ABSTRACT
The three concepts in the title of this article have been frequently linked together by academics and policy-makers in recent debates about Latin American political and economic development. There is an assumption, at times implicit at others overt, that the three elements constitute a ‘package’ which could mark a turning point in the region’s history. Such a turning point, it is felt, would end the ‘pendulum’1 or ‘cycles’ of Latin American political history, between ‘populist inclusion and authoritarian exclusion’, creating dynamic economies, establishing the rule of law and consolidating fairly elected and accountable civilian governments. A review of the literature and usages of ‘civil society’ in Latin America by scholars, policy-makers, NGOs and social/political activists, however, reveals that an extraordinary variety of often conflicting assumptions and meanings have been attached to the term since the mid-1980s. This article explores these different meanings and usages over the last decade, and suggests that a more serious debate is needed about precisely how this concept should be used in studies of contemporary Latin American processes of economic and political liberalization.
