Up until the 1930s. Latin American countries developed primarily as agrarian states. They exported the products of large latifundia, which used the labor of low-paid hired workers, and purchased industrial goods.

Problems of the development model in Latin America.

Since the 1930s, and especially in post-war years, most countries Latin America started on the path modernization, accelerated industrial development. It was facilitated by favorable circumstances for these countries.
During the Second World War, the demand for agricultural products from Latin American countries increased. Remote from the theaters of war, these countries gave shelter to many emigrants from the warring countries, including from the defeated powers of the fascist Axis.

This provided an influx qualified specialists, work force. Latin America was perceived as safe and, thanks to the abundance natural resources, undeveloped land, a profitable area for investment. Despite frequent coups, successive military regimes did not dare to affect the interests of foreign capital, especially since most of it belonged to US corporations.

The United States has repeatedly resorted to direct military intervention to change ruling figures in Latin American countries when their interests were affected. In response to the nationalization of lands belonging to the largest US agricultural company, United Fruit, a coup was organized in Guatemala in 1954 with the support of the American military. The new government returned the company's property.

The desire for independent, accelerated development determined the emergence of several models of modernization development in Latin American countries.

Attempts to create a broad bloc of national-patriotic forces to pursue a balanced policy, in which modernization is combined with an increase in living standards, have been made in Latin America more than once. The first and most successful attempt was made in Argentina by Colonel X. Peron, who seized power in a coup in 1943.

With the support of the General Confederation of Labor, X. Peron won the general elections in 1946.

Representatives of the trade unions, who became the support for the creation of the new Peronist party, entered parliament and the government.

Social rights were included in the Argentine constitution. Paid holidays were introduced and a pension system was created. Subject to ransom or nationalization railways, communications, a five-year economic development plan was adopted. However, in 1955, X. Peron was overthrown as a result of a military coup.

The experience and ideas of Peronism, which largely overlapped with the ideas of the corporate state fascist regime B. Mussolini in Italy, remain popular in Argentina and other countries South America.

The weakness of regimes using populist, democratic slogans and methods in Latin America was due to many reasons. Dependent on the votes of voters and the support of trade unions, they primarily resolved urgent social problems. IN to a certain extent it was possible.

IN post-war period wages in industry in Latin American countries increased by 5-7% per year. However, the material resources for conducting active social policy, which would correspond to the model of developed countries, were extremely limited.

Leftist, populist governments (in particular, President S. Allende in Chile in 1970-1973) tried to attract additional funds. They increased taxes on entrepreneurs, refused to pay full interest on foreign debts, nationalized profitable enterprises and latifundia, and saved on military expenses. These measures irritated foreign corporations, which owned about 40% of the industry in Latin America, and caused conflicts with creditor countries. The pace of technological re-equipment of production fell, and the competitiveness of products in world markets decreased.

Governments found themselves unable to satisfy growing social demands, resist the growing discontent of the military, the strengthening of the strike movement, and the intensification of the radical left opposition, which resorted to violent actions, even to the point of creating rural and urban partisan detachments.

Severe economic and political pressure from the outside, the growth of internal contradictions that could not be resolved, brought society to the brink of civil war. And then the army, usually with approval ruling circles The USA took control of the situation. The role of the CIA in organizing military coups in Brazil in 1964 and in Chile in 1973 is known. The coup in Chile, which brought General A. Pinochet to power, was the bloodiest in post-war history Latin American countries. S. Allende died during the battles for the presidential palace. The central stadium in the capital of Chile, Santiago, was turned into a concentration camp. Thousands of people, activists of the left forces and the trade union movement, were executed, about 200 thousand fled the country.

The Cuban Revolution and its consequences.

The revolution in Cuba had a great influence on the situation in Latin America and US policy. The insurgency against the dictatorial regime of R. Batista acquired a massive character.

In 1959, after the rebels captured the capital of Havana, F. Castro became prime minister and commander-in-chief. The radical reforms that were launched - the nationalization of large land holdings and industry, largely owned by American companies - prompted the US ruling circles to begin the fight against the regime of F. Castro. Both the United States and its allies, including Latin American states, broke off trade, economic and diplomatic relations. In 1961 with American ships A landing party of opponents of the F. Castro regime, trained and armed in the United States, landed on the coast of Cuba. The landing force was defeated, but the situation around Cuba continued to remain tense.

After Cuban missile crisis 1962 The threat of invasion from US territory into Cuba disappeared. Thanks to the economic support of the USSR and its allies, Cuba partially overcame the difficulties caused by the blockade. Its development relied heavily on the assistance of the USSR, which purchased Cuban sugar at prices above the world average. The USSR accounted for about 3/4 of Cuba's foreign trade.

An attempt was made to turn Cuba into a “showcase for socialism” in Latin America. This was part Soviet politics providing support to revolutionary rebel movements different countries. With the termination " cold war"and the collapse of the USSR economic situation Cuba has deteriorated sharply. Despite tough austerity measures, external debt began to grow, and interruptions in the food supply to the population arose.

The failure of the attempt to overthrow the government of F. Castro in Cuba and fears that its example would be attractive to other Latin American countries prompted the United States to change its policy.

In 1961, US President D. Kennedy offered Latin American countries program"Union for Progress", for which 20 billion dollars were allocated. This program, adopted by 19 countries, was designed to help solve pressing socio-economic problems of the countries of the continent and prevent them from seeking help from the USSR.

At the same time, the United States began to treat anti-dictatorship and rebel movements, including those speaking under democratic slogans, with much greater suspicion than in the past. In the 1980s arena of particularly acute internal conflicts with the indirect participation of the USA, USSR and Cuba became countries Central America- Nicaragua and El Salvador.

Modernization and dictatorial regimes.

Program D. Kennedy helped solve the problems of modernization, but not strengthen democracy in Latin America. Modernization was carried out not so much by short-lived civilian regimes as by military, dictatorial regimes. When they came to power, they, as a rule, set a course for accelerated development economy, limited the rights of trade unions, curtailed social programs, and froze wages for the majority of hired workers.

The priority became the concentration of resources on large-scale projects, and incentives were created to attract foreign capital. These policies often brought significant economic benefits. So, in largest country Latin America - Brazil (population 160 million people) “economic miracle” occurred during the years when the military junta was in power (1964-1985).

Roads and power plants were built, metallurgy and oil production developed. To accelerate the development of the interior regions of the country, the capital was moved from the coast inland (from Rio de Janeiro to the city of Brasilia). The rapid development of the natural resources of the Amazon River basin began, the population of this area increased from 5 to 12 million people. With the help of foreign corporations, in particular such giants as Ford, Fiat, Volkswagen, General Motors, the country established the production of cars, airplanes, computers, modern weapons. Brazil became a supplier of machinery and equipment on the world market, and its agricultural products began to compete with American ones. Along with the import of capital, the country began to invest its capital in less developed countries, in particular Africa.

Thanks to the modernization efforts of military regimes from the 1960s to the 1980s. Latin America's gross domestic product tripled. Many of them (Brazil, Argentina, Chile) have reached an average level of development. By production volume GNP per capita, by the end of the century they are on a par with countries of Eastern Europe and the Russian Federation. By type of social development, Latin American countries have approached developed countries North America And Western Europe. The share of hired workers in the self-employed population ranges from 70% to 80%. Moreover, in Brazil from the 1960s to the 1990s. share of the labor force employed in agriculture, decreased from 52% to 23%, in industry it increased from 18% to 23%, in the service sector - from 30% to 54%. Most other Latin American countries had similar figures.

At the same time, there remains a very significant difference between Latin American and developed countries. Firstly, the layer of people who considered themselves to be in the “middle class” was relatively small, and at the same time, property inequality was significant. Ratio between the incomes of the poorest 20% and the richest 20% of families in 1980-1990. in Brazil, for example, it was 1:32, in Colombia - 1:15.5, in Chile 1:18. At the same time, the middle and senior ranks of the military belonged to the privileged layer of the population, which, in the absence of a tradition of civilian control over the armed forces, represented a special , a relatively independent layer.

All this determined weakness social base political stability, lack of mass support for the modernization policies pursued by military regimes. Low purchasing power The population was determined by the dependence of new industries on the possibility of exporting products; fierce competition reigned in the markets. The population that did not benefit from modernization saw this as the subordination of the economy to international, especially American capital, and not a path to solving national problems.

The internal opposition to the regimes of military dictatorships took advantage of their typical weaknesses - corruption at the top of the military, wastefulness in the use of credits and loans, which were often stolen or used for ambitious projects of dubious economic feasibility. The legal arbitrariness typical of dictatorial regimes played a negative role, including in relation to representatives of the national bourgeoisie, small and medium-sized owners. Sooner or later, most military regimes, faced with the growth internal opposition, including in the military environment, due to the catastrophic size of the external debt, it was forced to cede power to civilian regimes.

Democratization of the 1990s

Since World War II war and until the 1990s. Civilian regimes in most Latin American countries proved short-lived. The exception is Mexico, where after the victory revolutionary movement in 1917 democracy was established. However, while maintaining the stable dominance of one political party that had no serious competitors, the compliance of this model of democracy with European standards is questionable.

In the 1980-1990s. in the development of Latin American countries began new stage. Dictatorships gave way to democratic, constitutionally elected regimes. After Argentina's defeat in the 1982 war with Great Britain, which arose due to a dispute over the ownership of the Falkland Islands, the military regime discredited itself and was forced to transfer power to a civilian government in 1983.

In 1985, dictatorships in Brazil and Uruguay also ceded power to constitutionally elected governments. In 1989, after 35 years of military dictatorship under General Stroessner, Paraguay embarked on the path of democracy. In 1990, General A. Pinochet resigned in Chile; free elections. With the end of the civil war in Nicaragua and El Salvador, these countries also embarked on the path to democracy.

The new stage in the development of Latin American countries is characterized primarily by the fact that, in the context of the cessation of “ cold war“The United States is no longer afraid of the growing influence of hostile powers in Latin America. The attitude towards social experiments in this area of ​​the world is becoming more tolerant. The experience of Cuba, where GNP production per capita by the mid-1990s. turned out to be almost twice as low as in most Latin American countries, and also weakened the influence of socialist ideas.

Thanks to the development of integration processes on the South American continent and an increase in living standards, the capacity of domestic markets has increased, which creates the preconditions for more stable development. At the end of 1980 - beginning of 1990. (this period is called the “lost decade” for solving the problems of modernization) democratic regimes intensively developed the social sphere, which led to a drop in economic growth rates. But by the mid-1990s. In most countries, the pace of economic development has increased again. In the 1980-1990s. the average annual growth rate of GNP in Latin America was only 1.7%, in 1990-1995. they increased to 3.2%.

At the end of the 1990s. The crisis that struck the newly industrialized countries of Asia also affected Latin America. At the same time, since the economies of Latin American countries were more developed, the depth of this crisis was less for them, and it did not spread to the political sphere.

Questions and tasks

1. What favorable conditions during and after the Second World War contributed to the accelerated industrial development of most Latin American countries?
2. What explains the special role of the United States in modern history Latin American states (remember the chapter on the period between the two world wars, as well as the Alliance for Progress program of 1961)?
3. Name possible alternatives for the development of Latin American countries after the Second World War. What circumstances determined the choice of one path or another?
4. Identify features political development leading Latin American states (such as Brazil, Argentina, Chile).
5. Based on facts from history individual countries(Cuba, Chile, Brazil) reveal and compare the results of their development along the path they chose.
6. What factors determined the transition of most Latin American countries to democracy from the late 1980s to early 90s? What were these measurements?
7. Which of the Latin Americans statesmen can you name? Whose activities attract you? greatest attention? Why?

1. During the Second World War, the demand for agricultural products from Latin American countries increased. Far from hostilities, these countries provided shelter to emigrants. This ensured an influx of qualified specialists. They perceived Latin America as a safe and undeveloped region for investment. Coups and military regimes did not affect foreign capital, most of which belonged to the USA.

Unsuccessful attempts to overthrow the government of F. Castro in Cuba, which had taken a course towards cooperation with the USSR, forced the United States to adjust its policy.

In 1961, US President John Kennedy proposed the Alliance for Progress program to Latin American countries. The goal of the program was to help the countries of the continent solve pressing socio-economic problems. At the same time, the United States sought to prevent their support from Soviet Union. Kennedy's program helped solve problems of economic modernization, but did not strengthen political stability.

A characteristic feature of Latin American countries was the alternation of military and civilian regimes in power.

Military dictatorial regimes:

• - set a course for accelerated modernization of the economy;
• - limited the rights of trade unions;
• - curtailed social programs;
• - wages were frozen.

The priorities became the concentration of resources on large-scale projects and the creation of incentives to attract foreign capital. This policy brought economic benefits. Thus, in Brazil, with a population of 160 million people, the “economic miracle” occurred during the years when the military junta was in power (1964-1985).

Thanks to the efforts of military regimes in the field of modernization from the 1960s to the 1980s. Latin America's gross domestic product tripled. In terms of production volume, many Latin American countries have surpassed those of Eastern Europe and Russian Federation. In terms of the nature of their development, Latin American countries have approached the developed countries of North America and Western Europe.

At the same time, significant differences remained between Latin American and developed countries:

• - in the 1980s -1990s. significant wealth inequality persisted in Latin America;
• - the highest echelon of the military represented a special independent privileged stratum;
• - weak middle class(due to lack of social policy);
• - low purchasing power of the population;
• - new industries depended on exports.
• 2. Since World War II, democratic regimes in most Latin American countries have proven short-lived. Attempts to create a bloc of national-patriotic forces have been made repeatedly. My main task Democratic regimes in Latin America were seen as solving pressing social problems. However, the material resources for pursuing an active social policy were extremely limited.

The government of S. Allende in Chile in 1970-1973 attempted to attract additional funds by increasing taxes on entrepreneurs and refusing to pay interest on external debts. This policy caused conflicts with creditor countries and led to a drop in the pace of economic modernization.

In turn, the government of S. Allende was unable to satisfy the growing social demands, which led to the growth of the strike movement. The growth of internal contradictions led society to civil war. This prompted the army, with the approval of the US ruling circles, to take control of the situation in Chile. The coup in Chile brought General A. Pinochet to power.

LATIN AMERICA BETWEEN AUTHORITARISM AND DEMOCRACY

Up until the 1930s. Latin American countries developed primarily as agrarian states. They exported the products of large latifundia (landowner farms), which widely used the labor of low-paid hired workers.

Since the 1930s, and especially in the post-war years, most Latin American countries have embarked on the path of modernization and accelerated industrial development. This was facilitated by a number of favorable circumstances.

During the Second World War, the demand for agricultural products from Latin American countries increased. Being remote from the theaters of war, these countries provided shelter to many emigrants from warring countries hiding from the war and its consequences (including from the defeated powers of the fascist Axis). This ensured an influx of qualified specialists and workers. Latin America was perceived as relatively safe and, thanks to the abundance of natural resources and undeveloped lands, a profitable area for investment. Despite frequent coups, successive military regimes, as a rule, did not dare to affect the interests of foreign capital, especially since most of it belonged to US corporations. The United States did not hesitate to resort to direct military intervention or change of ruling figures in Latin American countries if their interests were infringed. Thus, in response to the nationalization of lands belonging to the largest agricultural company in the United States, United Fruit, a coup was organized in Guatemala in 1954 with the support of the American military. The new government returned the company's property.

The failure of the attempt to overthrow the government of F. Castro in Cuba, which came to power through revolutionary means, after the overthrow of the regime of General F. Batista in 1959 and set a course for cooperation with the USSR, forced the United States to adjust its policy. In 1961, US President D. Kennedy proposed the Alliance for Progress program to Latin American countries, for which $20 billion was allocated. The purpose of this program, adopted by 19 countries, was to help solve pressing socio-economic problems of the countries of the continent and prevent them from seeking support from the USSR.

Authoritarian regimes: experience of modernization. D. Kennedy's program helped solve the problems of modernization, but did not strengthen the foundations of political stability. The cycle of alternating military and civilian regimes in Latin America could not be interrupted, since it essentially fulfilled the same socio-economic role as the change in power between right and left parties in democracies.

Military and dictatorial regimes, as a rule, set a course for accelerated modernization of the economy, limited the rights of trade unions, curtailed social programs, and froze wages for the majority of hired workers. The priority became the concentration of resources on large-scale projects and the creation of incentives to attract foreign capital. These policies often brought significant economic benefits. Thus, in the largest country in Latin America, Brazil (population 160 million), the “economic miracle” occurred during the years when the military junta was in power (1964-1985).

Roads and power plants were built, metallurgy and oil production developed. To accelerate the development of the interior of the country, the capital was moved from the coast inland (from Rio de Janeiro to the city of Brasilia). The rapid development of the natural resources of the Amazon River basin began, the population of this area increased from 5 to 12 million people. With the help of foreign corporations, in particular such giants as Ford, Fiat, Volkswagen, General Motors, the country established the production of cars, aircraft, computers, and modern weapons. Brazil has become a supplier of machinery and equipment on the world market. Its agricultural products began to compete with American ones. Along with the import of capital, the country began to invest its capital in less developed countries, in particular Africa.

Thanks to the modernization efforts of military regimes from the 1960s to the 1980s. Latin America's gross domestic product tripled. Brazil, Argentina, and Chile have reached an average level of development. In terms of GNP production per capita, the countries of Latin America have surpassed the indicators of the countries of Eastern Europe and the Russian Federation. In terms of the type of social development, Latin American countries have approached the developed countries of North America and Western Europe. Thus, the share of hired workers in the self-employed population ranges from 70 to 80%. At the same time, in Brazil, for example, from 1960 to 1990, the share of the labor force employed in agriculture decreased from 52 to 23%, in industry it increased from 18 to 23%, in the service sector - from 30% to 54%. Most other Latin American countries had similar figures.

At the same time, very significant differences remain between Latin American and developed countries. The stratum of people who consider themselves to be in the “middle class” remains relatively small, and at the same time, property inequality is significant. Ratio between the incomes of the poorest 20% and the richest 20% of families in 1980-1990. in Brazil, for example, it was 1:32, in Colombia - 1:15.5, in Chile - 1:18. At the same time, the middle and senior ranks of the military belonged to the privileged layer of the population, which, in the absence of a tradition of civilian control over the armed forces, represent a special, relatively independent stratum. All this determined the absence or weakness of the social base of the modernization policy pursued by the military regimes. The low purchasing power of a significant part of the population created the dependence of new industries on the possibility of exporting the majority of products, which was by no means guaranteed in conditions of fierce competition in world markets. Those sections of the population that did not benefit from modernization viewed it as a form of subordination of the economy to transnational, especially American, capital, and did not connect it with the solution of national problems.

Peronism and democracy in Latin America. Existing internal opposition to military dictatorships was stimulated by their typical weaknesses. These include corruption among the military elite, wastefulness in the use of credits and loans, which were often stolen or used for ambitious projects that were not economically feasible. The legal arbitrariness typical of dictatorial regimes played a negative role, including in relation to representatives of the national bourgeoisie, small and medium-sized owners. Sooner or later, most military regimes, faced with growing internal opposition, including in the military environment, and catastrophic levels of foreign debt, were forced to cede power to civilian regimes.

From the time of the Second World War until the 1990s. Civilian regimes in most Latin American countries also proved short-lived. The exception is Mexico, where, after the victory of the revolutionary movement in 1917, a democratic constitution was adopted, although in the arena political life one party prevailed, which actually had no serious competitors. The correspondence of this model of democracy to European ideas about it is questionable. In Europe, one of the signs of democracy is the possibility of alternating competing political forces in power.

Attempts to create on a democratic basis a wide bloc of national-patriotic forces, including both workers and the national bourgeoisie, and to pursue a balanced policy combining modernization with a gradual increase in living standards, have been made repeatedly in Latin America. The first and most successful such attempt was made in Argentina by Colonel X. Peron, who seized power as a result of a coup in 1943. Relying on the national trade union center - the General Confederation of Labor - X. Peron won the general elections in 1946. Representatives of the trade unions, who became the support for the creation of the new Peronist party, entered parliament and the government. Under Perón, social rights were included in the Argentine constitution, paid vacations were introduced, and a pension system was created. Railways and communications were bought out or nationalized, and a five-year economic development plan was adopted, which provided for the creation of incentives for the growth of national capital. However, in 1955, X. Peron was overthrown as a result of a military coup.

The experience and ideas of Peronism, which largely overlapped with the ideas of the “corporate state” early period the fascist regime of B. Mussolini in Italy in the late 1920s, remain popular in Argentina and other countries of South America. In particular, the President of Brazil tried to follow them in 1950-1954. Vargas, who, faced with the threat of a coup, committed suicide.

Weakness democratic regimes in Latin America was due to many reasons. Being dependent on votes and the support of trade unions, they sought first and foremost to solve pressing social problems. To a certain extent this was successful. On average, in the post-war period, industrial wages in Latin American countries increased by 5-7% per year. However, the material resources for pursuing an active social policy that would correspond to the model of developed countries were extremely limited.

Leftist governments (in particular, S. Allende in Chile in 1970-1973) attempted to attract additional funds by increasing taxes on entrepreneurs, refusing to fully pay interest on foreign debts, nationalizing profitable enterprises, latifundia, and saving on military expenses. These actions inevitably became the cause of dissatisfaction with TNCs, which owned about 40% of the industry in Latin America, caused conflicts with creditor countries, led to a drop in the pace of modernization, and a decrease in the competitiveness of products on world markets. In turn, the inability of governments to satisfy growing social demands stimulated dissatisfaction with the military, the growth of the strike movement, and the intensification of the radical left opposition, which resorted to violent actions, up to the creation of rural and urban partisan detachments.

Ultimately, harsh economic and political pressure from the outside, the growth of internal contradictions that could not be resolved, brought society to the brink of civil war, which prompted the army, as a rule, with the approval of the US ruling circles, to take control of the situation. Thus, the role of the CIA in organizing military coups in Brazil in 1964 and in Chile in 1973 is well known.

The coup in Chile, which brought General A. Pinochet to power, was the bloodiest in the post-war history of Latin American countries. S. Allende died during the battle with the army for the presidential palace. The central stadium in the capital of Chile, Santiago, was turned into a concentration camp, thousands of people, activists of the left forces, the trade union movement were executed, about 200 thousand were forced to flee the country.

Latin American countries in the 1990s. In the late 1980s - early 1990s. A new stage has begun in the development of Latin American countries. In most countries, dictatorships have given way to democratic, constitutionally elected regimes. After Argentina's defeat in the war with England (1982), which arose due to a dispute over the ownership of the Falkland Islands, the military regime discredited itself and was forced to transfer power to a civilian government in 1983. In 1985, dictatorships in Brazil and Uruguay also ceded power to constitutionally elected governments. In 1989, after 35 years of military dictatorship of General Stroessner, Paraguay embarked on the path of democracy, and in 1990 General A. Pinochet resigned.

The question of whether the establishment of democracy in Latin American countries can be considered final will be answered only in the 21st century. However, it is already obvious that a new stage is beginning in their development. It is characterized by the fact that, in the context of the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR, the United States is more tolerant of social experiments in this area of ​​the world. The experience of Cuba, where GNP production per capita by the mid-1990s. turned out to be almost twice as low as in most Latin American countries, and also weakened the influence of radical, socialist ideas.

Thanks to the development of integration processes on the South American continent and an increase in living standards, the capacity of domestic markets has increased, which creates the preconditions for more stable development. From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. (“the lost decade” for solving the problems of modernization), democratic regimes intensively developed the social sphere, which led to a drop in economic growth rates. But by the mid-1990s. The pace of economic development has increased again. In the 1980s The average annual growth rate of GNP in Latin America was only 1.7% in the 1990s. they increased to 3.2%. More significantly, most countries have not experienced an increase in external debt, one of Latin America's most difficult problems. From 1980 to 1995, Brazil's external debt fell from 31.2% of the value of GNP to 24%. A sharp increase in debt was observed only in Mexico (from 30.5% to 69.9% of GNP). However, its entry into the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) gives it the chance to benefit from integration with the much more developed US and Canada.

QUESTIONS AND TASKS

1. After analyzing the text of the chapter, identify what was common and special on the path of Latin America and the countries of Asia and Africa to modernization. Why can't these countries make full use of the modernization experience of developed countries?

2. How can we explain the differences in the levels of economic development of Latin American countries? Uncover the reasons for the Brazilian "economic miracle."

3. What are the reasons for the special political instability in Latin American countries? How can we explain the weakness of democratic regimes in these states? Can we consider that the period of military dictatorships is over for them?

III. China. India

II. Muslim countries. Türkiye. Iran. Egypt

I. Newly industrialized countries of Latin America and East Asia

Plan

Topic: Development problems in Asia, Africa and Latin America

Lecture No. 4

Newly industrialized countries of Latin America

and East Asia

Newly industrialized countries in the 1980s. began to be called a number of countries in Latin America (Chile, Argentina, Brazil, etc.) and East Asia ( South Korea, Taiwan, etc.). Despite the fact that they belong to different civilizational regions, they turned out to have a lot in common. They managed to short term take a leap in your economic development under dictatorships authoritarian regimes. This is how a discussion arose about the nature of authoritarianism in modern world, which at the everyday level often boils down to the question of whether dictators have merit.

The struggle between authoritarians and democratic methods modernization was particularly acute in Latin American countries. The army played a special role in the life of the countries of the region. Military dictatorships (juntas) were periodically replaced by civilian rule until the 1980s and 1990s. Sometimes the army became the force that overthrew the dictatorships that existed at one time or another in almost all countries of the region. In some countries they changed every 7–8 years, displacing the next civilian government, in others they ruled for decades. Military dictatorships were as persistent as civilian governments in the 1950s and 1960s. strengthened the public sector in the economy, sought to replace the import of goods own production(import-substituting industrialization), and in the 1970s – 1980s. persistently transferred into private hands state enterprises and banks (privatization), encouraged the openness of the economy, reduced government taxes and spending, orienting the economy towards the export of non-traditional goods. What united dictatorships at all times was that they prohibited or limited the activities of political parties, parliaments, free press, carried out arrests and repressions against the opposition, even to the point of arbitrariness against ordinary citizens. Dictatorships traditionally strive for external expansion to strengthen their authority within the country, but almost always fail. For example, the military junta in Argentina fell - after unsuccessful attempt(1982) to capture the Falkland Islands under British control. Dictators and their henchmen in a number of countries were eventually brought to justice, and where there was no mass arbitrariness, an amnesty was granted. General A. Pinochet, who went down in history as a dictator who carried out (1973–1990) the authoritarian modernization of the country (thanks to the economic program of M. Friedman, Chile became the economic leader of Latin America), also failed to escape prosecution. But is the merit of dictators so great? “There is nothing to praise the Pinochet regime for. Fundamental Principles military organization are directly opposed to the principles of a free market and a free society. This is an extreme form of centralized control. The junta went against its principles when it supported market reforms” (Milton Friedman, 1002).

Economic policy, which was carried out by dictators and authoritarian leaders, was in line with global development trends, as modern Latin American researchers point out. Dictatorships increased or limited the role of the state in the economy with equal persistence. Therefore, the image of a dictator is a reformer who long time created by the propaganda apparatus of the dictators themselves, should be revised, scientists say. The dictatorship, where reforms were carried out, solved only one task - the task of ensuring social world and political stability through naked violence. The main threat stability ruling elites Latin America has been seen in strong positions left forces - socialist and communist parties. The influence of leftist forces was determined by the scale of poverty in the region. The far left in a number of countries were the initiators civil wars. It was against the left forces that the repressions of dictatorial regimes were primarily directed.

So, by the end of the 20th century. the military left government offices for barracks. The dictatorship disappeared from the history of Latin America not because all the problems were solved and the extreme left forces lost their influence, but because in the conditions of globalization and the transition to post-industrial information society dictatorship is not capable of solving new historical problems. The course to limit the role of the state in the economy, encourage private initiative and open the country to the world market, which dictatorships were forced to start under the influence of world realities, undermined the very foundations of their existence. Such a course is incompatible with dictatorship. All democratic governments in the region began to pursue this course with great success. It led to an upsurge, but also exposed serious problems. The vulnerability of the national financial system in the context of global capital flows, which led to financial crises in several countries. The income gap between rich and poor has widened. But military dictatorships did not return. Leftist forces came to power in many countries in the 1990s. and in beginning of XXI V. (Chile, Brazil, etc.). They began to combine the course of removing restrictions in order to develop entrepreneurial initiative with active state policy in social sphere, health and education.

2. How the Asian “tigers” became democratic developed countries of the world. Discussion about authoritarianism.

The countries of East Asia - South Korea (Republic of Korea), Taiwan, Hong Kong (since 1999 part of China), Singapore - were called the Asian "tigers", followed by the "dragons" - Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines. The Tigers were considered a model of authoritarian modernization, where, in conditions of limited democracy, impressive economic results were achieved: 8 - 12% annual economic growth, for example, in South Korea for more than 30 years.

How did South Korea, a peasant country that was under Japanese control for 40 years (1905–1945) and developed as a raw material appendage of the Japanese economy, end up on the list? highly developed countries world at the beginning of the 21st century? What secret of success did the Kuomintang party and the remnants of Chiang Kai-shek's army (2 million people) who fled communist China bring with them in 1949 to the exotically beautiful island of Taiwan, where there was no industry?

Accelerated industrialization was carried out in these countries not at the expense of the peasantry. Taiwan began with agrarian reform, as a result of which the country developed a farm system in agriculture. And in South Korea, the state even deliberately increased purchase prices for agricultural goods in order to support peasant farms. In South Korea, the state actively supported two dozen huge private financial and industrial corporations, which were called conglomerates, as they produced a wide variety of goods. In Taiwan, the state has relied on the development of small and medium-sized businesses, which now produce 70% of goods and services and employ about 70% of the country's population. The recipes are different, but the result is the same - an “economic miracle.”

Existed for more than 30 years military dictatorship in South Korea and the one-party authoritarian regime in Taiwan. It was not until 1992 in South Korea and 1996 in Taiwan that the first free elections were held. In South Korea, mass protests forced the military to democratize, and in Taiwan, a “quiet revolution” was organized from above, but also in the context of the growing influence of opposition forces and under pressure from broad public opinion. The merit of military leaders and authoritarian rulers in the movement of countries towards democracy came down to the fact that they did not use mass repression against opposition forces demanding democratization and free elections. “Intolerance in small things can lead to big unrest,” said Chiang Kai-shek’s heir in Taiwan, making concessions to the opposition. But it turned out to be the opposite; even small concessions on granting freedom of speech and the creation of opposition organizations led to mass movement for free elections, which could no longer be stopped.

Before these countries embarked on the path of democracy, the prevailing view was that it was authoritarian regimes that ensured their economic success. These regimes were often set as examples for other countries that sought to overcome backwardness.

Indeed, industrialization is associated with a strengthening of the role of the state. But dictatorship is not the key to success. In a number of countries, dictatorships not only did not contribute to the modernization of the country, but, on the contrary, preserved backwardness and poverty, leading the country to disaster, famine, and internecine conflicts. Dictatorship of stagnation (Zaire) is what this kind of regime is called.

Not a dictatorship, but the traditions of Confucianism, they say modern researchers, became decisive for the economic success of the Asian “tigers”. Confucianism is widespread in China, Taiwan, where the Chinese actually live, as well as in those countries where they make up a significant part of the population or play an important role in business (Singapore - 70%, Malaysia - 35%, Thailand - 15%, etc.) , and in Korea. Discipline, hard work, respect for elders, personal devotion, and respect for superiors are combined in Confucianism with the requirements of self-improvement, emphasized by attention to study. As economists say, qualified, disciplined and cheap work force and became the engine of the “economic miracle” in East Asian countries.

The fight against leftist forces was central to Latin American dictatorships. For East Asian countries– South Korea and Taiwan – the main thing was to ensure political and social stability in conditions of external threat. South Korea lived in tense anticipation of provocations from the socialist regime North Korea, who initiated the war against South Korea (Korean War 1950 - 1953). Therefore, it was believed that the North Korean regime would not miss a moment to take advantage of the slightest difficulties of its neighbor. These are the foundations of the authoritarian regime in South Korea. The fears were not in vain - in 1968, the North Korean regime tried to provoke guerrilla warfare on the territory of South Korea. After the end of the Cold War, South Korea breathed more freely. The economic competition had already been won: in socialist North Korea in the 1990s. the threat of famine became a reality, and South Korea became one of the developed countries of the world.

External threat was decisive for Taiwan as well. Communist China viewed the remnants of Chiang Kai-shek's army on the island as undead opponents, and the Taiwanese regime believed that mainland China had been captured by "communist rebels." Most countries in the world, including Russia, recognize China as a single country; Taiwan is not a member of the UN and is not legally considered independent state. The regime could not allow even a few days of instability on the island, being confident that Beijing could take advantage of any confusion. Therefore, democratization in Taiwan was carried out under the pressure of public opinion, but from above, as a “quiet revolution.”

Lecture No. 4

Topic: Development problems in Asia, Africa and Latin America

Plan

I. Newly industrialized countries of Latin America and East Asia

II. Muslim countries. Türkiye. Iran. Egypt

III. China. India

Newly industrialized countries of Latin America

and East Asia

Newly industrialized countries in the 1980s. began to be called a number of countries in Latin America (Chile, Argentina, Brazil, etc.) and East Asia (South Korea, Taiwan, etc.). Despite the fact that they belong to different civilizational regions, they turned out to have a lot in common. They managed to make a leap in their economic development in a short period of time under dictatorships of authoritarian regimes. Thus arose a discussion about the nature of authoritarianism in the modern world, which, on an everyday level, often boils down to the question of whether dictators have merit.

Latin America: from dictatorships to democracy.

The struggle between authoritarian and democratic methods of modernization was particularly acute in Latin American countries. The army played a special role in the life of the countries of the region. Military dictatorships (juntas) were periodically replaced by civilian rule until the 1980s and 1990s. Sometimes the army became the force that overthrew the dictatorships that existed at one time or another in almost all countries of the region. In some countries they changed every 7–8 years, displacing the next civilian government, in others they ruled for decades. Military dictatorships were as persistent as civilian governments in the 1950s and 1960s. strengthened the public sector in the economy, sought to replace the import of goods with their own production (import-substituting industrialization), and in the 1970s - 1980s. persistently transferred state-owned enterprises and banks into private hands (privatization), encouraged the openness of the economy, reduced government taxes and spending, orienting the economy towards the export of non-traditional goods. What united dictatorships at all times was that they prohibited or limited the activities of political parties, parliaments, the free press, carried out arrests and repressions against the opposition, even to the point of arbitrariness against ordinary citizens. Dictatorships traditionally strive for external expansion to strengthen their authority within the country, but almost always fail. For example, the military junta in Argentina fell after an unsuccessful attempt (1982) to seize the Falkland Islands, which were under British control. Dictators and their henchmen in a number of countries were eventually brought to justice, and where there was no mass arbitrariness, an amnesty was granted. General A. Pinochet, who went down in history as a dictator who carried out (1973–1990) the authoritarian modernization of the country (thanks to the economic program of M. Friedman, Chile became the economic leader of Latin America), also failed to escape prosecution. But is the merit of dictators so great? “There is nothing to praise the Pinochet regime for. The fundamental principles of military organization are directly opposed to the principles of a free market and a free society. This is an extreme form of centralized control. The junta went against its principles when it supported market reforms” (Milton Friedman, 1002).

The economic policies pursued by dictators and authoritarian leaders were in line with global development trends, as modern Latin American researchers point out. Dictatorships increased or limited the role of the state in the economy with equal persistence. Therefore, the image of a dictator-reformer, which for a long time was created by the propaganda apparatus of the dictators themselves, should be revised, scientists believe. The dictatorship, where reforms were carried out, solved only one task - the task of ensuring social peace and political stability through open violence. The ruling elites of Latin America saw the main threat to stability in the strong positions of the left forces - the socialist and communist parties. The influence of leftist forces was determined by the scale of poverty in the region. The far left in a number of countries initiated civil wars. It was against the left forces that the repressions of dictatorial regimes were primarily directed.

So, by the end of the 20th century. the military left government offices for barracks. The dictatorship disappeared from the history of Latin America not because all the problems were solved and the extreme left forces lost their influence, but because in the conditions of globalization and the transition to a post-industrial information society, the dictatorship is not able to solve new historical problems. The course to limit the role of the state in the economy, encourage private initiative and open the country to the world market, which dictatorships were forced to start under the influence of world realities, undermined the very foundations of their existence. Such a course is incompatible with dictatorship. All democratic governments in the region began to pursue this course with great success. It led to an upsurge, but also exposed serious problems. The vulnerability of the national financial system in the context of global capital movements was revealed, which led to financial crises in a number of countries. The income gap between rich and poor has widened. But military dictatorships did not return. Leftist forces came to power in many countries in the 1990s. and at the beginning of the 21st century. (Chile, Brazil, etc.). They began to combine the course of lifting restrictions in order to develop entrepreneurial initiative with active state policy in the social sphere, health care and education.