Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorMcAdam, Dougen_US
dc.contributor.authorStein, Rosa Emilia Rodriguez.
dc.creatorStein, Rosa Emilia Rodriguez.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-31T17:18:29Zen
dc.date.available2011-10-31T17:18:29Zen
dc.date.issued1989en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/184789en
dc.description.abstractThis study examines the nature and intensity of collective action in five Central American nations during the period 1950-1980. Using a historical comparative analysis, I found that Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua have had guerrilla movements and Honduras and Costa Rica have not. Instead, Honduras and Costa Rica have developed workers and peasant movements that are important political forces in their respective societies. These differences are explained by comparing and contrasting the five countries in terms of distribution of land and income, their political structure and their political influence of the United States. Unequal distribution of land and income is commonly thought to produce frustration and discontent, and in turn, higher frequencies of collective action. In Central America, land and income inequality have remained, for the most part, constant, while the nature and intensity of collective action varies over time and across country. Consequently, I concluded that inequality alone does not facilitate the origin and development of forms of collective protest. More compelling theoretical arguments can be made for the political structure of each country and the political influence of the United States as preconditions for the nature and intensity of collective action. The strength of worker and peasant organizations, and their ability to protest non-violently during these times, occurred when the United States encouraged democratic government in these nations. These forms of governance provided freedom and protection for organizing and collective protest. But as the United States supported and encouraged repressive governments, non-violent actions were repressed, and in turn, violent forms of protest originated. Then guerrilla movements appeared and developed when the United States reduced or withdrew military assistance to these repressive governments.
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.subjectGovernment, Resistance to -- Central America.en_US
dc.subjectCivil rights movements -- Central America.en_US
dc.subjectRural development -- Central America.en_US
dc.subjectEconomic assistance, American -- Central America.en_US
dc.titleCollective action in peripheral nations: A comparative analysis of five Central American countries.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.contributor.chairMcAdam, Dougen_US
dc.identifier.oclc702670004en_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
dc.identifier.proquest9000782en_US
thesis.degree.disciplineSociologyen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-08-22T21:26:02Z
html.description.abstractThis study examines the nature and intensity of collective action in five Central American nations during the period 1950-1980. Using a historical comparative analysis, I found that Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua have had guerrilla movements and Honduras and Costa Rica have not. Instead, Honduras and Costa Rica have developed workers and peasant movements that are important political forces in their respective societies. These differences are explained by comparing and contrasting the five countries in terms of distribution of land and income, their political structure and their political influence of the United States. Unequal distribution of land and income is commonly thought to produce frustration and discontent, and in turn, higher frequencies of collective action. In Central America, land and income inequality have remained, for the most part, constant, while the nature and intensity of collective action varies over time and across country. Consequently, I concluded that inequality alone does not facilitate the origin and development of forms of collective protest. More compelling theoretical arguments can be made for the political structure of each country and the political influence of the United States as preconditions for the nature and intensity of collective action. The strength of worker and peasant organizations, and their ability to protest non-violently during these times, occurred when the United States encouraged democratic government in these nations. These forms of governance provided freedom and protection for organizing and collective protest. But as the United States supported and encouraged repressive governments, non-violent actions were repressed, and in turn, violent forms of protest originated. Then guerrilla movements appeared and developed when the United States reduced or withdrew military assistance to these repressive governments.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
azu_td_9000782_sip1_w.pdf
Size:
5.213Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record