Contrastación de resultados con otros estudios similares

scores greater than 91. Another stand-out performer was Costa Rica although its score was only 83. As you can see from the rest of the top 10 highest liberal democracy scores in 1972, there is quite a gap between Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic (83 compared to 67). The worst performers in 1972 were Bolivia, Honduras, Cuba, Argentina, Peru, Ecuador, and Panama, all with scores of zero; these nations were experiencing significant periods of military rule at that time.

In contrast, by 2013, the top nine countries in the region have liberal democracy scores greater than 99, while Trinidad & Tobago comes in at number ten with a score of 95.75. This is quite a different situation compared to 1972 when a score of only 54 was required to be

considered a top performer. The positive democratic situation in Latin America in 2013 is further highlighted by looking at those countries with the worst scores in the region. Venezuela, with a 2013 score of 59, the second worst in the region, would have made the top 10 with that score in 1972. Although Cuba still ranks poorly in 2013, this is most likely to change as diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States have thawed significantly. Among those countries with the largest gains in liberal democracy during the 1972 to 2013 period are several that were under military rule at the beginning of the period, including Panama, Bolivia, Ecuador,

Argentina, Peru, Honduras, and Brazil. Unsurprisingly, these countries experienced impressive gains after the military left power.

Two distinct periods of growth. Latin America’s overall trajectory during the period can be characterized as consisting of two sub-periods: 1972-1991 and 1991-2013. The earlier sub-period is a period of significant increase. Beginning in 1972, the region’s mean liberal democracy score was 45. The region experiences sharp growth until 1991, with an average score

of 78 in that year. The second sub-period for this region (1991-2013) is a period of slight increases or even stagnation, with a gain of only 5 points in 23 years.

Significant regional convergence. In addition to witnessing significant increases in this region’s mean level of liberal democracy, we have also witnessed regional convergence. The standard deviation about the region’s mean levels of liberal democracy is much smaller in 2013 compared to 1985. Liberal democracy’s coefficient of determination during this period decreased from 0.83 to 0.22, this is significantly lower than the world’s value of 0.41, indicating that LA has converged more rapidly than the worldwide average.

Many countries with substantial gains. During this period, most of the countries in Latin America underwent increases in liberal democracy. 18 of the 24 countries that were independent in 1972 saw increases during the period. Fourteen of these were increases of 30 points or more. Countries experienced gains of 42 or more points during this period.4 _There

were only five countries that currently have lower levels of democracy in 2013 than they did in 1972: Guyana (lost 17 points), Uruguay (lost 17 points), Jamaica (lost 11points), and Venezuela (lost four points). One additional country, Antigua & Barbuda, that entered the sample when it became independent of the U.K. in 1981, lost 8 points from 1981 to 2013.

Very few under-performing countries. There are also very few underperforming countries in 2013 in the region as a whole. In fact, only three of the 33 countries in the region have lower scores in 2013 than the world-wide average of 69. These countries are Cuba at 8, by

4 _{The 9 countries that enter the sample after 1972 (Suriname, Grenada, Antigua & Barbuda, St. Lucia, Belize,}

Bahamas, St. Kitts & Nevis, Dominica, St. Vincent & Grenadine) enter with mostly high values and stay there. There are some exceptions such as Grenada and Suriname, who experienced some fluctuations, but both were at levels as least as high if not higher from the first year of the data until 2013. The one real exception is Antigua & Barbuda who enters the sample in 1981 at 95.75 fresh off of independence from the U.K. but has since declined and only scores 87.5 in 2013.

far has the lowest level of liberal democracy in the region, Venezuela at 59, and Honduras at 63. Only five countries in the region have experienced net declines in liberal democracy from 1972 to 2013 (Guyana, Uruguay, Jamaica, Venezuela, and Chile).

In summary, Latin America is a liberal democracy success story. There are few underperforming countries, many countries made substantial gains during the period, and the region as a whole ends the period at relatively high levels of liberal democracy compared to the rest of the world. While there were two distinct periods of growth in the region from 1972 to 2013, there was still a substantial amount of regional convergence, and democracy has a good foothold in the region.

The Middle East and North Africa

There are some important distinguishing aspects to the growth trajectory of liberal democracy in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). First, the region has low starting and ending points when compared to the rest of the world’s regions, yet has a clear upward

trajectory. Second, there has been steady growth during the period that is quite impressive. Third, this region is seemingly untouched by dramatic increases found in other regions of the world. Fourth, there is a real absence of high performing countries in the region. Fifth, there have been few losses during this period.

Low starting and ending points with a clear upward trajectory. The MENA region

started the period in 1972 with the lowest regional level of liberal democracy in the world, with a score of 17, only slightly above sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), with a score of 19. At the end of the period in 2013, however, SSA was faring much better, with a 57 score, compared to 44 for the MENA region. Despite its historically low levels, this region has demonstrated an increasing trend in recent years. MENA was stagnant like many of the other world’s regions since the mid-

1990s but began to increase in 2005 and, after a small plateau from 2007 to 2010, began to increase again.

Figure 10: Middle East and North Africa mean of liberal democracy 1972-2013

Steady growth during the period. Despite the fact that the overall levels of liberal democracy are low in the region, it has seen gains during this time period. The rise in the region’s average level of liberal democracy from 17 to 44 during these 41 years is impressive, ranking second behind SSA’s equally impressive gains, in terms of the highest growth of any region during this period. If Malta is excluded from this region, then the growth rate is even more impressive, and it would be the region of the world that has experienced the most growth.

Seemingly untouched by dramatic increases. These characteristics seem to

demonstrate that the region was mostly excluded from the dramatic increases exhibited in most other regions of the world. Although there is no evidence of dramatic increases in the region as a

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 (m e a n ) lib d e m 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 Year