Poli Sci IDs 2
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- The Asian Tigers
- Four countries (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) who, from the 1960s-1990s, experienced major economic growth through the new model of export-oriented industrialization; increased growth, decreased inequality; free trade, strong, autonomous state, and culture (Confucianism); eventually countries started failing and declaring bankruptcy The success of the Asian Tigers caused many Latin American countries to switch to EOI, and caused many lenders to think that African countries should be doing better.
- Asset Price Bubble
- The start of the failure of the Asian Tigers’ economies: appreciation of real exchange rate (money value pegged to US dollar), massive capital inflow, lax lending practices, lack of transparency Thailand was the first of the Asian countries to declare bankruptcy, after Bialaya realized that they had no money left and so allowed the banks to fail. The asset price bubble burst and the value of the Thai baht dropped significantly.
- Three explanations for difficult economic development in Africa
- External: dependency, geography, international prices, effects of neoliberal reforms Internal: low state capacity, neo-patrimonialism, the resource curse Geography: tropical, poor land quality, high fertility, low population density, landlocked International prices: Africa mainly exports primary products, so they’re dependent on the prices that those products will bring Low state capacity through lack of education (only early), no meritocracy, plus guaranteed job for any college grad (so they can take easy classes) __________(look at van de Walle)_______________
- The Resource Curse
- Paradox of plenty Rentier state effect (reliance on natural resource as source of income, plus price determined by international market) Anti-modernization effect (no need for diversification, increase in income gap, increased repression) Corruption (controlling elites, plus disrupts workings of the market) ________(Birdsall and Subramanian: Iraq)_______
- Regime
- Rules and procedures that determine the distribution of power In the 1960s, the only two regimes were seen as democracy or totalitarianism, there was really no moderate.
- Pluralism
- When a state has multiple different organizations that represent various interests, it has pluralism Pluralism can be economic, political, or social Economic pluralism can be seen in a diversity of business types, political pluralism could be with groups representing political interests, while social pluralism would include social organizations like religious groups and sports teams.
- Totalitarian versus Authroitarian Regimes
- Though both regimes place a single person (maybe with small group of elites) in power, totalitarianism give the people no choice of leader, no pluralism, and a guiding utopian ideology Authoritarianism (started by Juan Linz) has economic and social pluralism, no guiding ideology, and the leader will act very predictably The USSR under Stalin, Italy’s fascism, and Germany’s Nazism were all totalitarian regimes. In Latin America, many regimes were bureaucratic-authoritarian, where there wasn’t a single leader, but a bureaucracy.
- Neo-Patrimonial Regime
- Leaders are elected to office, then leaders takes resources from those out of favor and gives to those in favor Reliance on patronage: right to rule is invested in person, not office (right comes from ability to secure patronage) Some African states are seen as neo-patrimonial, and it is blamed for their lack of development.
- Sultanistic Regime
- Unrestrained, personal rule, with loyalty inspired by fear Very unpredictable (whims of leader) Any elections are a sham No political pluralism The Dominican Republic under Trujillo was a sultanistic regime, as Trujillo had complete power and did with it whatever he wanted.
- Theocracy
- Sovereignty is held by God, but God gives human representatives divine powers by which to rule Bureaucracy and elections, if they exist, are subject to religious authorities No religious pluralism The modern Middle East is very theocratic, but most religions were at some point in time.
- Almond and Verba
- In their The Civic Culture, Almond and Verba explain how some cultures are more or less conducive to democracy Cultures with characteristics of “civic-ness†tend to have democracies Some people say that Islam is not conducive to democracy, which could explain the lack of democracies in primarily Muslim countries.
- Jan Knippers Black
- Black had the idea that foreign intervention might be an agency-related reason for regime change Intervention of foreign powers might lead to democracy, or even lead away from it In Latin America, the United States funded all sorts of anti-democratic things, which in the end led to the downfall of democracy in those countries.
- Al Stepan
- Explained how choices of political leaders might cause a negative reason for regime change Al Stepan said that Joao Goulart, Brazilian president, was a terrible ruler who made bad decisions, which led to a naval mutiny and uprising.
- Collier and Collier
- Created the “critical junctures†approach to regime change: old oligarchy and peasants meets new middle sectors and working class New against old (middles sectors control and mobilize votes of working class)? Or upper against lower (alliance give middle sectors just control of working class, occasionally improving working conditions to avoid mass mobilization)? Mexico and Venezuela had new against old, and it worked well for them, while Brazil and Chile had upper against lower, and it didn’t work as well.
- Robert Dahl
- The procedural minimum (the minimum of what you need to be democratic) definition of democracy through his seven attributes, which basically say that democracy requires free and fair elections, along with protection of civil liberties
- Expanded Procedural Minimum Definition of Democracy
- This definition of democracy takes Dahl’s procedural minimum and adds, making it: free and fair elections, protection of civil liberties, and effective power to govern Schmitter and Karl wanted to add that unelected officials can’t have the power to veto decisions of elected officials, nor can they make decisions of their own.
- Maximalist Definition of Democracy
- The maximalist definition states that accountability participation and social equality are also needed for a state to actually be a democracy Smith states that if people can’t actively participate in the democratic process, then it isn’t a true democracy, while Bollen says the power of non-elites must be maximized, giving a voice to the voiceless.
- The Tird Wave of Democracy
- Under the thought that democracy comes in waves, the third wave began in 1974 By 1993, 30 more countries democratized, making over half of the UN democratic This wave may have ended in the mid-1990s, or it hasn’t ended yet Countries from every continent became democracies, though the previous waves showed that there is always some reversion following a wave: some countries cannot stay on the democracy bandwagon.
- First-Movers in a Democratic Transition
- The first-movers in democratic transitions are the ideologues, who are usually students Students have little to lose (in case the repercussions are major), and they are young, have no families, and are ideologically optimistic and motivated The students may speak out first, but they are followed by artists, and then professionals, who help to bolster the ranks of supporters behind the students’ ideologies.
- Pacted Transition
- Hardliners and softliners of the authoritarian regime are up against moderates and radicals of the democratic opposition Strong leaders of each party (especially softliners and moderates) negotiate A pacted transition took place in South Africa in 1944: the hardliners were the Conservative Party, softliners were the National Party and FW de Klerk, the moderates included Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress, and the radicals were the Pan African Congress.
- Imposed Transition
- This transition occurs when the leaders decide to leave power on their own They know that they’ll get more of what they want if they back our slowly: BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) In Brazil in the 1980s, economic pressures threatened the Brazilian generals in charges. They introduced minor civil rights and two political parties, all of which they themselves controlled, and then slowly left power (despite the slow transition, they still didn’t get the outcome they wanted in the long run).
- Transition by Collapse
- Leaders are pretty much just forced to give up power, and they don’t have any control over who is going to govern after them This generally results in an unstable democracy In Argentina, everyone was against the government because of the human rights abuses that had occurred, so the government reacted by repressing the people. Then, they tried to unify the country through war (British and Falkland Islands), which they lost anyway, and then lost their hold on the country.