The New Authoritarianism in Latin America

233 Pages·1979·17.188 MB·English

by  David Collier

The New Authoritarianism
Sponsored by the Joint Committee
in Latin America
on Latin American Studies
of the Social Science Research Council
and the American Council of Learned Societies
David Collier, Editor
CONTRIBUTORS
Fernando Henrique Cardoso
David Collier
Julio Cotler
Albert 0. Hirschman
Robert R. Kaufman
James R. Kurth
Guillermo O'Donnell
Jose Serra
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
Acknowledgments
Copyright© 1979 by Princeton University Press The research reported in this book has been sponsored by the Joint Com
Published by Princeton University Press, Princeton, ~ew Jersey mittee on Latin American Studies of the American Council of Learned
In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, Gmldford, Surrey Societies and the Social Science Research Council. These studies are part
of the Research Planning Program of the Joint Committee, and the sup
All Rights Reserved
port of the Ford Foundation and the Tinker Foundation for this Pro
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data will be
gram is gratefully acknowledged. In addition to writing the chapters in
found on the last printed page of this book
this volume, all participants in the project made significant contributions
This book has been composed in VIP Baskerville
to planning and executing our collaborative 4fort. Albert Hirschman, in
Clothbound editions of. Princeton University Press books particular, played an important role, ranging from his support for the
are printed on acid-free paper, and binding materials are project. while Chairman of the Joint Committee, to valuable suggestions
chosen for strength and durability. regarding problems of compiling and editing this volume. Louis Wolf
Printed in the United States of America by Princeton Goodman, as Staff Associate of the Social Science Research Council,
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey greatly facilitated the administration of the project. Both he and Alfred
Stepan, in his role as a member of the Joint Committee, played an impor
tant part in shaping the intellectual content of our 4forts. The transla
tions from Spanish and Portuguese were done by Richard C. Miller and
David Collier, and Miller served ably as research assistant for the proj
ect. Finally, Philippe Schmitter and Abraham Lowenthal provided
valued advice and encouragement in the planning stage of the project.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments v
Introduction 3
PART ONE: THE NEW AUTHORITARIANISM
IN LA TIN AMERICA
1. Overview of the Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Model
David Collier 19
2. On the Characterization of Authoritarian Regimes in
Latin America
Fernando Henrique Cardoso 33
PART TWO: EXPLAINING THE EMERGENCE OF
BUREAUCRATIC-AUTHORITARIANISM
3· The Turn to Authoritarianism in Latin America and
the Search for Its Economic Determinants
Albert 0. Hirschman 61
4· Three Mistaken Theses Regarding the Connection
between Industrialization and Authoritarian Regimes
Jose Serra 99
5· Industrial Change and Authoritarian Rule in Latin
America: A Concrete Review of the Bureaucratic
Authoritarian Model
Robert R. Kaufman 165
6. State and Regime: Comparative Notes on the Southern
Cone and the "Enclave" Societies
Julio Cotler 255
PART THREE: FuTURE EvoLUTION OF
AUTHORITARIANISM AND DIRECTIONS
FOR NEW RESEARCH
The New Authoritarianism in Latin America
7· Tensions in the Bureaucratic-Authoritarian State and
the Question of Democracy
Guillermo O'Donnell
8. Industrial Change and Political Change: A European
Perspective
James R. Kurth 319
g. The Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Model: Synthesis and
Priorities for Future Research
David Collier 363
Glossary 399
Bibliography 405
Index 445
Contributors 457
Introduction
In 1964, Brazil had a military coup. Two years later, the military
also seized power in Argentina. These coups inaugurated peri
ods of rule by the military as an institution, during which the
armed forces sought to promote accelerated industrial growth
based on massive new foreign investment. They also eliminated
or drastically controlled elections of all kinds; introduced impor
tant new restrictions in labor unions; and adopted economic
austerity programs which imposed wage controls on the urban
"popular sector"-i.e., the working class and the lower middle
class. These austerity programs were widely interpreted as an
important part of the effort to create an investment climate pre
sumed to be attractive to potential foreign investors. Since aus
terity programs had often been vigorously opposed by the popu
lar sector, in part through such channels as labor organizations
and elections, the controls over these forms of political expres
sion appeared essential to the effort to sustain the new economic
policies and to achieve economic growth.
The resurgence of military rule in these two major, indus
trially advanced countries, which contain roughly 65 percent of
the population of South America and produce roughly 75 per
cent ofthe region's industrial output/ occurred in the context of
the erosion of earlier expectations of the first two decades of the
post-World War II era that greater economic and social equality
and a more democratic form of politics would emerge in Latin
America.2 It also called into question the hypothesis of modern
ization theory that more advanced industrialization is associated
with the emergence of democracy and equality3 and stimulated a
1 Calculated from data presented in james W. Wilkie, ed., Statistical Abstract of
Latin America, Volume 17 (Latin American Center, University of California at
Los Angeles, 1976) and Robert R. Kaufman, "Mexico and Latin American Au
thoritarianism," in jose Luis Reyna and Richard Weinert, eds., Authoritarianism
in Mexico (Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1977).
2 An excellent analysis of these expectations is provided in Robert A.
Packenham, Liberal America and the Third World (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1973).
3 Within the large literature dealing with different aspects of this relationship,
three crucial initial studies are: Seymour Martin Lipset, "Some Social Requisites
4 Introduction Introduction 5
fundamental reassessment of this relationship within the Latin creased the importance of understanding bureaucratic-authori
American context.4 In place of this earlier hypothesis, a new set tarianism. This type of military rule has persisted in Brazil, and
of hypotheses emerged which suggested that in late developing it reappeared in Argentina in 1976. In 1973, well-institu
nations more advanced levels of industrialization may coincide tionalized competitive regimes collapsed in two other economi
with the collapse of democracy and an increase in inequality. cally advanced Latin American nations-Chile and Uruguay
In the course of this reassessment, a new term came into use. and were also replaced by bureaucratic-authoritarian sys
Argentina and Brazil were ruled by the military as an institution, tems. In Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay both the level of vio
rather than exclusively by individual military rulers. In addition, lence employed in suppressing political parties, trade unions,
the military appeared to adopt a technocratic, bureaucratic and labor protest and the decline in the real income of the popu
approach to policy making (as opposed to a more "political" ap lar sector went far beyond that experienced in Brazil and Argen
proach through which policies are shaped by economic and tina in their initial bureaucratic-authoritarian periods in the
political demands from different sectors of society, expressed 196o's. In Brazil the degree ofrepression had also become nota
through such channels as elections, legislatures, political parties, bly more intense, beginning roughly in 1g6g. These new de
and labor unions). This approach to policy making in these re velopments dramatically called attention to the need to push
gimes has led scholars to join the adjective "bureaucratic" with further the rethinking of the relationship between industrial
the term "authoritarian" and to call these systems "bureau modernization and political change that had begun a decade
cratic-authoritarian."5 This label has come to be an important earlier. The goal of this book is to contribute to the rethinking of
addition to typologies of national political regimes.6 this relationship.
The events of the 197o's in Latin America have greatly in- Apart from the understandable importance to scholars par
ticularly concerned with Latin America of the attempt to explain
of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy," American Polit bureaucratic-authoritarianism, research on this topic is also im
ical Science Review, 53 (March 1959), pp. 6g-ws;James S. Coleman, "Conclusion: portant because of the contribution it has made to the critique of
The Political Systems ofthe Developing Areas," in Gabriel A. Almond and James
modernization theory. A number of the most important lines of
S. Coleman, eds., The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton: Princeton Univer
argument advanced by scholars concerned with modernization
sity Press, 196o); and Phillips Cutright, "National Political Development: Meas
urement and Analysis," American Sociological Review, 27 (April 1963), pp. 253-64. theory-such as the hypothesized relationship between democ
4 Three of the most important statements that reflect this reassessment and racy and industrial modernization-have long been seriously
that are accessible to the English-language reader are Fernando Henrique Car questioned.7 Yet, scholarly debate continues regarding how one
doso and Enzo Faletto, Dependency and Development in Latin America (Berkeley and can reasonably go about developing useful and appropriate
Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978), which was originally pub
hypotheses concerning the interaction among the political, eco-
lished in Spanish in 1969; Philippe C. Schmitter, Interest Conflict and Political
Change in Brazil (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971); and Guillermo
O'Donnell, Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South 7 Important examples of the critique of modernization theory include Samuel
American Politics (Institute of International Studies, University of California, P. Huntington, "Political Development and Political Decay," World Politics, xvu,
Berkeley, Politics of Modernization Series No. 9, 1973). No. 3 (April 1965), pp. 386-430; Reinhard Bendix, "Tradition and Modernity
5 Important examples of the initial use of this term are found in O'Donnell, Reconsidered," Comparative Studies in Society and History, 9 (April 1967), pp. 292-
Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, 346; Joseph R. Gusfield, "Tradition and Modernity: Misplaced Polarities in the
"Associated Dependent Development: Theoretical and Practical Implications," Study of Social Change," American journal of Sociology, 72 (January 1967), pp.
in Alfred Stepan, ed., Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future (New Ha 351-62; C. S. Whitaker, "A Dysrhythmic Process of Political Change," World Poli
ven: Yale University Press, 1973). tics, 19 (January 1967), pp. 190-217; Uoyd I. Rudolph and Susan Hoeber
6 A major recent study that discusses the concept of bureaucratic-authoritar Rudolph, The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India (Chicago: Uni
ianism within the framework of a broad typological analysis of political regimes versity of Chicago Press, 1967); Packenham, Liberal America and the Third World;
is Juan J. Linz, "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes," in Fred Greenstein and Dean C. Tipps, "Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of
and Nelson Polsby, eds., Handbook of Political Science, Volume 3 (Reading, Mass.: Societies: A Critical Perspective," Comparative Studies in Society and History, 15
Addison-Wesley, 1975). (March 1973), pp. 199-226.
6 Introduction Introduction 7
nomic, and social spheres that occurs in the course of industrial Research on Latin America has also made a theoretical contri
modernization. There is also a debate over the specific hypoth bution by developing new hypotheses about political change
eses that adequately characterize this interaction. within this particular setting. These suggest why the interactions
Research on Latin America has contributed to both parts of among the patterns of economic, social, and political change that
this debate. With regard to the first issue, it has criticized the have occurred in this context of late, dependent, capitalist de
presumed universality of earlier assumptions about political velopment have not consistently led to democracy, but rather
change and has pointed to the need to develop distinctive appear, at least in some cases, to be linked to the emergence of
hypotheses for the analysis of different historical and cultural bureaucratic-authoritarianism. These hypotheses, which for the
contexts.8 Such critiques do not reflect an antitheoretical bias, sake of convenience may be referred to as the bureaucratic
but rather a concern with specifying the characteristics of the authoritarian "model," are a central concern of this book. They
particular context one is analyzing in terms of theoretically rele are reviewed in detail in Chapter 1.
vant variables.9 For researchers concerned with contemporary These hypotheses about the emergence of bureaucratic
Latin America, one of the most salient characteristics is the rela authoritarianism attracted wide scholarly attention.12 This oc
tively late industrialization of this region as compared with most curred not only because they seemed to provide a suggestive ex
of the North Atlantic countries. This, it is argued, has led to a planation for an important set of contemporary political events
series of distinctive economic, social, and political problems.10 A but also because they represented a "respecification" of the
related characteristic is the economic dependence of the Latin models of political change offered earlier by modernization
American region, involving a heavy reliance on foreign capital, theorists. In the context of the 197o's, when the central thrust of
technology, and managerial expertise in order to promote in political research on the Third World had shifted from a con
dustrialization. A third characteristic is that this external de cern with analyzing democratization and "Westernization" to a
pendence has largely involved dependence on nations and firms concern with the difficult issues of a national political economy
operating in the international capitalist economic system.11 faced by these societies, this respecified model was a welcome
addition to the literature.
8 These issues are addressed in O'Donnell, Modernization and Bureaucratic
Though these hypotheses made an important contribution
Autlwritarianism, Chapter 1; Philippe C. Schmitter, "Paths to Political Develop
ment in Latin America," in Douglas A. Chalmers, ed., Changing Latin America: toward understanding bureaucratic-authoritarianism, there has
New Interpretations of Its Politics and Society (New York: Academy of Political Sci been a growing sense of dissatisfaction with a number of ele
ence, Columbia University, 1972); and Glaucio Dillon Soares, "The New Indus ments in this bureaucratic-authoritarian model. The model un
trialization and the Brazilian Political System," in james Petras and Maurice Zeit
questionably addresses important issues and adopts a valuable
lin, eds., Latin America: Reform or Revolution' (Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett World
approach to explaining political change in the context of late,
Library, 1968).
9 This approach corresponds to that recommended in Adam Przeworski and dependent, capitalist development. Yet even in the first phase of
Henry Teune, The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry (New York: John Wiley and the evolution of this literature, in which analyses were focused
Company, 1970). on Brazil and Argentina, scholars began to raise questions re
10 See Albert 0. Hirschman, "The Political Economy of Import-substituting
garding the degree to which bureaucratic-authoritarianism,
Industrialization in Latin America," Quarterly journal of Economics 82, 1 (Feb which was clearly a new phenomenon in relation to the political
ruary 1968), pp. 2-32.
11 A major initial statement that emphasizes the aspects of dependency patterns of the 195o's and early 196o's, in fact represented a
analysis that are relevant here is Cardoso and Faletto, Dependency and Develop "restoration" of a type of authoritarianism that had existed in
ment. For a recent warning by Cardoso regarding the misuse of dependency the 193o's and 194o's. They also questioned the economic ar
analysis, see his "The Consumption of Dependency Theory in the United
guments employed in explaining its emergenceY
States," Latin American Research Review 12,3 (1977), pp. 7-24. Another valuable
recent discussion of this perspective is Richard R. Fagen, "Studying Latin 12 See note 6 in Chapter 1 of this volume.
American Politics: Some Implications of a Dependencia Approach," Latin Ameri 13 Thomas E. Skidmore, "Politics and Economic Policy-Making in Authoritar
can Research Review, 12,2 (1977), pp. 3-27. ian Brazil, 1937-71"; Philippe C. Schmitter, "The 'Portugalization' of Brazil?";
8 Introduction Introduction 9
Beginning in the mid-197o's-in the context of the attempt to tarianism involving the rule of a political party, rather than mili
understand bureaucratic-authoritarianism in Chile and Uru tary rule. Competitive regimes persist in Colombia and Ven
guay, as well as in Brazil and Argentina-scholarly dissatisfac ezuela. The military rule experienced in Peru since 1968-both
tion with this model became even more widespread.14 The in its initial reformist phase and in its current more conservative
political-economic model pursued by these authoritarian gov phase-is likewise distinct from the military rule of the south.
ernments increasingly appeared to be considerably less consis For the scholar concerned with the hypothesis that there is an
tent and coherent than was initially thought. These four coun inherent association between advanced industrialization and bu
tries were not at comparable levels of industrialization, and the reaucratic-authoritarianism iri Latin America, the challenge was
initial hypotheses noted above regarding the role of problems of thus to extend the analysis beyond the countries where this form
industrialization in the emergence of bureaucratic-authori of authoritarianism has appeared-i.e., Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
tarianism therefore came under increasingly critical scrutiny. It and Uruguay. It was essential to achieve a broader understand
was also not clear that increased inequality was in fact an eco ing that also encompassed these other relatively advanced coun
nomic prerequisite for the success of the development policies tries in which, at least so far, it has not appeared. This larger
adopted by these governments. There was an increasing sense of comparison could yield new insights both into the experience of
a need to place greater emphasis on political explanations of other countries and into the four cases of bureaucratic-authori
these economic policies and of the rise of authoritarianism. For tarianism.16 Although certain elements of this larger compari
instance, it appeared that the structure of the party system and son had begun to appear in studies of Latin American authori
17
the political strength of the popular sector were important de tarianism, this comparison had not yet been employed in a
terminants of the degree to which polarized class conflict systematic reassessment of explanations of bureaucratic
emerged in each country. In certain countries, the ideological authoritarianism.
polarization that occurred prior to the appearance of In 1975 the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies of
bureaucratic-authoritarianism could not be explained simply as the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Sci
a consequence of the interplay of economic forces. ence Research Council established a working group in order to
Finally, bureaucratic-authoritarianism has not, at least to date, consolidate and build upon these dissatisfactions and criti
appeared in all of the industrially more advanced countries of cisms.18 The goal of the working group, which has been coordi-
15
Latin America. In Mexico, one finds a milder form of authori-
16 The use of this broader comparison to refine arguments about the
emergence of bureaucratic-authoritarianism reflects the use of the "constant
comparative method" advocated in Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in The
Albert Fishlow, "Some Reflections on Post-1964 Brazilian Economic Policy"; and Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Chicago: Aldine
Samuel A. Morely and Gordon W. Smith, "The Effect of Changes in the Distri Publishing Company, 1967).
bution of Income on Labor, Foreign Investment, and Growth in Brazil," all in 17 See Thomas Skidmore, "The Politics of Economic Stabilization in Post-War
Stepan, ed., Authoritarian Brazil. See also Mario S. Brodersohn, "Sobre 'Moder Latin America," in James M. Malloy, ed., Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin
nizaci6n y Autoritarismo' y el estancamiento inflacionario argentino," Desarrollo America (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1977); Kaufman, "Mexico
Econ6mico, 13, 51 (October to December 1973), pp. 591-605. and Latin American Authoritarianism"; and "Corporatism, Clientelism, and
14 This and the following paragraph summarize the issues raised in the initial Partisan Conflict: A Study of Seven Countries," in Malloy, ed., Authoritarianism;
discussions among members of the working group which is described below. David Collier, Squatters and Oligarchs: Authoritarian Rule and Policy Change in Peru
15 In terms of the overall level of industrial production, a variable stressed by (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976); David Collier and Ruth
authors such as O'Donnell, Latin American countries could be placed in three B. Collier, "Who Does What, to Whom, and How: Toward a Comparative
broad groups, with Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico at the highest level; the other Analysis of Latin American Corporatism," in Malloy, ed., Authoritarianism;
five of the eight countries discussed below at an intermediate level; and the re Alfred Stepan, The State and Society: Peru in Comparative Perspective (Princeton:
maining countries at a considerably lower level. For a discussion of classifications Princeton University Press, 1978), Chapters 3 and 4; andJuanJ. Linz and Alfred
of socioeconomic modernization in South America, see O'Donnell, Modernization Stepan, eds., The Breakdown ofD emocratic Regimes (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism, Chapter 1. Supplementary data on these University Press, 1978).
groupings of countries was derived from the two sources cited in note 1, above. 18 An initial report on the activities of this group is found in David Collier,
10 Introduction Introduction 11
nated by David Collier and julio Cotler, is to broaden the debate core characteristics of bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes and the
on the nature and causes of bureaucratic-authoritarianism by type of state with which they are associated-in the neo-Marxist
bringing together the often contrasting perspectives of scholars sense of the state as the larger system of economic and political
from both the Southern and Northern Hemispheres, as well as "domination," which in the Latin American context he charac
from different academic disciplines. The working group in terizes as "dependent" and "capitalist." He argues that the rela
cluded political scientists, sociologists, and economists from tionship between regime and state is more complex and varie
Peru, Argentina, Brazil, and the United States, all of whom had gated than is implied by the bureaucratic-authoritarian model.
previously contributed to this area of research and all of whom One cannot adequately analyze the differences, and similarities,
felt that these dissatisfactions and criticisms could form a useful among such important cases as contemporary Brazil, Mexico,
starting point for building a more complete understanding of and Venezuela-all of which. he considers dependent capitalist
Latin American authoritarianism. Members of the group met states-unless one distinguishes carefully between regime and
informally a number of times in 1975 and 1976 and held a for state. Cardoso also analyzes the political institutions of
mal, two-day meeting in early 1977, at which preliminary papers bureaucratic-authoritarianism, drawing attention to the varie
were presented. On the basis of a wide-ranging exchange of gated features and internal contradictions of these systems. In
comments and criticisms-both at this meeting and in extensive order to place the experience of the countries of the Southern
subsequent correspondence among a number of the authors Cone of South America in clearer perspective, he points to a
these papers have all been substantially revised. The essays pub series of contrasts, as well as similarities, with the non-military
lished in this volume are a product of this collaborative effort. authoritarianism of Mexico, the recent reformist military gov
Part I of this volume provides an overview of the issues of so ernment in Peru, and the democratic regime in Venezuela.
cial science analysis raised by the recent emergence of authori Part II addresses the problem of explaining the rise of
tarianism in these industrially advanced countries of Latin bureaucratic-authoritarianism. In the first chapter in this sec
America. The chapter by David Collier reviews the basic argu tion, Albert 0. Hirschman-an economist-reminds researchers
ments contained in the bureaucratic-authoritarian model and not to stress economic explanations of political phenomena to the
poses some initial critical questions about these arguments. point of neglecting political explanations. Placing his discussion
Because other chapters focus particularly on the form these ar within the larger tradition of social thought regarding the politi
guments took as they crystallized in the work of Guillermo cal consequences of industrialization, he critically surveys vari
O'Donnell, his formulation receives central attention in Collier's ous economic explanations of the rise of authoritarianism and
chapter.19 finds them all inadequate. Hirschman argues that different
The chapter by Fernando Henrique Cardoso then opens the phases of industrialization have important consequences for
discussion of bureaucratic-authoritarianism by pr0posing a politics, in part because of the expectations they create in the
major conceptual clarification. He opposes the use of this term minds of policy makers regarding the likelihood of sustained
as a global characterization of the political system, a usage fol economic growth. It appears that the relative ease with which
lowed in the initial formulation of the bureaucratic-authori the initial expansion of consumer goods production occurred in
tarian model. He stresses the need to distinguish between the Latin America generated unrealistic expectations about oppor
tunities for growth, and hence for economic reform, which in
"Industrialization and Authoritarianism in Latin America," Social Science Re turn played a role in the sequence of events that led to
search Council Items, Vol. 31/32, No. 4J'1 (March 1978), pp. 5-13. bureaucratic-authoritarianism. Hirschman then broadens his
19 As a further introduction to the subject matter of this book, readers not
analysis of the role of ideas in shaping political change and pro
familiar with contemporary politics in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay
poses a new approach to explaining the rise of authoritarianism.
may find it helpful to consult the brief sketches of the recent political history of
these four countries presented as part of Robert Kaufman's extended analysis of He analyzes the way in which political ideas and political action
explanations of authoritarianism in Part n of this volume (see pp. 170 ff.). interact in the evolution of the "entrepreneurial" and "reform"
12 Introduction Introduction
functions in society. This perspective, which focuses on differ Kaufman broadens the model to include an analysis of the
ences in what may be called the "political culture of capital implications-for the evolution of political coalitions and politi
ism,"20 is used to provide a partial explanation of the contrast cal regimes-of five different development strategies that might
between the recent pluralist experience of Colombia and Vene be adopted in order to promote economic growth in these
zuela and the authoritarian experience of Argentina, Brazil, societies. These include, in addition to the deepening of indus
Chile, and Uruguay. trialization, the alternative strategies of promoting consumer
The chapter by Jose Serra critically analyzes three hypotheses durables, industrial exports, and primary product exports, and
regarding the relationship between economic development and the expansion of the domestic market for consumer goods.
the emergence of bureaucratic-authoritarianism. These hypoth Within this modified framework, Kaufman finds that the transi
eses focus on the "superexploitation" of the working class, the tions among different phases of industrialization have narrowed
attempt to achieve a "deepening" of industrial production, and the range of policy alternatives open to Latin American societies
the idea that this form of authoritarianism promotes a certain in a way that contributed to the emergence of bureaucratic
type of economic "rationality" that contributes to economic authoritarianism. He thus finds an important fit between the
growth. Devoting most of his attention to Brazil, but also draw underlying argument contained in the bureaucratic-authori
ing on the Chilean and Mexican cases, Serra finds that available tarian model and the experience of these five countries.
evidence does not support these hypotheses. His close analysis of The final chapter in Part II, by Julio Cotler, focuses on the
Brazil is of particular importance to this volume because the need to explore more systematically the ways in which the de
special conjunction in Brazil of economic and political crisis, fol velopmental experience of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and
lowed by harsh authoritarianism, regressive economic policies, Uruguay differs from that of many other countries in Latin
and successful economic growth has made Brazil in a sense the America. Cotler builds on the distinction between these "South
"paradigmatic case" for the bureaucratic-authoritarian model. ern Cone" countries, in which export-led growth earlier in this
Other countries, by contrast, are only partial approximations. In century was in important measure nationally controlled, and the
Argentina, the coherence of authoritarian rule has been limited; "enclave" societies in which export-led growth occurred prima
in Chile and Uruguay, the idea of the deepening of industrial rily in isolated enclaves of economic activity which were directly
ization may be irrelevant because of the small scale of their controlled by foreign corporations. Concentrating his attention
economies; and Mexico involves a rather different pattern, on the contrast between these Southern Cone countries and
based on non-military authoritarianism which did not result Mexico and Peru, he argues that throughout most of this cen
from the "triggering" political crisis experienced in the other tury these enclave cases have followed a very different pattern of
cases and which is based on quite a different political coalition. political change. However, within the present decade he notes
Hence, by disconfirming these hypotheses for the case that pre an important shift in this pattern, and he speculates about the
sumably fits the bureaucratic-authoritarian model most closely, possibility that these alternative patterns may now converge.
Serra makes a particularly useful contribution to the larger de The final section of the volume probes the likely direction of
bate on explanations of the rise of authoritarianism. future change in bureaucratic-authoritarianism, as well as ap
The chapter by Robert Kaufman provides a detailed review of propriate directions for further research. The opening chapter
the fit between the bureaucratic-authoritarian model and the by Guillermo O'Donnell takes an important step toward de
recent experiences of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and veloping a political theory of the dynamics of authoritarian rule
Mexico. After presenting an extended critique of the "deepen by exploring the generic political predicaments inherent in bu
ing" hypothesis that is parallel to that of Hirschman and Serra, reaucratic-authoritarianism. He argues that political society is
conventionally held together by two underlying forces--domi
nation and consensus-and that bureaucratic-authoritarianism
20 This term was proposed by Walter Dean Burnham in correspondence with
Albert 0. Hirschman regarding Hirschman's chapter. involves an emphasis on domination to the virtual exclusion of