1
Rational Calculation, Emotional Response, and Political Protest: Costa Rica in 2000
*
Introduction
Research on the relationship between democracy and markets in Latin America has
begun to shift, after decades of mainly focusing on “dual transitions” (from authoritarian to
democratic regimes and from state-centered to free-market economies (Encarnación 1996)),
towards the study of economic change in post-transition democracies. Despite some reversions to
authoritarian practices by some Latin American political leaders in the 1990’s, current events
suggest that democracy is becoming consolidated in most countries in the region. Since studies
dealing mainly with the transition to democracy do not provide frameworks for analyzing
politics once the regime-change has taken place (Hagopian 1993, p. 465), it is important to
consider how conflicts between politics and markets transpire in democracies proper. Once
democracy has become consolidated, we should expect decisions involving economic policy to
be arrived at within and through the democratic process, which partly involves the consent of the
governed of the policies enacted by the government. Attention in this context turns away from
whether democracies are better or worse than authoritarian regimes in pursuing structural
economic reform (Przeworski 1991; Haggard and Kaufman 1995), and toward the relationship
between policy-makers and populations in relatively stable democracies undergoing economic
change.
Formal models of political behavior, based on the insights of rational-choice, have
provided a number of avenues through which this relationship can be considered. When placed
in the light of real-world cases, however, they often fall short of addressing many of the complex
*
The analysis and conclusions in this paper are the result of archival research and interviews conducted with Costa
Rican policymakers, academics, and participants in the protests, in July 2003 and January 2004. The author wishes
to than Ken Conca, Ken Cousins, Doug Grob, Mauricio Frajman, Lola Hun, Joe Oppenheimer, Sybil Rhodes, and
Bruce Wilson for helpful discussions, comments, and criticisms regarding the paper in its various drafts.