MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4379779773 · doi:10.1353/tla.2016.a705797

The United States and Latin America: The Overstated Decline of a Superpower

2016· article· en· W4379779773 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tom Long

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Latin Americanist · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueInternational Relations in Latin America
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSuperpowerLatin AmericansChinaPolitical sciencePower (physics)Economic historyPoliticsPolitical economyGreat powerState (computer science)Development economicsLawHistorySociologyEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

THE UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA: THE OVERSTATED DECLINE OF A SUPERPOWER Tom Long University of Reading “Well into the 1990s Washington still exerted significant influence across the region. By contrast, today it exercises less regional influence , and conversely, Latin American states display greater autonomy than at any time in the last one hundred years. . . . By the end of the 21st century’s first decade, Latin American governments had stopped paying much attention to the United States.” –Mark Eric Williams, 20151 “[T]he United States and Canada are being virtually expelled from the hemisphere.” –Noam Chomsky, 20132 Introduction After emerging from the Cold War as the uncontested, unipolar power,3 the United States now sees itself beset by challengers. Its own power has been undermined by political paralysis, economic weakness, imperial overstretch, and costly bad decisions. In some cases, these bad decisions have spurred embryonic counterbalancing coalitions.4 The U.S. inability to respond has, meanwhile, allowed a resurgent Russia and growing China to enhance their positions at the United States’ expense. This adds up to a new conventional wisdom: the United States is a power in decline.5 For many analysts over the past decade, China is the power of tomorrow.6 For others, such as Charles Kupchan, we have entered No One’s World.7 By 2010, even the U.S. intelligence establishment had seemingly accepted the fact that U.S. unipolarity was nearing an end. Just 15 years hence, its Global Trends report proclaimed, the world would be an “almost unrecognizable,” “global multipolar” system, characterized by the “transfer of global wealth and economic power.”8 The message: goodbye “indispensable nation.”9 This argument has been frequently extended to the United States’ position in the Western Hemisphere, where its power was long unrivalled— or so many analysts still claim. An early period of consensus has collapsed : “The 2000s, in contrast, witnessed strong divergences between Latin American countries and the United States. The United States was no longer capable—perhaps unwilling—to shape and influence the regional system.”10 The United States faces new rivalries for Latin American C 2016 Southeastern Council on Latin American Studies and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1111/tla.12094 497 The Latin Americanist, December 2016 loyalties. “Iran, Russia, and China have all significantly increased their economic and political footprints in the region,” Russell Crandall avers.11 That leaders from the United States’ supposed “backyard” now spearhead projects to counter U.S. influence seems like the coup de grace for a creaking heavyweight. The “pink tide” that took power starting with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez in the late 1990s both took advantage of and contributed to “the waning influence of the United States.”12 Latin America now had the means, the motivation, and the leadership to increase its distance from Washington. Plus, it could now get a little help from rising friends. In early 2015, Argentine historian Leandro Morgenfeld cited ALBA, CELAC, and UNASUR to argue that, “During the 21st century, Latin America has advanced as never before in a process of regional integration outside of Washington’s orbit.”13 The United States was shunned from within and challenged from without. The Americas, it seemed, were experiencing a Copernican revolution. This decline is not what it seems. Too often, U.S. decline is assumed as a precondition for the study of other phenomena, such as the rise of the Latin American left or the role of China. Other arguments build on selective readings and oversimplifications of U.S. influence during the past. By foregrounding these assumptions, this article questions the idea that U.S. power in the hemisphere entered a phase of new, steep decline during the mid-2000s. While the hemisphere has experienced important changes, many of these precede the current declinist debate. Claims of declining U.S. power (or influence) in Latin America and the Caribbean have suffered from a lack of conceptual clarity. This paper places the debate about the U.S. position in the hemisphere in the context of broader discussions about power in International Relations. The remainder of the essay will be divided in several sections. First, it will survey the recent debate on the state of U.S...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,903
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,006
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,306
Écart entre enseignants0,290 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Latin AmericanistMême sujetInternational Relations in Latin AmericaTravaux en français237 207