Good Essay About What Was Its Impact On The Region?

Discuss the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s. What caused the crisis?

The debt crisis of 1980s in the Latin America countries had it causes in the flawed economic policies introduced in the late 1960s and the decade of the 1970s. The immediate causes of the debt crisis of 1980s in Latin America were two economic catastrophes. The first event was the oil crisis of 1979 fueled by the fall of Shah of Iran, and the second event was the world-wide recession. Both these events hit-hard the underdeveloped economies of the Latin American countries and ultimately crippled their fragile economies. What chiefly contributed to the debt crisis in the Latin American countries was the flawed notion of equating loan propelled artificial economic boom with solid economic development, and with the concept of economic prosperity by the short-sighted and in most cases corrupt economic managers. The impact of the debt crisis of 1980s was the economic, the social and the political instability implicit in the prevalence of the wide spread unemployment, rampant inflation, and the chronic disability of the governments of Latin America to fulfill their international monetary/financial commitments to the lenders specifically the petrodollar rich European and the American banks (272-274).
Describe “bureaucratic authoritarianism,” as it is discussed in this chapter. Relate it to the “Brazilian miracle” and Argentine from 1976 to 1983.
Historically, the dictatorial military juntas have been dominated the politics in Latin America. Initially these regimes were one-man shows. A charismatic military commander ruled the country in accordance with his vision. In the late 20th Century, however, there was a complete break from this traditional mold of leadership in Latin America. The military in the Latin American countries in the late 20th Century did not rally behind a strong, charismatic, father-figure to the nation but instead ruled as a cohesive unit. The cohesive unit or the military was completely distrustful of and fully confident in their leadership qualities. Under this mindset the civilians were considered incompetent to rule. And democracy and democratic ideologies were viewed with suspicion. In most cases the political dissent was dealt with by the dictators with an iron hand. Further dissent and dissenters were more often dubbed as communist agents and repressed brutally. The military formed alliance with the elites and in most instances with the United States to keep the real representatives of the people out of power. Under “bureaucratic authoritarianism” both in Brazil and in Argentina the military took on the self-imposed role of being the guardians of national economic well-being. From 1976 to 1983 the dictatorships in both Brazil and Argentina introduced economic policies that relied heavily on foreign debt. In the short-term these policies bore fruit. But in the long-run, that is by 1983 the “bureaucratic authoritarian”“ inevitably failed. The “Brazilian Miracle” evaporated with the oil crisis of 1973 and the economic depression that followed on its heels. In Argentina the Falklands War of 1983 proved to be the final nail in the coffin of “bureaucratic authoritarianism” (271-281).

Describe events in Central America from 1979 to the late 1990s. Why did these events occur, and what was their outcome?

What is the MST? Why it was created and what were its goals?
The largest anti-government, social reform movement that started 1985 in Brazil during the period of social unrest and political discontent in Brazil and the rest of Latin America was the Landless Workers Movement or most commonly known to the rest of Latin America and the world as the MST. MST is the largest social movement in Latin America to date with membership running into hundreds of thousands landless farmers. The approximate number of the registered members does not include thousands of sympathizers including the popular Workers Party (PT) but not limited to it alone. According to a conservative estimate the MST and it policy to acquire land for the landless farmers of Brazil is supported by a staggering 77 percent of Brazilians. About 87 percent Brazilians approve of MST’s non-violent struggle to achieve social equality. Besides the various human rights groups, the political parties and the social reform movements the MST is also openly supported and appraised for its commitment to engender social, political and economic harmony in Brazil by the United Nations, especially the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). He MST”s main agenda is to strive for the landless farmers of Brazil to own arable land for agriculture. According to a conservative estimate about 60 percent of agriculture land in Brazil is idle. While according to another important statistic 25 million Brazilian farmers have no land to till. The Catholic Church of Brazil was one of the earliest advocates and benefactor of the MST. Since its inception the MST and its leaders have been continually and in some instances brutally repressed by the Brazilian government but it goes to the credit of the social reform movement that in spite of the high-handed and oppressive tactics applied against its die-hard members and the supporters it has ceaselessly continued to work non-violently for the much needed agrarian reforms in Brazil (292).

What is monetarism? What were its effects on Chile from 1973 to 1980?

The theory of monetarism was popularized by the conservative economists belonging to the University of Chicago. The theory of monetarism demands the forces of free market to dominate the economy. The monetarist theoretician famously referred to as the “Chicago boys” held the view that it is in the best interest of the health of the economy that the forces of free market are not dictated by the terms of the political policy makers, minimizing the government control. In addition the other basic tenants of monetarism are the use of extensive budget cuts, reduction in the tariffs, and unrestrained flow of foreign investment. The initial boom in the Chilean economy made Friedman, one of the “Chicago boys” boast of the Chilean miracle. The Chilean miracle proved as transitory as the Brazilian miracle. Though it is widely held that Pinochet unlike the rest of the Latin American dictators did not meddle much with the economy, this assertion is not completely true. Pinochet may well have taken the opposite route as compared to the other dictators in Latin America but his economic policies had the same disastrous consequences for his people as did the economic policies of the rest of the dictators of Latin America. The elites flourished at the expanse of the poor majority. The monetarism that Pinochet introduced did not in the least improve the lot of the majority. Pinochet without any qualms did away with the social security, education, health, transport, all were deregulated and the pension plan was disbanded. Furthermore, he indulged in whole-scale privatization, emptying the government coffers and enriching the already rich. The rich, on their part, pocketed the money, deposited it in the foreign banks, and applied for more foreign capital at exorbitant interest rates jut to buy luxury goods while the poor watched at the ruthless plunders of their mother-land and could do nothing about it. History repeated itself all over again and once again the poor were robbed with impunity by a band of robbers parading as messiahs hiding behind the new façade of monetarism.