 315 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Carter, Jimmy and Baker, Howard, “Latin America's Debt and U.S. Interests,” in Pastor, Robert A., ed., Latin America's Debt Crisis: Adjusting to the Past or Planning for the Future? (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1987), 2Google Scholar; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Global Debt Crisis, 99th Cong., 2d sess., 1986, pp. 57, 59, 76; Inter-American Dialogue, The Americas in 1989: Consensus for Action (Aspen, CO: The Aspen Institute, 1989), 1–2Google Scholar; Kuczynski, Pedro-Pablo, Latin American Debt (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988), 146Google Scholar; Seligson, Mitchell A. and Muller, Edward N., “Democratic Stability and Economic Crisis: Costa Rica, 1978–1983,” International Studies Quarterly 31 (September 1987), 323CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Bush Aides Are Likely to Offer a Plan Soon on Third World Debt,” Wall Street Journal, March 9, 1989, p. 1; “Third World Debt Won't Wait,” New York Times, October 1, 1988, p. 4; “Latin Debt Crisis Seen as Threat to Continent's New Democracies,” New York Times, January 17, 1989, p. 3.

2 For a summary and review of this literature as it pertains specifically to Latin America, see Remmer, Karen L., “Evaluating the Policy Impact of Military Regimes in Latin America,” Latin American Research Review 13, No. 2 (1978), 39–54Google Scholar.

3 Cameron, David, “Social Democracy, Corporatism, Labor Quiescence, and the Representation of Economic Interest in Advanced Capitalist Society,” in Goldthorpe, John H., ed., Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Castles, Francis G., The Social Democratic Image of Society: A Study of the Achievements and Origins of Scandinavian Social Democracy in Comparative Perspective (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978)Google Scholar; Coleman, William and Grant, Wyn, “The Organizational Cohesion and Political Access of Business: A Study of Comprehensive Associations,” European Journal of Political Research 16 (September 1988), 467-87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Conaghan, Catherine M., Restructuring Domination: Industrialists and the State in Ecuador (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Grindle, Merilee S., State and Countryside: Development Policy and Agrarian Politics in Latin America (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Haggard, Stephan and Kaufman, Robert, “The Politics of Stabilization and Structural Adjustment,” in Sachs, Jeffrey D., ed., Developing Country Debt and Economic Performance, Vol. 1: The International Financial System (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 209-54Google Scholar; Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr., “Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy,” American Political Science Review 71 (December 1977): 1467-87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kaufman, Robert R., The Politics of Debt in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1989)Google Scholar; Katzenstein, Peter, Small States in World Markets (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; McBride, Stephen, “The Comparative Politics of Unemployment: Swedish and British Responses to Economic Crisis,” Comparative Politics 20 (April 1988), 303-23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Raddison, Ronan, The Fragmented State (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983)Google Scholar; Schmitter, Philippe C., “Reflections on Where the Theory of Neo-Corporatism Has Gone,” in Lehmbruch, Gerhard and Schmitter, Philippe C., eds., Patterns of Corporatist Policy-Making (London: Sage Publications, 1982)Google Scholar.

4 Skidmore, , “The Politics of Economic Stabilization in Postwar Latin America,” in Malloy, James M., ed., Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1977), 149-90Google Scholar.

5 Anglade, Christian and Fortin, Carlos, eds., The State and Capital Accumulation in Latin America, Vol. 1 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1985), 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Foxley, Alejandro, Latin American Experiments in Neoconservative Economics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Frenkel, Robert and O'Donnell, Guillermo, “The ‘Stabilization Programs’ of the International Monetary Fund and Their Internal Impacts,” in Fagen, Richard R., ed., Capitalism and the State in U.S.-Latin American Relations (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1979), 171–216Google Scholar; Kaufman, Robert R., “Democratic and Authoritarian Responses to the Debt Issue: Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico,” International Organization 39 (Summer 1985), 473–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roett, Riordan, “The Foreign Debt Crisis and the Process of Redemocratization in Latin America,” in Eskridge, William N. Jr., ed., A Dance along the Precipice: The Political and Economic Dimensions of the International Debt Problem (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1985), 207-30Google Scholar; Sheahan, John, “Market-oriented Economic Policies and Political Repression in Latin America,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 28 (January 1980), 267-91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barbara Stallings, “Peru and the U.S. Banks: Privatization of Financial Relations,” in Fagen, pp. 217–53; Thorp, Rosemary and Whitehead, Laurence, “Introduction,” in Thorp, and Whitehead, , eds., Inflation and Stabilisation in Latin America (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1979), 11Google Scholar, 18; Dominguez, Jorge, “Political Change: Central America, South America, and the Caribbean,” in Weiner, Myron and Huntington, Samuel P., eds., Understanding Political Development (Boston: Little, Brown, 1987), 83Google Scholar.

6 Institute of Latin American Studies, The Debt Crisis in Latin America, Monograph No. 13 (Stockholm: Institute of Latin American Studies, 1986), 11Google Scholar.

7 Malloy, James M., “The Politics of Transition in Latin America,” in Malloy, James M. and Seligson, Mitchell A., eds., Authoritarians and Democrats: Regime Transition in Latin America (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press, 1987), 249Google Scholar.

8 Remmer, Karen L., “Trie Politics of Economic Stabilization: IMF Standby Programs in Latin America, 1954–1984,” Comparative Politics 18 (October 1986), 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Haggard, , “The Politics of Adjustment: Lessons from the IMF's Extended Fund Facility,” in Kahler, Miles, ed., The Politics of International Debt (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), 157-86Google Scholar.

10 Nelson, , “The Politics of Stabilization,” in Feinberg, Richard E. and Kallab, Valeriana, eds., Adjustment Crisis in the Third World (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1984)Google Scholar.

11 Stallings, and Kaufman, , “Debt and Democracy in the 1980s: The Latin American Experience,” in Stallings, and Kaufman, , eds., Debt and Democracy in Latin America (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989), 203Google Scholar, 220.

12 Gourevitch, , Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Economic Crises (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986), 240Google Scholar.

13 Seligson and Muller (fn. 1), 322, 323; House Committee on Foreign Affairs (fn. 1), 76; “Third World Debt Won't Wait,” New York. Times, October 1, 1988, p. 14; Smith, William C., “Heterodox Shocks and the Political Economy of Democratic Transition in Argentina and Brazil,” in Canak, William L., ed., Lost Promises: Debt, Austerity, and Development in Latin America (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989), 156Google Scholar.

14 See, for example, “Brazil's Democracy in the Balance,” COHA's Washington Report on the Hemisphere 9 (December 7, 1988), 4Google Scholar; see also the statement of James A. Baker, III, the secretary of state-designate, at his confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, January 17, 1989, reprinted in U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, Current Policy, No. 1146 (January 1989), 1.

15 Smith (fn. 13), 156.

16 Seligson and Muller (fn. 1), 322.

17 Institute of Latin American Studies (fn. 6), 11.

18 Weiner, , “Empirical Democratic Theory,” in Weiner, Myron and Ozbudun, Ergun, eds., Competitive Elections in Developing Countries (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987), 18Google Scholar.

19 Hirschman, , “The Political Economy of Latin American Development: Seven Exercises in Retrospection,” Latin American Research Review 22, No. 3 (1987), 28Google Scholar.

20 The concept of “political goods” in this connection is drawn from Kuczynski (fn. 1), 147.

21 These criteria are utilized solely because they pose few classificatory problems for the time period and the set of countries in question. The only ambiguous case is that of Brazil, which made less than a complete transition to democracy during the period under consideration. For other purposes, a more complex set of operational indicators might be preferable in order to separate inclusionary and exclusionary forms of competitive rule and to differentiate between limited and open competition. For recent efforts along these lines, see John A. Booth, “Elections and Democracy in Central America: A Framework for Evaluation,” paper prepared for the Southwestern Political Science Association meeting, Little Rock, AR, March 30-April 1, 1989; Remmer, Karen L., “Exclusionary Democracy,” Studies in Comparative International Development 20 (Winter 1985–1986), 64–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Evelyne Huber Stephens, “Capitalist Development and Democracy in South America,” paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 1988.

22 World Bank, World Debt Tables, 1984–85 (Washington, DC: World Bank, 1985), 158–227Google Scholar.

23 CEPAL, “Balance preliminar de la economía latinoamericana, 1988” [Preliminary balance of the Latin American economy, 1988], Notas sobre la economía y el desarrollo, No. 470 (December 1988); ibid., No. 387 (December 1983); Inter-American Development Bank, Economic and Social Progress in Latin America (Washington, DC: IADB, 1982 –1988)Google Scholar.

24 It may be noted that the results are virtually identical if the analysis is limited to the nine larger and more modern economies of the Latin American region, upon which Stallings and Kaufman focus their discussion of the link between regime and policy (fn. 11, chap. 12). The only difference with the findings reported here is that the relationship between rates of unemployment and regime remains significant at the .04 level after controlling for the 1982 debt burden. Again, however, that relationship does not conform to the hypotheses presented in the literature inasmuch as (a) the highest rates of unemployment are found in the old democracies rather than in the authoritarian regimes, and (b) the unemployment rates of new democracies and authoritarian regimes are not significantly different.

25 Inter-American Development Bank, Economic and Social Progress in Latin America: 1987 Report (Washington, DC: IADB, 1987), 246Google Scholar.

26 Johanna Sharp, “Regime Type and Economic Policy Formation: The Case of Brazil, 1982–1989,” unpub. (Albuquerque, NM: 1989).

27 Inter-American Development Bank (fn. 25), 214; 1983 Report, 148.

28 See Conaghan (fn. 3), 120–44.

29 O'Donnell, Guillermo, Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1973)Google Scholar. See also O'Donnell, , “Reflections on the Patterns of Change in the Bureaucratic-Authoritarian State,” Latin American Research Review 13, No. 1 (1978), 3–38Google Scholar; O'Donnell, , “Tensions in the Bureaucratic-Authoritarian State and the Question of Democracy,” in Collier, David, ed., The New Authoritarianism in Latin America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 285–318Google Scholar.

30 Malloy (fn. 7), 239.

31 See, in particular, Crowther, William, “Philippine Authoritarianism and the International Economy,” Comparative Politics 18 (April 1986), 339-56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Im, Hyug Baeg, “The Rise of Bureaucratic Authoritarianism in South Korea,” World Politics 39 (January 1987), 231-57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Diamond, Larry, “Introduction: Roots of Failure, Seeds of Hope,” in Diamond, Larry, Linz, Juan J., and Lipset, Seymour Martin, eds., Democracy in Developing Countries, Vol. 2: Africa (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1988), 15Google Scholar.

33 Lindblom, Charles E., Politics and Markets: The World's Political-Economic Systems (New York: Basic Books, 1977)Google Scholar; Michels, Robert, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modem Democracy (New York: Collier Books, 1962)Google Scholar; and McConnell, Grant, Private Power and American Democracy (New York: Knopf, 1966)Google Scholar, chap. 5.