Democracies and dictatorships in Latin America: Political actors, 1944-2010

Project Summary: The book for which this data collection was generated seeks to explain why democracies and authoritarian regimes have emerged and then survived or fallen in Latin America from 1945 to 2005. The more specific goal of the data collection is to assess the impact of normative orientations towards democracy and radical policy preferences on the likelihood of democratic transitions and democratic breakdowns. Most theories postulate that regimes survive or fall depending on the behavior of political actors. As the authors tested hypotheses based on competing theories, they became convinced that actors’ normative preferences about democracy and dictatorship and their policy preferences were indeed crucial variables to understand why democracies and dictatorships emerge and then survive or break down. They found that normative regime preferences and radicalism, together with international conditions, are the most important predictors for democratic emergence and survival in Latin America. Data Abstract: The absence of systematic historical measures of normative regime preferences (ideological support for democracy or authoritarianism) and of policy radicalism for major political actors led the authors to commission a set of reports covering all Latin American countries after World War II up to 2010 The reports were produced between 2008 and 2013 with the help of 19 research assistants (RAs) by archival research and synthesis of existing material (notes based on secondary sources subsequently integrated into country reports). The data collection includes all of these reports as well as the coding rules guiding their production. For eighteen of the twenty countries, the coding of political actors covers the period from 1944 until 2010; for Argentina and El Salvador reports reach back to 1916 and 1927, respectively. The data are organized by country (documents for Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela) and by administration (sections within documents). For most administrations, a limited number of actors (between two and ten) were the decisive political players. The list always includes the president (except for a few puppet presidents), political parties, trade unions, military factions, social movements, and other powerful organizations. For 290 presidential administrations, the dataset has 1460 actors including 573 parties, party coalitions, and party factions; 327 presidents and the organizations that are relatively subordinate to them (such as their parties under democracies and almost always the military under military dictatorships); 175 militaries, military factions, and military organizations; 82 business organizations; 56 guerrilla organizations; 53 popular and civil society organizations; 52 labor unions and federations; 52 powerful individuals who were not the president; 27 churches; 22 social movements; 16 paramilitary groups; and a smaller number of other kinds of actors. The authors identified the actors’ political alignments vis-à-vis the incumbent president by coding whether they were the government or government allies, members of the opposition, or neutral or divided with regards to the administration. Based on multiple historical sources, country reports discuss and code three variables for each political actor: its normative preference for democracy, its normative preference for dictatorship, and its policy radicalism/moderation. The coding rules for normative preferences for democracy and dictatorship are designed to distinguish between instrumental and normative reasons for supporting regimes. Files Description: Twenty country reports, divided into sections corresponding to the administrations in office during 1944-2010, with additional administrations for Argentina (1916-1930) and El Salvador (1927-1943). Each section (administration or period for long-lasting administrations) contains a sub-section for the actors mentioned above. An additional table summarizes the profile of all political actors discussed for each administration period. For each actor, the report provides brief narratives involving qualitative assessment of three attributes: (1) The actor’s normative support for democracy. The actor’s normative support for dictatorship; (2) The actor’s degree of radicalism on policy issues; (3) Historical sources referenced for each document are listed at the end of each respective country report.

项目概述：本数据集所生成的书籍旨在阐释为何自1945年至2005年间，拉丁美洲的民主政体与威权统治得以产生并持续存在或最终瓦解。数据收集的更为具体的目标在于评估对民主的规范性取向以及激进政策偏好对民主转型与民主崩溃可能性的影响。大多数理论均假设政权的存续或崩溃取决于政治行为者的行为。随着作者基于竞争性理论对假设进行检验，他们逐渐确信，行为者在民主与独裁之间的规范性偏好以及其政策偏好确实是理解民主与独裁产生、持续存在或崩溃的关键变量。他们发现，规范性政权偏好与激进主义，连同国际环境，是拉丁美洲民主产生与存续的最重要预测因素。数据摘要：由于缺乏对主要政治行为者规范性政权偏好（对民主或威权主义的意识形态支持）和政策激进主义的系统性历史度量，作者委托编制了一套涵盖二战后至2010年所有拉丁美洲国家的报告。这些报告于2008年至2013年间，在19名研究助理（RA）的帮助下，通过档案研究和现有资料的汇编（基于次级来源的笔记随后整合到国家报告中）完成。数据收集包括所有这些报告以及指导其生产的编码规则。对于二十个国家中的十八个，政治行为者的编码涵盖了1944年至2010年的时期；对于阿根廷和萨尔瓦多，报告追溯至1916年和1927年。数据按照国家（阿根廷、玻利维亚、巴西、智利、哥伦比亚、哥斯达黎加、古巴、多米尼加共和国、厄瓜多尔、萨尔瓦多、危地马拉、海地、洪都拉斯、墨西哥、尼加拉瓜、巴拿马、巴拉圭、秘鲁、乌拉圭、委内瑞拉）和政府（文件内的部分）进行组织。对于大多数政府，决定性的政治参与者数量有限（介于两人至十人之间）。名单中始终包括总统（除少数傀儡总统外）、政党、工会、军事派系、社会运动以及其他强大组织。对于290个总统政府，数据集包含1460个行为者，包括573个政党、政党联盟和政党派系；327位总统及其相对从属的组织（如民主制度下的政党以及几乎总是军事独裁下的军队）；175个军队、军事派系和军事组织；82个商业组织；56个游击组织；53个民众和公民社会组织；52个工会和联合会；52位非总统的强大个人；27个教堂；22个社会运动；16个准军事组织；以及其他类型的行为者数量较少。作者通过编码确定行为者的政治立场，即他们是否为政府或政府盟友、反对派成员或对政府持中立或分裂态度。基于多个历史来源，国家报告讨论并编码了每位政治行为者的三个变量：其对民主的规范性支持、其对独裁的规范性支持以及其政策激进主义/温和程度。对民主和独裁的规范性偏好的编码规则旨在区分支持政权的工具性和规范性原因。文件描述：二十个国家报告，分为与1944-2010年在职政府相对应的章节，以及阿根廷（1916-1930）和萨尔瓦多（1927-1943）的额外政府。每个章节（或长期执政政府的时期）包含上述提及的行为者的子章节。另外一张表格总结了每个行政时期讨论的全体政治行为者的概况。对于每个行为者，报告提供了涉及三个属性的质量评估的简要叙述：（1）行为者对民主的规范性支持；（2）行为者对独裁的规范性支持；（3）每个文件的参考历史来源列在各自国家报告的末尾。