拉丁美洲长期的不平等

Pao Engelbrecht
{"title":"拉丁美洲长期的不平等","authors":"Pao Engelbrecht","doi":"10.56298/k6jui0ifsn","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite recent declines, economic inequality has been relatively high in Latin America. Institutionally, contemporary inequalities have roots in the continent’s colonial past. This essay supports this view by refuting a counter-argument by Jeffrey Williamson. Comparing Latin American to European and North American developments, Williamson attributes relatively high levels of inequality in Latin America to a missed period of globalisation with levelling effects. My analysis, however, suggests that Williamson misses the “levelling effects” of war and crisis. Rather than missing an equalising period of globalisation, Latin America has missed the destructions of two world wars and the Great Recession. Williamson also overlooks the fact that inequalities have been relatively low in Latin America right after independence, mainly due to capital destruction during civil wars. Yet, extractive colonial institutions have persisted and still help explain Latin American inequalities today. According to Mazzuca’s analysis of “plebiscitarian superpresidentialism,” when commodity prices fall while extractive institutions persist, rent-seeking institutions temporarily generate lower inequalities. Through this lens, recent declines in Latin American inequalities should be seen as a short-lived phenomenon likely to be reversed.","PeriodicalId":394700,"journal":{"name":"The Graduate Inequality Review","volume":"278 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Latin American Inequalities in the Long-Run\",\"authors\":\"Pao Engelbrecht\",\"doi\":\"10.56298/k6jui0ifsn\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite recent declines, economic inequality has been relatively high in Latin America. Institutionally, contemporary inequalities have roots in the continent’s colonial past. This essay supports this view by refuting a counter-argument by Jeffrey Williamson. Comparing Latin American to European and North American developments, Williamson attributes relatively high levels of inequality in Latin America to a missed period of globalisation with levelling effects. My analysis, however, suggests that Williamson misses the “levelling effects” of war and crisis. Rather than missing an equalising period of globalisation, Latin America has missed the destructions of two world wars and the Great Recession. Williamson also overlooks the fact that inequalities have been relatively low in Latin America right after independence, mainly due to capital destruction during civil wars. Yet, extractive colonial institutions have persisted and still help explain Latin American inequalities today. According to Mazzuca’s analysis of “plebiscitarian superpresidentialism,” when commodity prices fall while extractive institutions persist, rent-seeking institutions temporarily generate lower inequalities. Through this lens, recent declines in Latin American inequalities should be seen as a short-lived phenomenon likely to be reversed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":394700,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Graduate Inequality Review\",\"volume\":\"278 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Graduate Inequality Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56298/k6jui0ifsn\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Graduate Inequality Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56298/k6jui0ifsn","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管最近有所下降,但拉丁美洲的经济不平等程度一直相对较高。从制度上讲,当代的不平等根源于非洲大陆的殖民历史。本文通过反驳杰弗里·威廉姆森的反论点来支持这一观点。拉丁美洲的欧洲和北美的发展相比,威廉姆森属性相对高水平的不平等在拉丁美洲一段错过的全球化与匀染效果。然而,我的分析表明,威廉姆森忽略了战争和危机的“平衡效应”。拉丁美洲没有错过一个全球化的平等时期,而是错过了两次世界大战和大衰退的破坏。威廉姆森还忽略了一个事实,即拉丁美洲在独立后的不平等程度相对较低,这主要是由于内战期间的资本破坏。然而,掠夺性的殖民制度仍然存在,并且仍然有助于解释今天拉丁美洲的不平等。根据马祖卡对“全民公投超级总统主义”的分析,当商品价格下跌而采掘制度持续存在时,寻租制度会暂时降低不平等程度。从这个角度来看,最近拉丁美洲不平等现象的减少应被视为一种可能逆转的短暂现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Latin American Inequalities in the Long-Run
Despite recent declines, economic inequality has been relatively high in Latin America. Institutionally, contemporary inequalities have roots in the continent’s colonial past. This essay supports this view by refuting a counter-argument by Jeffrey Williamson. Comparing Latin American to European and North American developments, Williamson attributes relatively high levels of inequality in Latin America to a missed period of globalisation with levelling effects. My analysis, however, suggests that Williamson misses the “levelling effects” of war and crisis. Rather than missing an equalising period of globalisation, Latin America has missed the destructions of two world wars and the Great Recession. Williamson also overlooks the fact that inequalities have been relatively low in Latin America right after independence, mainly due to capital destruction during civil wars. Yet, extractive colonial institutions have persisted and still help explain Latin American inequalities today. According to Mazzuca’s analysis of “plebiscitarian superpresidentialism,” when commodity prices fall while extractive institutions persist, rent-seeking institutions temporarily generate lower inequalities. Through this lens, recent declines in Latin American inequalities should be seen as a short-lived phenomenon likely to be reversed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信