Search

This article addresses a key issue in debates regarding economic globalization: to what extent does the internationalization of production, via foreign direct investment, lead to increased abuses of workers in developing countries? Using a new dataset on collective labor rights violations, we assess the relationship between foreign direct investment and labor rights violations in over 100 developing nations, for 1985-2000. Our focus is on the legal rights and actual capacity of workers to organize, strike, and bargain collectively. In cross-sectional time series analyses, we find that, where accumulated stocks of foreign direct investment are higher, violations of collective labor rights are greater. We also report evidence of competition within groups of countries: labor rights violations in one country are strongly associated with labor rights violations in the region, as well as in other countries at similar levels of development. These findings suggest that the critics of economic globalization have a point: foreign direct investment could lead to downward pressures on workers? collective rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This project advances the research on the direct investment-human rights relationship by applying a more nuanced analytical framework. While we employ existing aggregate measures of human rights practices, we also formulate a new, more specific index of labor rights practices. The index is based on a 37-point scale of labor rights violations, and draws on information from the ILO, the ICFTU, and the US State Department Human Rights Reports. Our index represents the component of human rights practices that is most likely to be related causally to foreign direct investment flows. In addition, we consider the impact not only of overall levels of FDI, but also of the sectoral composition and geographic sources of FDI. On the basis of our analyses of data on labor standards, human rights, and direct investment in developing nations (for the 1980-1999 period), we conclude that foreign direct investment has a mixed impact on labor and human rights in developing nations. Foreign direct investment is not necessarily good, in a normative sense, for developing nations; but neither is it necessarily harmful. In fact, our evidence suggests that some types of foreign economic activity are associated with improved human and labor rights, but others are related to deteriorations in these rights. We also suggest that the impact of direct investment is contingent on the structure of the domestic economy. In economies that are characterized by more capital-intensive production, workers rights are generally better, even when controlling for a variety of international economic and domestic political factors. Furthermore, we note that, when considering the causal relationships between foreign economic factors and labor rights, it is analytically important to differentiate between labor standards and overall human rights practices, as well as between levels of rights and changes in rights over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I explore the relationship between public support for two closely related yet distinct objects and the stability of democratic regimes. Despite the presumed significance of public support for sustaining democracy, there has been relatively little systematic analysis of the relationship. A cursory review of the literature and survey data on Latin America paints a paradoxical image of public opinion concerning democracy in the region: people’s support for democracy goes hand in hand with high levels of political cynicism and dissatisfaction. Furthermore, the preliminary analysis of the Venezuelan case suggests that contrary to the conviction that public support for democracy could act as an effective deterrent against antidemocratic forces, the existence of the paradox may threaten the very stability of democratic regimes. When voters support democracy but lack confidence in democratic institutions, particularly political parties, they may withdraw from the act of voting or stop identifying with political parties, making the rise of antidemocratic leaders more likely. Thus, the study suggests that without trust in key political institutions, democratic regimes may have difficulty ensuring political stability and, in some cases, may not survive. The paper draws on Venezuelan public opinion polls and electoral data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]