Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:10:13.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foreign Policy Options under Dependence: A Theoretical Evaluation with Evidence from Ecuador

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Jeanne A.K. Hey
Jeanne A.K. Hey
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Scholarly studies that consider the relationship between economic dependence and foreign policy reveal a wide variety of dependent foreign policy behaviour. As a body, the dependent foreign policy literature lacks the theoretical continuity needed to understand and organise this empirical diversity. Such foreign policy diversity is particularly observable in capitalist Latin America. Despite the entire region's significant economic weakness and dependence on the USA, leaders implement foreign policies as defiant as Oscar Arias's peace plan for Central America and as apparently acquiescent as Carlos Salinas de Gortari's agreeing to a Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and the USA. Progress in theory building in the area of dependent foreign policy, therefore, has particular implications for the study of Latin American foreign policy, which has been dominated by individual case studies that too rarely place their findings in a theoretical context.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , October 1993 , pp. 543 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A notable exception is Richardson, N., Foreign Policy and Economic Dependence (Austin, 1978)Google Scholar.

2 N. Richardson, Foreign Polity and Economic Dependence, pp. 17–26; ‘Economic Dependence and Foreign Policy Compliance: Bringing Measurement Closer to Conception’, in Kegley, C. and McGowan, P. (eds.), The Political Economy of Foreign Policy Behavior (Beverly Hills, 1981), pp. 87–110Google Scholar; Richardson, N. and Kegley, C. Jr, ‘Trade Dependence and Foreign Policy Compliance: A Longitudinal Analysis’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 24 (1980), pp. 191–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 While I have identified the foreign policy types from a review of the literature, they are in many cases not labelled as such. Moon, Bruce uses compliance and consensus in ‘The Foreign Policy of the Dependent State’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 27 (1983), pp. 315–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Consensus or Compliance? Foreign Policy Change and External Dependence’, International Organization, vol. 39 (Spring 1985), pp. 297–329. Singer, Marshall refers to counterdependence in Weak States in a World of Powers: The Dynamics of International Relationships (New York, 1972)Google Scholar. The compensation label is my own.

4 Moon, B., ‘The Foreign Policy of the Dependent State’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 27 (1983), pp. 315–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 ‘Economic Dependence and Foreign Policy Compliance’, p. 102.

6 Armstrong, A., ‘The Political Consequences of Economic Dependence’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 25 (09 1981), pp. 401–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Bruce Russett's conception of hegemony as control over outcomes relates directly to this third process of compliance. Russett describes a global economy operating by rules that continue to favour the USA and other advanced industrialised economies. The continuation of global economic outcomes favouring the USA, such as Latin America's adoption of pro-investment policies, is an indicator of hegemony which is more difficult to identify, but no less favourable to the United States. Joseph Nye advances a similar thesis. Arguing that the traditional conceptions of power as control over resources have lost their analytical utility, Nye contends that ‘it is just as important to set the agenda and structure the situations in world politics as it is to get others to change in particular situations’. See Russett, B., ‘The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony; or Is Mark Twain Really Dead?’, International Organisation, vol. 39 (1985), pp. 207–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Nye, J. S., ‘The Changing Nature of World Power’, Political Science Quarterly vol. 105 (1990), pp. 177–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Keohane, R., ‘Political Influence in the General Assembly’, International Conciliation, no. 557 (03 1966), p. 10Google Scholar.

9 Witkopff, E., ‘Foreign Aid and United Nations Notes: A Comparative Study’. American Political Science Review, vol. 67, no. 3 (1973), pp. 868–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Rai, K., ‘Foreign Aid and Voting in the UN General Assembly, 1967–1976’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 17, no. 3 (1980), pp. 269–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Foreign Policy and Economic Dependence, p. 164.

12 J. Ray, ‘Dependence, Political Compliance, and Economic Performance: Latin America and Eastern Europe’, in C. Kegley and P. McGowan (eds.), The Political Economy of Foreign Policy Behavior, pp. 111–36.

13 ‘Trade Dependence and Foreign Policy Compliance’.

14 Kegley, C. and Hook, S., ‘US Foreign Aid and UN Voting: Did Reagan's Linkage Strategy Buy Deference of Defiance?’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 3 (1991), pp. 295–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 See, e.g. Cardoso, F. and Faletto, E., Dependency and Development in Latin America (Los Angeles, 1979)Google Scholar; Duvall, R., ‘Dependence and Dependencia Theory: Notes Toward Precision of Concept and Argument’, International Organisation, vol. 32, no. 1 (1978), pp. 51–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Frank, A. G., ‘The Development of Underdevelopment’ in Klarén, P. and Bossert, T. (eds.), Promise of Development: Theories of Change in Latin America (Boulder, CO, 1986) (originally published 1969), pp. 111–23Google Scholar.

16 Biddle, W. and Stephens, J., ‘Dependent Development and Foreign Policy: The Case of Jamaica’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 33 (12 1989), pp. 411–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Moon, B., ‘The Foreign Policy of the Dependent State’; and ‘Consensus or Compliance? Foreign Policy Change and External Dependence’, International Organization, vol. 39 (Spring 1985), pp. 297–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Hermann, M. G., Hermann, C. F. and Hutchins, G. R., ‘Affect’, in Callahan, Patrick, Brady, Linda P. and Hermann, Margaret G. (eds.), Describing Foreign Policy Behavior (Beverly Hills, 1982), pp. 207–22Google Scholar.

19 ‘Dependent Development and Foreign Policy: The Case of Jamaica’.

20 Klak, T. and Hey, J., ‘Gender and State Bias in Jamaican Housing Programs’, World Development, vol. 20, no. 2 (1992), pp. 213–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 See, for example, Grabendorff, W., ‘Mexico's Foreign Policy: Indeed a Foreign Policy?’, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, vol. 2 (02 1978), pp. 85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The Role of Regional Powers in Central America: Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba and Colombia’, in Muñoz, H. and Tulchin, J. (eds.), Latin American Nations in World Politics (Boulder, CO, 1984), pp. 83–100Google Scholar; Pellicer, O., ‘Mexico's Position’, Foreign Policy, vol. 44 (Summer 1981), pp. 88–92Google Scholar; ‘A Note on Mexico: Expectations and Reality’, in Irvín, G. and Gorostiaga, X. (eds.), Towards an Alternative for Central America and the Caribbean (London, 1985), pp. 84–92Google Scholar; Ferris, E., ‘Mexico's Foreign Policy: A Study in Contradictions’, in Ferris, E. and Lincoln, J. (eds.), Latin American Foreign Policies: Global and Regional Dimensions (Boulder, CO, 1984), pp. 213–28Google Scholar; Castañeda, J., ‘Don't Corner Mexico!’ Foreign Policy, vol. 61 (Fall 1985), pp. 75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hey, J. and Kuzma, L., ‘Anti-US Foreign Policies of Dependent States: Mexican and Costa Rican Participation in Central American Peace Plans’, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 26 (04 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Davis, H. E., ‘The Analysis of Latin American Foreign Policies’, in Davis, Harold Eugene and Wilson, Larman C. (eds.), Latin American Foreign Policies: An Analysis (Baltimore, 1975), pp. 3–22Google Scholar; Lincoln, J., ‘Introduction to Latin American Foreign Policy: Global and Regional Dimensions’, in Ferris, Elizabeth G. and Lincoln, Jennie K. (eds.), Latin American Foreign Policies: Global and Regional Dimensions (Boulder, CO, 1981), pp. 3–18Google Scholar; and A. Van Klaveren, ‘The Analysis of Latin American Foreign Policies: Theoretical Perspectives’, in Heraldo Muñoz and Joseph S. Tulchin (eds.), Latin American Nations in World Politics, pp. 1–21.

23 F. Aspiazu, personal communication, 1991.

24 Banco Central del Ecuador, División Técnica, Ecuador en Cifras 1985–1989 (Quito, 1991)Google Scholar.

25 Aráuz, L., Frente a Nuestra Realidad Petrolera (Quito, 1990), pp. 95Google Scholar, 100.

26 US Dept. of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 106th ed. (Washington DC, 1990), p. 801Google Scholar.

27 See Biersteker, T., ‘Reducing the Role of the State in the Economy: A Conceptual Exploration of IMF and World Bank Prescriptions’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 4 (1990), pp. 477–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bradshaw, Y. and Wahl, A., ‘Foreign Debt Expansion, the International Monetary Fund, and Regional Variation in Third World Poverty’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 3 (1990), pp. 251–72Google Scholar.

28 Statistical Abstract of the United Stats, p. 797.

29 Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Profile, Ecuador (London, 1988), p. 41Google Scholar.

30 Banco Central del Ecuador, Memoria Anual, Año 1988 (Quito, 1989), p. 86Google Scholar; Frente a Nuestra Realidad, p. 111.

31 Corkill, D. and Cubitt, D., Ecuador: Fragile Democracy (London, 1988)Google Scholar.

32 Kasza, G., ‘Regional Conflict in Ecuador: Quito and Guayaquil’, Inter-American Economic Affairs, vol. 35 (Autumn 1981), pp. 3–42Google Scholar.

33 Data for the case studies were collected during field research in Quito and Guayaquil in 1990 and 1991. They include government documents, policy statements from government and non-government offices, writings and interviews of policy analysts, and extensive interviews with Osvaldo Hurtado, León Febres Cordero and members of their administrations.

34 ‘Hay Falta de Honradez en la Etica Política Nacional’, El Comercio, 3 Jan. (Quito, 1984) p. a1; SENDIP (Secretaría Nacional de Información Pública), Democracia y Crisis VI: La Conferencia Económica Latinoamericana (Quito, 1984), pp. 7–9Google Scholar; Martz, J., Politics and Petroleum in Ecuador (New Brunswick, 1987), p. 328Google Scholar; Hurtado, O., Política Democrática, Vol. I, Los Ultimas Veinte y Cinco Años (Quito, 1990), pp. 149–50Google Scholar.

35 Democracia y Crisis VI, p. 206.

36 Ibid. pp. 264–91.

37 Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Informe a la Nación (Quito, 1984), pp. 333–4Google Scholar; and Politics and Petroleum, p. 329.

38 Cartagena Consensus members included Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Bolivia, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. The Group of Eight's members were Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

39 Tussie, D., ‘The Coordination of the Latin American Debtors: Is There a Logic Behind the Story?’, in Griffith-Jones, Stephany (ed.), Managing the World Debt (New York, 1988), pp. 282–307Google Scholar.

40 Griffith-Jones, S. and Sunkel, O., Debt and Development Crisis in Latin America: The End of an Illusion (Oxford, 1986), p. 113Google Scholar; ‘The Coordination of Latin American Debtors’, p. 286.

41 Debt and Development Crisis in Latin America, p. 113; ‘The Coordination of Latin American Debtors’, p. 296.

42 Creditors appeared to have heard the calls of the CEL and the Cartagena Consensus in 1985. Rescheduling agreements in that year were characterised by a decrease in interest rate spreads, a reduction in the cost of credit, a significant drop and in some cases the elimination of costly rescheduling commissions, and longer amortisation periods. See ‘The Coordination of Latin American Debtors’, p. 293.

43 Payer, C., ‘World Bank/IMF: Good Cop/Bad Cop’, Guardian, 9 04 (London, 1986)Google Scholar; Roett, R., ‘How the Haves Manage the Have-Nots: Latin America and the Debt Crisis’, in Stallings, Barbara and Kaufman, Robert (eds.), Debt and Democracy in Latin American (Boulder, CO, 1989), pp. 59–73Google Scholar; ‘The Coordination of Latin American Debtors’, p. 295.

44 Osvaldo Hurtado, personal communication, 1991.

45 Lagos, G. and Plaza, O., ‘La Actual Política Exterior Norteamericana y su Proyección en América Latina’, Estudios Internacionales, vol. 18 (1985), pp. 63–80Google Scholar; White, E., ‘The Question of Foreign Investments and the Economic Crisis in Latin America’, in Feinberg, Richard E. and Ffrench-Davis, Ricardo (eds.), Development and External Debt in Latin America: Basis for a New Consensus (Notre Dame, IN, 1988), pp. 147–74Google Scholar; L. Carrión, personal communication, 1991; F. Carrión Mena, personal communication, 1991.

46 Acosta, A., ‘Democracia vs. Políticas de Ajuste: El Dilema de los Ochenta’, unpubl. paper (Quito, 1990), p. 18Google Scholar.

47 ‘How the Haves Manage the Have-Nots’, p. 63.

48 ‘Latin American Nations Pressure Banks but Stop Short of Forming Debtor Cartel’, The Wall Street Journal, 12 Sept. 1983, p. 36.

49 Ibid.

50 Informe a la Nación, p. 53.

51 Personal communication with anonymous Foreign Affairs Ministry officer, 1991.

52 ‘Hay Falta de Honradez’.

53 Martz, J., ‘The Fate of a Small State: Ecuador in Foreign Affairs’, in Muñoz, H. and Tulchin, J. (eds.), Latin American Nations in World Politics, 2nd ed. (Boulder, CO, 1992), pp. 24–5Google Scholar; and Molineu, H., U.S. Policy Towards Latin America: From Regionalism to Globalism, 2nd ed. (Boulder, CO, 1990), p. 99Google Scholar.

54 Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Profile, Ecuador 1984–85, no. 1 (London, 1985), p. 8Google Scholar.

55 Economist Intelligence Unit, 1985b Country Profile, Ecuador, 1984–85, no. 3 (London, 1985b)Google Scholar.

56 Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Informe a la Nación (Quito, 1985), p. 35Google Scholar; Zuckerman, S., ‘Reagan's Man in the Andes’, The Nation, 5 04 (1986), pp. 484–7Google Scholar; also personal communications with administration members A. Dahik, C. Emanuel, L. Febres Cordero, and E. Terán, 1991.

57 Conaghan, C., Restructuring Domination: Industrialists and the State in Ecuador (Pittsburgh, 1988), pp. 91–3Google Scholar.

58 Cámara de Industrias de Guayaquil, ‘Bienvenido Capital Extranjero’, unpubl. bulletin (Guayaquil, 1985)Google Scholar; Cámara de Industrials de Pichincha, Informe Anual 1986–1987 (Quito, 1987)Google Scholar; Marcelo Pallares, personal communication, 1991.

59 U.S. Policy Toward Latin America, p. 99.

60 A. Dahik, personal communication, 1991.

61 Personal communication with A. Dahik, C. Emanuel, L. Febres Cordero and E. Terán, 1991.

62 Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Profile, Ecuador 1984–85, no. 1, p. 8.

63 C. Emanuel, personal communication, 1991.

64 L. Febres Cordero, personal communication, 1991.

65 Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Informe a la Nación, pp. 92–5.

66 Personal communication with L. Febres Cordero and E. Terán, 1991.

67 The exception is Alberto Dahik, Febres Cordero's Finance Minister in 1985. Dahik believed that Castro's ideology was sufficient reason not to have relations with Cuba and left the Havana meetings early. To this day, he remains very critical of Febres Cordero's friendly relations with Cuba.

68 Personal communication, 1991.

69 Personal communication, 1991.

70 Schodt, D., Ecuador: An Andean Enigma (Boulder, CO, 1987), p. 150Google Scholar; Restructuring Domination, p. 101; and Fragile Democracy, p. 39.

71 Fragile Democracy, p. viii.

72 Ecuador: An Andean Enigma, p. 179.

73 Personal communication, 1991.

74 Acosta, A., La Deuda Eterna (Quito, 1990), p. 324Google Scholar; ‘The Fate of a Small State’, p. 25.

75 Personal communication, 1991.

76 ‘Reagan's Man in the Andes’, p. 386; Fragile Democracy, pp. 80–1; and ‘The Fate of a Small State’, p. 24.

77 Rivadeneira, M., ‘Altibajos Relaciones Ecuador-Nicaragua’, El Comercio, 12 10 (Quito, 1985), p. a3Google Scholar.

78 L. Carrión, personal communication.

79 C. Juez, personal communication, 1991.

80 ‘Altibajos Relaciones’.

81 ‘Ortega Acusa a Febres Cordero de Ser un Instrumento de E.U.’, El Comercio 11 Oct. (Quito, 1985), p. a3.

82 This latter accusation was an apparent reference to Febres Cordero's attempts to postpone provincial elections, a request which had yet to be approved by Congress. See ‘Rotas Relaciones con Nicaragua’, El Comercio, 12 Oct. (1985), p. a1.

83 ‘Edga r Terán: Inalterada la Solidaridad con el Pueblo Nicaragüense’, El Comercio, 15 Oct. (Quito, 1985), p. a2.

84 E. Terán, personal communication, 1991.

85 ‘Reagan's Man in the Andes’, p. 386; Fragile Democracy, pp. 80–1; and ‘The Fate of a Small State’, p. 24.

86 L. Narváez, personal communication, 1991.

87 U.S. Policy Toward Latin America, p. 210.

88 Politics and Petroleum, pp. 329–30; Restructuring Domination, p. 127; U.S. Policy Toward Latin America, p. 159.

89 Bagley, B. and Tokatlian, J. G., Contadora: The Limits of Negotiation (Pittsburgh, 1987), p. 47Google Scholar; Lewis, N., ‘Reagan Sees Fatal Flaws in Central American Pact’, The New York Times, 13 09 (1987), p. a24Google Scholar; Moreno, D., ‘Reasserting the Hegemonic Presumption’, paper presented at the Latin American Studies Association Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. (1991), p. 17Google Scholar; ‘Anti-US Foreign Policies of Dependent States’.

90 ‘Rompimiento era Inevitable: E.U.’, El Comercio, 13 Oct. (Quito, 1985), p. a2.

91 ‘Elliot Abrams: Preocupa a E.U. Estabilidad Económica de América Latina’, El Comercio, 25 Oct. (Quito, 1985), p. a8.

92 ‘Reagan's Man in the Andes’, p. 484; Fragile Democracy, p. 2; ‘The Fate of a Small State’, pp. 23–24.

93 See, for example, the collection of essays in Foreign Policy on Latin America, 1970–1980 (Boulder, CO, 1983); Lowenthal, A., ‘The United States and Latin America: Ending the Hegemonic Presumption', Foreign Affairs, vol. 55 (10 1976), pp. 199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and U.S. Policy Toward Latin America, p. 40.

94 Pastor, M. Jr, and Wise, C., ‘Peruvian Economic Policy in the 1980s: From Orthodoxy to Heterodoxy and Back’, Latin American Research Review, vol. 27, no. 2 (1992), pp. 43–82Google Scholar.