Central America: the Liberal era, <i>c.</i> 1870–1930

Cardoso, Ciro Flamarion

doi:10.1017/chol9780521245173.005

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, like Costa Rica, Nicaragua was far from the Mayan highlands where the great concentrations of indigenous people were found, and as the data in Cardoso (1991, p. 39) reveal, the population density of Nicaragua was 6.8 people per square mile in 1875, almost identical to the figure for Costa Rica (6.1 in 1870). The other numbers from Cardoso (1991) are 29.2 in 1880 for Guatemala and 68.4 in 1878 for El Salvador. For Colombia, this figure is 6.39 in 1870 (author's calculations based on data from Bulmer-Thomas (1994)).…”

Section: Indigenous People and Population Densitymentioning

confidence: 95%

Are factor endowments fate?

Nugent¹,

Robinson²

2010

RHE / JILAEH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent theories of comparative development, the role of institutional differences has been crucial. Yet, what explains comparative institutional evolution? We investigate this issue by studying the coffee exporting economies of Latin America. Although homogeneous in many ways, they experienced radically different paths of economic (and political) development, which is conventionally traced to the differential organization of the coffee industry. We show that the different forms that the coffee economy took in the 19 th century was critically determined by the legal environment determining access to land, and that different laws resulted from differences in the nature of political competition and the backgrounds of political elites. Our analysis suggests that explanations of institutional differences that stress economic 45 fundamentals can only be part of the story. At least in the economies that we study, while geography, factor endowments and technology are clearly important, their implications for the institutional structure and thus development are conditional on the form that political competition takes in society. For interesting variations in economic outcomes, endowments are not fate.Keywords: institutions, organization, development, inequality, political economy JEL Code: O1, N5, Q1, H0, K2 RESUMEN El papel de las diferencias institucionales ha sido crucial en las teorías recientes del desarrollo comparativo. Pero +Qué explica las diferencias comparativas en la evolución institucional? En este trabajo investigamos este asunto estudiando las economías exportadoras de café en Latinoamérica. Aunque similares, estas economías experimentaron diferentes modelos de desarrollo económico (y político) convencionalmente explicados en relació n con su diferente organización de la industria cafetera. Este artículo muestra que las diferentes formas adoptadas por la economía cafetera en el siglo XIX estuvieron especialmente determinadas por el entorno legal del acceso a la tierra y de las diferentes leyes resultantes de las diferencias en la naturaleza de la competición política y de la formación de las elites políticas. Nuestro análisis sugiere que las explicaciones de diferencia institucional que presionan los fundamentos de la economía pueden ser sólo una parte de la explicación. Al menos en las economías que hemos estudiado, mientras la geografía, la dotación de recursos y la tecnología son claramente importantes en la explicación, sus implicaciones sobre la estructura institucional y, en consecuencia, sobre el desarrollo, dependen de la forma de competición política adoptada por la sociedad. Para las interesantes variaciones de los resultados económicos los recursos no son el destino.

show abstract

Section: Indigenous People and Population Densitymentioning

confidence: 95%

Are factor endowments fate?

Nugent¹,

Robinson²

2010

RHE / JILAEH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Muchos pequeños campesinos fueron perdiendo sus tierras en manos de caficultores con mayor cantidad de capital -entre los que, claramente, se destacaban los ladinos-. Muchos de estos pobladores rurales se volcaron al trabajo en las grandes fincas de café, tras vender, perder o ceder sus tierras a familiares (Torres Rivas 2004, Rouquié 1994, Cardoso 1992).…”

Section: Antecedentes Socioeconómicos De La "Matanza" De 1932unclassified

“matanza” de 1932 en El Salvador

Molinari

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La brutal represión de las fuerzas estatales a la rebelión de campesinos en la zona occidental de El Salvador en 1932 es conocida en dicho país como “la matanza”. Los diversos relatos que alrededor de estos sucesos se tejieron, y la forma en que ciertas dinámicas fueron reactualizadas durante la Guerra Civil (1980-1992) exige repensar estos eventos, a la luz de nuevos debates, conceptos y problemáticas. Partiendo del concepto “práctica social genocida”, acuñado por el sociólogo argentino Daniel Feierstein, y sus reflexiones sobre los efectos sociales de las representaciones sobre estos crímenes se presentarán, de modo introductorio, tres elementos cuyo análisis matiza y enriquece las lecturas sobre la represión de 1932. Se trata de 1) la participación de civiles en los cuerpos represivos (y sus efectos sobre el lazo social) que esta represión habilitó; 2) las matanzas masivas (masacres) que se instituyeron en ese momento y funcionarían, década después, como estrategia contrainsurgente en el ámbito rural y 3) los debates en torno a las distintas representaciones que circulan sobre los sucesos.

show abstract

“…In large part, disagreement between scales stems from overly general and, therefore, unhelpful secondary sources. Ciro Cardoso's (1986) chapter in the Cambridge History of Latin America, for example, barely analyzes the politics of these years. Like many other secondary sources (e.g., Pérez-Brignoli, 1989;Woodward, 1976), Cardoso's discussion does little more than mention the intense rivalry between Liberal and Conservative parties that characterized Nicaraguan politics during these years.…”

Section: The Causes Of Unreliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Political Democracy

Bowman

Lehoucq

Mahoney³

2005

Comparative Political Studies

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent writings concerning measurement of political democracy offer sophisticated discussions of problems of conceptualization, operationalization, and aggregation. Yet they have less to say about the error that derives from the use of inaccurate, partial, or misleading data sources. Drawing on evidence from five Central American countries, the authors show this data-induced measurement error compromises the validity of the principal, long-term cross-national scales of democracy. They call for an approach to index construction that relies on case expertise and use of a wide range of data sources, and they employ this approach in developing an index of political democracy for the Central American countries during the 20th century. The authors’ index draws on a comprehensive set of secondary and primary sources as it rigorously pursues standards of conceptualization, operationalization, and aggregation. The index’s value is illustrated by showing how it suggests new lines of research in the field of Central American politics.

show abstract

Central America: the Liberal era, c. 1870–1930

Cited by 3 publications

References 1 publication

Are factor endowments fate?

Are factor endowments fate?

“matanza” de 1932 en El Salvador

Measuring Political Democracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About