In our lectures this week we have discussed how around 1930 neocolonialism gave way to nationalism and eventually led to the rise of populist governments in Latin America. Nationalism took a skeptical view of foreign investment and enterprise. For the most part nationalists believed that such investment and enterprise in their countries amounted to economic imperialism, which exploited rather than developed the region’s potential. A new type of leadership, dubbed Populist, was able to tap into this frustration, and into the growing dissatisfied urban laboring groups, to propel itself into power.
Populism and nationalism are terms difficult to define because the different meanings scholar apply to them. So for our discussion I will like to explore how scholars, according to Dix, have define and contextualize populism in Latin America. What condition we see taking place in nations such as Costa Rica that could led to the emergence of populist movements? Why did women and men join populist movements?
jsola