MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379779773 · doi:10.1353/tla.2016.a705797

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

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

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Latin Americanist · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations in Latin America
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperpowerLatin AmericansChinaPolitical sciencePower (physics)Economic historyPoliticsPolitical economyGreat powerState (computer science)Development economicsLawHistorySociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from 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...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Latin AmericanistSame topicInternational Relations in Latin AmericaFrench-language works237,207