Kurtz 2004

Kurtz, Marcus J. 2004. "The Dilemmas of Democracy in the Open Economy: Lessons from Latin America". World Politics. 56 (2): 262-302.

• Introduction
• destabilizing political conflict is no longer the biggest threat to democracy because, paradoxically, it is less likely to emerge out of the current social makeup, because mobilization is less likely (263)
• Rather, the greater threat to democracy in the democratic, neoliberal era is the underarticulation of societal interests, atomization of the polity, which undermine the effectiveness of formal democracy
• this is because neoliberalism causes this atomization (263-264)
• neoliberalism had all sorts of downsides, which should have evoked political and societal mobilization, but these mobilizations didn’t occur (264)
• this is largely a function of the new relationship between the state and market, namely that the state can’t/won’t touch the market
• both liberal and statist patterns of organization have their own specific threats, neither is a panacea (265)
• statist patterns result in polarization and state control
• neoliberal patterns result in lack of participation in politics
• The Theory: Democracy in the Open and the Closed Economy
• statist system (267)
• elites control resources
• autonomy of citizens is threatened, clientelism can take root
• interest groups provide info to politicians, but also inform citizens about actions of politicians...check and balance
• BUT some interest groups may have more power than others (268), which will likely lead to rent-seeking (270)
• VIRTUE: it can encourage aggregation and blancing of societal interests (270)
• neoliberal model
• collective action problems decrease interest group formation (268)
• also, there are few associations to articulate groups interests, nor to keep polity informed of politicians actions (268-269)
• leads to a gradual decline in citizens ability to act politically (269)
• interest groups are more autonomous from government (271)
• BUT government has withdrawn from economy, so there so no obvious target for unhappiness when economy is bad (272)
• political decisions seem less materially consequential for citizens (273), so why bother voting/mobilizing?
• TWO EXAMPLES:
• labor law is weakened, making collective labor action harder
• modernization of agriculture weakens communal ties, creates collective action problems (273)
• Exploring the theory in Mexico and Chile (274-280)
• quick case studies of Mexico and Chile
• focuses on diminished labor movement and privatization/marketization of previously communal agricultural lands
• My Take: WEAKNESS:
• this account argues that neoliberalism weakened labor and peasants, reduced their ability to mobilize
• It is assumed that labor and peasants would be able to mobilize as context democratizes
• BUT, problems:
• organizations were already crushed during neoliberal era, can’t expect them to just bounce back in democracy
• limited protest during transitions in Mexico and Chile could have easily also been the result of authoritarian/repressive contexts
• Inequality, Poverty, and Economic Reform in Latin America
• Two ways economic reform could mitigate mobilization against itself (280)
• fix social problems
• create collective action problems (it did this one)
• my take: why is economic reform an actor here?
• up to 1997, economic liberalization has not solved social and economic conditions for most people (281)
• little improvement in standards of living (282)
• minimum wage has collapsed (284)
• inequality has increased (283-285)
• Despite fears of most scholars, economic reform was not met with protest, but actually hollowed out much of the capacity for protest, which is a danger to democracy (286-287)
• labor mobilization down through 1995ish (287-292)
• still no account for labor’s general weakening, need time to bounce back?
• Political protest
• economic liberalization associated with a DECREASED amount of political protest (294-297)
• Voting also decreases, even when including the massively voted-in founding elections (297-299)
• Conclusions
• leaders in neolib, democratic states should focus on promoting organization & participation, not limiting mobilizational & political challenges (302)