Democracy in Latin America 4 -(,).9 co 100 (,) C100 en M0~ 0- c.. 00. 0. 0E(1) 100..c > ~.8 e Costa Rica Uruguay e.7,; evenezuela Argentina.6.5 Honduras e Panama Mexico e Chile.4 e Ecuador Colombia eel Salvador eparaguay.3 eguatemala e Brazil o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 GDP per Capita (Average 1996-2002) Pearson's r =.48 FIGURE 12.1 National Wealth and Public Support for Democracy (2003) SOURCE: Data on support for democracy are from the 2003 Lotinobor6metro survey. Data on GDP per capita are from the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.
;6 Chapter 12 Challenges and Choices in the Twenty-First Century.9 :J :: e.>0.7 EQ.) M(tI Co I- 0 l- (J) c.. 0- Co :J..c ~ 't0.5 >.4 e.>.8 C.6 Uruguay.. Costa Rica,; Argentina Venezuela Mexico. Panama Chile Colombia EI Salvador Ecuador Paraguay Honduras Nicaragua Brazil Guatemala.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Poverty Rate (Average 1996-2002) Pearson's r = -.56 FIGURE 12.2 Poverty and Public Support for Democracy (2003) SOURCE: Data on support for democracy are from the 2003 Lodnobor6metro suney. Data on poverty are from the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Democracy in Latin America 4.9 ~ 0- +" C'a c'- c. 0 '- (J0E(1) ~V).c M0~> Co ~.~ -Co.8.7 Costa Rica / Argentina.6.5 Peru. EI Salvador Mexico Honduras '- Panama Nicaragua. Bolivia Chile Colombia.4.3 Brazil. Guatemala.42.44.46.48.50.52.54.56.58.60.62 Income Inequality (Average 1994-2001) Pearson's r = -.88 FIGURE 12.3 Income Inequality and Public Support for Democracy (2003) SOURCE: Data on support for democracy are from the 2003 Lotinobor6metro survey. Data on income inequality are from the World Bank.
J Chapter 12 Challenges and Choices in the Twenty-First Century.9 FIGURE 12.4 Liberty and Public Support for Democracy (2003) SOURCE: Data on support for democracy are from the 2003 Lotinobor6metro survey. Data on liberty are from Freedom House.
Democracy in Latin America 4:.9 -.8 Mo o ~ > ~.7 " (.) o E Q) C.6 "- Costa Rica. Uruguay / Argentina. Venezuela * o... "- o :.5 ::s U).- (.) :0 ::s.4 c. Chile Peru EI Salvador Panama Colombia Honduras Nicaragua Bolivia Ecuador Paraguay..3 Brazil Guatemala 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 level of Perceived Corruption (Average 1996-2003) Pearson's r=-.31 FIGURE 12.5 Political Corruption and Public Support for Democracy (2003) SOURCE: Data on support for democracy are from the 2003 Latinobar6metro survey. Data on perceived corruption are from Transparency Interational's Corruption Perceptions Index.
!) Chapter 12 Challenges and Choices in the Twenty-First Century.9 - / ca (.) I...7 0~>.81.6 Argentina. Venezuela I.. 0- Nicaragua Peru. Panama Mexico Bolivia Chile c. Honduras Q).~ I / Ecuador EI /' Salvador ::J.Paraguay c...3.4.5.6.7 IỊ 2 Guatemala I.41 Brazil Uruguay Costa Rica:.5~ Public Satisfaction with Democracy (Average 1996-2003) Pearson's r =.79 Satisfaction with democracy is measured as the percentage of the population that says it is very satisfied or satisfied with the functioning of democracy in the country. FIGURE 12.6 Satisfaction with Democracy and Public Support for Democracy (2003) SOURCE: Data on support for democracy and satisfaction with democracy are from the 2003 Latinobor6metro survey.
416 Chapter 12 Challenges and Choices in the Twenty-First Century ~lf~(~~~:w':#''sw:i"mm! d(~:>:m'dq~~:.'q~~~;mxw~~~/.->'x.x:w-$~w~4'w.'~~idz:~zx.~:~"mzw.<j:(~~:w."*:x;(«"*~~..x~~ X"".$»'aw~~%[~[~~Uh~"",;a.m(-1<<~~ TABLE 12.1 Degree of Market Orientation in Latin American Economies (1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995)* Country 1980 1985 1990 1995 Percentage increase from 1985 to 1995 Argentina Brazil Chile Cuba Guatemala Mexico Venezuela /.698.493.748.520.598.404.617.492.671.530.578.456.813.724.768.695.771.472.888.805.843.838.807.667 44 64 26 58 40 46 ~ Subreg;onal Bolivia Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Ecuador EI Salvador Honduras Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Uruguay average Republic.577.551.610.559.343.518.504.646.502.460.759.551.445.578.494.446.556.540.626.476.394.815.707.779.689.798.466.610.689.624.751.537.844.808.816.792.847.862.801.872.780.834.845.891 45 83 37 71 93 44 61 25 75 114 9 Subreg;onal average Latin American average.545.557.537.551.679.683.834.825 55 50 *Market orientation is measured on a scale of 0 to 1, with 1 being the most market oriented. SOURCE: Samuel Morley, Roberto Machado, and Stefano Pettinato, "Indexes of Structural Reform in Latin America" (Santiago, Chile: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, 1999). W...i:W'~~~r~"w$'.t':::~#~~~:'«M.1'.4::w~~a~*Z:W".4%*.'&~WZ~4'~?~..w-"~~~n:w;r6%::~;~.'{~A:W"~::'4'f.wm-f.'««r,{%,W~Z::::iWP'...aw'.«W'&'{(@z#&~':W..?'~.#4'...@zr'@J.W...zi~W&~4
I The Quest for Development Revisited 417 w.«r~~~m:iy~a~~m;m$whw/,"..,;-;-mmxw'l-%w~4'mff$~.«/;xw/n;.wl-m'i"mxw.am74m;,,>~.(.msm~w$m;.:;m~wm~w,:-7n»7u~~m:wf(<y///hw///# ~~~,»;m-'#»;w~7,mm?"jr4mxxxm'>whw//)wff/#..rum;x~'j"mxm-;r.~ TABLE 12.2 Development Outcomes in Latin America (1986-1995).672-3.6-28-1 3-39.5 13 change Percentage In inequality 7 26 per rate (1986-1995) -7.7 862.8 12.4 Income 7.6 7.1 GDP poverty capita " Bolivia -7-3 -2-10 -29-22 ' 35.25.2 81-11 15.4-8 -6 65 7.313 11 32.4-6.1 0.5 29.0 33.7 21 16.9 19.1 0.1 7.2 8.8 2.5 7.4 9.8 6.7 15 1.8 (1986-1995).690.782.599.779.756.773.734.688.771.598.662.705.678.706.648.853.704.707.746.784.538 (1986-1995) Percentage market orientation* * below SOURCE: half Guatemala, a standard average. Based Mexico, deviation economic Costabelow Rica, data the andfrom mean Uruguay) the (Venezuela, Economic are listedthe Commission asdominican above average, for Republic, Latin while America and the Ecuador) three and countries the are Caribbean. listed overas mean market orientation (Argentina, Chile,
The Quest for Development Revisited 419 m:.w.1'q.~wk"; ;@>X#;~-XW~~;$»'ff#~~;.m~.;:r/),,,m.:-;v..o.z.wr.'/.~~W~-;.:>'~~*:'f.W"..&-i«-':.w.««4m»»-;Wa:>;-X(-»X*-W&.<W:.<my/;mw;.-;X1W. ;7Q;(.Wnm)WuJ'X@~w"#w'«<<<-'..x<<<{.~r.~}hW~/#a%'7~mx"(1mX::M;<-.W;r,(.~;:XX(*- TABLE 12.3 Development Outcomes in Latin America (1996-2002).805-25 -16 in per -15.213-10.150-11.8-12.2-2 -1334-1127 20.7 28 26.8 23-7 22 14 775 29.2 11.1-6 --5.4-3.1 35 13.1 22.5 52 36.6 25.7 2.3 16.8 18.3 11.5 GDP 34.0 30.8 (1996-2002) -7 Percentage change In rate inequality 7.5 5.3 4.3 188 4.2 7.7 capita 17 24 poverty Income / (1995).878.826.746.808.780.816.792.847.862.801.872.845.891.834.824.843.838.807.888.667 Percentage Wff.@.~}$$H";j~M7~&'4W"$W>;W..0WU:Z:~%~~#..0td.U';;;%;%29..%$*,$..:w;.;;;;;:;%»».m;w;»}%>W}'YU::W0.;';;:;~;:0"H:*~0W#.&»-hW7Z@3}w»:'i~f;.;.m$».::;:%ff»%;»$mW;'::,W$»ff..M%.w-'«;::*W~~;%i0ff~,W'd.&:;;;;»~W&-i>'».w,::mw$;$%t..::;':::1::~j}};};}.~>.m standard SOURCE: Dominican market deviation Based Bolivia Republic, orientation* onbelow economic EI Salvador, the mean datand from (Venezuela, Uruguay) the Economic are Colombia, listedcommission asand above Honduras) average; for Latin are the America listed threeas countries and below the average. Caribbean. over half a ntation (Argentina, the I I
Chapter 1985 1990 1995 424 '3236 365656475 565645 4.9 5654 3545 36767 3.4 5.7 5.0 4.3 4.0 4.7 4.5 36756576 2454354 465 57565456 36454565 53454545 42546576 1 4.6 5.4 7676 676753 56565 5.3 1985 1990 1995 rights 1980 3.93.4 Bolivia 64.3 Challengesand 1980 2000 12 Political 4 rights 5 2 63 7 1 Degree rights Civil of Political Choicesand in thecivilliberty Twenty-FirstCentury in Latin America (1980, entina 1985, Republic TABLE average 1990, 12.4 ~$$».qg$~$~*%~~ff~zp"#.&@77..w.t:m:::.w"::;'~$::%r$ff..f'.@"~;:r$ff&%{{"-'::r%~;'::~w~~$~.rwff..fflw.(~~&$~~@',@'...:m-m::~~-::f{{1.t"x&m:?{::;'-7&-%'{{..~;:$%f,'~:~;$'$$%#:@;,r:::::$${{~ %${"--m'wgz::~i <http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/fhscores.xls> SOURCE:Basedon 1995, FreedomHouse,Freedom and 2000)* in the World Country Ratings, (accessedon 1972-1973 June24, to 2001-2002, 2002). Political protection of sion, nities t:>u!'il11!'1tt:>,1 assembly, the Civil and for press, participation the nn!'l from freedom an right <::t:>ut:>n_nnint independent torture private ofby and religion, minority <::r!'llt:> other property. judiciary, freedom crimes groups. Political protection against toinorganize turn, liberty humanity, from civil interest and arbitrary rights civil freedom groups, include liberty police ofreedom are expres- power, each the presence of an important opposition party, and some meaningful opportu- *'Zm7/.?-mwam>r#~X'm"k>~7,$;Y/hmXWW.y&~U7#&tiW$Ar&7.?ff..wmr.~~~>7.~WWi'J'm;;;t;V,:'Wm>-;-»%xm-m;~4';.:m~~df.%m"i«11m~gq; APW~1-7.@;m-n'/#AW
hile of corruption. 6.3 5.8 4.6 7.6 6.1 5.9 7.2 2000 6.2 6.4 5.4 6.8 7.4 4.5 2.6 2002 8.4 7.8 7.7 6.6 8.3 1999 2001 5.7 6.7 change in (1998-2003)7.0 3.1 7.1 8.2 6.9 5.6 6.5 8.0 5.5 7.3 6.0 7.5 4.9 2.5-19 -21 Chapter -4-7 Challenges 30 15 10 26 7 1 6.3 Political 6.6 average 6.9 6.0 3.2 7.2 7.8 7.7 8.3 5.7 6.9 6.7 4.4 6.4 8.5 5.5 12 and Corruption Choices inthe Latin Twenty-First America Century (1998-2003) <http://wwvv.transparency.org/cpilffcpi> corruption SOURCE:Transparency Republic average TABLE 12.5 International, Corruption (accessed Perceptions October Index, 15, 1998-2003 2003). Percentage ~~~$~~~~~~~~«~@WM'#~~.&i:r~#..M~:@W.till. #$4m"»..w.::.~.mr~~'@;i.'S:W.'r{:w...:W,,:@;{::%'mWM;,r~$%'~~?::%<"&Wmif&.~WM$X;: '0";;}~Y~~"X,..~4~-:r;~~.*"$Y~.;:waw-m-;:.,;#A:."()W,&;;w;:~~~#<?..>w')$~w,x~XX!'H:-:*~w/mmxv&~~am~wm;w..x-s~Wv~..;.m;w~~~$v't;.m.;'.4.. ;:'mxxw~~$($"~ Wff~
430,~,.xxX"#.~$..ww'-:«~~*9'~~L.w..w#M'h:~~.w~a>W~X«-X:;ili<'%~-x.w,v&X(~m:.wu.&"~...;.w;:;~d/W~&~H7~,($mwwr.&w.$;x:':>7ff& ia Chapter immediate No YesReactive 20032003 YesProactive reelection 19901990 No Challenges powers Institutional 12 2003 dominant Potentially No Ballotage election Presidential NotNo and Choices Power inthe Latin Possibility dominant marginal Twenty-First American of Century Democracies LE 12.6 ~~~;:VJ~~~.4*::::,W{~.$"*,g,$'j;~;.w.w'hi=W"#Z{f.~{P."-.:r&~..zo/..w...mo/..>m~ff..:W::w.w~.#$"$',.M,.::V...f.W..{:W{:wg&$W"...:-$"$P...0ZX""ff&fZ«'$...»..r;W.4::r{Z$0""}yffaffff~ff~~WM~::;::$ffg.,z;'W'#&0"..wM#"~&J.m»$:w...:W%m%""$»';W@~ tbolivian votes most candidate (1990 received Republic votes to determine Versus electoral the receives most the general law 2003)* votes; athe majority, requires outcome. after election. however, the 1995, Prior president the tothere legislature 1995, to obtain no thesecond-round chose legislature an absolute between chose ballotage majority the among twoof election. candidates the three popular Instead, candidates whovotes. received the If legislature who no the Possibility of ~~ I
Chapter 12 Challenges and Choices in the Twenty-First Century ~~~AZi-Xxm:~'»7.#M%~iK'm'..mw~mm~~Z$X1~wn;mm.x Jr../&-?"/~m%WmW/#HJ"X/X1-»0;;X'SS<~/AmX(~~$~$~4:~~;Y;»'d~~~*/mm'A;m7&M';wG7- TABLE 12.7 Latin American Attitudes Toward Democracy (1996 Versus 2003)* 50% / (1996) -22%60% 46% 45% -14%75% -32%59% 33% 68%71% 50% 77% 40% -32%63% 52% -17%80% 78% 53%0%62% always Democracy in democracy -30%54% -20%42% -35%53% -13% (2003) 67%8% -10%64% -23%80% -12%56% 55%31%59% 51% -7% -4% -3% 57% 61% support 52% 51% t topreferable 2003 for from is Percentage change ~~~~~ the <http://www.latinobarometro.org> tthe average Republic statement Latinobar6metro..?;<; «~W~m~~~~W~:Z?;;.~,a:~~~:f"~~~H2W,.K(?Q}i;W";:;$W~M SOURCE: Press "Democracy releases is summarizing not is conducted always (accessed preferable:' thein Latinobar6metro Cuba onand November the Dominican surveys 4, 2003). for Republic. 1996 and 2003 population agreeing with
Venezuela 45697 2002) for 2221 inequality 312 161010 617115 83131 Income 179 131514 106765 77118 1996- rate Poverty 128 84154 11131 57127 1317 1616 145 for 164 1512 1411 of 3 4119 6 8 917 1 with (average for democracy 75 Level corruption 1015 25 (2003) 319 2002) 1gg6-3political 1998-1996- how 16 Development, 12 14 10 15 17 of 72 86 3 51 and for perceived functions Satisfaction civil 441 liberties Liberty, Governance, and Support Democracy in Latin America ~. @$;'?a~-:m'?~'(4w//.(/~ff.whj«.'y"~"j_d»'-"'ff#_"---~~ """'''''''U~''--'-.'--'."-"~~--._--" for countries SOURCE: andpoverty, TABLE lower Democracy (at Same corruption. income 12.8 above as for inequality, ry rankings are inverted (2003)* Numbers the Figures median 12.1-12.6 and in bold point corruption indicate thebecause distribution). that thesuccess countryisranks indicated thebytop lowhalf poverty, of these lowseventeen inequality, Protection '~%X~X;