AuthorVelázquez., José Luis
KeywordsHistory, Latin American.
Sociology, Theory and Methods.
Political Science, General.
Political Science, International Law and Relations.
Sociology, Social Structure and Development.
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
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.
AbstractIn Marxist and Dependence theories, revolution has been prescribed as a panacea for developing countries' social evils. However, there is little work dedicated to evaluation of the results of those events that permit the validation of theory. Therefore, the aim of this dissertation is to assess the outcomes of the Nicaraguan Revolution (1979-1990) and test this assumption. The assessment was made according to Edward Muller's theoretical framework. It is centered in the idea that revolutions destroy social capital. Their successes depend on the skill of revolutionary leadership in distinguishing obsolete from other forms of valuable social capital. The latter has to be fostered as the base of the revolution's future development. The indicators used were: (1) The extent at which the revolutionary leadership keeps its promises and delivers public goods; (2) The evaluation of power, strength, and centralization of the revolutionary state vs. the ancient regime; (3) The performance of the revolutionary economy; (4) The extension of the policies of land distribution, and; (5) The effects of the revolutionary policies in income distribution, inequality, and the creation of new opportunities for the citizenry. The conclusions were: (1) The Sandinista leadership did not deliver the promises of mixed economy, political pluralism and on alignment; (2) The revolutionary state was: strongest, more centralized and powerful than the Somoza regime; (3) The economic performance was poor, and unable to meet the needs of the people; (4) The policies of land reform were effective in distributing land, but failed in the creation of a new social class of farmers. It became a counterinsurgency land reform directed to create an available political clientele for the ruling party; (5) The contradiction between macroeconomics and distributive microeconomics policies, canceled out the effect of the latter, inducing a process of income concentration; (6) The insertion of the Nicaraguan crisis in the East-West confrontation accentuated dependence; (7) The empirical evidence supports Moller and Weede's theoretical assertion (1995) in the sense that the Sandinista leadership was not able to discriminate between obsolete social capital from valuable social capital, that existed embedded in pre-revolutionary institutional structure. Its attempt to subordinate civil society and substitute it with a spurious civil society ended with the destruction of valuable social capital needed for growth and development.
Degree ProgramGraduate College