Past and Present Trends in Research on Latin American Politics, 1950 - 1980

Author(s): David W. Dent
Source: Latin American Research Review, Vol. 21, No. 1 (1986), pp. 139-151
Published by: The Latin American Studies Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2503505
Accessed: 13/11/2009 12:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamer.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Latin American Studies Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Latin American Research Review.

http://www.jstor.org

1 The early profile of the state of Latin American research in political science developed by Peter Ranis showed that Mexico. First came the increasing influ*This paper was originally presented at the Eleventh International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association. and as a result the returns have been relatively meager. Personnel with adequate training and appropriate technical competence have been in scarce supply. research techniques adapted to Latin American studies have been of a relatively primitive nature. Brazil. TRENDS LATIN 1950-1980* David W Dent TowsonStateUniversity It has been almost two decades since trends in research on Latin American politics were measured in any systematic way. and was revised for the Southwestem Political Science Association meeting 20-23 March 1985 in Houston. the history of political institutions. 29 September-1 October 1983. and the church). and the level of productivity has been low. 139 .PAST AND PRESENT IN RESEARCH ON AMERICAN POLITICS.3 In a more comprehensive. economic. in Mexico City. and social change. and Nicaragua. study of political research on Latin America. students. Texas. El Salvador. and the helpful comments of the three anonymous LARR reviewers. and Chile "receive about one-third of all political science research attention. the research assistance of Brandt Kamka. Haiti. The subjects that received the most attention in the 1960s were interest groups (the military."4 A great deal has changed in the study of Latin American politics since Kling's rather dismal assessment of the evolution of political studies and Ranis's empirical measurement of political science research on Latin America for the period from 1961 to 1967. I would like to acknowledge the financial support of Towson State University. The following trends suggest that political science research on Latin America has benefitted from both public and private efforts to understand better the Western Hemisphere since Castro's revolution and Kennedy's Alliance for Progress. and the nature of political."2 Less than 1 percent of political science research was devoted to Honduras. talent. or organizational experience) has been invested in political studies of Latin America. Merle Kling found that "little capital (funds. although less empirical.

the enlargement of graduate programs (including Latin American studies). coeditors include approximately60 percent of the materialsthat are sent for review by the staff in the Hispanic Division of the Libraryof Congress. Asia. For example. and computerized data storage and retrievalsystems. the growth in the output of materials on Latin American politics and government is possibly a consequence of better methods of resource acquisition. The Handbook is also selective in that each coeditor is asked to choose only those items that are judged to be of permanent value. and the growing importance of U.7 Fourth. more competent Latin American bibliographers.6These trends have produced a movement away from descriptive case studies of single political parties and interest groups to new conceptual frameworks and the integration of Latin American studies and political theory. But as an annotated bibliography. Latin American political research is growing in Europe. to what extent do research interests dovetail with the major political and historical trends that have occurred since 1950? Methodology The major source of data for this research was nineteen volumes of the Handbook of LatinAmericanStudiescovering the years 1950to 1980. Second.S."the single most important [bibliographic]publication since 1935. Cotler. On average.5 These centers are now publishing widely read articles on internal politics and internationalrelations. the expansion of the Peace Corps. and the Soviet Union. For the purposes of this study. and Argentina.869 140 . The Handbook acquiresa vast amount of materialfrom all over the world pertaining to Latin America and the Caribbean. more professional journals. a total of 7. what countries receive the most attention and how does this trend fluctuate over time? What categories of research do those interested in political science research focus on and why? Also. the Handbookdoes not include unpublished documents and dissertations. and O'Donnell on the study of LatinAmericanpolitics combined with the development of more institutionalized centers of Latin American political research in the larger countries like Mexico. Brazil. Its aim is to fill in some of the gaps found in the earlier efforts by Kling and Ranis and to provide a more comprehensive look at trends in research on Latin American politics since 1950. Foremostamong these bibliographic materials and resources is the Handbookof Latin AmericanStudies. Third.-Latin American relations have all contributed to an increase in political research on Latin America."8 The purpose of this research note is to measure trends in political science research on Latin America over the past thirty years.LatinAmericanResearchReview ence of Latin American scholars such as Cardoso.

For example. Cuba. Argentina. Reagan's Caribbean Basin Initiative. In a survey of teachers of Latin American politics at American universities in 1974.4 percent during the 1961-65 period. Nicaragua.9 Pastand PresentTrendsin Geographical Areasof Research The first step in measuring geographical areas of research was to count the number of Handbookcitations per country for the thirty years under investigation. In the category of "perceived expertise. The countries in Latin America that receive the least attention are those in Central America and the Caribbean. most Latin Americanists ignore Honduras. Argentina. with forty-one works cited over the same time period.10 His results also found Mexico to be the most favored nation for field research. Chile. and Costa Rica. These findings vary somewhat from the trends that Ranis discovered using a shorter time span. Henry Kenski asked his sample to list both countries in which they had done field research and countries on which they felt they had the most expertise. Peru." Kenski found the top five to be Mexico. when President Goulart was 141 . and Chile. As indicated in table 1. a smaller number of projects or citations. The results are presented in table 1. and the American invasion of Grenada in 1983. Peru. Haiti. These five countries accounted for about 58 percent of all citations for the 1950-80 period." and "Government and Politics" in the Handbookwere examined. El Salvador received scarcely more attention. and Cuba. it would seem that the inflated position of Mexico in Ranis's findings was a consequence of his strictly North American sources and a more limited time span. and strictly North American sources on Latin American political research. only nineteen works of a political nature were cited and annotated in the Handbookfor Nicaragua over a span of thirty years. Panama. The most researched countries were found to be Brazil. The trends that emerged when geographical areas of research were examined by five-year intervals from 1950 to 1980 suggest a surprising amount of continuity combined with research responsiveness to major political events. Chile. and Argentina. Brazil. But more recent data from the Handbookwould seem to suggest that greater attention is being paid to the smaller countries of Central America and the Caribbean following the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua. and Mexico. Colombia. For example. followed by Brazil.5 percent of the citations during the 1950-55 period but a high of 20. The breakdown of research attention into fiveyear intervals in table 2 shows particular sensitivity in the cases of Brazil. Chile.RESEARCH ON LATIN AMERICAN POLITICS citations from the sections entitled "Government. El Salvador. civil strife in El Salvador. For example." "Government and International Relations. Brazil received a low of 10.

0 10.0 aThe "General"categoryin the Handbook (1.1950-1980 Areasa Geographical Numberof Articles/Books Percentage of Total (%) Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Cuba Dominican Republic Ecuador Guatemala Mexico Panama Paraguay Peru Puerto Rico Surinam Uruguay Venezuela Other Central Americac Other Caribbeand 803 302 1.1e ob 3. however.0 6.0 2. research attention declined dramatically to less than 7 percent for the 1976-80 period. with 16. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Haiti. El Salvador.01%. Kitts.Honduras. dlncludes Antigua.0 16. Grenada.327 items) was omitted from this table. and Nicaragua.0 1.064 679 453 679 128 107 129 576 69 59 399 122 4 206 419 151 193 12.0 2.3 to 7. made Chile the most researched country in Latin America during the 1971-75 period.0 2. Guyana. Jamaica.0 percent of all citations for the twenty-year period. The interest in Cuba clearly corresponds to the 142 . and Trinidadand Tobago.0 2.0 2. eRoundingcaused the total to deviate from 100%in this and the other tables.0 Totals 6. After the overthrow of Isabelita Peron in 1976.0 10.0 6.542 99.0 5. CIncludesBelize.0 9. overthrown and the Brazilian military began a long tenure of political control. The election and overthrow of Salvador Allende.Martinique. St.Latin American ResearchReview TABLE 1 Geographical Areasof Research. This rapid decline in attention (from over 15 percent to 7 percent) occurred despite the "dirty war" that was part of Argentine security policy and the human rights component of President Carter's Latin American policy. Argentina received most of its research attention while either the Perons were in power or Peronism was a major factor in Argentine politics.6 percent of all citations. Chile received from 3.FrenchGuiana. bTheactualpercentagefor Surinamis .0 3. Barbados. Costa Rica.0 1.0 7.

0 (20) 2.0 1.0 (83) (182) (195) 1.0 (168) (113) (30) (6) (1) Paraguay (21) 9.0 (133) (48) (26) (8) 6.0 1976-80 (%) 7.0 7.0 2.0 (95) (13) (7) (1) 2.0 5.0 (40) Ecuador 6.0 (169) 7.0 (218) (36) (12) 18.0 (70) 20.0 (100) (127) 2.0 3.0 1.0 (13) Dominican Republic (130) (69) 1971-75 (%) 4.0 1.0 3.0 14.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 Puerto Rico 6.0 5.0 (23) 20.0 2.0 (11) (224) 14.0 (17) (23) (19) Panama 1.0 (23) 6.0 (21) .0 1.0 Colombia 6.0 15.0 (4) (14) (14) (9) (9) (6) (138) .0 (11) (21) 4.0 4.0 (324) (111) (18) (16) (16) Mexico 2.0 (49) (75) 4. 143 .01 (1) Uruguay 6.0 (27) (59) 7.0 (91) (298) 3. 1950-1980 Geographical 1950-55 Area (%) Argentina 17.0 Cuba 3.01 3.0 7.0 2.0 13.0 11.0 1956-60 (%) 1961-65 (%) 1966-70 (%) 17.0 (85) 1.31 (1225) Note: Figures in parentheses are base numbers for the adjacent percentages.0 Brazil 11.0 1.0 (24) (20) (37) (1) (27) (21) (29) Other Central America 2.0 2.0 (26) (11) 8.2 1.0 9.0 (151) 7.0 2.0 3.0 Peru 3.40 (418) 99.0 (11) (24) 1.0 8.00 (1944) 100.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 (255) (101) (45) 19.20 (378) 101.0 11.0 (224) (55) (14) (16) (100) 7.0 Guatemala 5.0 5.0 2.0 Venezuela 8.0 9.2 Surinam 7.0 1.0 7.0 13.0 6.0 (9) (12) (14) (59) (19) (10) 1.0 (21) 11.01 2.10 (1420) 101.0 10.0 (28) (66) (43) (48) .3 1.0 (84) (11) (6) .0 Chile 4.0 3.0 (60) (23) (24) 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.RESEARCH ON LATIN AMERICAN POLITICS TA B L E 2 GeographicalAreas of Researchby Five-YearPeriods.2 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 16.0 1.0 (4) (1) (50) (30) (58) (50) 101.0 Other Caribbean Totals .0 5.0 5.01 (1157) 101.0 (237) (84) 3.0 (64) Bolivia 3.0 6.0 .0 .0 (70) (129) 1.0 (27) (1) (21) 5.0 (42) (54) 17.

its economic growth rate since 1950. the Bay of Pigs invasion. ranked second in research attention in 1950-55 and third in 1970-76 but dipped to a sixth-place ranking in 1961-65. Chile and Cuba tied for third-placeranking among total citations for the thirty-yearperiod of investigation. The above four categories constitute 53 percent of the subjects of research during the 1950-80 period. and its relatively successful politicalapparatus. the Cuban missile crisis. Mexico'sposition in the top five is largely due to its geographical accessibility to North American researchers. the more likely it is to draw the attention of political researchers. Thus the radicalrenovationist policies of Castro and Allende and their impact on the United States and Latin America served to increase greatly the amount of research attention devoted to these two small Latin American countries. SubjectAreas of Research The kinds of studies done by political scientists on Latin American politics include a broad range of subjects. despite their small size. political development and leadership characteristicsare also important in explaining patterns of research attention. and the Alliance for Progress. political socialization. government institutions and functions. received a great deal of attention during the 1950-80 period because of populist forms of government. The larger countries are also more developed and therefore somewhat easier places to conduct fieldwork in comparison with the smaller Latin American countries. and fourth. with an overall ranking of fifth for the thirty-year period. and Cold War hysteria serve in part to explain why Chile and Cuba. It is interesting 144 . and political violence. and forms of charismaticleadership. Fourth.Latin American ResearchReview early stages of the Castro revolution. The trends presented in table 3 indicate that the political subjects of research reflect a strong interest in four areas: first. Mexico. third. "alien"leftist ideologies. First. military rule. and politics and the news media. when research attention shifted to Braziland Cuba. size plays a major role in determining which countries attractthe most research. In contrast.Third. The patterns that are revealed in the top five countries combined with the relatively consistent patterns of most of the others can be explained in several ways. dictators and oligarchs of various types. whether stable or unstable. human rights. political parties and elections. revolutionary movements. terrorism. revolutionary programs. Argentina and Chile. Second. second. The larger the Latin American country. have received so much research attention. for example. education and student politics. all of which occurred during the 1961-65 period. These five subjects make up a paltry 6 percent of the total subjects studied during this thirty-yearperiod. the five least studied subjects include the role of women in politics.

and political variables in its research designs. This discrepancy in orientations is perhaps best explained by the fact that Latin American scholars often stress relevance and the desire to act more than methodological elegance. is influenced basically by two opposing perspectives for understanding government and politics. This interest no doubt results from the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua and the downfall of Anastasio Somoza Debayle in 1979. The third trend is the decline in the volume of literature for the military-authoritarian governments as 145 . and political ideology.. Thus the data in table 3 suggest that North American researchers are much more interested in interest groups and political parties than their Latin American counterparts. The second trend is the increased amount of research attention devoted to Central America and the Caribbean beginning with the 1976-80 period. The emphasis on revolutionary issues. The North American perspective tends to be less polemical and more electic in analyzing the "causes" of development and underdevelopment.'11 Using the Handbookand a much broader time frame. terrorism. cultural. political parties and elections. and various types of leaders in table 3 suggests a much different pattern than Ranis found in his investigation during the 1960s. violence. and President Reagan's efforts to topple the Nicaraguan government with a "secret army" of counterrevolutionaries (contras). Seven countries received over 70 percent of all citations between 1950 and 1980. The first trend is the amount of attention being devoted to the larger Latin American countries.. economic control. the invasion of Grenada. the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Thus the North American perspective is more likely to employ bureaucratic. The dominance of the subject area of revolutionary movements. The Latin American perspective often stresses such variables as class. it was found that interest groups and political parties account for no more than 10-15 percent of the political science research on Latin America. and elitism combined with a more polemical style of writing and analysis. Ranis found that "interest groups and political party research account for almost one-third of all political science investigation on Latin America . FutureTrendsand ResearchAgendas Several trends emerge on the basis of the government and politics citations in the Handbookof Latin American Studies during the 195080 period. . government institutions and functions. the subjects of political research remain remarkably constant over the period of investigation. The 1981-85 period should reflect a continued interest by political scientists and others in the events in El Salvador. For example. with the two exceptions of Cuba and Chile. with over 25 percent of all citations.RESEARCH ON LATIN AMERICAN POLITICS to note that in most cases.

0 2.0 (206) (54) (52) (413) Agrarianissues 8.0 (153) (37) (497) Churchand state 22.0 (186) 9.2 (4) (193) Education 3.0 1.0 (63) (45) (727) 8.0 25.0 (4) .0 4.0 (576) Economicissues (69) (5) (654) 6.0 13.0 (787) 9.0 98.0 10.0 (312) 3.politicalsocialization.0 3.0 (5) 2.0 (16) (12) (244) Theoreticaland empiricalanalysis (93) 2. 146 .0 (849) Armed forces 27.6 (432) (689) Note: Figuresin parentheses are base numbers for the adjacentpercentages.4 (2) (271) (8) (4) (8) .1950-1980 SubjectArea Revolutionary issues Governmentand legal institutions Parties.0 5.0 Totals 1.0 1956-60 (%) (13) 99.0 7. groups and elections International relationsand foreign affairs Countryand comparative studies Leaders TotalPeriod (%) 1950-55 (%) (2000) 11.0 10. aThisresidualcategoryincludes women in politics.0 35. criminaljustice.0 (7) (140) Othera (2) 1.0 3.0 2. and the media and politics.0 9.0 18.0 (12) 1.0 3.4 (7869) (3) 2.0 2.Latin AmericanResearchReview TABLE 3 SubjectAreasof Research byFive YearPeriods.0 1.0 12.0 (21) .4 3.0 Urban issues 4.0 (16) 101. intellectuals. human rights. politicalprisoners.0 1.0 (76) (151) 10.

0 3.0 10.0 12.0 8.ON LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH POLITICS Table3 (continued) 1961-65 (%0) 1966-70 (%o) (56) (51) (31) 99.0 (169) (204) (162) (138) 11.0 2.0 100.0 2.0 11.0 2.0 7.0 (395) (528) (432) (383) 1976-80 (%) 25.0 7.0 (87) (75) (30) (18) (35) 4.0 1.0 5.0 (28) (39) (231) (271) 2.0 (100) (59) (18) (75) (147) 5.0 (106) (116) (112) (97) 7.0 (87) (128) (214) (134) 6.0 8.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 4.0 (72) (69) (24) 4.0 1.0 4.0 20.0 1.0 10.0 (1356) 6.0 8.0 4.0 10.0 11.0 1971-75 (%) (2005) (1562) 147 .0 (59) (69) (45) (8) (68) 4.0 (56) (60) (53) (24) (129) 4.0 3.0 10.0 28.0 10.0 3.0 6.0 (103) (55) (120) (189) (104) 6.0 4.0 26.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 23.0 6.0 2.0 (1867) (92) 101.0 3.0 100.0 (160) (231) (157) (87) 10.

researchersare woefully ignorant of the careers and behavior patterns of the individuals who make legislative and executive policy in Latin America. and Bolivia. Unlike the situation in the United States and Europe. 148 . The fourth trend is derived from the growing number of Latin American political scientists whose professional training and research competence will clearly contribute to theoretical and empirical understanding of Latin American political phenomena. Political scientists will continue to follow research agendas that are popular or feasible. and the level of productivityis increasing at a dramaticrate. The prime prospects for this type of analysis are Argentina. researchtechniques are of a sophisticated nature. TheBreakdown of Military-Authoritarian Regimes/ LatinAmerican politics now seem to have entered another cycle of democraticrule after more than a decade of predominantly military governments. CareerAnalysisof PoliticalElites / One of the large gaps in our understanding of LatinAmericanpolitics is the need for backgroundinformation on political leaders in executive and legislative positions. and what happens in the media will no doubt shape funding opportunities. graduate programs. Brazil. and research foci. Research agendas for the future can never be precisely or comprehensively enumerated. and institutional effects of military rule.LatinAmericanResearchReview these governments have made way for the return to civilian rule.budgetary. What follows is a call for careful scholarship that will add to the growing quality of materials on Latin American government and politics. Moreover. research agendas that center on militaryauthoritarianand fascist regimes will be constrained by having to deal with "safe" topics in-country while reserving the more incisive critical analyses and investigations of government and politics for publication outside the country. How can one explain the breakdown of governments based on armed bureaucrats who must rely on force and violence to rule over any sustained period of time? This topic of scholarly analysis should also strive to elucidate the structural. All of these trends do not suggest that the situation found by Merle Kling over twenty years ago has been corrected. But the study of Latin American politics has progressed to the point that the investment has reaped major returns: personnel with adequate training and technicalcompetence are no longer in short supply. this trend should be even more pronounced for the 1981-85 period. With more than 90 percent of the governments of South America now in the hands of democraticallyelected leaders. Uruguay.

149 . The RelationshipbetweenElectoralBehaviorand DemocraticRule / Knowledge of electoral systems and participatoryattitudes is rather weak except for some of the research on the Venezuelan system by Enrique Baloyraand John Martz.15however. No scholarly biographies exist on even such important Latin American leaders as Fidel Castro and Jose MariaVelasco Ibarra. more research attention will be devoted to institutional analysis. Costa Rica. ContrastingStylesof LatinAmericanand NorthAmericanPoliticalAnalysis / How is political life viewed and analyzed by different political researchers? This old debate is one that needs renewed attention because of the increasing influence of Latin American scholars on Latin American political studies.RESEARCH ON LATIN AMERICAN POLITICS PoliticalBiographyI The field of Latin American politics has not been one in which good biographies have been available to help scholars understand political leadership and development. knowledge of labor unions and labor movements in Latin Americahas not kept pace with knowledge of other importantactors in the political game. The pathbreaking works by Charles Anderson12and Albert Hirschman13have provided important beginnings for studies of political economy. particularlyby Latin American scholars.Venezuela. EconomicPolicy-Making/ Not enough attention has been devoted to the politics of economic policy-makingin Latin America.16Unfortunately. Perhapswith the return of democraticinstitutions and the demise of authoritarianregimes that have restricted scholarship. careful analyses of political economy in Latin America are difficult to find. Institutionsand Processes/ The call for this kind Legaland Governmental of researchagenda results partly from the fact that only 10 percent of all research between 1950 and 1980 focused on legal and institutional aspects of politics. The Politics of Urban Labor/ Except in the cases of Argentina and Mexico. and the Dominican Republic. Except for the recent works of Gary Wynia14and Pedro-PabloKuczynski.other Latin American democracies have not attractedthe attention needed on this subject. SustainingDemocracyin LatinAmerica/ More theory-buildingand comparative cross-nationalresearch designs are needed to help to explain the sustenance of democracyin such countries as Colombia.

For a comprehensive list of Latin American and Caribbean political research centers. 72.. perceptive and careful studies. 1 (1983):154-74. 4.S. 2.Latin AmericanResearchReview The Politics of Drug Traffickingin Select Latin American Countries / The growing impact of drugs (primarily marijuana and cocaine) on the politics of Colombia. Jr. Lowenthal. Taylor. 150 Peter Ranis. edited by Charles Wagley (New York: Columbia University Press. and to the ever-increasingnumber of active researchers. 3 (1967):71-78. May the next thirty years continue to expand the wealth of literature and the level of sophistication so evident in the current study of Latin American poiitics." in Social Science Researchon Latin America. Despite the fact that much needs to be done in the study of Latin American politics. In 1979 Philip B. Ibid. The coming of age of literature on Latin Americacan be attributedto scholarlycompetition.17 Therefore." LARR 3. see Abraham F. was formerly associated with the Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES) in Buenos Aires and is currently with the Instituto Universitario de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro (IUPERJ)as well as the Kellogg Institute of International Studies at the University of Notre Dame. however. 1964). concluded twenty-two years as coeditor of the Handbookof Latin American Studies with the following assessment of the gains that have been made in the study of government and politics: While pensadores still publish throughout the hemisphere (some having found a fashionable and inferentially militant genre in dependencia)the generational change in Latin American universities that began in the 1960s now produces regularly more insightful. Merle Kling. "Trends in Research on Latin American Politics: 1961-67. 3. is also notable. In Europe. 5. no. The qualitative and quantitativeimprovement in the U. no. . and Peru needs to be investigated. few institutes and scholars have attained this level. Bolivia. the literature on Latin American government and politics has attained a level of sophistication that few could have envisioned in the 1950s. 168." LARR 18. "Research in Latin America and the Caribbean on International Relations and Foreign Policy: Some Impressions. based on the substantialchange in the environment fostered by professional organizationssuch as the Latin American Studies Association. an Argentine.. those of us who labor to understand political life and social change in Latin America have some reason to rejoice over what has been accomplished during the past thirty years. "The State of Research on Latin America: Political Science. Julio Cotler is a Peruvian associated with the Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP) in Lima. The interconnections between illegal economic activities and key actors in the political system will no doubt have lasting effects on the structure of power and the organization of the economy of those countries. Fernando Henrique Cardoso is a Brazilian associated with the Centro Brasileiro de Analise e Planejamento (CEBRAP) in Sao Paulo. NOTES 1. Jamaica. 6. Ibid. Guillermo O'Donnell.

Vol'skii. continuing in alternation. and Mark Sidel. Taylor. no. Peruvian Democracyunder Economic Stress: An Account of the BelaundeAdministration. see Carmelo Mesa-Lago." Then from 1961 (Volume 23) until 1971 (Volume 33). no. 3 (1983):165-78. Hirschman. 1 (1981):107-23. no. the internal political literature and international relations materials were categorized together under the heading "Government and International Relations." LARR 17. "South America: East Coast. Anderson. Narayanan. 1977). see Volker Luhr. Philip B. 13. For example. including the Caribbean nations. Peter T Johnson. "Latin American Studies in India. 16.. Gustavo Andrade. S. "Latin American Studies in Japan. 1963-68 (Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hough. no. no. 1967)." LARR 16. The emphasis in this study of past and present trends is on internal politics in Latin America. 1979). 151 .RESEARCH 7." LARR 14.: Van Nostrand. no. "Teaching Latin American Politics at American Universities: A Survey." 72. "The Soviet Latin Americanists. no. "The Study of Latin American P'olitics in Biitish Universities. The Politics of Latin American Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10. see Victor V. "Research at GDR Universities in Latin America. Pedro-Pablo Kuczynski. 1 (1979):234-38. "The Japanese Contribution to Latin American Studies. ON LATIN AMERICAN POLITICS For Asia. 2 (1974):95-104. no. no.. Enrique A.J. 9. Cole Blasier. Kenski." LARR 18. 1 (1975):91. and Jerry F. 1 (1967):77-87. Martz. "Latin American Studies in Japan. Charles W. David E. no." LARR 17. 15. Barnard. 8. 17." Handbookof Latin American Studies 41 (Austin: University of Texas Press." LARR 10. "The Study of Latin America in the USSR. 1 (1983):143-53. 1978). Politics and Economic Change in Latin America (Englewood Cliffs. 517. Political Attitudes in Venezuela: Societal Cleavagesand Political Opinion (Austin: University of Texas Press. Joseph D. 1979)." LARR 18. From1973 (Volume 35) on. no. "Recent Research on Latin America in West Germany." LARR 18. "Bibliography: Current Practices and Future Trends." with subheadings that distinguish between a general category and various subregional categories. For the Soviet Union. 1963)." LARR 18. starting with 1950 (Volume 22). Albert 0. Stansfield. 2 (1980):262-68. Wynia." LARR 16. no. 14. Jr. N. 3 (1982):173-92. For Europe. 12. 1 (1981):124-43. and Karl-Christian Goethner. the Handbookstaff categorized constitutional and political affairs under the heading of "Government. Baloyra and John D. Fumio Nakagawa. "Recent Soviet Efforts in Latin American Studies. 1 (1983):261. 1 (1973):147-56." LARR 9." LARR 8. no. 11. 1 (1982):105-13. But editorial policy changes in the preparation of the Handbookmade it necessary to include some inter-American titles in the compilations. Gary W." This period (1961-71) also witnessed the Handbook'sshift from an annual edition that included both the humanities and social sciences to an annual edition that covers the humanities one year and the social sciences the next. no. Ranis. "Latin American Studies in the People's Republic of China. R. "Trends in Research.J. the Handbook has categorized internal political literature under the heading of "Government and Politics. "The Evolving Soviet Debate on Latin America. 3 (1983):179-84. Journeys toward Progress: Studies of Economic Policy-Making in Latin America (New York: Twentieth-Century Fund." LARR 3. Henry C." LARR 15.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful