Neoliberalism In Latin America

The Vanguard of the Atlantic World by James Sanders seems to do little more than reiterate the concept that American republican modernity was debated by various countries located in Latin America in regards to their status as a united global political power. Not to say that these nations were united in terms of alliances, or treaties, but rather that some intellectuals adopted the concept of a “sisterhood” of republic democracies. The analysis of the political systems in Latin America after their independence from European nations is not where the disappointment lies, but rather the lack of context given to various components in his research that were supposed to show the transition of Latin America during its state of transformation from colonial territories to independent republican nations.

In the late 1990 's, Latin America was facing a turn towards left-wing governments as they started drifting away from neoliberalism. This was coined as the 'Pink Tide ' of Latin America which took place from around 1998 until around 2009. The origins of the term came from a New York Times reporter who commented that the election of the Uruguayan Leader was “not so much a red tide but more of a pink one” (Pittsburgh n.d.). A red tide symbolizes communism whereas a pink one leans towards a moderate reign of communism with the integration of socialist ideas. Countries in Latin America turned to neo-liberal policies “which privatized public companies, cut foreign investment, public spending, etc” (Arditi 64). These were prompted by such organizations as the “International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank which referred to the actions as the 'Washington Consensus '” (Arditi 67-68). The Pink Tide “rejected privatization of state services and liberalized international trade” (Arditi 72). In other words, this push by domestic resistance from Latin American governments created the Pink Tide via rejecting the Washington Consensus. Since then, it seems that the Pink Tide is receding due to the rise of center-right to right opposition members. Moreover, the factors that triggered the Pink Tide has since diminished. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that there will be any

The United States has influenced many nations in the world throughout history. Some of the ways the U.S. has been able to dominate poor countries are with military action and corporate activities that allowed the United States to influence their governments. Since the United States extends its power with the previously mentioned methods, it is recognized as an imperialist nation. The United States has specifically demonstrated imperialistic forces in Latin America. The effects that the United States’ imperialism had on Latin American economies and politics were negative since it brought violence and caused the poor to struggle even more. When the United Sates government did not like policies that Latin American presidents were creating, they would take military actions to force American ideologies into Latin American countries’ governments by installing puppets into their governments. Generally, these countries would have flourished economically without the United States, but since the U.S. became involved with the countries’ policies, their economies have weakened because the U.S. wants the benefits of controlling countries’ resources without being responsible for the people who reside there. This pattern of the United States’ imperialistic behavior has been demonstrated many times in Latin America.

Q6. During the time, many Latin American countries were slowly trying to find their way to a democracy. A democracy is a government by the people. A democratic way of life includes practice such as free elections, citizen participation, majority rule, minority rights, and a constitutional government. Many nations would begin to follow the democratic practices as well as beginning to accept their own democratic forms of government; however, to achieve a democratic government it would take years. The struggle for democracy in other nations would occur well beyond the 21st century. DUring this time, countless nations were breaking free from authoritarian rule and turning to democracies instead. More specifically, it would spread widely throughout

Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated

Latin America has a long and complex history. From the early 1500s to 1888 there have been many political changes (foreign control, political ideology, slavery) and some continuities (central control), but the changes have had a greater effect because independent nations were able to establish themselves and form their own governments. Globally, the European Industrial Revolution was taking place which allowed for a political advantage because the new technologies could give the European governments stronger control over their colonies.

This week, we had a variety of readings discussing neocolonialism, and the effects of the progressive era, and move towards an authoritarian mode of government. During the progressive era, Latin America had many reforms in hopes of becoming more like the western powers in Europe and the United States, however, while they succeeded in some areas, their plan did not go perfectly. For many, quality of life improved, however for the lower classes, life stayed practically the same. This aspect of the reading surprised me, as I thought with progressive reforms, more social reform would take place. Being how modernization theory should have taken place, I found it shocking that there was a large flaw in this theory. There was economic growth, but

American attitudes towards Latin America can be summed up as an extension of larger global directives, and the exclusion of foreign powers in the region. This was highlighted especially during the Cold War as US involvement was essentially in competition with the USSR. Latin America was therefore a mere pawn in the larger context of US-Soviet competition for global dominance. The actions and methods used are also characterized by the lack of an international authority, or an atmosphere of inter-state anarchy, which shaped their calculations in the endeavor to increase their influence over Latin America. When one analyzes the situation, it seems only rational that the United States treated its southern neighbors so, due to the geographical

As Charles Bergquist observes, "Crises in Colombia tend to generate cycles of violence instead of mutations in the political regime." The reason is simple: regime changes in Colombia tend to produce very little change in anything other than nominal rule. Since Colombia's independence from Spain in the early 19th century, Colombia has seen a series of civil wars and secessions (Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama the last coming rather conveniently at a time when the U.S. was prepared to pay millions for a canal through its nation preparation that later resulted in a multi-million dollar redress to Columbia). Colombia's political history, therefore, has been colored by outside influences pulling on the two dominant liberal and conservative parties, with violent exchanges, and long periods of instability being the consequences. While regime changes have occurred, they have not produced significant improvements. Rather, Colombia in the 20th century has become a nesting ground for paramilitary forces and drug traffickers, with U.S. Central Intelligence operatives contributing heavily to the violent conflict that has risen between regimes. This paper will examine the regime types that preceded the Rojas Pinilla regime in mid-20th century Colombia, analyze their similarities and differences, and discuss the extent to which Rojas Pinilla reached his goals and objectives.

Pinochet was put into power . This is a perfect example of how the US foreign policy replaced genuine democracy with dictatorship for their own benefit, and again, supposedly in the name of National Security. Latin America was a victim of US foreign policy and corporate greed.

With the increase in industrialization, particularly rail roads and steam boats, Latin America could efficiently export more goods. The installation of railroads and increased trade stabilized the economy of many countries. As long as Europe and the United States required raw materials, the economy would continue to grow. With the economy growing, political stability followed. This is demonstrated in Chasteen’s essay “Governance did become more orderly. As the profits of the export boom rose, government revenues from import/export taxes rose too…Higher government revenues afforded middle-class people new employment opportunities…Greater stability and prosperity attracted further investment from aboard intensifying trade, and the cycle repeated itself” (Chasteen, 207). As more money flowed into the continent, the more the government improved. Using the available revenue from the export boom, local governments could afford better equipment and put down rebellions with less casualties. The government was better able to provide more individuals with employment opportunities, thus stabilizing the politics in the Spanish Americas.

"Fueled by the Cold War and transnational corporate interests, the U.S. has covertly tinkered with the governments of Latin American countries since World War 2, producing an extremely violent and unstable political climate."

150). Democracy is supposed to be about equal opportunity but when bribery is brought into the balance it disrupts the scale to tip the scales into the favor of the politicians which goes against the principle of democracy (“Rise of Democracy”, para. 1). In the majority of Latin American countries there is a system called “compulsory voting” which makes it illegal not to vote. Although it is illegal not to vote, in Brazil’s case, only 78.90% of eligible voters voted for the presidential campaign in 2014 (“Voter Turnout”, para. 3). While there is a huge amount of corruption in Latin America, it can be overcome. In September of 2015, a crowd of Guatemalans chanted at President Otto Perez Molina, “Resign, now.” Their voice was heard as the ex-Guatemalan president stood down from office and is now in prison awaiting trial over an alleged corruption scandal (Watson, p.1, para. 1-3). This is just a glimpse of the power the people can hold. If the voters can get a current president out of office than imagine what can happen if everyone were to vote for who they truly believe is worthy of representing and governing the country.

After many countries in Latin America received their independence, limited change of conditions occurred and the elite maintained control in the new republics. The basis for economic inequality remained the same and the patterns persisted. In the early 19th century, the majority of countries had developed republican democracies yet the upper class still had the power to act in their own interests. A direct bearing established the extent of the elite’s ability to influence the formation of government policies. Landowners opposed any institutional change that could transfer power

Also Latin American democracy offer to people human rights and economic modernization, but this did not work for Latin America. Instead of having a stable and developing democratic system in Latin America countries, there was poverty corruption and underdevelopment still remains into those countries. Although in countries such as Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay democracy have stable and well function democratic system. In differ from other countries in Latin America where there is instability and in some cases there is unconstitutional changes of government and needed to have coups in