Power groups, interests and interest groups in consolidated and transitional democracies: comparing Uruguay and Costa Rica with Paraguay and Haiti

• Date: 01 November 2014
• Author: Clive S. Thomas,Kristina Klimovich
• Published date: 01 November 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1551

■Special Issue Paper

Power groups, interests and interest

groups in consolidated and transitional

democracies: comparing Uruguay and

Costa Rica with Paraguay and Haiti

Kristina Klimovich

1

*and Clive S. Thomas

2

1

The New School, New York, New York, USA

2

Foley Institute, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA

Drawing on a representative sample of four countries, this article compares two related aspects of interest group ac-

tivity across Latin America. First, it identifies the elements that determine the level of interest group system develop-

ment and types of group activity across the region; and second it provides insights into the relationship of the level of

institutionalization of a group system to the extent of the consolidation of democracy. The representative sample is

composed of Uruguay and Costa Rica in comparison with Paraguay and Haiti. These are four countries with small

populations that cover the spectrum of levels of socioeconomic and political development across Latin America, from

Uruguay, one of the most developed, to Haiti one of the least developed. The article argues that across a spectrum of

group development in Latin America, advanced systems have more or less integrated characteristics, whereas less

developed ones manifest a dual or bifurcated group activity. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

Covering the interest group systems of four coun-

tries in a short article is a tall order. Attempting an

extensive analysis of each country is certainly not

our purpose. The major goal is to provide general

insights into the region’s interest group activity by

using Costa Rica, Haiti, Paraguay and Uruguay as

examples. Such insights are possible because the

four countries are similar in population, ranging

from 3.4 to 10 million, and share some common

elements that go with the ‘friends and neighbors’

politics of small countries, as opposed to the often

impersonalness of large countries such as Brazil

(about 195 million in 2014) and Mexico (just under

120 million in 2014). They are also four Latin

American group systems at different stages of

development and with different relationships to

the policy process. The systems run the gamut

from the most developed—most institutionalized—

represented by Uruguay and Costa Rica, to the least

developed, Paraguay and Haiti.

Comparing these countries offers four sets of in-

sights about Latin American interest group activity.

First, it provides an overview of the current specific

characteristics and status of contemporary Latin

American interest group activity to supplement the

general overview in the introductory article. Second,

the comparison facilitates an assessment of the level

of development of each group system and their

degree of institutionalization. This provides the

major argument of the article: that between inte-

grated and dual or bifurcated contemporary group

systems, why this difference exists and why it mat-

ters. Third, and a link between the second and fourth

points, the comparison offers insights into the strate-

gies and tactics used by the four interest group sys-

tems to influence the policy-making process. And

*Correspondence to: Kristina Klimovich,PACENow,141Tompkins

Ave, 3rd floor. Pleasantville, NY 10570, USA.

E-mail: kris.klimovich@gmail.com

Journal of Public Affairs

Volume 14 Number 3 pp 183–211 (2014)

Published online in Wiley Online Library

(www.wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/pa.1551

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

fourth, the comparison provides indicators of the

degree to which pluralist democracy has developed

and its level of consolidation or lack thereof.

The approach is to take the two sets of countries

Uruguay and Costa Rica, as relatively developed,

and compare them, sometimes individually some-

times together, with the two countries with relatively

underdeveloped group systems. Before getting into

these comparisons, we explain our sources of infor-

mation in light of the minimalresearch on the interest

group systems of the four countries, and then set out

the major argument of the article.

1

MINIMAL RESEARCH AND THE SOURCES

FOR THIS ARTICLE

The introductory article to this Special Issue ex-

plained the reasonsfor the minimal research on Latin

America’s interest group systems and that what re-

search there is focuses on the larger countries, partic-

ularly Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Venezuela. Virtually

no original research has been conducted on the four

interest group systems considered in this article. The

one minor exception is a study, now over 40 years

old, on Costa Rica by Oscar Arias Sánchez (1971).

2

Even the accounts of the four systems based on sec-

ondary sources are scanty.

To deal with this lack of information, this article

synthesizes a range of academic and popular sources

to develop the first general treatment of each group

system and how each system influences the extent

of pluralist democracy. First, we draw on the interest

group literature on plural democracies, developing

and transitional democracies, and authoritarian

regimes, including work on state corporatism and

neo-corporatism. Second are minimal secondary

sources on interest groups in Latin America in

general and on particular countries, some of

which draw on original research (Thomas, 2009;

Wiarda and Kline, 2014; Vanden and Prevost, 2012;

Blake, 2008; Skidmore, Smith, and Green, 2014:

Kapiszewski, 2002). Third, for Uruguay, the article

draws on personal interviews with journalists,

lobbyists and policymakers conducted by one of

the authors (Clive Thomas). Fourth, there is work

focusing on specialized interest groups, such as

business (Schneider, 2004), labor (Alexander, 2005;

Buchanan, 2008) and social welfare (Riesco, 2007).

Fifth, because until now interest groups in the re-

gion have not been studied using an interest group

framework but only indirectly as an aspect of the

politics of the countries, it is important to consult a

range of related literature. This includes works on

policy processes, political economy, electoral partici-

pation, corporatismand populism. Sources used here

include: on Costa Rica,Barahona, Güendel and Catro

(2007); on Uruguay, Bonino, Kwan and Dutry (2007);

on Haiti, Girard (2010) and Shuller (2007a); and on

Paraguay, Molinas, Pérez-Liñán, Saieghand Montero

(2008). There is also work on social movements,

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other

organizations from which information on interest

groups in the four countries can be extrapolated. In

addition, there are some quantitative and qualitative

studies of NGOs in Latin America (Landim, 1996),

although these were carried out as part of a larger

effort to assess democratization in the region. Other

scholars havelooked at informal institutions (Helmke

and Levitsky, 2006) from which information can also

be gleaned.

Sixth, there are statistical sources of various types.

Latinobarómetro, a Chile-based public opinion think

tank, does annual public opinion survey for Latin

American countries. These data provide insight into

democratic development by reporting on values,

opinions and attitudes toward government. Other

socioeconomic data were taken from the United

Nations statistical database, the CIA Factbook, the

World Bank, the IMF (International Monetary

Fund), and regional governance bodies, such as

CEPAL (the United Nations Economic Commission

for Latin America and the Caribbean), and the

Inter-American Development Bank. Additionally,

publications of small non-profits, suchas the Directory

of Development Organizations, identify a range of

interest groups in each Latin American country.

Finally, the article draws on sources from the

popular media. These include the Internet sites of

various groups and organizations; the daily, weekly

and monthly newsletters of LatinNews;The Economist;

BBC News; and several newspapers, such as the

Uruguay Daily News and the CostaRicaNews.

INTEGRATED VERSUS BIFURCATED

INTEREST GROUP SYSTEMS

The central argument in this chapter is that the

different levels of development of Latin American

interest group systems mean that some, the most

developed, have more or less integrated group

1

Definitions of the various terms relating to Latin American poli-

tics and interest group activity used in this article are provided in

the introductory article to this volume, Tables 2 and 3.

2

After leaving academia, Arias Sánchez served two terms as Pres-

ident of Costa Rica (1986–1990 and 2006–2010) and won the

Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his efforts to end the civil wars in

Central America.

184 K. Klimovich and C. S. Thoma s

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs 14, 183–211 (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/pa