While the United States is
preoccupied with the war on terrorism and promoting democracy in
the Middle East, Latin America has drifted out of the U.S. sphere
of influence, seeking an increasingly independent political
course, electing leftist presidents, and forging links with
undemocratic countries like Cuba, China, and Iran. Although
elections decide leaders in every country except Cuba and market
principles are gaining acceptance throughout the region, broad
majorities seem disenchanted with those reforms, and some are
opting to return to familiar traditions of populism and
dictatorship.
America's long-standing
principles of supporting democratic reform, helping to open
economies, and maintaining security links are still valid. As the
Bush Administration has improved trade relations in Latin America
and sustained programs to combat drug smuggling and terrorism,
however, U.S. engagement lacks commitment and a clear strategy.
Instability and decaying quality of life in some countries
could affect U.S. citizens through declining export markets,
resource constraints, and increased migration to the
north.
To regain influence and
foster a more prosperous, stable hemisphere, the United States
should recommit to a three-part strategy of:
-
Broader democratic
reforms,
-
Economic restructuring to
establish truly competitive markets, and
-
Greater collaboration to fight
transnational crime and terrorism.
To facilitate the implementation of this
strategy, the U.S. should:
-
State clear objectives and ensure
that actions match words,
-
Target support for better
governance and an open economy,
-
Eliminate self-imposed roadblocks
to better relations, and
-
Revive lagging public diplomacy
efforts.
Inching
Forward, Looking Back
Despite outward
appearances of modernity, Latin America is in the midst of a
relatively recent transition away from authoritarian rule and
plantation economies. Most countries adopted republican
constitutions after gaining their independence from Europe in the
1800s, but authority remained concentrated in powerful presidencies
patterned after colonial viceroys. Only a few countries like
Colombia, Costa Rica, and Uruguay developed durable democracies.
Twenty years ago, when faltering economies and social upheaval
triggered change, only six out of 23 Latin American countries could
be classified as democratic. Now all except Cuba celebrate
competitive elections, and most have adopted some aspects of market
economies.
Yet according to a 2005
Latinobarómetro poll, only 31 percent of citizens in the 18
Latin American countries surveyed said that they are satisfied
with democracy, although they still preferred it to
authoritarianism by a margin of 53 percent to 15 percent. Beyond
elections, they viewed democratic institutions as generally weak or
non-functioning. Only 34 percent of respondents said that they were
aware of their rights and obligations as citizens, and a similar
percentage felt that their justice systems functioned effectively.
As few as 27 percent thought that their markets worked, although 63
percent still preferred them to state-run economies.
Meanwhile, unemployment, poverty, and high crime rates ranked
as top concerns.[1]
Behind the
Numbers.Poll responses show that
partial reforms have not produced expected changes. Powerful
presidencies still impose agendas that are out of touch with
public desires while subservient legislatures and judiciaries fail
to curb their excesses. National ministries often usurp local
authorities. Where power is concentrated at the national level,
decisions flow through a small number of hands, creating
bottlenecks. In most countries, party leaders, not voters, choose
candidates who are placed on party lists and elected according
to the proportion of votes collected by each party. The result is
arbitrary rule with a democratic veneer.
In general, poor public
education contributes to poverty and blocks social mobility while,
in countries like Cuba and Venezuela, indoctrination
masquerading as education helps to ensure a subservient
public. Inadequate investment in primary and secondary
schools, scarce teaching materials, reliance on rote
memorization instead of critical thinking, and lack of
accountability at the local level contribute to low academic
attainment and seem to go hand in hand with low productivity. (See
Table 1.)

* The Corruption Index ranks countries on a scale of 1 to 10, with
1 being the most corrupt.
** Percent of school-age population.
Note: Shading indicates two or more instability risk factors such
as high poverty, low educational attainment, unfree political
system, or unfree economy.
Sources: Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2005 (Washington,
D.C.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005); Marc A. Miles,
Kim R. Holmes, and Mary Anastasia O'Grady, 2006 Index of Economic
Freedom (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation and Dow Jones
& Company, Inc., 2006), at http://www.heritage.org/index;
Transparency International, "Corruption Perceptions Index 2005," at
http://www.transparency.org/policy_and_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2005
(February 16, 2006); World Bank, World Development Indicators
Online, at (March 2,
2006); U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, at (March 2, 2006);
Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Reports, 2004-2005;
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Main
Economic Indicators; U.S. Agency for International Development,
"Haiti: FY 2001 Program Description and Activity Data Sheets," at
(March
2, 2006); and International Monetary Fund, "Honduras: Enhanced
Initiative for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries," Country Report No.
05/386, October 2005, p. 13.
|
Partial Economic Reforms
Beget Partial Results
Ana Isabel Eiras
|
|
When Latin America aggressively opened its markets in the early
1990s, economists thought that this would eliminate bureaucratic
distortions, attract foreign investment, and boost employment.
However, beginning with Brazil¹s debt crisis in 1997,
recession began to spread through the region, accompanied by
political instability, financial crises, and a rise in poverty.
Slow recovery left many Latin Americans wondering whether
U.S.-style capitalism works.
Capitalism is the only economic system in history that is
capable of combating poverty, yet its machinery involves more than
trade and open markets. The main pillar is the protection of
property rights through strong rule of law manifested in an
independent and effective judicial system.
Strong property rights provide stability that allows people to
take risks and engage in economic activity. An independent
judiciary keeps government officials from abusing the private
sector and enforces contracts.
Other pillars include low taxation, limited regulation, and
stable currency values. With simple rules, low taxes, and low
inflation, the cost of doing business drops significantly, so more
people choose to start businesses. A large corporation can create
10,000 jobs despite high regulatory costs and high taxes, but
countries need millions of jobs. The best job factories are small
and medium-sized businesses. Although each small enterprise creates
only a few jobs, hundreds of thousands of them can significantly
reduce unemployment.
During the 1990s, Latin American governments removed some
barriers by easing rules for foreign investment and by privatizing
some state-owned industries.
Those measures generated growth for a time. However, except for
Chile, few countries went on to strengthen property rights, develop
the rule of law, and reform laws that protected unproductive labor.
Moreover, many so-called privatizations merely converted state
monopolies into private monopolies.
To promote prosperity, Latin America does not need a new set of
policies.
Instead, it needs a commitment to property rights, the rule of
law, low inflation, low taxes, and simple regulations. Untethered,
ordinary Latin American citizens can then create wealth on their
own.
Ana Isabel Eiras is
Senior Policy Analyst for International Economics in the Center for
International Trade and Economics at The Heritage
Foundation.
|
Macro Success, Micro
Duress.By
adopting the broad liberal economic recommendations known as the
"Washington consensus" in the 1980s, Latin America escaped
hyperinflation and acute underdevelopment. However, most Latin
American economies are still manipulated to shield state or
family-owned monopolies while placating the middle class and
the poor with social programs. Increased trade helps already
established industries and contributes to economic growth, but it
fails to create enough jobs to keep up with population growth. As a
result, some 44 percent of Latin Americans live in poverty.[2]
In general, weak property
rights keep the poor from titling real estate, denying rights to
sell or use it as collateral. Almost all Latin American
constitutions make subsurface resources such as minerals and
oil the property of the state and ripe for misappropriation by
corrupt officials. Lacking adequate revenue, governments fail to
support adequate security forces to project state authority,
leaving vast rural tracts potentially at the mercy of
criminals, subversives, or terrorists. Priorities such as
border control, disaster preparedness, and infrastructure
maintenance also suffer.
Demographics
and Globalization
Expanding population
spells trouble for societies lacking competitive markets. The
Population Reference Bureau estimates that the population of
Latin America and the Caribbean will grow from 559 million in 2005
to more than 700 million in 2025.[3] Economies that
rely on raw materials exports and estate-based agriculture cannot
provide enough new employment to satisfy demand. Adding
millions of new adults to the labor force each year will quickly
exhaust the supply of jobs in a region where official unemployment
already hovers around 10 percent and underemployment (where
reported) is between 20 percent and 50 percent.[4]
As other developing
countries advance with more schools and better curricula, most
of Latin America will continue to spend meager amounts on
outdated public education systems that rely on rote
memorization and authoritarian teaching techniques. Secondary
school attendance rose from 29 percent in 1990 to 65 percent
in 2001.[5] However, the Partnership
for Educational Revitalization in the Americas found in its
2001 report that most of the region was spending less than $1,000
per pupil per year in primary and secondary schools compared to
about $6,000 in Canada and the United States.[6] With
local workers less prepared than those in industrialized countries,
not enough jobs available, and large wage differentials
between the region and the United States,[7] Latin America's
jobless and underemployed will continue to migrate
northward.

Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators Online, at (March 2,
2006); U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, at (March 2,
2006); Economist Intelligence
Unit, Country Reports, 2005, and Country Profiles, 2003-2004 and
2004-2005; U.S. Census Bureau, "Cumulative Estimates of Population
Change for Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Rankings: April 1,
2000 to July 1, 2004," at
(February 11, 2006); and Global Insight, "The Role of Metro Areas
in the U.S. Economy," U.S. Conference of Mayors, January 13, 2006,
at
(February 7, 2006).
China. Since the 1990s, the
People's Republic of China has become a major player in the Western
Hemisphere. Capitalist reforms have transformed it into a hybrid
economy that incorporates some market principles. It is now the
world's fourth largest economy and has a gross domestic
product of $1.6 trillion, which is growing about 9 percent per year
according to the World Bank. However, China does not have
sufficient oil, natural gas, or mineral resources to satisfy
its energy and manufacturing needs. It needs trade partners to buy
its electronics, apparel, toys, and footwear, and it would like to
compete with the United States in America's backyard.
To do so, China has
positioned itself to take advantage of Washington's waning interest
in Latin American ties. It collaborates on spy satellite
technology with Brazil and is cultivating military ties with
other South American states.[8] It has pursued petroleum
partnerships with Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, Argentina, Brazil,
and even Mexico. To obtain other commodities, China offers tempting
investments in infrastructure. However, by encouraging
dependence on commodity sales, China could be retarding
industrialization and job growth in Latin America. Moreover,
China's state-to-state business deals are reinforcing the region's
culture of monopolies and anti-competitive practices.
Diverging
Paths
Despite the efforts of the
great liberators of the 19th century, Latin America has never been
unified under a single banner, but a new order is emerging on the
heels of presidential elections in 2005 and 2006. More countries
are electing leftist governments as opposed to centrist or
conservative ones. For the most part, moderate socialist
governments are beginning to bridge the gap between traditional
dictatorships and liberal democracies, blending state intervention
with politics of choice. These include the governments of Brazil,
Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay, and even Mexico, which has a
conservative president.
Elections have also
produced a small but potentially growing number of hard-left
regimes in which the majority of voters are poor and
undereducated. These governments-characterized by
centralized rule, polarization between leaders and opponents
(typically considered enemies), and state control of major
resources and industries- are opposed to free trade, representative
democracy, and U.S. influence in the region.
Cuba's New
Friends.Isolated and broke in the
1990s after the loss of subsidies from the Soviet Union, Cuba's
dictatorship has gained a new lease on life thanks to generous oil
concessions from Venezuela. This alliance has given Fidel Castro
breathing room and a renewed respect from Latin Americans who
admire his longevity and fierce independence from the United
States. How long the revival will last is uncertain. Castro appears
to suffer from Parkinson's disease, and his brilliant if eccentric
leadership of the hemispheric left appears to be nearing an
end.
Until that moment arrives,
populist imitators from Caracas to Buenos Aires are swaying masses
of poor and working-class voters who see avenues for social
mobility blocked in existing corporatist societies. Since 1990,
numerous leftist parties around the hemisphere have joined the Foro
de São Paulo, an organization that, like Castro, opposes
representative democracy, market economies, and U.S.
influence.
Venezuelan President Hugo
Chávez has become Castro's most ardent follower and affluent
supporter. Elected in 1998, Chávez has gradually
constrained opponents and allowed Cuban monitors to form a
shadow government within his own regime. He has supplied Cuba with
subsidized petroleum since October 2000 and used oil profits to buy
Argentine and Ecuadoran debt.[9] His largesse
allegedly has helped to finance the campaigns of like-minded
populist nationalist candidates in other countries. Yet, despite
its oil riches, Venezuela has one of the higher poverty rates in
Latin America.[10]
A less strident member of
Castro's anti-U.S. alliance is Argentine President
Néstor Kirchner, who has aligned Argentina with Cuba and
Venezuela to gain access to easy credit and discount oil. In
November 2005, he simultaneously hosted the Organization of
American States Summit of the Americas and a "People's Summit," at
which agitators demonstrated against President George W. Bush.
Further north, Bolivian President Evo Morales received help from
the Cuban and Venezuelan embassies during his 2005 campaign and has
vowed to become "Washington's worst nightmare."[11]
Morales has since retreated from such harsh rhetoric, but he named
a hard-line leftist cabinet and reportedly is creating a
Cuban-trained security force parallel to the existing police
and military.
In Peru, Ollanta Humala, a
former army lieutenant colonel, is tapping discontent among
Peru's majority poor and running even in the polls with
conservative Lourdes Flores Nano for the April 9 presidential
election. A self-described nationalist, Humala admires
Chávez and, like Chávez, once led a revolt against
his government. Politics seems to run in the family-his older
brother Ulises has also entered the presidential race, claiming to
be an ultra nationalist. Last year, another brother
commandeered a rural police station in an escapade that left
four officers dead.
Thanks to quirky
candidates, Ecuador could turn more toward Cuba and Venezuela
following elections in October 2006. Former Economy Minister
Rafael Correa-a critic of free trade and close ties with the United
States-is running against an indigenous mayor, a banana
magnate, and former President Lucio Gutierrez, who was
dismissed from office last April by the national legislature.
Ecuador is a major South American oil producer, and government
officials claim that Venezuela is funding politicians who want
to realign Ecuador with Chávez.
In Nicaragua, former
comandante and perennial Sandinista Party Chief Daniel Ortega is
making his fourth presidential re-election bid in a vote slated for
November 2006. The Sandinistas deposed dictator Anastasio
Somoza in 1979 and imposed their own authoritarian regime. In 1990,
under pressure from U.S.-backed counterrevolutionaries, Ortega
permitted elections, which he lost. On leaving office, Ortega and
close associates reportedly looted the central bank and seized
hundreds of millions of dollars in property. Thanks to a
devil's bargain with former President Arnoldo Alemán,
the Sandinistas control the electoral tribunals and courts,
increasing chances for a rigged vote.[12]
Potential
Flash Points
The combination of
personalistic populism, endemic poverty, and marginally educated
populations poses problems for both the hemisphere and the
United States.
Venezuela.Financed by huge
government-controlled oil reserves, President Chávez
sees himself taking over Fidel Castro's leadership of the Latin
American left and strengthening hemispheric ties to such rogue
nations as Iran and North Korea. Emboldened by defeating an August
2004 recall vote by padding the electoral rolls and intimidating
opponents, Chávez has consolidated his single-party rule,
eliminating internal checks on his powers. A new "social
responsibility" law permits the government to close radio and
television stations for airing content "contrary to national
security." A strengthened criminal code imposes jail sentences for
even mildly protesting the actions of public officials.[13] Meanwhile, prosecutors are
rounding up opposition leaders for show trials conducted by
provisional, handpicked judges.
Outside Venezuela's
borders, Chávez is threatening non-leftist states. In
July 2005, he inaugurated a regional satellite television network
called Telesur that airs Marxist propaganda and bashes Colombia for
its relations with the United States. He is friendly with the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) narcoguerrillas and
wants Washington to end counterdrug efforts there. He opposes
the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas while advocating
his own Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), a
notional aid distribution network to be financed largely by
Venezuelan oil profits.
Although the highway from
Caracas to its international airport is in disrepair,
Chávez has reportedly committed more than $3 billion
per year in aid to Latin American neighbors.[14]
Moreover, he has proposed two energy cartels, PetroCaribe and
PetroSur, to integrate Latin America's state hydrocarbon
industries. He is also stocking up on rifles, buying armored
vehicles, and acquiring attack helicopters from Russia. And in May
2005, despite controlling the world's seventh largest oil and tenth
largest natural gas reserves, Chávez announced plans to
acquire nuclear technology from Iran, fueling fears that he may try
to develop a nuclear bomb.[15]
Within the United States,
Chávez's government has paid lobbyists up to $100,000 per
month to polish his image before the public and U.S. Congress.
It reportedly funds the Venezuela Information Office, a public
relations firm registered under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act. Although they claim no direct link to the Venezuelan state,
pro-Chávez activist groups called "Bolivarian Circles" have
surfaced in Miami, Chicago, and other cities.[16] After
years of persuading fellow OPEC (Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries) members to suppress petroleum production to
raise prices,[17] Chávez has negotiated
with selected Members of the U.S. Congress to sell small amounts of
heating oil at a discount to poor neighborhoods in northern
U.S. cities, helping them to gain political clout.[18]
Although Chávez complains that outsiders meddle in
Venezuelan politics, he is trying to drive a wedge between American
voters and their government.
Colombia.With help from the United
States, Europe, and Japan, Colombia is successfully
prosecuting a 20-year-old war on drug traffickers and ending a
40-year guerrilla insurgency. Coca and heroin cultivation,
homicides, kidnapping, massacres, and sabotage against
infrastructure are down, while desertions and demobilizations from
rural irregular armies have increased following passage of a
justice and peace incentives law.
For progress to become
irreversible, Colombia needs to expand its security forces by at
least half to pressure guerrillas and paramilitaries into
complete demobilization. It also needs to assume greater
responsibility for intelligence and coca eradication missions,
which are now being managed by U.S. contractors. Colombia
currently lacks air mobility and maritime patrol assets (light
cargo transports and surveillance platforms) as well as integrated
intelligence capabilities. Unless these shortfalls are addressed,
progress could stall. Venezuela's arms buildup and continuing
support for guerrillas could further complicate Colombia's
prospects for peace.
Andean
Region.The heartland of South
America is resource rich, but its societies are fragmented
into minority elites and large indigenous and rural populations
that have only recently gained suffrage and access to education.
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru have poverty rates above
45 percent. (See Table 1.) All have secondary school enrollment
rates of only about 50 percent, except Bolivia, which increased
attendance in the 1990s through investments in education. Most
leaders still believe that social programs that put food on tables
and roofs over heads are all that the poor really want, but
continued migration to the United States and Europe proves
otherwise. Coca production has risen steadily in Bolivia since 2002
and could rebound in Peru as well. Bilateral free trade
agreements between the United States and these nations could
create opportunities, but Andean societies need to better educate
workers and liberalize economies to take maximum
advantage.
Central
America.Despite elections and
market openings, Central America's public institutions are still
too weak and corrupt to deal with changes brought on by
globalization: rural migration to cities, the need for more
industrial jobs, rising gang violence, and transnational crime.
Poverty is not as high as it is in the Andean region, but
secondary school enrollment runs from a low of 29 percent of
the student-age population in Guatemala to a high of only 62
percent in Panama. According to the Inter-American Development
Bank, Central America and the Dominican Republic now depend on
$12 billion in remittances from migrants living in the United
States and Europe. If economies fail to produce opportunities and
jobs and if governments cannot protect citizens, dissatisfied
citizens will vote for populist demagogues or migrate
elsewhere.
Mexico.Following the end of 71
years of single-party rule and more than a decade of free trade
with the United States and Canada under the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), broad-based prosperity continues to
elude most Mexicans. Energy and telecommunications remain in the
hands of monopolies, and one-fifth of Mexico's labor force is tied
up in an 80-year-old dysfunctional land tenure system. In recent
years, the Mexican economy has created only 200,000-500,000
jobs per year. This is insufficient for the 1 million workers who
now enter the workforce annually, leaving many to seek
employment in the United States.
President Vicente Fox has
done much to open Mexico's economy, but a divided congress has
thwarted his attempts to privatize state monopolies, improve access
to credit, and curb corruption. Next July, voters might replace him
with the populist former mayor of Mexico City, Andrés Manuel
López Obrador, whose economic proposals are as yet unclear.
Running neck and neck in the polls is Felipe Calderón, the
candidate of Fox's conservative National Action Party. Regardless
of who wins, Mexican lawmakers could still block substantive
reforms.
With his economic plans
frustrated at home, Fox insists that jobless Mexicans have a right
to seek employment in the United States. Despite collaboration on
other issues, the Fox and Bush Administrations have come to an
impasse on migration. Members of the U.S. Congress are advocating
tighter controls to reduce flows and punitive measures against
employers who hire undocumented workers. President Bush wants a
guest worker program that will direct them toward legal entry
points and encourage American employers to pay taxes. If
reforms are blocked by recalcitrant lawmakers on both sides,
collaboration on other matters may halt as well.
Haiti.Haiti has suffered a
perpetual political crisis for most of its 200-year history.
Prime Minister Gérard Latortue, his coalition cabinet, and
multinational peacekeeping forces are trying to help Haiti
recover from years of despotic rule under former President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who resigned in February 2004. After the
Bush Administration gave Aristide safe passage to the Central
African Republic, it helped to arrange for peacekeeping
forces, a transition government, and elections in the belief that
elections would put Haiti back on a democratic
trajectory.
The successful election on
February 7, 2006, which returned former President Rene Preval to
office, is a positive step but may not be enough to bring lasting
peace or economic progress. Aristide's corruption left a bankrupt
government, and international support needed for
reconstruction is only trickling in. Recently, a U.S.-funded
assessment team concluded that without "a firm international
commitment, any new government will be ill-prepared to address
the country's critical economic, institutional, and infrastructural
needs."[19] Haiti's tiny 4,000-member
police force cannot possibly address continuing violence and unrest
between rival gangs. Moreover, migrant outflows and the growing
presence of violent narcotraffickers in Haiti could threaten the
stability of the neighboring Dominican Republic.
Cuba.Fidel Castro's 47-year-old
stranglehold on this island nation still blocks the dreams and
aspirations of 11 million citizens. Although no longer a direct
threat to the United States since losing its Soviet sponsor, Cuba
remains hostile, sharing electronic espionage and warfare
capability with China and offering support for
international terrorists and guerrilla groups. Nearly 80 years
old, Fidel counsels Venezuela's Hugo Chávez as well as
hopeful imitators like Bolivia's Evo Morales. However, his
incapacitation or death would remove the force of personality that
holds together the Cuban state and energizes the region's
revolutionary movements.[20]