The Washington Consensus And Related Structural Adjustment Provisions ( Saps )

She explains that the creation of the Zona Galactica can be attributed to the 1982 foreign debt crisis which “precipitated the massive shift in Mexican political ideology and economic policy” (10). Mexico was in turmoil from the loss of export earnings due to a worldwide recession as well as from the soaring interest rates on the loans that were given by US, Japanese, and European banks to third world countries. Unable to pay, Mexico became a vulnerable contender for neoliberal restructuring. This neoliberal restructuring, Kelly explains, came as a condition with structural adjustment loans given out by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in order to help poor countries pay off their debt. Kelly defines neoliberalism as a more aggressive version of capitalism which encompasses an entirely deregulated market along with heightened consumerism (3-4). However, she is very effective in pointing out that these structural adjustment loans along with their conditions were not necessarily for the purpose of making poor countries more modern and efficient, but were essentially self-serving. She states that neoliberal structural adjustment put these economies in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. which began a recolonization of the developing world. Kelly conceptualizes the struggle for modernity as the missing link between state-regulated prostitution and neoliberal restructuring. This frames the Zona Galactica as an

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

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.

Venezuela underwent a rollercoaster of economic and political reforms, “the exhaustion of the ISI model and the application of neoliberal policies opened the way for two decades of economic disorientation and social decomposition. This contributed to a political and institutional crisis that, at the end of the 20th century, appeared to be irreversible” (Lopez Maya, pg 235). The Chavez regime can be split into two parts before 2006 and after. In 1999 he attempted to strengthen democracy and search for social justice. As time passed the government suffered barriers but they were fueled by the idea a of a participatory democracy, entailing the need of a mixed economic model. After 2006 unfortunately a new chapter began, centralizing the power

Corruption in Venezuela has prevalent since the nation gained independence in 1821. But, corruption rose to unforeseen levels during Hugo Chavez’s presidential era. Hugo Chavez was president of Venezuela for 11 years. “There is no exaggerating the extent of Venezuela 's decline and fall. The wealthiest country per capita in Latin America is sinking deeper and deeper into what must inevitably be bankruptcy, as everything fiscal goes wrong.” (Thomson, 2010) He came into power with the intentions of making Venezuela a socialist nation. His impact on the nation of Venezuela has touched every aspect of the society from economics to the quality of living. His extreme, radical ideology mirrored those of the Cuban socialist revolution. Nationalization of assets and equal distribution of wealth among the nation sounds like an ideal plan, but what went wrong? Was it the decrease in oil production, investors or private businesses? Or, did the inflation and decreasing value of the currency finally catch up to the nation? It is important to note that Chavez pulled his support from the lower and middle class. His neglect of the rich made it easier for his socialist ideals to merge into Venezuelan society. During Hugo Chavez’s 11-year reign, how did his radical changes affect Venezuela’s economy nationally and globally?

There are two critical ways in which this model must be examined, theoretically as well as its concrete outcomes and policy implications within Latin American states. By looking at

A comparative analysis will be made between a legalistic and pragmatic/realistic approaches. Taking into account that each country is independent from each other, and with differing interests, this essay will give multiple reasons as to why such a variety in policy exists. Accordingly, this essay will show a propensity for states to apply the foreign policy development strategy that best fits their needs. Although there may be a sense of preferential treatment for some strategies, Latin American countries are not inherently bound to a specific development scheme.

In Poor Economics, Esther Duflo makes a cutting statement: “even the most well-thought-out policies may not have an impact of they are not implemented correctly”. She draws a distinct line between policies and politics and exposes how the latter can affect the implementation of policies. This post will exemplify such scenario with the implementation of the Washington Consensus (WC) in Latin America during the 1980’s. Latin America was immersed in a severe debt crisis. Governments were defaulting on payments owed to the IMF and the United States. Convinced there was a huge problem, policy-makers from Washington and the IMF decided to draft a 10-policy document that Latin American countries must follow if they wished to borrow more money in

The analysis of Latin America is a compelling argument for the exploitation of peripheries in the WST. There are numerous examples of cases where a core or core countries have benefited from situations where a Latin American state has been unfairly treated within the international economic community. It is natural that some countries in South America were more greatly affected by the inequalities of the modern economic system because there are differences in their their economic structures; some countries interacted more closely, more frequently, or under different agreements with core powers compared to other countries. However, a significant proportion of Latin American experienced some form of exploitation under the conditions of the capitalist

The most important information in this chapter primarily discusses the new liberal themed republics in Latin America countries except Brazil and their unsuccessful effect on the nation. The author correspondingly comments on the newly independent governments, challenges and lack of resources explaining why democracy and liberalism were unlikely to happen due to the entrenched conservative’s hierarchies of the time.

Latin America politics in the past 50 years have been regarded as being unstable with military regimes, authoritarian rule, and violent. Latin America has been considered an authoritarian region with rulers either military or civilian directed. 3 governments are important to stabilize countries with tension of nation crisis by eliminating the popular sector in the national politics. In Argentina the prevalence of authoritarian changed the principal lines of the former government in their social, economic, and political ideas. Argentina in the early 1930s was led by a “populist” government, which was the dominant national political coalition, then converted to an authoritarianism government with alternative economic strategies, and improved

For most of the first century after independence, all republics in Latin America followed an economic policy of export-led growth based on primary-product exports. The tremendous economic crisis of the 1930s that had a crushing and widespread impact on Latin America; precipitated by the global economic depression, forced Latin American nations to re-evaluate this exogenous economic growth model and to transform their economic policies in the direction of long-neglected diversification of the economy, particularly toward an endogenous model oriented to industrialization.

Economic development does not play a clear causal role for Latin America, although often economic stagnation does undermine the legitimacy of military governments (e.g Peru and Ecuador). Snowballing might have played a role for the democratisation in 1990 in Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, but Huntington mentions that the desire for democracy must exist for snowballing to work. The policies of external actors like the US have been important for the promotion of democracy during the beginning of the third wave; however, this influence has been waning and some of the (possible) members of the third wave are not as susceptible to US influence. Examples include the Middle East and the undemocratic nations in Africa. Within Latin America, the importance of pacts between ‘softliners’ from the dominant (undemocratic) regime and moderates from the opposition has been highlighted. But we see the need to adopt a separate noncooperative model for the post-communist world. Here, the importance of elite pacts has been limited but mass movements from the below have led to stable democracies unlike in the rest of the third wave where this has largely led to instability. Michael McFaul points out that it is the distribution of power

When Hugo Chavez ushered in his era of “21st Century Socialism” in 1999, the people of Venezuela expected an era of prosperity. During the oil boom of the early 2000s, Venezuela’s state owned oil industry funded over half of Chavez’s social programs and conditions started to improve. The standard of living increased, inequality and poverty rates fell, and Chavez generated a cult-like following. Economic and social conditions increased significantly, but so did inflation and poor policy. After Chavez’s death in 2013, Nicolas Maduro, his handpicked replacement, took the reins. After only a year with Maduro at the helm, the Venezuelan economy collapsed as the global oil market fell from 2014 to 2015. Venezuela, once the most powerful nation in

Individuals and parties sought and found reconciliation with institutions that marked a new way of political peace. The new political and economic institutions channeled economic growth in Colombia during the twentieth century. As it was discussed previously, monetary and fiscal policies during most of the new century were marked by prudence, creating an adequate macroeconomic balance to sustain that growth.