O'Donnell's puzzle
O'Donnell (1973) noticed that the most industrialized countries of South America were the ones that experienced military coups. He argued that when the easy phase of import-substituting industrialization ended and the shift to capital goods production required large investment and wage restraint, the demands of the mobilized popular sector came to be seen as a threat. The result was an exclusionary regime allying the military, technocrats and domestic and foreign big capital, the opposite of what modernization theory predicted.
Features and dynamics
In these regimes the armed forces rule as an institution rather than a personal dictator, technocrats who treat political problems as technical ones lead policy, and elections and party activity are suspended. O'Donnell (1978) analyzed how, in seeking the confidence of international capital and the domestic bourgeoisie, the regime carried tensions of weak legitimacy and internal division. It can thus be seen as a state with some autonomy that still relied on a particular class coalition.
Critiques and assessments
In the volume edited by Collier (1979), Hirschman, Serra, Kaufman and others noted that the causal link between industrial deepening and coups did not hold across cases. Remmer and Merkx (1982) observed that Chilean and Argentine policies looked more like deindustrialization, and Cammack (1982) disputed the Brazilian case. Even so, the theory shaped Stepan's (1988) work on military politics, later research on democratic transitions and comparisons with the East Asian developmental state.
FAQ
- What is bureaucratic authoritarianism in simple terms?
- A dictatorship in which soldiers and economic experts join forces, shut down elections and unions, and push economic growth from above.
- Why does it contradict modernization theory?
- Modernization theory expected development to bring democracy, while O'Donnell showed that South America's most developed countries moved toward military rule instead.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- O'Donnell, G. (1973). Modernization and bureaucratic-authoritarianism: Studies in South American politics. Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley. The founding statement of the concept.
- O'Donnell, G. (1978). Reflections on the patterns of change in the bureaucratic-authoritarian state. Latin American Research Review, 13(1), 3–38. Internal tensions of the BA state.
- Collier, D. (Ed.). (1979). The new authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton University Press. Critical assessments of O'Donnell's model.
- Remmer, K. L., & Merkx, G. W. (1982). Bureaucratic-authoritarianism revisited. Latin American Research Review, 17(2), 3–40. An empirical re-examination.
- Cammack, P. (1982). Bureaucratic authoritarianism and Brazil: A dissenting note. Politics, 2(1), 9–13. A dissent based on Brazil.
- Stepan, A. (1988). Rethinking military politics: Brazil and the Southern Cone. Princeton University Press. Military rule and transition in the Southern Cone.
- Linz, J. J. (2000). Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Lynne Rienner. Classic typology of authoritarian regimes.