Suchergebnisse

It has been almost two decades since trends in research on Latin American politics were measured in any systematic way. The early profile of the state of Latin American research in political science developed by Peter Ranis showed that Mexico, Brazil, and Chile "receive about one-third of all political science research attention." Less than 1 percent of political science research was devoted to Honduras, El Salvador, Haiti, and Nicaragua. The subjects that received the most attention in the 1960s were interest groups (the military, students, and the church), the history of political institutions, and the nature of political, economic, and social change.

"The state can be defined, following sociologist Max Weber's (1946 [1919]: 78) classic formulation, as a "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." In other words, the state is an organization, differentiated from society, that is distinguished from other organizations in that it relies on the use, and the threat of the use, of coercion. It does not plead with citizens to follow the law - for example, by paying taxes. It commands citizens to do things and can coerce them to do these things. The state is a powerful organization, and it wields a kind of power that is distinct from that of economic and cultural organizations. Photo 1.2 connects this definition to the related concept of the Leviathan. We can use Weber's definition of the state to distinguish between communities that have states and stateless communities, which include communities with less specialized and elaborate political organizations such as bands, tribes, and chiefdoms (Service 1971). However, Weber's definition of the state encompasses city-states, empires, and modern states or national states - currently the dominant type of state around the world, including Latin America (Tilly 1990; Mazzuca 2021). Thus, to specify what a modern state or national state is, we should note that, in addition to meeting the criteria of Weber's definition, it has some features that neither city-states nor empires have. In contrast to a city-state, a modern state rules over several cities and rural populations; that is, modern states rule over large territories. In contrast to an empire, a modern state rules over a national population that has a political allegiance to the state but not over colonial subjects; that is, modern states rule over populations that share a common status as nationals of a country. See Figure 1.1 for a visual representation of these distinctions"--

ABSTRACTDecentralization has triggered widespread use of the subnational comparative method in the study of Latin American politics. Simultaneously, it has created challenges for this method that deserve careful attention. While subnational governments after decentralization can often be treated as potentially autonomous policy jurisdictions, their autonomy is also subject to new constraints and incursions, which may limit scholars' ability to treat them as relatively independent units. By taking stock of the vibrant literature that has emerged in recent years, this article explores three major challenges that complicate the use of the subnational comparative method. Two are vertical in nature: how to theorize national causes of subnational variation, and how the varied linkages between subnational governments and transnational actors can be conceptualized in work that compares subnational units. The third challenge is horizontal, referring to interactions between governments at the same subnational level that can either enhance or subvert autonomy.

Beginning in the 1970s, "corporatism" came to be a major focus of attention in research on Latin America. 1 Analysts employed the concept to refer both to a pattern of interest group politics that is monopolistic, hierarchically ordered, and structured by the state and to a broader cultural and ideological tradition of the region that they viewed as patrimonial and statist. The concept commanded great attention, as it seemed to provide a valuable analytical tool for scholars concerned with the authoritarian regimes emerging in Latin America during this period. In addition, the understanding of political relationships suggested by this concept appeared to offer a useful alternative, or at least an important supplement, to pluralist models widely used in the United States. Hence, corporatism has been subject to much theoretical debate, and the concept has been applied in many empirical studies.

© 1995 Taylor & Francis. All rights reserved. Beginning in the 1970s, "corporatism" came to be a major focus of attention in research on Latin America. 1 Analysts employed the concept to refer both to a pattern of interest group politics that is monopolistic, hierarchically ordered, and structured by the state and to a broader cultural and ideological tradition of the region that they viewed as patrimonial and statist. The concept commanded great attention, as it seemed to provide a valuable analytical tool for scholars concerned with the authoritarian regimes emerging in Latin America during this period. In addition, the understanding of political relationships suggested by this concept appeared to offer a useful alternative, or at least an important supplement, to pluralist models widely used in the United States. Hence, corporatism has been subject to much theoretical debate, and the concept has been applied in many empirical studies.