Democratic Political Culture in AmericasBarometer“In 1920, 26 out of 28 European states were...

Democratic Political Culture in Hard Times:

Results from the 2010 AmericasBarometer

Presentation Order1. About the surveys: when, where how2. Economic crisis and democracy3. The vulnerabilities of democracy in the Americas

LAPOP’s Beginnings

The 1970s The 1990s

The AmericasBarometer

2004 2010

26 countries,

43,990 interviews

What is unique about the AmericasBarometer?

Features AmericasBarometer

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?

Features AmericasBarometer

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 LAPOP Research Team at Vanderbilt

Partner Country Teams for 2010 AmericasBarometer

Startup meeting, San Salvador, El Salvador,

November, 2009

• Face-to-face interviews by interviewers trained by LAPOP personnel

• Stratified national probability samples down to the household level (quotas within households) of 1500 voting-age respondents

• Probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling is used at every stage

• Estimated Error: < +/- 3% with 95% confidence interval

• Use of PDAs (handheld computers) in most countries

Methodology

Country Sample Size Sampling Error

Mexico/ Central America Mexico 1,562 ±2.5% Guatemala 1,504 ±2.5% El Salvador 1,550 ±2.5% Honduras 1,596 ±2.5% Nicaragua 1,540 ±2.5% Costa Rica 1,500 ±2.5% Panama 1,536 ±2.5%

Andean/Southern Cone Colombia 1,506 ±2.5% Ecuador 3,000 ±1.8% Peru 1,500 ±2.5% Bolivia 3,018 ±1.8% Paraguay 1,166 ±2.9% Chile 1,965 ±2.5% Uruguay 1,500 ±2.5% Brazil 2,882 ±1.8% Venezuela 1,500 ±2.5% Argentina 1,505 ±2.5%

Caribbean Belize 1,504 ±2.5% Dominican Republic

1,500 ±2.5%

Guyana 1,540 ±2.5% Haiti 1,752 (+4,248) ±2.4% Jamaica 1,499 ±2.5% Suriname 1,500 ±2.5% Trinidad & Tobago

1,503 ±2.0%

United States and Canada Canada 1,500 ±2.2% United States

1,500 ±2.0%

Sample Size and

Confidence Intervals (National

Level)

Use of handheld computers:1. Reduces data entry errors

2. Allows for multiple languages3. Permits embedded experiments

Guyana

Honduras

Costa Rica

Guayas

Azuay

Cañar

Bolivar

Zamora Chinchipe

Carchi

Chimborazo

Cotopaxi

El Oro

Esmeraldas

Imbabura

Loja

Los Ríos

Manabí

Morona Santiago

Napo

Pastaza

PichinchaSucumbíos

Tungurahua

National Samples Stratified by Key Regions

Three Strata in Ecuador:

Coast, Mountains,

Amazon

(N = 3,000)

Chuquisaca

Tarija

Potosí

Oruro

Cochabamba Santa Cruz

Beni

Pando

La Paz

Nine Strata in Bolivia

Each point = 20 interviews

National Samples Stratified by Key Regions

Venezuela

Uruguay

IEP Instituto de Estudios Peruanos

Ecuador

Colombia

Andes/Cono Sur

Brazil

Chile

Paraguay

Bolivia

IEP Instituto de Estudios PeruanosPeru

Andean / Southern Cone

Partners2010

Panama

Costa Rica

Nicaragua

Honduras

El Salvador

Guatemala

Mexico

Mexico and Central America

Opinión Publica y MercadosOpinión Publica y Mercados

Partners 2010

U.S.

Canad

Canadáy EstadosUnidos

Canada

Canada and United States

Jamaica

Haiti

Guyana

Dominican Republic

Caribbean

Partners 2010

Making Results Accessible

Country Reports: all on-line, free

Dissemination in Each Country

Colombia

EcuadorUruguay

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 1922Bulgaria, June 1923Portugal, May 1926Poland, May 1926Yugoslavia, January 1929Germany, January 1933Austria, March 1933Estonia, March 1934Latvia, May 1934Spain, July 1936Romania, 1938

• Breakdown is not limited to the distant past: Worldwide, nearly 38 percent of the 114 democratizations 1960-2003 were reversed, at least for some period of time

• (Converse and Kapstein, The Fate of Young Democracies, Cambridge University Press, 2008).

The Theory: Country-Level

Economic UnderdevelopmentPrzeworski et al: “No democracy has ever been subverted…in a country with a per capita income higher than that of Argentina in 1975: $6,055. There is no doubt that democracy is stable in affluent countries” (98).

1200.1

1341.4

1743.5

1982.0

2165.1

2206.8

2523.4

2618.7

2659.2

2735.3

2755.6

3534.5

3957.1

4003.9

4099.1

4178.7

4735.6

4781.2

5067.8

5724.5

6344.2

7352.9

Prz

ewor

ski e

t al

. thr

esho

ld o

fbr

eakd

own

imm

unit

y

Haiti

Honduras

Bolivia

Nicaragua

Guyana

Guatemala

Peru

Ecuador

Jamaica

Paraguay

El Salvador

Colombia

Belize

Dominican Republic

Venezuela

Brazil

Mexico

Panama

Costa Rica

Uruguay

Argentina

Chile

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Real Income (GDP) per capita(1985 International Prices)

Economic context also matters for the stability of democracy

Two published studies using pre-crisis 2008 AmericasBarometer data:

Latin AmericanPolitics and Society

PS: Political Science and Politics

www. LapopSurveys.org

-6.5%-4.4%

-3.8%-3.3%

-2.6%-2.5%-2.5%-2.4%

-2.0%-1.5%-1.5%

-1.0%-0.5%

-0.2%0.4%0.4%0.5%

0.9%0.9%0.9%

2.4%2.5%

2.9%3.4%3.5%

-8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0%

MexicoTrinidad & Tobago

ParaguayVenezuela

JamaicaEl Salvador

CanadaUnited States

HondurasChile

Costa RicaNicaragua

BelizeBrazil

EcuadorGuatemala

ColombiaArgentina

GuyanaPeru

PanamaSurinameUruguay

BoliviaDominican Republic

Source: World Bank 2010

Changes in Real GDP: 2008-2009

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?

Research Question:

Economic Experiences and Perceptions

in the Americas, 2010

Yes, but founda new one

7.3%

Yes, but have notfound a new one

8.5%

No, did notlose your job

73.7%

Own decisionnot to work/disabilities

10.5%

Have you lost your job in the past two years?

Yes16.1%

No83.9%

Has anyone in your household lost his or herjob in the past two years?

Source: AmericasBarometer by LAPOP

Job Losses in the Americas, 2008-2010

Note: Based on 25 countries (excludes Haiti).

9.0

14.3

15.6

16.1

18.6

19.8

20.7

24.3

24.7

25.4

26.4

26.7

26.9

27.4

27.4

28.7

29.6

29.8

32.0

33.4

35.4

37.3

38.0

38.3

39.5

SurinameGuyana

Trinidad & TobagoBolivia

PanamaHonduras

BelizeCosta Rica

UruguayChilePeru

VenezuelaCanada

ParaguayGuatemala

EcuadorJamaica

NicaraguaUnited States

ArgentinaEl Salvador

BrazilDominican Republic

ColombiaMexico

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent of households with at least one member who lost a job in the past two years

95% Confidence Interval (Design-Effects Based)


Percentage of

households with job loss

(past two years)


Household Income Changes, 2008-2010 in the Americas

Increased?22.8%

Remained the same?49.9%

Decreased?27.3%

Over the past two years, has the income of your household:

Source: AmericasBarometer by LAPOPNote: Based on 25 countries (excludes Haiti).

Decrease in household income, by area of residence and level of wealth: crisis hurt the poor the most

25.9%

28.6%

0

10

20

30

40

Pe

rce

nt

of

Pe

op

le w

ho

Rep

ort

ed a

Dec

rea

se in

Ho

use

ho

ld I

nc

om

e

Urban Rural

Urban/Rural

34.7%

31.1%

26.3%

22.8%

18.7%

0

10

20

30

40

Pe

rcen

t o

f P

eop

le w

ho

Rep

ort

ed a

Dec

reas

e in

Ho

use

ho

ld In

co

me

1 2 3 4 5

Quintiles of wealth


95% Confidence Interval (Design-Effect Based)


Is your country experiencing an economic crisis?

Very serious economic crisis

45.7%

A crisis, but not very serious

45.7%

No economic crisis6.9%

Don't Know1.7%

Perception of Magnitude of Economic Crisis


Perception that the

economic crisis is

“very serious”

10.4

14.9

21.0

28.8

30.3

30.8

32.0

36.0

36.5

38.3

39.0

46.2

48.4

49.8

51.7

55.6

55.9

57.6

58.9

60.1

60.9

61.4

74.8

79.6

81.2

Uruguay

Suriname

Chile

Costa Rica

Brazil

Panama

Peru

Paraguay

Canada

Bolivia

Ecuador

Trinidad & Tobago

Venezuela

Dominican Republic

Colombia

Guyana

Mexico

Argentina

Nicaragua

Belize

Guatemala

El Salvador

Honduras

United States

Jamaica

0 20 40 60 80

Percentage or population who say economic crisis is very serious



Who is to blame for the crisis?(among those who perceive a crisis)

2.8%

4.0%

7.3%

7.8%

11.6%

13.0%

13.4%

19.4%

20.8%

0 5 10 15 20

Other

The problems of democracy

The rich people of our country

The rich countries

Do not know

Ourselves, the citizens of the country

The economic system of the country

The current administration/government

The previous administration/government

Who is to blame for the economic crisis?


Percentage blaming “rich

countries”

(among those who perceive a

crisis)

0.2%

2.3%

2.3%

2.7%

3.3%

4.5%

4.9%

5.2%

5.6%

6.1%

6.4%

6.4%

6.8%

8.0%

8.4%

9.2%

10.6%

10.7%

11.0%

11.0%

11.4%

12.3%

14.8%

17.0%

19.7%

United States

Guyana

Paraguay

Belize

Honduras

Venezuela

Colombia

Dominican Republic

Jamaica

Nicaragua

Argentina

Ecuador

Panama

Peru

Trinidad & Tobago

Bolivia

Suriname

Mexico

Guatemala

Canada

El Salvador

Brazil

Uruguay

Chile

Costa Rica

0 5 10 15 20 25

Blames the Crisis on Rich Countries



Who blames the crisis on rich countries? (among those perceiving a crisis)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Bla

me

s th

e C

risi

s o

n R

ich

Co

un

trie

s

0 1 2 3

General Political Knowledge

Fuente: Barómetro de las Américas por LAPOPNote: Based on 23 countries (excludes Haiti, the US, and Canada).

In the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,

democratic attitudes and the legitimacy of the political system

have turned out to besurprisingly resilient.

Main findings on the crisis/democracy nexus:

Agreement with Churchill?

• “Democracy may have problems, but it is better than any other form of government. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Strongly disagree Strongly agree

Low Support High Support

Support for democracy showed no significant decline from the 2008 survey

Low28.9%

High71.1%

Support for DemocracySource: AmericasBarometer by LAPOP

2008Low

30.2%

High69.8%

Support for Democracy


2010

Note: Includes all 26 countries

“Democracy may have problems, but it is better than any other form of government. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?”

Support for democracy

remains widespread

60.1

62.6

62.8

63.3

64.1

65.8

66.8

68.4

68.6

69.6

69.7

70.3

70.9

71.3

72.3

72.9

73.5

73.7

74.0

75.5

76.1

77.5

78.9

79.6

80.4

86.2

PeruHonduras

GuatemalaParaguay

El SalvadorHaiti

MexicoEcuador

Dominican RepublicJamaica

Trinidad & TobagoBoliviaBelize

NicaraguaColombia

GuyanaCanada

BrazilVenezuela

PanamaChile

United StatesSurinameArgentina

Costa RicaUruguay

0 20 40 60 80 100

Support for Democracy


Source: AmericasBarometer by LAPOP Note: Includes all 26 countries

“Democracy may have problems, but it is better than any other form of government. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?”

(No country below 60)

Satisfaction with

democracy:2008 vs. 2010

60.6

67.9

53.2

62.5

65.1

62.5

44.8

57.8

65.8

57.2 56.7

49.0

56.1

53.1

54.7

44.5

48.1

53.9

51.4

51.9

51.3

52.8 54.0

50.7

57.3

50.6 50.6

49.9

30.2

49.9

52.6

48.6

46.2 52.1

47.8

46.3

58.8

45.3

50.2

48.7

45.3 44.7

42.7

44.7 44.6

50.4

43.8

48.2 38.9

37.8

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

2008

2010

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

Uruguay Panama

Costa Rica Honduras

Canada Bolivia

Brazil El Salvador

Chile Colombia

Ecuador Dominican Republic

United States Suriname

Paraguay Belize

Nicaragua Guatemala

Venezuela Argentina

Jamaica Peru

Trinidad & Tobago Mexico

Guyana Haiti

95% Confidence Interval (Design-Effect Based)Satisfaction with Democracy


Major increases:

• Post-coup Honduras• Paraguay after first

opposition win • El Salvador after FMLN

victory


How Economic Experiences Affect Support for

Democracy and System Support

Support for democracy heavily impacted by satisfaction with government economic performance

68

70

72

74

76

78

80S

uppo

rt fo

r Dem

ocra

cy

Satisfaction with the Economic Performance of the GovernmentSource: AmericasBarometer by LAPOP Note: Includes all 26 countries

By far the biggest

impact of any

economic attitude


Who is satisfied with democracy?

Female

Age

Urban

Education Level

Quintiles of Wealth

Satisfaction with Performance of Current President

Negative Perception National Econ. Situation

Negative Perception Retrospective National Econ. Situation

Negative Perception Personal Econ. Situation

Negative Perception Retrospective Personal Econ. Situation

Households with at least one Member who lost her job

Decrease Household Income

Very Serious Economic Crisis

No Economic Crisis

Perception of Government Economic Performance

-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

95% I.C. (Efecto de diseño incorporado)


R-Squared=0.233F=167.370N =32403

Dependent Variable: Satisfaction with Democracy

Country Fixed Effects and Intercept Included but Not Shown Here

Note: Includes 25 countries (excludes Haiti)

System Support Index

• B1. To what extent do you think the courts in (country) guarantee a fair trial?

• B2. ¿To what extent do you respect the political institutions of (country)?

• B3. To what extent do you think that citizens’ basic rights are well protectedby the political system of (country)?

• B4. To what extent do you feel proud of living under the political system of (country)?

• B6. To what extent do you think that one should support the political system of (country)?

System Support Index: Slight Increase2008-2010

51.5 53.2

0

10

20

30

40

50S

yste

m S

up

po

rt

2008 2010

Year


Source: AmericasBarometer by LAPOPNote: Includes all countries surveyed in each year.

System Support

in the Americas

2010(9 countries

below 50)

32.0

44.0

45.2

46.3

46.8

48.6

48.9

49.0

49.6

50.0

51.7

53.5

53.6

53.9

54.0

54.9

56.7

56.8

57.1

57.8

58.7

60.2

60.3

60.4

63.2

68.0

HaitiTrinidad & Tobago

ArgentinaParaguay

PeruJamaicaEcuador

VenezuelaGuatemala

BrazilNicaragua

United StatesBelize

Dominican RepublicBolivia

GuyanaChile

MexicoSuriname

CanadaEl Salvador

PanamaColombiaHonduras

Costa RicaUruguay

0 20 40 60 80

System Support



56.653.8

50.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Sys

tem

Sup

port

Increased? Remained the same? Decreased?

Over the past two years, has the income of your household:



Who supports the political system?

40

50

60

70

80

Sys

tem

Sup

port

Satisfaction with the Economic Performance of the GovernmentSource: AmericasBarometer by LAPOP



Counter-cyclical and pro-poor policies may have prevented not

only a more serious economic crisis but also a region-wide decline in

support for democracy and political legitimacy and perhaps even

threats to the consolidation of the democratic regime.

Government Economic Performance: A Cause for Unexpected Optimism

Mexico

Guatemala

El Salvador

Honduras

Nicaragua

Costa Rica

Panama

Colombia

Ecuador

BoliviaPeru

Paraguay

Chile

UruguayBrazil

Venezuela

ArgentinaDominican Republic

Haiti

Jamaica

Guyana

Belize

Adj. R-Squared = 0.6466

-10

0

10

20C

ha

ng

e in

Sys

tem

Su

pp

ort

, 20

08

-20

10

-20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0

Change in Perception of Government Economic Performance,2008-2010

Source: AmericasBarometer 2010 by LAPOP

Changes in perceptions of performance predict changes in system support

(2008/2010, country-level)


Changes in perceptions of performance predict changes in system support

(2008/2010, subnational level)

Adj. R-Squared=0.3821

-10

0

10

20

30O

vert

ime

Va

ria

tio

ns

in A

vera

ge

Sys

tem

Su

pp

ort

(Ch

an

ge

in R

eg

ion

al

Ave

rag

e, 2

010

an

d 2

008

)

-20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0Overtime Variations in Average Perception of Government Economic Performance

(Change in Regional Average, 2010 and 2008)

Source: AmericasBarometer by LAPOPNote: Includes all 26 countries

The Vulnerabilities of Democracy in the Americas

• Countries at risk: predicting instability?• Non-economic threats and their impact on

democratic support• The armed forces, hard-line policies: a

double-edged sword?

Tolerance

System support High Low

High StableDemocracy

AuthoritarianStability

Low UnstableDemocracy

Democracyat Risk

The Critical Combination ofSystem Support and Political Tolerance

Political Tolerance and Stable Democracy

in the Americas, 2010

Measuring Political ToleranceThere are people who only say bad things about the (country) form of government, not just the incumbent government but the system of government. How strongly do you approve or disapprove:

D1. Of such people’s right to vote?

D2. That such people be allowed to conduct peaceful demonstrations?

D3. Of such people being permitted to run for public office?

D4. Of such people appearing on television to make speeches?

43.4

45.1

47.2

47.5

47.5

48.4

49.2

49.4

50.2

50.2

50.9

51.8

51.9

58.5

59.0

59.0

60.0

60.4

61.4

63.4

64.5

64.6

66.6

66.7

67.3

70.4

HaitiEl Salvador

BoliviaPeru

HondurasParaguay

MexicoDominican Republic

GuatemalaEcuadorPanama

ColombiaChile

JamaicaBelizeBrazil

NicaraguaSurinameUruguay

VenezuelaGuyanaCanada

Trinidad & TobagoCosta Rica

ArgentinaUnited States

0 20 40 60 80

Political Tolerance



Political Tolerance in

the Americas, 2010

(8 countries below 50)

Empirical findings, Costa Rica

Tolerance

System support High Low


46%

AuthoritarianStability

40%


6%

Democracyat Risk

8%

7.9

8.9

12.6

12.6

13.0

14.0

14.9

17.0

17.3

18.1

18.3

18.4

18.4

19.4

19.8

21.1

21.2

21.2

21.8

23.4

26.2

27.3

28.8

37.0

38.3

61.6

Costa RicaUruguay

SurinameUnited States

CanadaGuyana

ColombiaVenezuela

Trinidad & TobagoPanama

ArgentinaNicaraguaHonduras

MexicoChileBrazil

JamaicaBelize

El SalvadorDominican Republic

GuatemalaBolivia

EcuadorParaguay

PeruHaiti

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Democracy at Risk



Democracy at Risk


Tolerance

System support

High Low


Authoritarian

Stability


Democracyat Risk

Triple Dissatisfaction Index: “Predicting” coups”:adding the economic

dimension• Regime Principles

Rights to participation• System support

Trust in institutions

… and now adding• Evaluations of Regime

Economic PerformanceRespondents’ satisfaction with their personal and national economies

Estimating Triple Dissatisfaction (2010)

Triply Dissatisfied

Mixed Triply Satisfied

Haiti 43.3% 55.2% 1.4%

United States 7.9% 76.6% 15.5%

Jamaica 7.7% 86.4% 5.9%

Costa Rica 2.7% 68.7% 28.6%

Uruguay 1.8% 42.9% 55.3%

Dissatisfied minus Satisfied

41.9%

-7.5%

1.9%

-25.8%

-53.5%

*

*

* Number of dissatisfied exceeds satisfied.

*

**

* Number of satisfied exceeds dissatisfied.

-28.5-20.0-19.7

-17.7-17.5

-11.4-10.6

-7.5-7.0

-4.7-1.6-0.8

0.41.41.73.03.4

7.19.5

11.013.6

22.426.6

-40 -20 0 20 40Net Dissatisfaction 2008

UruguayColombia

Costa RicaGuyana

Dominican RepublicVenezuelaArgentina

MexicoBrazilChile

United StatesBelize

BoliviaParaguay

NicaraguaEl Salvador

JamaicaPanama

PeruEcuador

GuatemalaHaiti

Honduras


Triple Dissatisfaction Index:

Net Dissatisfaction in 2008

More citizens are

SATISFIED than

dissatisfied.

More citizens are DISsatisfied

than satisfied.

-53.5-25.8

-21.5-20.1

-17.2-16.8-15.9-15.8-15.5

-11.6-9.5-9.5-8.8-7.5

-4.5-2.3-1.9-1.8-1.5

0.11.92.82.93.1

6.941.9

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40Net Dissatisfaction 2010

UruguayCosta Rica

CanadaSuriname

GuyanaBrazilChile

ColombiaPanama

VenezuelaTrinidad & Tobago

Dominican RepublicParaguay

United StatesNicaraguaArgentina

BoliviaMexico

El SalvadorEcuadorJamaica

HondurasBelize

PeruGuatemala

Haiti


Triple Dissatisfaction Index:

Net Dissatisfaction in 2010

Public Opinion in the Aftermath of Honduras’ Coup

of 2009

Hondurans divided on coup, but opposed to exile of President

Yes41.7%

No58.3%

¿Did you favor the removal from office of President Zelaya?


Yes27.3%

No72.7%

¿Did you favor sending President Zelaya into exile in Costa Rica?


Hondurans strongly oppose a Constituent Assembly

Yes24.1%

No75.9%

¿Did you favor the survey President Zelaya wanted to carry out on June 28, 2009on calling a Constituent Assembly?


Yes29.5%

No70.5%

¿Did you favor the formation of a Constituent Assembly?


Hondurans strongly oppose a reform allowing presidential re-election

Yes25.1%

No74.9%

¿Do you support reforming the Constitution to permit presidential re-elections?


Support for coups (2010 AmericasBarometer Honduras survey):The toxic combination of wealth and low education

Based on JC1. Frente al desempleo muy alto; JC10. Frente a mucha delincuencia; JC13. Frente a mucha corrupción:

Education

Age

Female

Quintiles of wealth

Size of Place

-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2

95% Confidence Interval (design effects included)


R-squared =0.021F=8.494N =1539

Corruption, Crime, Terrorism, the Military and Natural

Disasters:Threats to Democracy?

Percent who reported

having been asked to pay a

bribe in the past year

4.2

5.2

6.3

7.3

7.8

9.1

9.4

10.1

10.4

11.4

11.8

12.1

16.2

17.1

17.2

17.5

18.5

21.1

21.2

23.5

23.6

27.1

32.0

32.3

35.0

53.6

CanadaChile

United StatesUruguayJamaica

Trinidad & TobagoPanama

Costa RicaColombia

El SalvadorSuriname

NicaraguaHonduras

GuyanaBelize

Dominican RepublicVenezuela

EcuadorGuatemalaArgentina

BrazilParaguay

PeruBoliviaMexico

Haiti

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Percent of Population Victimized by Corruption




• To a police officer

• To a public official

• To expedite a transaction with the municipal government

• At work

• For public health/medical service

• In the school system

Relationship of corruption victimization to system support

44

46

48

50

52

54

Sys

tem

Su

pp

ort

None One Two Three+

Corruption VictimizationSource: AmericasBarometer by LAPOP


Crime victimization has increased

Crime victimization is higher in

metropolitan areas

(Central America)

16.5%18.9%

22.3%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Central Bajura AMSJ

Costa Rica

19.6% 19.7% 20.6% 21.5%

34.3%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Oriental OccidentalCentral I Central II Metropolitana

El Salvador

15.1% 15.2%

19.3% 21.0%

40.7%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Nororiente Suroriente Suroccidente NoroccidenteMetropolitana

Guatemala

Pe

rce

nta

ge

wh

o h

as

be

en

a V

icti

m o

f C

rim

e3.7% 6.5%

9.7%

17.5%20.0%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Sur Occidental Oriental Norte Central

Honduras

9.0%

15.2%17.6% 18.2% 18.4%

28.5%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Centro Norte Caribe MetropolitanaPacífico Sur

PacíficoNorte

Nicaragua

6.9%9.6% 13.1%

14.6%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Central Oriental Metropolitana Occidental

Panama



Crime victimization in Metropolitan

Guatemala City is higher than in any

country in our study, and rising.

The fear of crime is also concentrated

in major cities.

26.9 30.0

41.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Central Bajura AMSJ

Costa Rica

45.8 47.5 50.1 51.4

59.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Area MetropolitanaOriental Central I Occidental Central II

El Salvador

31.134.3 39.1

43.350.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Nororiente Suroriente NoroccidenteSuroccidenteMetropolitana

Guatemala

Pe

rce

pti

on

of

Inse

cu

rity

30.9 33.0 33.036.8

38.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Occidental Norte Oriental Central Sur

Honduras

26.3

26.3

31.9 36.5

46.0

51.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Caribe Centro Norte MetropolitanaPacíficoNorte

PacíficoSur

Nicaragua

28.134.3

36.5 41.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Occidental Central Oriental Metropolitana

Panama



In Honduras, for example, those who feel “very insecure” have over a 65% probability of approving crossing the line, compared with 37% probability among those who feel “very secure.”

Fear of crime increases approval of the police “crossing the line”

p.<0.001 p.<0.05 p.<0.001

p.>0.05 p.>0.05 p.<0.001 p.>0.05

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

Mexico Guatemala El Salvador Honduras

Nicaragua Costa Rica Panamá Belice

p.<0.001

App

rova

l of

the

pol

ice

cro

ssin

g th

e lin

e(E

stim

aded

ave

rage

pro

babl

ity)

Perception of insecurity

Source:AmericasBarometer 2010 by LAPOP

Logistic regression model(standard control variables incluided)

AOJ8. In order to catch criminals, do you believe that the authorities should always abide by the law or that occasionally they can cross the line? (1) Should always abide by the law(2) Occasionally can cross the line (88 )DK

Perception of insecurity undermines system support

48

50

52

54

56

58

Sys

tem

Su

pp

ort

Very Safe Somewhat Safe Somewhat Unsafe Very Unsafe

Perception of Insecurity

Fuente: Barómetro de las Américas por LAPOPNote: Includes all 26 countries

San Miguelito District, PanamaConcentration of Homicides and Gang Activities

Green dots=gangs

Red dots= homicides

Source: Sistema Nacional de Estadísticas Criminales Integrado, Panama (Jan-Jun 2009)

CARSI (Central America Regional Security Initiative)

Impact Evaluation in Central America

• Central America: the “most violent region in the world” (UNDP, 10/2009)

• USAID: $56.5M for Central America (2008-1010) for community-based violence prevention programs

signs of gang activity

• Three-year “clustered randomized experiment”• At-risk neighborhoods in El Salvador,

Guatemala, and Panama• Data collected before,

during, & after in treatment and controlgroups

• Quantitative & qualitative data collectionmethods

CARSI Impact Evaluation in Central America

Interviewers in Panama

New in 2010: Measures of Concern about Terrorism

18.7

28.5

30.9

31.3

34.3

35.6

36.4

39.3

46.5

46.7

47.7

48.0

48.1

49.9

50.9

51.6

53.7

55.5

57.9

58.9

63.0

64.4

64.6

67.3

UruguayArgentina

JamaicaCanada

BrazilChile

GuatemalaGuyana

BelizeCosta Rica

United StatesNicaraguaSuriname

Dominican RepublicHonduras

BoliviaEl Salvador

PanamaMexico

VenezuelaPeru

ParaguayEcuador

Colombia

0 20 40 60 80Worried about violent attacks by terrorists

95% C.I. (Design-Effects Based)


WT1. How worried are you that there will be a violent attack by terrorists in

[country] in the next 12 months?

Fear of terrorism is negatively related to support for democracy

70

72

74

76

Su

pp

ort

for

De

mo

cra

cy

0 20 40 60 80 100Worry about Violent Terrorist Attacks

Relationship holds when controlling for insecurity,

crime victimization, ideology, and other factors

2010 Earthquake Studies

Note: Analysis on matched dataset; Predicted Effects computed based on OLS regression results controlling for Education, Gender, Age, Vote, Region, Wealth, Marital Status, Children, Race, Rural vs. Urban, City Size; rescaled 0-100.

CHILE: Disaster damage weakens democraticattitudes, increases participation

10

7

10

-9

-10 -5 0 5 10 15

Participation

Support for Autogolpe

Coup Support

Tolerance

Maximum predicted effects of disaster damage


Attitudes toward the ArmedForces in the Americas


Trust in the

Armed Forces

38.3

53.3

53.5

54.2

54.9

55.9

56.6

56.7

57.3

60.4

60.5

60.9

64.5

64.8

64.8

65.9

66.2

67.7

70.0

70.1

71.9

72.2

76.3

ArgentinaVenezuela

PeruTrinidad & Tobago

BoliviaGuatemala

ParaguayGuyana

BelizeUruguay

Dominican RepublicHondurasColombiaSurinameEcuadorJamaica

NicaraguaEl Salvador

BrazilCanada

ChileMexico

United States

0 20 40 60 80

Trust in the Armed Forces




Trust in Armed Forces is greater than trust in Police

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

ChileSurinameUruguay

HondurasCanada

ArgentinaColombia

NicaraguaBolivia

PeruGuyana

EcuadorBrazil

VenezuelaUnited States

El SalvadorBelize

ParaguayDominican Republic

Trinidad & TobagoGuatemala

JamaicaMexico

Chart shows mean trust in Police subtracted from mean trust in Armed Forces


Corruption by Police decreases trust in people in uniform

48.2

33.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

Trus

t in

the

Polic

e

No Yes

Has a police officer asked you for a bribe in the last twelve months?



62.2

56.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Trus

t in

the

Arm

ed F

orce

s

No Yes

Has a police officer asked you for a bribe in the last twelve months?



14.6 unit difference b/t non-victims and victims

5.6 unit “spill-over effect” of police corruption on trust in Armed Forces


Size of City/Town

Government protects human rights

Female

Age

Education

Income

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4



R-Squared =0.139N =20564

County Fixed Effects and InterceptIncluded but not Shown Here

Believing Government protects human rights increases trust in Armed Forces

AmericasBarometer2006 (15 countries included in analysis)


Trust in Armed Forces is positively related to support for democracy


Female

Education

Age

Quintiles of wealth

Size of City/Town

0.0 0.1-0.05 0.05 0.15



R-Squared =0.075N =33027

Country Fixed Effects and Intercept Included but not Shown Here


Trust in Armed Forces is positively related to support for political system

Country Fixed Effects and Intercept Includedbut not Shown Here


Female

Education

Age

Quintiles of wealth

Size of City/Town

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4



R-Squared =0.214N =33987



Female

Education

Age

Quintiles of wealth

Size of City/Town

-0.1 0.0 0.1-0.15 -0.5 0.05



R-Squared =0.064N =33260

Country Fixed Effects and InterceptIncluded but not Shown Here

Trust in Armed Forces is positively related to support for military coups

Support for military coups

47.848.0 45.8

47.1

46.038.3

45.350.2

43.140.9 38.9

57.1

36.647.4

36.2

42.235.4 33.7

33.432.9

33.4

31.733.2 33.0

30.830.0 30.0

51.6

34.128.8 27.8

27.726.9

27.1

24.7 24.6

22.1 21.3

18.9

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

20082010

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Belize Mexico

Guatemala Peru

El Salvador Guyana

Ecuador Paraguay

Nicaragua Jamaica

Bolivia Trinidad & Tobago

Dominican Republic Colombia

Venezuela Honduras

Brazil Costa Rica

Uruguay Chile

United States Canada

Suriname Panama

Argentina


Support for Military Coups


Now, changing the subject. Some people say that under some circumstances it would be justified for the military of this country to take power by a coup d’état (military coup). In your opinion would a military coup be justified under the following circumstances?1. High unemployment?2. High crime levels3. Lots of corruption

Work in Mozambique

Information about subscribing to the data, or becoming a repository, is found on our website:

www.LapopSurveys.org

Free subscriptions to the “Insights Series” of bi-weekly studies at:

[email protected]

www.LapopSurveys.org

Democratic Political Culture in AmericasBarometer“In 1920, 26 out of 28 European states were...

Documents

Transcript of Democratic Political Culture in AmericasBarometer“In 1920, 26 out of 28 European states were...