. Democratic Political Culture in Hard Times: Results from the - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

.

Democratic Political Culture in Hard Times: Results from the 2010 AmericasBarometer Presentation Order 1. About the surveys: when, where how 2. Economic crisis and democracy 3. The vulnerabilities of democracy in the Americas

LAPOP’s Beginnings The 1970s The 1990s

The AmericasBarometer 26 countries, 43,990 interviews 2010 2004

What is unique about the AmericasBarometer? What is unique about the AmericasBarometer? AmericasBar AmericasBarometer meter Fea eatur tures es  Includes North America/ Caribbean (26 countries) Interviews in indigenous languages (15 total) and  widespread use of handheld computers (PDAs) allowing “code-switching” among languages  Samples of 1,500 vs. typical 1,000  Full disclosure of sample designs National stratification and sub-stratification by  rural/urban residence  Functions as a consortium of academic partners Central oversight over data collection: pre-tests in  all countries; interviewer training; auditing of data sets

What is unique about the AmericasBarometer? What is unique about the AmericasBarometer? AmericasBar AmericasBarometer meter Fea eatur tures es No cost/no registration, on-line multivariate  analysis (no embargo period) No-cost, online reports for each country, in  addition to a report for the entire region Confidence intervals are sample design based in  all charts and regressions  Statistical analyses based on theoretical models Entire questionnaire (in all local languages used  for surveys) included as an appendix in each report Full adherence to federal human subjects  protection rules; all team leaders IRB certified

Donors 2010

The L e LAPOP R POP Resear search Team eam at V Vanderbilt nderbilt Partner Country T ner Country Teams f ams for r 2010 AmericasBar 2010 AmericasBarometer meter Star Startup meeting tup meeting, San San Salv Salvador ador, El Salv , El Salvador ador, , No November ember, 2009 , 2009

• Face-to-face interviews by Face-to-face interviews by interviewers trained by interviewers trained by LAPOP LAPOP personnel personnel • Stratif Stratified national probabili ed national probability ty Methodology samples samples down to the household level down to the household level (quotas within households) (quotas within households) of 1500 of 1500 voting-age respondents voting-age respondents • Probabili Probability proportional to ty proportional to size (PPS) size (PPS) sampling sampling is used at every stage is used at every stage • Estimated Error: < +/- Estimated Error: < +/- 3% % with 95% with 95% confidence interval confidence interval • Use of PDAs (handheld Use of PDAs (handheld computers) computers) in most countries in most countries

Sampling Country Sample Size Error Sample Size Mexico/ Central America Mexico 1,562 ±2.5% Guatemala 1,504 ±2.5% and El Salvador 1,550 ±2.5% Honduras 1,596 ±2.5% Nicaragua 1,540 ±2.5% Costa Rica 1,500 ±2.5% Confidence Panama 1,536 ±2.5% Andean/Southern Cone Colombia 1,506 ±2.5% Intervals Ecuador 3,000 ±1.8% Peru 1,500 ±2.5% Bolivia 3,018 ±1.8% (National Paraguay 1,166 ±2.9% Chile 1,965 ±2.5% Uruguay 1,500 ±2.5% Brazil 2,882 ±1.8% Level) Venezuela 1,500 ±2.5% Argentina 1,505 ±2.5% Caribbean Belize 1,504 ±2.5% Dominican 1,500 ±2.5% Republic Guyana 1,540 ±2.5% Haiti 1,752 (+4,248) ±2.4% Jamaica 1,499 ±2.5% Suriname 1,500 ±2.5% Trinidad & 1,503 ±2.0% Tobago United States and Canada Canada 1,500 ±2.2% United 1,500 ±2.0% States

Use of Use of handheld computer handheld computers: s: 1. 1. Reduces da duces data ta entry er entry error ors Honduras 2. Allows f 2. Allows for m r multiple langua ltiple languages 3. 3. Permits embedded e rmits embedded experiments periments Costa Rica Guyana

National Samples Str Na tional Samples Stratif tified b ied by K Key y Regions Re Carchi Esmeraldas Imbabura Sucumbíos Pichincha Manabí Napo Cotopaxi Tungurahua Los Ríos Bolivar Three Str ee Strata in ta in Pastaza Guayas Chimborazo Ecuador Ecuador: Cañar Morona Santiago Coast, Coast, Azuay El Oro Mountains Mountains, , Loja Amaz Amazon on Zamora Chinchipe (N = 3,000) (N = 3,000)

National Samples Str Na tional Samples Stratif tified b ed by K Key R y Regions gions Nine Str Nine Strata in ta in Pando Bolivia Bolivia Eac Each point = point = Beni 20 inter 20 intervie iews ws La Paz Santa Cruz Cochabamba Oruro Potosí Chuquisaca Tarija

Andean / Southern Cone Andean / Southern C ne Andes/Cono Sur Colombi Colombia Partners Ec Ecuador dor 2010 Peru Pe IEP Instituto de Estudios Peruanos IEP Instituto de Estudios Peruanos Bolivia Boli Pa Paraguay Chil Chile Urugua Ur uguay Brazil azil Venezuela Ve

Mexico and Central America Mexi Me xico Opinión Publica y Mercados Opinión Publica y Mercados Partners Gua Guatema emala 2010 El El Salv Salvador ador Hondur Hond uras Nicar aragua gua Costa Costa Rica Rica Panama Pa

Caribbean Carib ean Dominican Republic Partners Guyana 2010 Haiti Jamaica Canada and United Sta nada and United States es Canad áy Estados Unidos Canad Canada U.S.

Making Results Accessible

Country Reports: all on-line, free

Dissemination in Each Country Uruguay Ecuador Colombia

Insights Series & Americas Quarterly Free on-line subscription: Free subscriptions to the “Insights Series” of bi-weekly studies t i i ht@ il i b t

Free on-line data analysis: www.LapopSurveys.org

Free on-line data analysis

Economic Crisis and Democracy

What economists tell us…… On p. 3:

“In 1920, 26 out of 28 European states were parliamentary democracies” Nancy Bermeo, Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times: the Citizenry and the Breakdown of Democracy. Princeton University Press, 2003, p. 21 “By 1938, 13 of those democracies had become dictatorships”  Italy, October 1922  Bulgaria, June 1923  Portugal, May 1926  Poland, May 1926  Yugoslavia, January 1929  Germany, January 1933  Austria, March 1933  Estonia, March 1934  Latvia, May 1934  Spain, July 1936  Romania, 1938

• Breakdown is not limite Breakdown is not limited to the distant past: to the distant past: Worldwide, nearly 38 perce Worldwide, nearly 38 percent of the 114 nt of the 114 democratizations 1960-2003 were reversed, at democratizations 1960-2003 were reversed, at least for some period of time least for some period of time • (Converse and Kapstein, The Fate of Young Democracies, Cambridge University Press, 2008).

The Theory: Country-Level Economic context also matters for the stability of democracy Chile 7352.9  Economic Underdevelopment Argentina 6344.2 Przeworski et al: “No democracy has ever been Uruguay 5724.5 Costa Rica 5067.8 subverted…in a country with a per capita Panama 4781.2 income higher than that of Argentina in 1975: Mexico 4735.6 Brazil 4178.7 $6,055. There is no doubt that democracy is Venezuela 4099.1 stable in affluent countries” (98). Dominican Republic 4003.9 Belize 3957.1 Colombia 3534.5 El Salvador 2755.6 Paraguay 2735.3 Jamaica 2659.2 Przew orski et al. threshold of Ecuador 2618.7 Peru 2523.4 breakdow n immunity Guatemala 2206.8 Guyana 2165.1 Nicaragua 1982.0 Bolivia 1743.5 Honduras 1341.4 Haiti 1200.1 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Real Income (GDP) per capita (1985 International Prices)

Two published studies using pre-crisis 2008 AmericasBarometer data: PS: Political Science and Politics Latin American Politics and Society

Changes in Real GDP: 2008-2009 Dominican Republic 3.5% Bolivia 3.4% Uruguay 2.9% Suriname 2.5% Panama 2.4% Peru 0.9% Guyana 0.9% Argentina 0.9% Colombia 0.5% Guatemala 0.4% Ecuador 0.4% Brazil -0.2% Belize -0.5% Nicaragua -1.0% Costa Rica -1.5% Chile -1.5% Honduras -2.0% United States -2.4% Canada -2.5% El Salvador -2.5% Jamaica -2.6% Venezuela -3.3% Paraguay -3.8% Trinidad & Tobago -4.4% Mexico -6.5% -8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% Source: World Bank 2010 www. LapopSurveys.org

Research Question: While breakdown is an extreme and unlikely outcome, will the current global economic downturn weaken citizen support for key components of democracy, thus slowing or even undermining democratic consolidation?

Economic Experiences and Perceptions in the Americas, 2010

Job Losses in the Americas, 2008-2010 Yes, but found a new one 7.3% Yes Own decision 16.1% not to work/ Yes, but have not disabilities found a new one 10.5% 8.5% No 83.9% No, did not lose your job 73.7% Has anyone in your household lost his or her Have you lost your job in the past two years? job in the past two years? Source: AmericasBarometer by LAPOP Note: Based on 25 countries (excludes Haiti).