Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies

International Studies Perspectives (2003) 4, 325–350. PEDAGOGY IN INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies ARLENE B. TICKNER Universidad de los Andes This article offers a general account of international relations studies (IR) in Latin America through an examination of IR thinking in the region, an inventory of IR theory courses in seven Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Trinidad and Tobago), and an analysis of journal articles selected from five specialized IR journals in Latin America. Although considerable U.S. influence upon the ways in which IR is approached in Latin America is made apparent through this narrative, the specific context in which IR studies have evolved in the region has substantially altered the content of U.S. IR discourse. Therefore, the article concludes with a discussion of the possible contributions of Latin American IR to AngloAmerican perspectives in the field. Keywords: autonomy Latin American IR, intellectual hegemony, dependency, One of the international relations (IR) discipline’s most notable silences refers to the Third World. Silence is reflected in the fact that the field’s primary narratives, which revolve around concepts such as anarchy, sovereignty, power, and the state, are of limited relevance when applied to the Third World context (Neuman, 1998:2). The predominant stories of the discipline tend to conceal divergent voices, while supporting the exercise of domination at the global level. Dicta such as ‘‘the strong do what they will while the weak do what they must,’’ spoken by Thucydides over two thousand years ago, are presented as ‘‘timeless truths’’ faithfully upheld by predominant IR theories. In other words, the centerpiece of traditional IR doctrine is that the exercise of power and the interaction between great powers are the determining feature of international relations. There is an undeniable degree of truth in this statement: the Third World’s permanent struggle for independence and recognition within the international system to wit. Such discourse, however, also serves to reinforce the notion that Third World countries are essentially inconsequential for the functioning of the international system and unnecessary for understanding global processes. Although the authors of the so-called third debate (Lapid, 1989) have increasingly called for the need to understand the world from the perspective of the voiceless masses of international relations, the quintessential issue of how IR has been approached in the countries of the Third World has yet to be examined in an r 2003 International Studies Association. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK 326 Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies adequate fashion, even by those who take it upon themselves to speak on behalf of marginalized groups within the discipline. A challenge that remains to be addressed during these crucial times of disciplinary self-reflection is the analysis of the ways in which international relations are approached in distinct regions of the Third World. Although Anglo-American IR is frequently presented as a universal discipline, the United States has clearly imprinted upon the field its major characteristics (Hoffmann, 1977; Waever, 1998; Crawford and Jarvis, 2001). Disciplinary opening necessarily entails enhanced participation on the part of countries from other regions of the world, as well as an increased awareness in the United States of how IR is studied elsewhere. International relations studies in the periphery have frequently been described in terms of their adherence to U.S. models, as well as the existence of asymmetrical flows of knowledge between core and peripheral countries (Holsti, 1985; Richard, 2001). Nevertheless, scant research has been conducted concerning how knowledge in the field of IR travels to the Third World, which theories travel and which do not, and the ways in which knowledge itself is transformed in the process. Latin America begs to be explored as one such area whose indigenous IR studies have been repeatedly neglected. Historically, the region has formed part of the United States’ sphere of influence, and has been exposed to the continuous political, economic, cultural, and intellectual influence of the United States. United States–Latin American relations have also exerted a central effect upon the latter’s interactions with the rest of the world. As a result, Latin America serves as an interesting testing-ground for explorations of patterns of intellectual exchange between core and periphery, namely, how knowledge formulated in the United States is assimilated as concepts and methods in the region’s approach to international relations. In this article I argue that a process of assimilation of imported IR knowledge does take place at the level of teaching. The principal IR stories as told in U.S. textbooks are uncritically accepted and retold in classrooms throughout Latin America. It seems to be expected that IR professors have to present imported narratives, primarily in English, although they are sorely inadequate for explaining the circumstances of the countries of the region. Latin America’s dependent status vis-à-vis the United States has also spurred wariness toward those ideas produced in the United States. Dependency theory, touted as the one authentically peripheral formula for confronting problems of development and global insertion, was largely a reaction against the U.S.-produced theory of development, modernization theory. Similarly, in the case of the IR discipline itself, a growing sense of urgency regarding the political and economic dependence of the region accounts for the emergence of international relations studies in the 1960s and 1970s (Perina, 1985a; Tomassini, 1990; Maira, 1991; Russell, 1992a). The tendency to seek alternative means of analyzing Latin America’s international situation is evident at the level of research in the region. Although dominant U.S. discourses are present in regional analyses of international problems, they have been appropriated and molded to the Latin American context, suggesting that the flow of knowledge from the United States has been adjusted to fit conditions in the region. In consequence, the study of IR in Latin America has been characterized by the tension between incoming U.S. influences and their local reception as ‘‘imperialism’’ that needs to be resisted and replaced by autonomous thinking spaces. This article offers a general account of IR studies in Latin America. Given the paucity of knowledge about how IR is studied in the countries of the Third World, it provides a contribution to the understanding of the specific nature of the field in peripheral settings. To this end, I explore indigenous IR thinking, and the theoretical frameworks that have informed both IR teaching and research in the ARLENE B. TICKNER 327 countries of the region. I conclude by discussing the implications for AngloAmerican IR studies of hearing alternative voices in the field. Indigenous IR Thinking in Latin America1 Dependency Perspectives: Precursors and Analytical Targets Dependency theory was celebrated as the first genuine peripheral approach to development and international insertion. In general terms, the diverse authors grouped together under the dependency label seek to explain economic underdevelopment in the periphery as the product of the specific nature of global capitalism, as well as examining the ways in which external dependency has molded internal processes in ways that reinforce inequality and exclusion. This school of thought was heavily influenced by Lenin’s theory of imperialism and the Economic Commission on Latin America’s (ECLA) early work on development problems in the region. The great majority of dependency writers also target modernization theory as a particularly deficient analytical framework for understanding problems of underdevelopment. My discussion of dependency perspectives is based upon a representative, but hardly complete, examination of a series of authors who advocate distinct positions or focus upon different historical moments of dependency.2 A brief overview of modernization theory and the ECLA school precedes this analysis to situate the emergence of dependency historically. Modernization theory, made popular in the 1960s as the predominant U.S. approach to development problems, seeks to explain underdevelopment and modernization as a linear process through which different societies acquire Western values that allow them to make the transition from traditional to modern societies. The central hypothesis of modernization theory is that the values, institutions, and attitudes characterizing traditional society constitute the primary causes of underdevelopment, as well as the central obstacles to modernization in Latin America (Valenzuela and Valenzuela, 1978). As a result, modernization theory tends to characterize developing countries as ‘‘dual’’ societies in which traditional, agrarian, backward regions coexist with dynamic, modern, industrial areas. The transition to modernization occurs primarily through the acquisition of Western values on the part of the modern political elite. In an attempt to offer an alternative approach to development, distinct from modernization theory, ECLA, under the direction of Raúl Prébisch, sought to explain the underdevelopment of the region through an analysis of the effects of the international capitalist exchange system. Consequently, ECLA-school thinking attempts to show how the expansion of capitalism, the international division of labor, and the insertion of the Latin American economies into the global system produced asymmetrical relations between the large core countries and the nations of the periphery (United Nations–Economic Commission for Latin America, 1950). The concentration of production for export in the area of primary goods is identified as the primary cause of the unequal terms of trade experienced by the Latin American countries, given the inelastic demand of primary products in terms of price and income (Fishlow, 1988:90). As a result of its diagnosis of the causes of underdevelopment, ECLA pointed to the need to gear production toward manufactured goods, in order to make the region’s economies less vulnerable to shifts in the global market, which in turn required an active state role to redirect the productive process. The elimination of large-landholding (latifundio) interests, the creation of an enlarged internal 1 Although traditional IR establishes a sharp division between international relations and international political economy in Latin America, as will become clear in this section, IR thinking not only borrows elements from each, but also fails to distinguish between them. 2 For a comprehensive taxonomy of dependency thinking, see Packenham (1992). 328 Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies consumption market and the incorporation of the marginalized rural population also constituted central aspects of ECLA’s proposal (Cardoso, 1972:48). Although these policy recommendations were widely embraced in the great majority of countries in Latin America, the crisis of the first stages of import substitution industrialization (ISI) in the late 1950s to 1960s led to a series of critiques concerning the viability of the proposed development strategy. In addition to creating a new type of dependence upon imports and foreign investment, ISI was identified as the cause of severe sectoral imbalances, including the weakening of the agricultural sector, reduced labor absorption capacity, fiscal crises, and inflation. Although dependency theory clearly shares many of ECLA’s key assumptions, mainly the unequal nature of exchange in the global economy and the consequent bifurcation of the international system into core and periphery, many dependency authors reject the gradualist modernization project proposed by ECLA, and instead argue in favor of the need for radical social change. Global Capitalist Insertion and Dependence In their classic book, Dependencia y desarrollo en Ame´rica Latina (1969), Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto base their analysis of underdevelopment in the region on a core assumption shared by all dependency authors: underdevelopment is a direct result of the expansion of the capitalist system, which links diverse economies to the global system according to their respective productive apparatuses (Cardoso and Faletto, 1969:23). Dependence is maintained through this international division of labor and by the specific relations of economic and political domination contained therein. The construction of strategic coalitions between the ruling classes in the core and the periphery, and the semi-feudal exploitation of marginalized zones of peripheral nations in order to nurture urbanization and modernization in the cities, constitute just two manifestations of this situation. According to the authors, a comprehensive understanding of dependency entails not only an analysis of external forces but also the particular configuration of class relations emerging within dependent countries (Cardoso and Faletto, 1969:30). Both the external and internal, social, economic, and political dimensions of dependency become equally important when we examine the emergence of social formations in distinct historical periods. The central hypothesis of the authors is that the formation of social groups as well as the political evolution of the Latin American countries took different paths, depending upon whether the export-oriented growth stage of the late nineteenth century (or transition stage) was characterized by domestic control of the productive system or foreign-controlled enclave economies (Cardoso and Faletto, 1969:55). Specifically, the two types of insertion into the global economy, which were characterized by distinct dominant class configurations, led to diverse possibilities in terms of the nature of the state, the structure of class domination, the incorporation of the middle and popular classes, and respective levels and types of national development. Capitalism acquired concrete manifestations in distinct national contexts, depending upon the ways in which local, class, and state interests were historically constituted and articulated. Industrialization, Transnational Dependency, and Dependent Development According to authors such as Theotonio dos Santos (1968, 1973), Cardoso (1972), and Osvaldo Sunkel (1980), a markedly different stage of dependence was inaugurated in Latin America between the 1930s and 1950s, given the shift from primary goods production to industrialization in many countries of the region. Transnational dependency is premised upon an international division of labor that highlights the importance of the more industrialized Latin American economies for ARLENE B. TICKNER 329 international financial interests, as a source of both investment and growing consumer markets. Santos observes that capitalist industrialization in the region and the presence of foreign capital in fact constitute two facets of the same process (1968:1). Transformations in the nature of global capitalism necessarily entail changes in relations of domination and subordination between center and periphery. Cardoso (1972:43–44) sustains that this stage of dependency led to new forms of strategic interaction between multinational corporations and the local bourgeoisie, and distinct types of negotiation with the local state. The specific nature of transnational dependency in distinct national contexts was thus determined by the relative weight of international business and state capitalism (Santos, 1973:60). For Cardoso (1974), associated dependent development, as opposed to what dependency writer André Gunder Frank (1977) describes as the development of underdevelopment, is the principal result of transnational dependency. Contrary to popular assumptions that imperialism and dependency impede growth in the economies of the periphery, in situations characterized by industrialization, development is not incompatible with dependency. In other words, Cardoso contests arguments based upon the zero-sum nature of capitalist development. Echoing this idea, Santos (1973) argues that multinational corporate activity is concentrated precisely in those countries exhibiting high levels of economic and technological growth, given their greater potential for establishing monopolistic control over the production, distribution, consumption, and capitalization aspects of industrialization. Although constituting a motor of economic growth, industrialization, and modernization, transnational capitalism also distorts the political, economic, and social structures of the host country (Sunkel and Fuenzalida, 1980:45), given that it is circumscribed by capitalist interests in the core, as well as dominant class interests in the core and periphery. Capitalist development in the periphery is also highly exclusionary; while leading to higher concentrations of wealth between rich and poor, economic dynamism is limited to small pockets of development (Cardoso, 1972:47). In addition to modifying the productive structure of the dependent countries in a negative manner, Guillermo O’Donnell (1972) shows how economic modernization and industrialization in Latin America, instead of producing conditions favorable to democracy, became associated with the rise of political authoritarianism in Brazil and the countries of the Southern Cone. Bureaucratic authoritarianism was grounded in the argument that internal order was necessary to control the rising demands of the popular classes and for development to proceed in a successful fashion. Dependency Perspectives and IR Thinking Dependency became the primary conceptual lens through which problems of underdevelopment and class conflict were viewed in many countries of Latin America during the late 1960s and 1970s. Dependency perspectives also provided significant cues for rethinking the region’s international relations, given their insight on issues related to the state, national development, and sovereignty, among others. Contrary to modernization theory, and to a lesser degree ECLA-school thinking, which examine the state as a unit of analysis essentially insulated from the effects of global capitalism, dependency theorists illustrate that processes of state development are intimately related to this system (Sunkel, 1980:22). One of the primary manifestations of dependency reveals itself at the level of the state, whose consolidation is constrained by the changing nature of capitalism. National development is highlighted by both the ECLA school and dependency as constituting one of the central goals of peripheral nations. While each points to the international division of labor as the principal obstacle for achieving this 330 Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies objective, dependency writers express an acute awareness of the role of history in determining the possibilities for and barriers to development. Dependency is not a fixed state, but rather, is constantly changing as a result of transformations in the modes of production characterizing distinct countries. Nevertheless, throughout all the stages of dependency the dominant classes are shown to be fundamental to the preservation of dependent relations with the core. According to David L. Blaney (1996:461), ‘‘dependency theory constitutes international society as an interweaving of two logicsFthe logic of capitalismyand the logic of sovereignty.’’ Although the majority of the authors grouped together under the dependency label fail to make explicit reference to the problem of sovereignty, their treatment of the role of capitalism and imperialism in establishing the economic and political rules of the game within the periphery allows for the conclusion that one of the defining characteristics of dependency is precisely the absence of sovereignty (Cardoso and Faletto, 1969; Cardoso, 1972; Santos, 1972). In this regard, the attainment of sovereignty constitutes a precondition for development (Blaney, 1996:466). Notwithstanding these important contributions, on a more practical level dependency theory failed to produce a viable solution to situations of dependence, short of revolution, the adoption of socialist forms of production, or the acceptance of skewed, dependent development. Cardoso and Faletto (1969:29) make this painfully clear when they sustain that in the process of pull-and-tug between social forces and the market characteristic of nation-building, international market forces always constrain the possibility for autonomous decision-making and action. The Latin American Hybrid and the Problem of Autonomy International relations thinking in Latin America sought to overcome both the determinism of dependency and the limited applicability of traditional IR theories for thinking about international politics from the vantage point of the weak. The emergence and consolidation of the field between the 1960s and 1980s responded to the need to reduce existing levels of political, economic, and intellectual dependence, while creating autochthonous views of IR (Lagos, 1980; Muñoz, 1980). Many authors shared the notion that Latin America needed to ‘‘create its own scientific knowledge, extracted from its respective reality, while developing its own theoretical and methodological instruments’’ (Perina, 1985a:12). It was perceived that the analysis of global events from the perspective of the predominant IR theory, realism, tended to ignore the substantive, normative content of international relations, and as such, was of little relevance to the international relations of the region (Tomassini, 1990:61). A key concern expressed within the nascent field of Latin American IR was related to the problem of regional autonomy. Not only was autonomy viewed as a sine qua non for economic development, as highlighted by dependency perspectives, but the concept also began to be linked to Latin American foreign policy. Autonomy became viewed from the outside in as a mechanism for guarding against the noxious effects of dependency on a local level, and from the inside out as an instrument for asserting regional interests in the international system. The literature on autonomy produced in Latin America, primarily during the 1980s, established a conceptual bridge between dependency analysis and mainstream IR theory, particularly classical realism and, later, interdependence,3 while transcending the pessimistic conclusions derived from these theories in terms of the possibility for autonomous international action on the part of peripheral countries. While dependency theory and realism are vastly different in terms of the 3 Although interdependence is admittedly not a theory, Latin American IR was strongly influenced by this early attempt to articulate what would later become neoliberal institutionalism. See Keohane and Nye (1977). ARLENE B. TICKNER 331 fundamental questions posed by each, their primary assumptions concerning the role of power in international relations (regardless of its sources), the hierarchical nature of power relations among states (and the social classes they represent in the case of dependency), and the absence of centralized authority capable of controlling the exercise of power on the part of strong states are essentially the same. As a result, both approaches offer little hope to the periphery in terms of its international relations, other than the satisfaction of limited objectives through dependent, strategic relations with a great power. Dependency shares with interdependence the idea of an interconnected global system produced mainly by the evolution of capitalism and in consequence, the importance of economic issues for international affairs. The two theories also identify nonstate actors such as multinational corporations as key players in the international system. The synthesis between these theories becomes apparent in academic references made to two authors in particular, Helio Jaguaribe and Juan Carlos Puig, by far the two most influential figures in the analysis, dissemination, and practice of the autonomy concept in the region. Latin American IR scholars credit both with pioneering the ‘‘creative incorporation’’ of traditional IR principles into regional analyses of international relations (Colacrai, 1992:36; Russell, 1992a:10; Soares de Lima, 1992:59). This fusion of concepts from dependency theory, realism, and interdependence constitutes a Latin American hybrid model that became fundamental to the analysis of global issues in many countries of the region. Jaguaribe (1979:91–93) describes the international system as a differentiated order comprising four distinct positions, characterized by decreasing levels of territorial integrity and self-determination: general primacy, regional primacy, autonomy, and dependency. Although countries that exercise autonomy cannot fully guarantee the inviolability of their national territory, they possess the capacity to impose considerable sanctions upon eventual aggressors and enjoy sufficient margins of self-determination to conduct internal affairs. Dependent nations, on the other hand, although formally independent and sovereign, are constrained by different forms of external control. Autonomy is a function of structural conditions that Jaguaribe describes as ‘‘national viability’’ and ‘‘international permissibility’’ (1979:96–97). The first term refers to the existence of adequate human and material resources, the capacity for international exchange, and the degree of sociocultural cohesion within a given country. The second concept is related to the capacity to neutralize external threats, and depends upon both internal and external factors, including economic and military capabilities, and the establishment of alliances with third parties. Jaguaribe also identifies two functional requirements for the existence of autonomy in the periphery, technical-entrepreneurial autonomy and favorable relations with the core. For Jaguaribe, the costs of dependency manifest themselves foremost in the viability of the nation-state. Dependent countries are precisely those that receive economic, technological, social, political, and cultural cues from external sources. The absence of national autonomy in this area erodes the state’s capacity to exercise its role in other areas as well (Jaguaribe, 1979:115–116). In his reflections on autonomy, Juan Carlos Puig (1980, 1984) takes issue with traditional IR theories for their futility in understanding the international relations of the periphery. For Puig, contrary to the arguments set forth by realists such as Morgenthau and Waltz, the international system is not characterized by anarchy, but is rather a hierarchical regime in which three types of international actors coexist: supreme distributors who adopt decisions, inferior distributors who execute them, and recipients who simply obey (1980:141). Realism’s emphasis upon military power is also said to disguise the growing favorability of the international system toward autonomous strategies on the part of the periphery. 332 Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies According to Puig, the transition to autonomy entails four basic stages: (1) paracolonial dependency (formal sovereign status); (2) national dependence (the anchoring of the material benefits derived from dependency to a national project); (3) heterodox autonomy (autonomy in nonstrategic issues in exchange for nonconfrontational relations with the core); and (4) secessionist autonomy (the rupture of all linkages with the core combined with acts of global defiance) (1980:149–155). Similar to Jaguaribe’s discussion of this problem, for Puig autonomy requires adequate degrees of national viability, a sufficient amount of domestic resources, and an explicit commitment on the part of elite groups regarding autonomy’s intrinsic value. Both authors share the notion that autonomy requires the mobilization of power resources in the periphery. Regional alliances against the core, economic and political integration, and improved negotiating strategies constitute just three strategies highlighted by Puig and Jaguaribe for achieving this goal. Peripheral Realism The end of the Cold War led to a reevaluation of the intrinsic value of peripheral autonomy as a guide to Latin America’s international relations. Beginning in the 1990s, academic production in the region on the topic of autonomy was nonexistent. Carlos Escudé’s (1995) formulation of peripheral realism constitutes the only exhaustive conceptual endeavor in recent Latin American IR.4 Contrary to the authors preceding him, Escudé maintains that the benefits of autonomy, historically a cornerstone of the region’s foreign policies, must be weighed against the relative costs of using it. In an attempt to derive a normative theory from realism’s central premises, of relevance to the periphery (Argentina in particular), Escudé discusses the merits of ‘‘peripheral realism’’ as opposed to autonomy. According to the author, the acritical adoption in the periphery of theoretical frameworks produced primarily in the United States has had negative consequences in Latin America, to the extent that it has served the ideological purposes of the elites in these countries. While realist theory has been used to justify aggressive foreign policies on the part of the periphery, interdependence has led to an overestimation of the periphery’s scope for action (Escudé, 1995:19). Classical realism’s emphasis upon the state and the national interest defined in terms of power, is especially problematic when applied to the periphery, given that state-centric approaches fail to specify the subject that state actions serve, and can legitimate specific group interests over others. Escudé describes this common tendency to present the state-as-person, in isolation from the particular interests represented therein, as the ‘‘anthropomorphic fallacy’’ (1995:49). In light of the exclusionary nature of state-centric realism, particularly evident in the periphery where the nature of the state is more conducive to elitist practices, the author proposes the adoption of a citizen-centric realist approach more attuned to the particularities of the Third World. Escudé’s peripheral realism includes the following premises: (1) the concept of the national interest should be defined in terms of economic development centered around the well-being of the citizenry; (2) peripheral countries should eliminate political confrontations with the core powers in those cases in which the latter’s policies do not directly affect the material interests of the country in question; (3) peripheral countries should avoid unproductive confrontations with great powers, even when such confrontations do not generate immediate costs; (4) peripheral 4 Escudé does not enjoy the same regional authority as the other authors discussed in this section. However, the fact that ‘‘peripheral realism’’ has been extremely influential in the practice and study of Argentina’s international relations and that Escudé’s work constitutes the only recent conceptual endeavor in the field, well warrant its discussion here. ARLENE B. TICKNER 333 countries should avoid ‘‘idealist’’ but costly foreign policy approaches; and (5) peripheral countries should examine the advantages of bandwagoning with the dominant power or a coalition of great powers (Escudé, 1995:154–156). Latin American IR Teaching The Evolution of IR in Latin America Different analysts associate the consolidation of Latin American IR with changes in the region’s international orientation in the 1970s, namely, the diversification of its external relations and the search for autonomy vis-à-vis the United States.5 Both created new needs in terms of the systematic analysis of Latin America’s relations with the rest of the world (Muñoz, 1980; Tomassini, 1990; Maira, 1991). According to Luis Maira (1991:8–10), although the new academic endeavors that began to emerge during this ‘‘foundational period’’ were completely isolated from each other, the research agendas that they addressed were basically similar, and included topics such as the operation of the international system, North–South relations and the role of the Third World, the internal nature of the core countries, economic integration and regional cooperation, comparative foreign policy, and processes of transnationalization and interdependence. The process of consolidation and maturation of the discipline received a crucial impetus with the creation of the Joint Studies Program in International Relations in Latin America (RIAL) in 1977, an association of academic centers dedicated to the promotion of research, teaching, and seminars on international relations. Starting in the early 1980s, RIAL began coordinating annual reports and meetings on international relations, in which a diverse series of topics began to be explored by academics from the region. During this same period, the Latin American Foreign Policy Program (PROSPEL), which comprised the same community of Latin American scholars, began to publish an annual volume dealing with the evolution of regional foreign policies.6 A series of factors have influenced the evolution of international relations studies in different national settings (Perina, 1985b; Russell, 1992b; Tickner, 2000): comparative levels of development and position within the regional/international system; political regime type; levels of domestic crisis; degree of interaction between academic and public sectors; and duration of the colonial experience. Those countries that experienced comparatively early development, namely, Chile, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina, were those in which international relations studies evolved earlier. Historically, this group of countries has also occupied a predominant position within the regional hierarchy. The major difference between Brazil and the other three countries is that for many years Brazil’s ministry of foreign relations, Itamaraty, was reluctant to foster an environment more conducive to the consolidation of IR as an academic field, given its monopoly of the country’s foreign relations (Soares de Lima, 1992). Political regime type and political crisis also played a crucial role in the development of IR in those countries subjected to authoritarian rule between the 1960s and 1980s. Although the levels of repression directed against the academic sector in Argentina and Chile were much higher than in Brazil, in all three cases many individuals who would have normally aspired to participate in political activities were excluded from this realm, and often reoriented their professional activities toward the academic sector. This process had contradictory effects in the countries in question. International relations studies received a significant intellectual ‘‘push’’ from authoritarianism, consisting mainly of the incorporation of important political figures into IR activities that resulted in the creation of an 5 The first research centers dedicated to the study of global issues were created in the 1960s, in Mexico and Chile. During the following two decades IR teaching and research programs were spread throughout the region. 6 Chilean scholars Luciano Tomassini and Heraldo Muñoz, respectively, spearheaded these initiatives. 334 Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies incipient ‘‘academic community’’ in Latin American IR and the gradual consolidation of the field. However, when the dictatorships in these countries came to an end, many individuals working in the field deserted academia to participate in the public sector, before a new generation of IR specialists had been fully trained. A large number of IR programs were weakened as a result. A similar situation occurred in Mexico, given the particular nature of the PRI’s rule, and the extremely high levels of interaction that have existed between the academic sector and foreign policy-making circles. While the massive abandonment of the field in countries such as Chile, and to a lesser degree Argentina and Brazil, is not apparent in the Mexican case, a steady flow of academics toward the foreign policy establishment has been a permanent characteristic of IR studies in this country. Throughout the region, cyclical domestic crises have tended historically to draw attention away from international issues, with which IR studies programs have been viewed as less important than other areas of the social sciences. Colombia and the countries of Central America (with the exception of Costa Rica) constitute two of the clearest examples of this situation, given the high-profile armed conflicts and domestic violence endemic to these areas. The introduction of neoliberal reform between the late 1980s and early 1990s, along with the ensuing internationalization of the Latin American economies and the proliferation of regional integration processes, may explain the growth of IR programs in the region in recent years. The length and nature of the colonial experience may also influence the ways in which IR is conceived and taught. In Trinidad and Tobago, the only country in the Caribbean harboring an IR program, prolonged existence as a colony helps to explain the comparatively ‘‘critical’’ nature of IR studies there, as attested to by the salience of postcolonial thinking. Costa Rica seems to be another case that may partially support this claim, to the extent that the levels of dependence characteristic of Central America approach those of the Caribbean. IR Theory in Seven National Contexts This section assesses IR theory curricula in seven countries of the region: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Trinidad and Tobago.7 In addition to providing a representative geographical sampling of the region, the countries selected are those in which formal international studies programs (which comprise either research or teaching) have existed for at least ten years.8 The identification of academic institutions within the seven countries was carried out according to the following criteria: (1) national, regional, and international exposure, determined by the formal academic qualifications of the IR faculty, number and type of publications and research initiatives, and participation in international academic events; (2) the longevity of IR teaching programs (ten years or more); and (3) the size of the IR faculty.9 7 My definition of the region is primarily geographical in nature. Admittedly, Trinidad and Tobago’s qualification as a Latin American country is questionable in cultural terms, while in a strictly geographic sense it qualifies as part of South America. Given that it is the only country in the Caribbean in which the study of international relations exists at the university level, Trinidad and Tobago’s inclusion in this survey seems highly justified. 8 The only other country complying with this criteria that was excluded from the survey was Venezuela, given that those institutions in which IR studies exist were unable to provide the required information. See Puig, Berglund, Haluani, Guerón, and Romero (1990) for a general overview of the field in Venezuela. 9 These institutions include: Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (Departamento de Ciencia Polı́tica) and Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, FLACSO, Argentina; Universidade de Brası́lia (Departamento de Relações Internacionais) and Pontifı́cia Universidade Católica, PUC, Rio de Janeiro (Instituto de Relações Internacionais), Brazil; Universidad de Chile (Instituto de Estudios Internacionales) and Universidad Católica de Chile (Instituto de Ciencia Polı́tica), Chile; Universidad de los Andes (Centro de Estudios Internacionales) and Universidad Externado de Colombia (Facultad de Finanzas y Relaciones Internacionales), Colombia; Universidad Nacional, Heredia (Escuela de Relaciones Internacionales), Costa Rica; Colegio de México (Centro de Estudios Internacionales) and Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, ITAM (Departamento de Estudios Internacionales), Mexico; University of the West Indies (Institute of International Relations), Trinidad and Tobago. Although the Universidad Nacional ARLENE B. TICKNER 335 The primary source of information used for analyzing the state of IR teaching in each country were the reading lists of IR theory course syllabi.10 To avoid overweighing institutions with more than one course offering in IR theory, the decision was made to include only one course per institution (general or introductory IR theory) in the analysis, for a total of twelve course syllabi. The course syllabi sampling includes IR theory courses at both the undergraduate (5) and graduate (7) levels, given that all of the institutions selected, with the exception of the Universidad de Brası́lia, offer only undergraduate or graduate degree programs in international relations that comply with the selection criteria established above. An interpretative form of qualitative content analysis of the IR theory reading lists was conducted to establish a series of preliminary conclusions regarding theoretical patterns in the teaching of IR in the region. Qualitative content analysis is concerned with the formulation of hypotheses or the discovery of new relationships derived from the analysis of texts (George, 1959:8–9). As a result, qualitative analysis allows for greater margin in the interpretation of nonquantitative data. Each of the 407 required readings appearing in the twelve course syllabi was coded into one of the following nine categories, and assigned an equal weight: (1) classical state-centric tradition; (2) classical nonstate-centric tradition; (3) general classical tradition; (4) Marxist/neo-Marxist tradition; (5) postmodern tradition; (6) constructivist tradition; (7) Latin American hybrid; (8) foreign policy analysis; and (9) other.11 Although many items could arguably be classified in several categories, Autonóma de México, UNAM, complied with the selection criteria, it was excluded from the survey given that the university was on strike during the duration of the information-gathering stage of my research. 10 Similar exercises are performed in the case of the United States by Alker and Biersteker (1984) and Robles (1993). 11 The coding scheme that I developed took into account the relative strengths and weaknesses of other taxonomies of international relations proposed by Alker and Biersteker (1984), Holsti (1985), and Waever (1998), as well as the specific concerns of the countries of Latin America in terms of international political economy, and issues of development and dependency. The research questions and assumptions reflected by the distinct categories are fundamentally different, while the methodological, subject and area-issue emphases of diverse theories or approaches located within a specific category may also vary.The classical tradition is concerned primarily with the sources of order, stability and instability, and war and peace in an anarchic international system, in which anarchy is viewed as the unavoidable product of the relations between sovereign states. The different approaches pertaining to this tradition highlight the tensions and rivalries that this situation produces primarily between great power actors, as well as the means of overcoming the obstacles that anarchy poses to peaceful interaction. Within the classical tradition, two major strains can be identified: (a) a classical ‘‘state-centric’’ subtype (classical realism, neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism); and (b) a classical ‘‘non–state-centric’’ subtype (interdependence, liberalism, integration theory). While the theories comprising the former, with the exception of neoliberal institutionalism, look to the balance of power between states as the primary mitigating factor of anarchy in the international system, those of the second tend to focus upon the diverse factors that facilitate collective arrangements between state and nonstate actors in nonsecurity issue areas.The Marxist (and neo-Marxist) tradition (imperialism, dependency theory, worldsystem, critical theory) places key emphasis upon capitalism as the central defining characteristic of the international system. Specifically, the fundamental concerns expressed by the theories adhering to this tradition derive from the role of global capitalism in generating structures of domination or uneven development among different actors. Contrary to the stagnant, ahistorical view of the state and the international system present in the classical tradition, the theories adhering to the Marxist/neo-Marxist tradition seek to uncover the class or group interests that underlie state action, while stressing the importance of processes of historical change. Although the majority of the theories included within the Marxist/neo-Marxist tradition share with the classical tradition a series of positivist assumptions regarding the nature and interpretation of the world, they are distinguished from classical theories by their tendency to call into question existing global structures and relations of power.The constructivist tradition describes international relations as social relations in which state’s (and other actor’s) identities and interests are socially constructed (that is, the result of intersubjective understandings). The patterns of interaction that evolve on a global level are viewed by the constructivist tradition as the product of mutually constitutive arrangements that emerge from the relationship between agents and structures. Thus, the different types of approaches included within this tradition seek to explain the role of institutions, rules, norms, and language in the co-constitution of international actors (or agents) and structures.The postmodern tradition (postmodernism, poststructuralism, gender, postcolonialism) questions the positivist, empirical nature of the international relations discipline, while challenging the concepts with which IR has traditionally been approached. The theories grouped within this tradition sustain that the generation of knowledge within the field has not been a neutral process, but rather, reflects specific interests on 336 Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies the single classification assignment was based upon the central research questions and assumptions of each text, the focus of the specific pages assigned, and the placement of the text within the course syllabus. Following the coding of all of the items contained in a given reading list, the information was aggregated on an individual course basis. This procedure was repeated for each of the twelve IR theory course syllabi. Upon completion, the results of each individual reading were consolidated into a Latin American aggregate. A crosscheck of a random sample of 45 texts was conducted to test the replicability of both the theoretical categories and the coding procedure.12 IR Theory Course Syllabi: International or Anglo-American? The content analysis indicates that IR theory courses in the region overwhelmingly favor classical approaches to the discipline. Of the 407 texts assigned on the twelve course reading lists, 21.9 percent (89) of the items corresponded to the general classical tradition, 31.4 percent (128) to the classical state-centric tradition, 15.2 percent (62) to the classical nonstate-centric tradition, 11.1 percent (45) to the Marxist/neo-Marxist tradition, 9.1 percent (37) to foreign policy analysis, 5.4 percent (22) to the postmodern tradition, 1 percent (4) to both the Latin American hybrid and constructivist traditions, and 3.9 percent (16) to the other category (see Table 1).13 Classical interpretations of IR thus account for 68.5 percent of the texts included in the IR theory course syllabi. This result suggests not only that the teaching of IR theory in Latin America is fashioned largely after U.S. IR, but also, that IR theory courses in the region fail to treat nonclassical approaches on equal footing and fall short of being ‘‘international’’ in scope. It has become widely accepted in IR circles that the types of international relations theory used to analyze global issues are intimately related to the place occupied by specific countries in the international hierarchy (Gareau, 1981). Although my general conclusion for IR teaching in Latin America is that high levels of imitation of U.S. IR exist, the analysis that I conducted of individual IR theory course syllabi suggests that there may actually be some type of inverse correlation the part of dominant actors. In turn, the postmodern tradition asserts that no foundations exist for judging between competing truth claims. An initial evaluation of the data corresponding to both IR theory course syllabi and journal articles reflected three additional categories that were subsequently incorporated into the coding scheme: the general classical tradition; the Latin American hybrid; and foreign policy analysis. The general classical tradition includes all of those works that exhibit the principal concerns and assumptions of the classical tradition, but that fail to express a clear preference about the central actors in the international system (state or nonstate). The great majority of IR textbooks that address the so-called ‘‘major debates’’ of the discipline, and are widely used in IR theory courses, work between the state-centric and nonstate-centric variants of the classical tradition.The Latin American hybrid approach draws upon distinct concepts derived from dependency theory, Morgenthauian realism, and interdependence. According to the Latin American hybrid approach, the international system is characterized by hierarchical relations of domination and interdependence. The state, viewed in relatively nonproblematic terms, is highlighted as the principal actor in the international sphere, followed by other types of economic actors such as multinational corporations. The Latin American hybrid approach sustains a nonhierarchical view of the international agenda, as well as a multifaceted notion of power. As in the case of the classical tradition, this approach does not challenge the fundamental structures of the international system, but rather analyzes the world ‘‘as it is.’’Foreign policy analysis (FPA) encompasses all of those theoretical approaches that analyze global events at levels other than the international system. In the specific case of this study, the great majority of IR theory courses included in the inventory contain some degree of foreign policy theory texts. Thus, the foreign policy analysis category was created to reflect this situation. 12 The content analysis of both the course syllabi and the journal articles was performed in coordination with two previously trained graduate-level research assistants and a fellow international relations professor. According to King, Keohane, and Verba (1994:26), in qualitative research the ‘‘[y] entire reasoning process used in producing conclusions’’ should be replicable. In the case of this study, the level of detail provided in the specification of the classification categories and procedures, as well of the coding of each item, allows for a substantial degree of replication of my research process. 13 A list of the bibliographical items classified, as well as their respective classification, can be consulted in Tickner (2000:275–296). TABLE 1. IR Theory Teaching in Twelve Latin American Institutions Di Tella (Arg) Flacso (Arg) Brasilia Classical State-Centric Classical Non–State-Centric General Classical Marxist/Neo-Marxist Postmodern Constructivist Latin American Hybrid Foreign Policy Analysis Other 14 7 4 2 3 6 8 2 3 9 9 8 4 4 TOTAL 30 Theoritical Tradition PUCRio 8 3 3 Chile Cato´lica (Chi) Externado (Col) Andes (Col) Nacional (C.R.) Colegio Me´xico ITAM (Mex) 7 7 23 2 3 20 4 10 5 1 6 3 6 8 4 8 7 2 5 5 16 7 2 20 10 5 6 1 4 1 2 4 4 4 1 3 1 1 3 2 23 31 24 32 1 3 5 1 3 1 24 40 17 3 45 8 48 W. Indies Aggregate 10 1 128 62 89 45 22 4 4 37 16 45 407 7 19 7 1 7 48 337 338 Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies between international position and the ways in which IR theory is taught in the countries of Latin America. Between the more developed countries of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico, and smaller, dependent countries such as Trinidad and Tobago and Costa Rica, significant differences exist in the relative importance assigned to classical IR theories. In the first group of countries, which occupy a more predominant place in the regional (and international) system, adherence to the three subtypes of the classical tradition in the teaching of IR theory is much more pronounced, reaching over 80 percent in three of the institutions surveyed. In Trinidad and Tobago, and to a lesser extent Costa Rica, the different variants of the classical tradition occupy a comparatively reduced place within the IR theory courses offered, 37.8 percent and 58.3 percent, respectively. On the other hand, Marxist/neo-Marxist approaches to IR are given greater attention than in other countries, occupying 42.2 percent of the course listings in the case of Trinidad and Tobago and 20.8 percent in Costa Rica. Postmodern and postcolonial frameworks are also highlighted in the teaching of IR theory in Trinidad and Tobago (31.8 percent), while these approaches are almost completely absent from other course syllabi. Primary Texts Used to Teach IR Because the teaching of IR in Latin America closely mirrors theoretical developments in the United States IR mainstream, the great majority of the texts used in Latin American IR theory courses were written by American (and British) authors in English. The most commonly cited texts include Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (used in ten of the twelve courses), Waltz’s Theory of International Politics (nine courses), Keohane and Nye’s Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (seven courses), Gilpin’s Political Economy of International Relations (six courses), Hedley Bull’s The Anarchical Society (five courses), James E. Dougherty and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff ’s Contending Theories of International Relations (five courses), and Keohane’s International Institutions and State Power (four courses). All but one of the texts mentioned (Bull) were translated into Spanish as part of a book program financed by the United States Information Agency (USIA) during the 1980s and early 1990s, with the goal of making classical U.S. texts on IR and foreign policy available to Spanish-speaking audiences. Other texts authored by Latin Americans rarely appear in IR theory course syllabi, namely, dependency writings and the Latin American hybrid. Notwithstanding the central influence exercised by dependency approaches in the social sciences in Latin America, and in the field of IR, dependency theory occupies a comparatively insignificant place among those texts pertaining to the Marxist/neoMarxist tradition. Seminal works such as Cardoso and Faletto’s Dependencia y desarrollo are cited infrequently, suggesting that dependency theory is simply not considered a theory of international relations by Latin American IR professors. Authors representative of the Latin American hybrid, identified in this article as an approach that became instrumental to the analysis of Latin America’s international relations in the 1980s, are nearly invisible. The tendency to exclude indigenous attempts at theorizing, at least within the context of formal IR theory courses, suggests that predominant Latin American conceptions of what constitutes ‘‘IR theory’’ are indeed deeply rooted in U.S. interpretations of the discipline. Nevertheless, current debates within the U.S. mainstream between neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism, and rationalism and reflexivism (constructivism), are given only passing attention in the great majority of IR theory courses examined, or ignored completely. Constructivist approaches, in particular, exercise a negligible influence in IR teaching in Latin America. Third debate accounts of IR, which have avowedly shaken the foundations of mainstream IR thought, are addressed in only one-half of the IR ARLENE B. TICKNER 339 theory courses analyzed. This state of affairs suggests that the newer debates emerging within U.S. IR have not ‘‘traveled’’ as effectively to the Latin American countries as earlier theoretical discussions within the field. Professional Training in IR In addition to the greater availability of classical IR texts in the Spanish language, another significant transmission belt of U.S. IR theory to Latin American classrooms are local IR professors themselves. An important form of intellectual influence is exercised through academic training abroad, namely, the absorption of relevant theories and methods as defined by the host country and their replication in the classroom in the professors’ respective country of origin.The provenance of graduate degrees held by those IR professors at the universities under examination indicates a relatively strong geographical concentration in the United States: 44.9 percent of the Ph.D.s held by university faculty and 38.1 percent of the M.A.s were obtained in U.S. institutions. At the Ph.D. level, the countries that follow the U.S. include Great Britain (14.1 percent) and France (11.5 percent). While nearly all of the professors who teach the IR theory courses surveyed above pursued graduate studies in the United States or Great Britain, primarily during the 1980s, many academics listed in the general IR faculties of the twelve institutions never received formal training in the field, and specialize in areas distinct from international relations. This suggests that, whereas the predominant views held by Latin American IR theory professors of what actually constitutes ‘‘IR theory’’ may have been influenced by training abroad, a large number of individuals falls outside of this generalization. In the specific case of IR theory, it is likely that the more recent debates in the field, including neorealism–neoliberal institutionalism, rationalism– reflexivism, and the third debate, given their relative newness, are frequently not incorporated into IR theory course syllabi, unless a given professor has studied abroad in recent years and subsequently introduced them into her or his respective courses. Conceptual Trends in Latin American IR Journals Journals provide one of the most accurate pictures of the state of a given discipline in terms of its theoretical tendencies, major concerns, and primary debates (Waever, 1998:697). To identify those theories that have historically informed Latin American analyses of global issues, I conducted a qualitative content analysis of articles selected from five specialized journals in the region: Contexto Internacional (Brazil), Estudios Internacionales (Chile), Colombia Internacional (Colombia), Relaciones Internacionales (Costa Rica), and Foro Internacional (Mexico). The criteria used to select these journals included: (1) uninterrupted publication for ten years or more, (2) regional and international circulation, and (3) linkage with a teaching program. While the first two criteria were designed to identify those journals that have historically enjoyed the greatest amount of visibility and recognition in the field, the requirement that journals be issued by institutions with teaching programs facilitated comparison among the theoretical approaches used in IR teaching and research. A selection of articles was made according to their treatment of one or more of four topics considered to be central to IR studies in the region: international relations theory, development, integration, and security. The sample of journal articles, which totals 180 for the five journals, constitutes a universal sample and spans the entire period of existence of each journal (which ranges from 1960 to the present).14 14 For a complete listing of the journal articles included in the content analysis, see Tickner (2000:304–340). 340 Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies The qualitative content analysis of the journal articles was performed in coordination with two graduate-level research assistants who provided qualitative syntheses of each article based upon: (1) the way in which the international system is conceived, (2) the description of primary actors, (3) the definition of fundamental and issue-specific state interests, (4) the identification of central issues on the international agenda, and (5) the role of international institutions. This information served as the basis for the classification procedure.15 Each article was then classified according to its adherence to one of the theoretical traditions named in the previous section. Finally, a crosschecking was performed on a random sample of twenty articles. Following completion of the classification process, the results were aggregated into three distinct periods (1960–1977; 1978–1987; 1988–1998) to discern differences over time in the theoretical frameworks used to examine international problems in the region (see Table 2). Theoretical Publishing Patterns 1960–1998 Although the analysis of Latin American IR theory course syllabi suggests that the teaching of international relations theory in the region is characterized by intellectual dependency, the specialized journals provide a substantially different picture of IR studies. Most significantly, rather than the use of ‘‘pure’’ theoretical frameworks derived mechanically from predominant U.S. theories, Latin American journal articles in the field of international relations exhibit relatively high levels of theoretical eclecticism, characterized by the combination of bits and pieces of distinct IR theories. Twenty-six journal articles corresponded to the period 1960–1977. As mentioned previously, beginning in the 1950s ECLA undertook the first methodical analysis of the international causes of Latin American underdevelopment. The centrality of ECLA-school thinking to the social sciences in the region is clearly reflected in the analysis of international topics, primarily integration and development. Of the articles classified as ‘‘other,’’ 30.8 percent, in fact, fall within this category. The onset of dependency analysis in the late 1960s also exerted a direct effect upon the ways in which international processes were viewed. As a result, during this period dependency approaches, representative of 19.2 percent of the articles, became frequent in analyses of Latin American–U.S. relations, problems of underdevelopment, international insertion, and regional sovereignty. However, given its emphasis upon the domestic manifestations of dependency, as well as the radical solutions offered to overcome it, this school, although fundamental to Latin American IR, never became completely dominant within the field. Rather, certain assumptions provided by dependency were incorporated into the Latin American hybrid, which represents 34.6 percent of the articles. Fifty-nine articles corresponded to the period 1978–1987. During the years in question the IR discipline in Latin America expanded region-wide, and was also institutionalized. Not surprisingly, attempts to mold imported theories such as realism and interdependence to local needs reached their peak during this decade. As a result, the Latin American hybrid accounts for nearly half of the articles 15 Prior to the commencement of the article description process, I tested the coding scheme on a random sample of ten journal articles in order to revise the theoretical categories, as well as to evaluate the guidelines provided to the two research assistants. Each assistant then read and provided descriptions for approximately one-half of the articles. Articles that were difficult to describe according to the indicators provided, as well as those which incorporated diverse theoretical approaches without clearly embracing any of them, were analyzed separately by me. Upon completing the description of the entire universe of articles, a final evaluation was conducted on a random sample of twenty articles. A cross-reading of each of these articles was performed by me and the assistant who had not originally read the respective article, in order to determine the reliability of the description. Crossreader agreement, which was present in all of the cases selected, consisted of those descriptions in which each person identified similar aspects in the texts. TABLE 2. Theoretical Trends in Five Latin American IR Journals, 1960–1998 Estudios Internacionales Theoritical Tradition Classical State-Centric Classical Non–State-Centric General Classical Marxist/Neo-Marxist Postmodern Constructivist Latin American Hybrid Foreign Policy Analysis Other TOTAL 1976– 1977 1978– 1987 3 7 2 3 Foro Internacional 1988– 1998 1976– 1977 1978– 1987 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 Relaciones Internacionales 1988– 1998 3 2 1978– 1987 1988– 1998 3 3 1 2 4 Contexto Internacional 1978– 1987 1 2 5 2 4 14 1 2 8 2 2 1 1 1988– 1998 1976– 1977 1978– 1987 1988– 1998 1 2 7 2 5 13 2 2 1 2 2 11 4 8 5 9 10 27 2 4 7 15 7 3 4 1 15 7 36 23 29 26 59 95 2 1 5 6 11 29 17 15 3 1 1 2 4 5 8 9 18 16 5 Aggregate 1988– 1998 2 4 Colombia Internacional 7 9 341 342 Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies reviewed, while 15.3 percent of the articles also continue to adhere to the dependency school. Contrary to the previous period, in which the Latin American hybrid consisted primarily of notions derived from dependency and Morgenthauian realism, interdependence theory makes its appearance in those articles that address topics such as integration and transnationalization. The period 1988–1998 constitutes the largest sample of journal articles, which total 95. While 15.8 percent of the articles continue to be representative of the Latin American hybrid, another 15.8 percent make use of non–state-centric models, particularly, interdependence theory. Contrary to the other two periods, however, over one-third of the IR texts written between 1988 and 1998 did not correspond to previously established categories. Most significantly, neoliberalism accounts for 20 percent of the articles classified as ‘‘other,’’ suggesting that a new analytical framework may be taking hold within the field. This finding is discussed at greater length in a subsequent section. Although the content analysis of the 180 journal articles selected provides significant testimony as to theoretical patterns that have characterized the study of international topics in Latin America, it does not provide explicit information regarding the major concerns which Latin American internationalists have traditionally expressed, nor the recurring thematic trends that can be derived from what is written in the region’s specialized journals. The following section addresses this issue through the identification of those common threads that unite the five journals throughout the period under examination. Although the primary theoretical frameworks used in the region to analyze international problems, with the exception of dependency, have clearly been imported from the United States, the specific problems addressed by Latin American IR differ dramatically from the priorities of the discipline in the United States, leading to substantial modification of the theoretical assumptions provided mainly by Morgenthauian realism and interdependence, in order to adapt them to regional academic needs. Development According to Muñoz (1980), IR studies in Latin America have been primarily oriented toward the central goal of development. The journal articles examined between 1960 and the late 1980s, in particular those that espouse the Latin American hybrid, confirm this hypothesis. During the 1960s, in fact, the social sciences in Latin America exhibited increasing concern with the problem of development. Dependency theory became the primary approach to underdevelopment in the region, and was actively incorporated into most disciplines within the social sciences, including international relations. In this manner, economic issues affecting development, such as foreign investment, trade, and to a lesser extent, foreign debt, are largely examined within the framework of dependency by the articles under study, in particular between the early 1970s and the mid-1980s. Nevertheless, autonomy constitutes another important objective of international politics, to the extent that it serves to promote national development, while also assuring more effective negotiating capacities, enhanced control over multinational actors, and improved global insertion. The Problem of Autonomy As suggested previously, the problem of achieving autonomy as a means of surpassing situations of dependence became central to the study of international relations in Latin America during the 1970s. As a result, a significant percentage (45.8 percent) of the journal articles written between the mid-1970s and the late 1980s, regardless of the specific topic that they address, share a common concern with regional autonomy. According to Francisco Gil, the notion of power in the ARLENE B. TICKNER 343 realist perspective was replaced by the concept of autonomy as the principal strategy of Latin American international politics (1989:670). Clearly, the purposes served by autonomous international action are quite distinct from those sought through the exercise of power. Whereas power serves to influence other actors’ actions in accord with a particular actor’s interests (Morgenthau, 1968:9), autonomy provides the means for acquiring greater international negotiating capacity, defending national sovereignty, controlling the activities of transnational actors, and upholding other interests vis-à-vis stronger states within the international system. On a domestic level, autonomy provides a measure of national viability, understood as the capacity of the state to exercise its political, economic, military, and cultural functions (Jaguaribe, 1979). In consequence, the overwhelming majority of the articles that were classified within the Latin American hybrid category view autonomy as a fundamental measure of a given country’s success or failure within the international system. Integration and Cooperation Latin American journal articles written between 1960 and 1998 look toward regional integration and cooperation as a means of achieving both development and autonomy, as well as greater Latin American participation in the global system. The texts included in the content analysis that address the problem of integration in the 1960s tend to use ECLA-school frameworks of analysis, and are limited to considerations of the economic and developmental implications of such processes. However, most of the articles written during the 1970s on this topic use the Latin American hybrid. Viewed from this perspective, integration is seen as an effective instrument for surpassing Latin America’s dependent position within the international hierarchy, for positioning the region within the global system, and for promoting greater autonomy and development. Contrary to these earlier interpretations, the articles that address the problem of integration in the 1990s revolve mainly around the imperative of international insertion and the need to be competitive in an international economic system characterized by accelerated globalization. Although the importance of development is preserved in such discussions as a primary goal of the countries of the region, the totality of the articles in question are silent on the topic of autonomy as a core concept of Latin American international relations. Centrality of the State Between Latin American independence and the late 1980s, a strong state was generally conceived as the basis for national identity and economic development. As a result, the state became the principal domain of political, social, and economic regulation in the region. On an international level, the primordial status assigned to the state was derived mainly from the peripheral position occupied by the countries of the region within the international hierarchy, as well as their vulnerability to intervention from imperial powers. In addition to being the principal expression of the ‘‘nation,’’ the state became the primary symbol of national sovereignty and independence. In light of the above, it is not surprising that the state has traditionally been the principal actor emphasized by distinct analysts of international problems in Latin America. The centrality of the state in regional interpretations of international relations clearly facilitated the incorporation of several realist precepts into Latin American IR. In addition to depicting the state as a unitary, rational actor, a significant majority of the articles examined view the state as the chief interpreter and representative of the national interest. As a result, international relations are considered to be essentially relations between states. 344 Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies Notwithstanding the assimilation of realist notions of state-centrism, the journal articles reviewed between 1960 and the late 1980s exhibit an explicit awareness of the subordinate position occupied by Latin America within the international system. Although the state is presented as the primary unit on an international level, its actions are clearly seen as being conditioned by external factors, particularly other states, and nonstate actors. Even before the onset of interdependence theory, which placed emphasis upon the importance of other actors distinct from the state, the incorporation of diverse aspects of the dependency school into Latin American IR’s theoretical lexicon led to marked sensitivity concerning the restrictive role played by multinational corporations, foreign private investors, and the international banking system in terms of limiting the region’s scope of action in the international sphere. Theoretical Eclecticism Contrary to the case of IR theory teaching in Latin America, in which the theoretical categories present are clearly demarcated, as well as being representative of theoretical debates in the United States, the journal articles included in the study are characterized by a high degree of eclecticism. Eclecticism was manifested in two ways through the content analysis: (1) the existence of few pure theorists, combined with the tendency to rely upon diverse theories, depending upon the exigencies of the topic to be examined; and (2) the fusion of various categories from distinct theories into a single analytical framework. In fact, the use of pure Morgenthauian statecentric realism was limited to those articles that analyzed territorial/border conflicts and other security issues affecting national sovereignty. The handful of articles included in the sample that deal explicitly with IR theory sustain the need for theoretical eclecticism in regional IR studies. Given the scarcity of local theoretical frameworks, as well as the inapplicability of numerous aspects of traditional IR, the predominant tendency has been to pick and choose useful categories from different theories. Notwithstanding this common practice, the menu of IR theories normally relied upon has been relatively small, and strays dramatically from current debates in the United States. Specifically, neorealism is completely absent from the treatment of international topics, while regime theory and neoliberal institutionalism account for only three articles in the entire sample. In a similar fashion, constructivism, and to a lesser extent, the diverse variants of the third debate, have yet to be incorporated into the theoretical repertoire used to study IR at the level of research. Arguably, both neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism have failed to travel to Latin America for several reasons: (1) these theories’ lack of normative content, (2) their irrelevance for peripheral contexts, and (3) the absence of a strong quantitative analytical tradition in the region. The reasons behind the relative lack of interest in third debate approaches and constructivism may be related to the more recent appearance of these theories, as well as the perception that they are of limited usefulness to Latin American IR, given the applied nature of the field. In addition to ECLA-school thinking, whose influence waned in the mid-1970s, those theories that have most clearly informed the analysis of international problems in Latin America include dependency, Morgenthauian realism, and interdependence. The influence of dependency approaches is manifest primarily in the interpretation of the international system present in most international relations texts in the region. Specifically, the international system is considered to be characterized by the existence of hierarchical relations of domination. Dependency also highlights the weight of external determinants for domestic economic, political, and social processes. In consequence, Latin American IR tends to emphasize the restraints that the international system places upon both the foreign and domestic policies of the countries of the region. ARLENE B. TICKNER 345 As mentioned earlier, although dependency theory and Morgenthauian realism vary dramatically in terms of the central issues highlighted by each, they share similar assumptions concerning the hierarchical nature of power relations between actors within the international system and the centrality of domination and subordination to international relations. Realism’s reification of the state, in addition to the notion of the national interest, also became especially well suited to the state’s protagonist role in the region. Interdependence was readily incorporated into Latin American discussions of IR in the late 1970s for several reasons. The nonhierarchical nature of the international agenda stressed by interdependence, as opposed to the notion of high and low politics central to Morgenthauian realism, became more adaptable to the treatment of economic and social issues of greater relevance to the region’s international affairs. Processes of increasing interdependence and transnationalization, in turn, were viewed as potentially favorable to the interests of Latin America (Sunkel and Tomassini, 1980). In particular, the relativization of the concept of power, conceived in terms of multiple sources and actors, allowed for distinct understandings of this idea, in which the scope of action of peripheral countries was perceived to have increased. The relative optimism that interdependence provided with regard to the international relations of weak countries possessing strategic natural, economic, and political resources, or effective negotiating skills, coincided in Latin America with growing concern for regional autonomy. The relationship between interdependence and dependence as two similar products of the transformations occurring within the global economy (transnationalization and globalization, primarily) brings the Latin American hybrid full-circle. In this regard, authors such as Carlos Rico (1978) and José Juan de Olloqui (1988) maintain that interdependence is a rhetorical instrument that merely disguises the asymmetrical nature of center–periphery relations and the antagonism that unequal relations naturally produce. Neoliberalism and Globalization The significant number of journal articles accounted for by neoliberal interpretations of the international political economy during the 1990s suggests that distinct conceptual frameworks have emerged within Latin American IR to explain topics such as globalization and regional integration. Neoliberal-based analyses are characterized by the assumption that the region’s place in the global hierarchy is largely determined by its ability to compete internationally and to insert itself effectively into the global economy. Not surprisingly, market-oriented strategies, in combination with sound monetary policies and trade liberalization, are considered fundamental to achieve this end. The articles classified as adhering to neoliberalism (which total 20 percent of the sample) share this model’s penchant for individual, private initiative as opposed to the state-centric view of other predominant IR approaches in the region, while viewing the international system in terms of interdependence and cooperation. Although the state continues to be viewed as an important actor on the global stage, the private sector, in addition to the international financial community and foreign private investors, receive both greater and more positive attention than in the past. Aside from four articles critical of neoliberalism, discussions of globalization view this process in optimistic, unproblematic terms. Many highlight the potential benefits that can be derived from successful insertion into the process. Regional integration is viewed in this light as an effective mechanism for maximizing globalization’s full potential. In other words, current levels of polarization in the Latin American economic and social sciences between those in favor of and against neoliberal reform in Latin America are not reflected in IR journal treatments of this topic. Contrary to earlier periods of IR thinking in the region, which highlighted 346 Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies the need for critical analyses of international issues affecting Third World countries, this posture is indicative of conformity within the field of international relations with the principles underwriting the current global order. Conclusions This brief examination of IR thinking, teaching, and writing in Latin America indicates that in these three settings IR exhibits distinct traits. International relations teaching in the region, notwithstanding the minor differences identified among some countries, largely parallels teaching patterns in the United States. However, Latin American IR thinking and writing provide an account of the field that is markedly different from conventional international relations perspectives. My concluding remarks are intended to sketch out the consequences of incorporating a distinctive ‘‘Latin American’’ voice into Anglo-American IR. In consequence, in the paragraphs that follow I provide an initial blueprint for rethinking the field’s primary narratives in ways more sensitive to Third World realities. Theory/Practice Latin American IR is exemplary of the intimate relationship between the theory and practice of international relations. Specifically, the birth of the field and its consequent evolution constituted both an academic endeavor and a political commitment. Not only have IR scholars attempted to explain the workings of the international system; rather, the creation of strategies for improving the region’s maneuverability on a global level has also constituted an explicit goal of the field since its inception. Disciplinary Boundaries Historically, the IR ‘‘discipline’’ has reaffirmed its legitimacy through the fixing of boundaries.16 Knowledge of global realities, however, often lies beyond such boundaries. In the case of Latin American IR, both the ‘‘inside’’ and the ‘‘outside’’ become equally important in understanding the region’s international relations. International politics is not just about the ways in which states or other actors interact in the world, but also deals with the domestic consequences of a given country’s insertion into the global system. While dependency perspectives claim that underdevelopment is primarily the result of the place that a given country occupies within the international division of labor, authors such as Jaguaribe (1979) and Puig (1984) point out that unfavorable insertion into global capitalist dynamics is compounded by the asymmetrical distribution of power. In consequence, the primary questions posed by Latin American IR have as much to do with ‘‘international’’ as ‘‘domestic’’ politics, given the high levels of interpenetration that exist between the two spheres. Anarchy/Hierarchy As illustrated by Cardoso and Faletto (1969), Santos (1973), Jaguaribe (1979), Puig (1980, 1984) and Escudé (1995), portraying the international system as anarchical is highly controversial from a Third World perspective. Hierarchical relations of power and authority, grounded in both global capitalism and strategic-military strength, constrain peripheral state action in significant ways. The case could be made for the need to recover Latin American voices on this topic, given that the 16 The topic of frontiers and boundaries is a recurring theme in current critical reflections in IR. For just two examples see Shapiro and Alker (1996) and Rosenau (1997). ARLENE B. TICKNER 347 current global order has tended to accentuate the hierarchical ordering of distinct countries in economic, political, and social terms (Blaney, 1996:460). Autonomy Certainly, Latin American formulations of the problem of autonomy constitute one of the most interesting contributions of the field. Although traditional IR theories all make reference, either explicitly or implicitly, to state autonomy, the concept is normally associated with the domestic capacities of the state.17 According to Steven Krasner (1999:20), autonomy constitutes a fundamental principle of what the author defines as Westphalian sovereignty, and is described as ‘‘an institutional arrangement for organizing political life that is based on two principles: territoriality and the exclusion of external actors from domestic authority structures.’’ In other words, Westphalian sovereignty, or autonomy, is essentially equivalent to legal sovereignty (Krasner, 1999:23). In Latin America, as discussed previously, autonomy acquired both internal and external overtones. From the national borders inward, autonomy came to be viewed as the primary means of securing distinct forms of nondependent development. More importantly, however, from the national borders outward, autonomy was considered fundamental to the practice of Latin American international relations. Rather than being rooted in juridical notions of sovereignty, it became a markedly political concept. From a regional perspective, autonomy came to be viewed as an instrumental tool for safeguarding against the most noxious effects of the international system, in particular, subordinate forms of interaction with the United States. Unsurprisingly, traditional IR discussions of autonomy are silent on this topic, given that from a position of strength external autonomy is at best a minor concern, if not a non-issue altogether. State The concept of state weakness came into vogue during the past decade in order to redress the shortcomings of traditional IR theories for explaining the salience of armed conflict and war in the Third World (Buzan, 1991; Jackson, 1993; Ayoob, 1995; Holsti, 1996). Those authors who examine this problem focus upon internal factors that make peripheral states ‘‘different’’ from and ‘‘weaker’’ than core ones. While constituting significant improvements upon predominant IR explanations of states as like-units and black boxes, such perspectives generally fail to take into account the explanatory power of the Latin American IR approaches discussed in this paper for explaining peripheral state development. Both dependency and the Latin American hybrid model identify state weakness as the historical product of the region’s international insertion, which harnessed state-building processes to global capitalist dynamics in ways that hampered the consolidation of the state. In other words, ‘‘Third World states were required to graft their sovereignty on to a productive structure historically constructed to deprive their economies of autonomy, diversity and robustness’’ (Inayatullah, 1996:53). In recent years, different authors have highlighted the lack of fit between predominant IR theories and the principal problems and processes characterizing today’s world (Holsti, 2001:77–78). Increasingly, the central questions posed by the field’s mainstream are incapable of explaining phenomena such as the proliferation of global regulatory mechanisms (economic, political, and cultural), the privatization of security and violence, the decline of sovereignty and autonomy, the deterritorialization of international processes, and the emergence of complex, disjointed, global cultural flows of persons, technologies, capital, media images, and ideas (Appadurai, 1996:33–43). Hearing alternative voices on these topics, in 17 Tokatlian (1996) provides an excellent discussion of the ways in which different IR theories define autonomy. 348 Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies addition to satisfying recent demands for disciplinary opening, would provide the field with a wider array of conceptual tools for understanding the multiple worlds in which international relations inevitably take place. References ALKER, H., AND T. BIERSTEKER (1984) ‘‘The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a Future Archeologist of International Savoir Faire.’’ International Studies Quarterly 28(2):121–142. APPADURAI, A. (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. AYOOB, M. (1995) The Third World Security Predicament: State Making, Regional Conflict and the International System. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. BLANEY, D. L. (1996) ‘‘Reconceptualizing Autonomy: The Difference Dependency Makes.’’ Review of International Political Economy 3(3):459–497. BUZAN, B. (1991) People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. CARDOSO, F. H. (1972) Estado y sociedad en Ame´rica Latina. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión. CARDOSO, F. H. (1974) ‘‘As Tradições de Desenvolvimiento-Associado.’’ Estudos Cebrap 8:41–75. CARDOSO, F. H., AND E. FALETTO (1969) Dependencia y desarrollo en Ame´rica Latina. Ensayo de interpretacio´n sociolo´gica. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores. COLACRAI DE TREVISáN, M. (1992) ‘‘Perspectivas teóricas en la bibliografı́a de polı́tica exterior argentina.’’ In Enfoques teo´ricos para el estudio de la polı´tica exterior. edited by R. Russell, pp. 19–51. Buenos Aires: RIAL-GEL. CRAWFORD, R. M. A., AND D. S. L. JARVIS, eds. (2001) International RelationsFStill an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press. DE OLLOQUI, J. J. (1988) ‘‘Forjando una polı́tica de no-dependencia en una relación compleja asimétrica.’’ Foro Internacional 114:197–210. ESCUDÉ, C. (1995) El realismo de los estados de´biles. Buenos Aires: GEL. FISHLOW, A. (1988) ‘‘The State of Latin American Economies.’’ In Changing Perspectives in Latin American Studies: Insights from Six Disciplines, edited by C. Mitchell, pp. 87–120. Stanford: Stanford University Press. FRANK, A. G. (1977) ‘‘Hacia una teorı́a histórica del subdesarrollo capitalista en Asia, Africa y América Latina.’’ In Feudalismo, capitalismo, subdesarrollo, F. Sandoval and P. Rivero, comps., pp. 195–229. Bogotá: Editorial Latina. GAREAU, F. H. (1981) ‘‘The Discipline International Relations: A Multi-National Perspective.’’ The Journal of Politics 43:779–802. GEORGE, A. L. (1959) ‘‘Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Content Analysis.’’ In Trends in Content Analysis, edited by I. de Sola Pool, pp. 7–32. Champaign-Urbana: University of Illinois Press. GIL VILLEGAS, F. (1989) ‘‘El estudio de la polı́tica exterior en México: Enfoques dominantes, temas principales y una propuesta teórica-metodológica.’’ Foro Internacional 116(April–June):662–692. HOFFMANN, S. (1977) ‘‘An American Social Science: International Relations.’’ Daedalus 106(3):41–60. HOLSTI, K. J. (1985) The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Boston: Allen and Unwin. HOLSTI, K. (1996) The State, War and the State of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HOLSTI, K. J. (2001) ‘‘Along the Road of International Theory in the Next Millennium: Four Travelogues.’’ In International Relations: Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, edited by R. M. A. Crawford and D. S. L. Jarvis, pp. 73–100. Albany: State University of New York Press. INAYATULLAH, N. (1996) ‘‘Beyond the Sovereignty Dilemma: Quasi-States as Social Construct.’’ In State Sovereignty as Social Construct, edited by T. J. Biersteker and C. Weber, pp. 50–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. JACKSON, R. H. (1993) Quasi-states: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. JAGUARIBE, H. (1979) ‘‘Autonomı́a periférica y hegemonı́a céntrica.’’ Estudios Internacionales 46(April– June):91–130. KEOHANE, R. O., AND J. S. NYE (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown. KING, G., R. O. KEOHANE, AND S. VERBA (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ARLENE B. TICKNER 349 KRASNER, S. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. LAGOS, G. (1980) ‘‘Tendencias y perspectivas del estudio de las relaciones internacionales: Tareas para América Latina.’’ Estudios Internacionales 50(April–June):236–251. LAPID, Y. (1989) ‘‘The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era.’’ International Studies Quarterly 33(3):235–254. MAIRA, L. (1991) ‘‘Los estudios internacionales en América Latina: Las grandes tendencias y el marco teórico.’’ In Los estudios sobre relaciones internacionales en Colombia y América Latina, Documentos de Trabajo, by M. Ardila et al., Instituto de Estudios Polı́ticos y Relaciones Internacionales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia 2(February):7–16. MORGENTHAU, H. J. (1968) Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. MUÑOZ, H. (1980) ‘‘Los estudios internacionales en América Latina: problemas fundamentales.’’ Estudios Internacionales 51(July–September):328–344. NEUMAN, S. G. (1998) ‘‘International Relations Theory and the Third World: An Oxymoron?’’ In International Relations Theory and the Third World, edited by S. G. Neuman, pp. 1–30. New York: St. Martin’s Press. O’DONNELL, G. (1972) Modernización y autoritarismo. Buenos Aires: Editorial Paidós. PACKENHAM, R. A. (1992) The Dependency Movement: Scholarship and Politics in Development Studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. PERINA, R. M. (1985a) ‘‘El estudio de las relaciones internacionales en universidades de América Latina y el Caribe.’’ In El estudio de las relaciones internacionales en Ame´rica Latina y el Caribe, R. M. Perina, COMP., pp. 7–23. Buenos Aires: GEL. PERINA, R. M., COMP. (1985b) El estudio de las relaciones internacionales en Ame´rica Latina y el Caribe. Buenos Aires: GEL. PUIG, J. C. (1980) Doctrinas internacionales y autonomı´a latinoamericana. Caracas: Instituto de Altos Estudios de América Latina, Universidad Simón Bolı́var. PUIG, J. C. (1984) ‘‘Introducción.’’ In Ame´rica Latina: Polı´ticas exteriores comparadas, edited by Juan Carlos Puig, pp. 24–90. Buenos Aires: GEL. PUIG, J. C., S. BERGLUND, M. HALUANI, E. GUERóN, AND C. ROMERO (1990) ‘‘A Preliminary State of the Art Paper on International Studies and International Relations in Venezuela.’’ Mundo Nuevo 13(2/3):340–368. RICHARD NOSSAL, K. (2001) ‘‘Tales that Textbooks Tell: Ethnocentricity and Diversity in American Introductions to International Relations.’’ In International Relations: Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, edited by R. M. A. Crawford and D. S. L. Jarvis, pp. 167–186. Albany: State University of New York Press. RICO, C. F. (1978) ‘‘Las relaciones mexicano-norteamericanas y los significados de la ‘‘interdependencia’’.’’ Foro Internacional 74(October-December):256–291. ROBLES, F. (1993) ‘‘How ‘International’ Are International Relations Syllabi?’’ PS: Political Science and Politics 26:526–528. ROSENAU, J. N. (1997) Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. RUSSELL, R. (1992a) ‘Introducción.’ In Enfoques teo´ricos para el estudio de la polı´tica exterior, edited by R. Russell, pp. 7–18. Buenos Aires: RIAL-GEL. RUSSELL, R., ED. (1992b) Enfoques teóricos para el estudio de la polı´tica exterior. Buenos Aires: RIAL-GEL. SANTOS, T. DOS (1968) ‘‘El nuevo carácter de la dependencia.’’ Cuadernos del Centro de Estudios Sociológicos 10:1–25. SANTOS, T. DOS (1973) Imperialismo y empresas multinacionales. Buenos Aires: Editorial Galerna. SHAPIRO, M. J., AND H. R. ALKER, EDS. (1996) Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial Identities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. SOARES DE LIMA, M. R. (1992) ‘‘Enfoques analı́ticos de polı́tica exterior: el caso brasileño.’’ In Enfoques teóricos para el estudio de la polı´tica exterior, edited by R. Russell, pp. 53–83. Buenos Aires: RIALGEL. SUNKEL, O. (1980) ‘‘El desarrollo de la teorı́a de la dependencia.’’ In Transnacionalizacio´n y dependencia, by O. Sunkel et al., pp. 13–25. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana. SUNKEL, O., AND E. FUENZALIDA (1980) ‘‘La transnacionalización del capitalismo y el desarrollo nacional.’’ In Transnacionalizacio´n y dependencia, by O. Sunkel et al., pp. 45–63. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana. SUNKEL, O., AND L. TOMASSINI (1980) ‘‘La crisis del sistema transnacional y el cambio en las relaciones internacionales de los paı́ses en desarrollo.’’ Estudios Internacionales 50(April-June):163–207. 350 Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies TICKNER, A. B. (2000) ‘‘A State of the Art of the Study of International Relations in Latin America,’’ Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Miami. TOKATLIAN, J. G. (1996) ‘‘Pos-guerra frı́a y polı́tica exterior: De la autonomı́a relativa a la autonomı́a ambigua.’’ Análisis Polı´tico 28(May–August):22–40. TOMASSINI, L. (1990) ‘‘El desarrollo de los estudios internacionales en América Latina: Algunas implicaciones con respecto a la docencia.’’ In Consideraciones sobre la enseñanza de las relaciones internacionales a nivel de postgrado, by PNUD/CEPAL, pp. 51–74. Santiago de Chile: Proyecto de Cooperación con los Servicios Exteriores de América Latina. August. UNITED NATIONS, ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR LATIN AMERICA (1950) ‘‘The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal Problems.’’ New York: United Nations. VALENZUELA, S., AND A. VALENZUELA (1978) ‘‘Modernization and Dependency.’’ Comparative Politics 4:535–557. WAEVER, O. (1998) ‘‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in IR.’’ International Organiztion 52(4):687–727.