Explore the vast range of titles available.

Latin America has been one of the critical areas in the study of comparative politics. The region's experiments with installing and deepening democracy and promoting alternative modes of economic development have generated intriguing and enduring empirical puzzles. In turn, Latin America's challenges continue to spawn original and vital work on central questions in comparative politics: about the origins of democracy; about the relationship between state and society; about the nature of citizenship; about the balance between state and market. The richness and diversity of the study of Latin American politics makes it hard to stay abreast of the developments in the many sub-literatures of the field. The Routledge Handbook of Latin American Politics offers an intellectually rigorous overview of the state of the field and a thoughtful guide to the direction of future scholarship. Kingstone and Yashar bring together the leading figures in the study of Latin America to present extensive empirical coverage, new original research, and a cutting-edge examination of the central areas of inquiry in the region.

World Politics is a quarterly journal founded in 1948. It publishes scholarly articles that speak to central debates and concerns in comparative politics and international relations. The journal publishes pieces that significantly advance theoretical debates, contribute original empirical knowledge, and deploy the most appropriate methods for the question at hand. The journal relies on a terrific and small staff. It is run by a dedicated editorial committee with the advice of a diverse and committed editorial board. Moreover, it relies on the good will and collegiality of scholars who volunteer their time to review our manuscripts and advise us in our triple blind review process (described in detail in the conclusion). For this we are enormously grateful as the strengths of the journal rely on this talented and extended team of scholars and staff. While there is much to be proud of, we are also concerned about the issues raised by Teele and Thelen (2017), who clearly demonstrate that the preponderance of articles published in political science journals are written by men. This is also true of World Politics. The World Politics editorial committee, therefore, was eager to assess the review process with an eye toward identifying if and where gender bias was in play. We did so with utmost commitment to the anonymity of the authors and reviewers. We tallied the data to analyze the front and back ends of the review process—from submissions to review to acceptance. The punchline is fourfold. First, men publish the lion’s share of articles in World Politics. Second, at World Politics we did not identify a gendered bias in the acceptance rates for solo-authored pieces. Men and women submitting solo-authored manuscripts have an equal likelihood of receiving an accept after being sent out for review; the rate of acceptance among reviewed manuscripts is 7.4% for both Solo Man and Solo Woman manuscripts. Third, we did identify notable variation in acceptance rates for coauthored articles. Among the pool of manuscripts that were sent out for review, coauthorship among single gender teams coincides with lower acceptance rates than both the overall acceptance rate and the acceptance rate for mixed gender teams. Teams of men and women have the greatest acceptance rates, while all women-teams have the lowest. None of the differences in acceptance rates are statistically significant based on tests conducted using several multiple logistic regressions. Fourth, withdrawal rates are highest among submissions by a solo man. This report is organized as follows. We share descriptive statistics (and how we conducted the study). We then assess the editorial process with the aid of a range of regressions, including an in-depth look at manuscript outcomes and reviewer recommendations. This is followed by a discussion of submission rates by gender. We conclude with lessons drawn and challenges that remain for the profession at large.

In recent years, a variety of efforts have been made in political science to enable, encourage, or require scholars to be more open and explicit about the bases of their empirical claims and, in turn, make those claims more readily evaluable by others. While qualitative scholars have long taken an interest in making their research open, reflexive, and systematic, the recent push for overarching transparency norms and requirements has provoked serious concern within qualitative research communities and raised fundamental questions about the meaning, value, costs, and intellectual relevance of transparency for qualitative inquiry. In this Perspectives Reflection, we crystallize the central findings of a three-year deliberative process—the Qualitative Transparency Deliberations (QTD)—involving hundreds of political scientists in a broad discussion of these issues. Following an overview of the process and the key insights that emerged, we present summaries of the QTD Working Groups’ final reports. Drawing on a series of public, online conversations that unfolded at www.qualtd.net, the reports unpack transparency’s promise, practicalities, risks, and limitations in relation to different qualitative methodologies, forms of evidence, and research contexts. Taken as a whole, these reports—the full versions of which can be found in the Supplementary Materials—offer practical guidance to scholars designing and implementing qualitative research, and to editors, reviewers, and funders seeking to develop criteria of evaluation that are appropriate—as understood by relevant research communities—to the forms of inquiry being assessed. We dedicate this Reflection to the memory of our coauthor and QTD working group leader Kendra Koivu.1

Scholars of democratic consolidation have come to focus on the links between political institutions and enduring regime outcomes. This article takes issue with the conceptual and analytical underpinnings of this literature by highlighting how new political institutions, rather than securing democratic politics, have in fact had a more checkered effect. It delineates why the theoretical expectations of the democratic consolidation literature have not been realized and draws, by example, on the contemporary ethnic movements that are now challenging third-wave democracies. In particular, it highlights how contemporary indigenous movements, emerging in response to unevenly institutionalized reforms, pose a postliberal challenge to Latin America's I newly founded democracies. These movements have sparked political debates and constitutional reforms over community rights, territorial autonomy, and a multiethnic citizenry. As a whole, I they have laid bare the weakness of state institutions, the contested terms of democracy, and the I indeterminacy of ethnic accommodation in the region. As such, these movements highlight the need to qualify somewhat premature and narrow discussions of democratic consolidation in favor I of a broader research agenda on democratic politics.

This article questions the widely held view that indigenous movements in Latin America during the last decades of the twentieth century were caused by globalization. The author reviews several bodies of literature and concludes that, although globalization may be a fit descriptor for some of the actions and narratives of indigenous movements, it cannot be understood as a causal determinant. Many indigenous movements emerged long before the neoliberal current started, others coincide with it, and yet others lag significantly. The author proposes an alternative framework that gives primary significance to state-society relations. Contrary to the idea that national states may have lost prominence in the age of globalization I contend the opposite, suggesting also that indigenous movements have emerged where there are (1) challenges to preexisting corporate identities, (2) transcommunity networks to provide the resources for mobilization, and (3) associational spaces to facilitate collective expression.

Ethnic cleavages have rarely led to political organizing and sustained political conflict in Latin America. However, recently a wave of rural organizing and movements has mobilized Indians to advance and defend their self-proclaimed indigenous rights. Why has indigenous identity become more salient in political organizing and claims in the past two decades? A historically grounded comparative analysis that situates indigenous identity and movement formation in relation to state formation and the changing terms of citizenship can answer this question.

The third wave of democratization profoundly raised hopes and shaped opportunities for political representation. Yet in the wake of authoritarian regmes, the creation of new electoral institutions, the revival (and formation) of political parties, and renewed respect for human rights, much of Latin America appears to be suffering from a crisis of representation. This is evident not only in a diverse set of new democracies (e.g., Ecuador, Bolivia, Guatemala, Peru, and Argentina), but also in an older and smaller group of once stable, if limited democracies (Colombia and Venezuela) (Hagopian and Mainwaring 2005). As this volume has highlighted, this crisis

An introduction to this special issue based on NAFTA, neoliberalism, global trade and development. The articles included were first presented at a conference held at Princeton University on December 2-3, 2005. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2007 The American Academy of Political and Social Science.]

Although Latin America boasts a rich and diverse citizenry- a legacy of powerful indigenous empires, colonialism, the African slave trade, and contemporary immigration --questions about ethnic difference were long suppressed. In stark contrast to the promise of ethnic inclusion, however, indigenous groups and people of African descent remained economically disadvantaged and politically marginalized well into the twentieth century. The introduction of racial and ethnic politics alone is not enough to eliminate racial and ethnic inequality. Racial and ethnic communities in Latin America remain the most disadvantaged in a region that ranks among the most unequal in the world. Redressing such inequality will have to be a long-term political project -- and, thanks to recent reforms, the relevant political infrastructure is already in place. Much remains to be done, including crafting targeted programs to rectify persistent inequality in wages, health, and education. Such reforms will require governments to partner with ethnic communities to identify core needs and shore up local support.

The essays in this book analyze and explain the crisis of democratic representation in five Andean countries: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. In this region, disaffection with democracy, political parties, and legislatures has spread to an alarming degree. Many presidents have been forced from office, and many traditional parties have fallen by the wayside. These five countries have the potential to be negative examples in a region that has historically had strong demonstration and diffusion effects in terms of regime changes.The Crisis of Democratic Representation in the Andes addresses an important question for Latin America as well as other parts of the world: Why does representation sometimes fail to work?