Political Economy

Chagas’ disease is related to economic, political, and social factors at broad political and economic levels. Lack of integration of peasants into politics and the economy, privatization of communal Indian land, the subsequent dislocation of peasants to areas with temporary housing and overcrowding, inadequate education in rural areas, and destruction of tropical areas are

broader political developments which have contributed to the spread of Chagas’ disease (see Briceño León 1990). Moreover, larger structural processes are more difficult to change than those at the individual or community level.

Microlevel analyses regard the causes within smaller units of society, such as the community, family, and individual. Housing hygiene is an effective way to prevent Chagas’ disease at the microlevel, but this is also difficult to achieve because it involves changing peoples’ values concerning animals (keeping dogs and cats outside), sleeping habits (not crowding together in bed), and basic hygiene (storing things in boxes and sweeping regularly). Changing behavior at the micro‑sociocultural level is necessary for chagasic control, and this can be done by individuals and communities by means of specific projects.

Macro‑level factors are more difficult to change, in part because Latin American economics and politics are embedded in a colonial heritage of dependent relations to dominant countries, oligarchical hegemonies, bureaucracies, corrupt governments, elitism and class stratification, and ethnocide (destruction of tropical tribes to facilitate the extraction of forest resources–gold, timber, and game), to mention a few. Nevertheless, macro‑social factors need to be addressed by international organizations, and it is the responsibility of corporations and governments involved in the above to practice retributive justice by repairing damages incurred because of exploitative and environmentally destructive practices. The fact that Chagas’ disease is becoming a worldwide problem illustrates that destruction abroad can cause problems at home.

Parasitic economic relationships between industrial countries and Bolivia developed in the nineteenth century (although indigenous peoples of Latin America supported others from Spain and Portugal centuries before), which was characterized by excessive exploitation of Bolivia’s resources by foreign interests in collusion with Bolivian capitalists. Railroads were built early in that century for transporting rubber, quinine, tin, timber, oil, and cattle. Riverboats, railroads, and later trucks opened frontiers deep into Bolivia’s forests. While Chagas’ disease, malaria, and yellow fever somewhat held capitalist colonial intruders at bay, the same forests produced quinine bark to treat the illnesses (Bastien 1987a: 143‑45). Effects upon the environment included large tracts of land destroyed by timbering, mining, and cattle grazing. A downward spiral began of decreasing biocultural diversity. At first this seemed insignificant amid the multitudinous natural riches of Bolivia; but it soon was out of control, devastating Bolivia’s Indian populations, plants, and animals in tropical zones.

At the end of this millennium, Bolivia is on the crest of a free‑market capitalistic wave of radical change (Raterman 1997). This has caused increased unemployment, poverty, environmental destruction, and grave social problems.

Since 1985, Bolivia has halted inflation, and government spending has been reduced to achieve an almost balanced budget. While national debt has grown from $3.3 billion in 1985 to $4.6 billion in 1995, it now takes a smaller percentage of the annual budget to pay for it.

After a series of military dictatorships,[43]in 1985 Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, minister of planning and finance, began a series of reforms with new laws to restructure Bolivian society. He later served as president from 1993 until 1997, when he further carried out the new laws. The laws advocate legal and social restructuring needed to support a free‑market development model: new tax laws, new custom controls, new banking laws, and laws regarding investment and ownership. They are part of regional and worldwide moves toward economic integration that has culminated in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the recent Summit of the Americas, with its call for complete economic integration by the year 2005.

Privatization and capitalization are the engines of this model, and there is an attempt to privatize state industries and at the same time keep the control and ownership in the hands of Bolivians. By 1997, state‑owned enterprises such as the airlines, the petroleum industry, electric utilities, telephone companies, and mines had been sold to private investors. Downsizing often was necessary to make these corporations efficient, and thousands of workers were laid off. The plan was that revenue from the sale of these enterprises would be available to help start new industries and employ people.

Thus far, these changes have favored the wealthy and ruling classes, especially outside investors who have tapped into Bolivia’s rich natural resources, especially for timbering, cattle raising, and large‑scale agriculture. This has further opened the forests and reserves of Bolivia to capital development and helped incorporate Bolivia into the world market, where it is often cheaper to buy products from other countries than those produced by Bolivian peasants.

New laws and economic realignments only highlight Bolivia’s huge social injustices, inefficiencies, and dependencies. The oligarchical leadership of centuries has left more than two‑thirds of the people on the margins of economic life and further impoverished. Illiteracy, lack of health care, inadequate housing, increased migration, and high unemployment help reveal the racism and classism of the past. Indigenous people, even though they are the majority, count for very little, their women even less. An elitist class system of control and economic distribution which widens the gap between segments of the population is unsatisfactory. An elitist financial system eventually limits opportunities and hinders the formation of new enterprises.

An integrated market without an integrated society is a contradiction. Free markets need a level playing field, clear rules of the game, and maximum access to the market by all social players. Free markets and feudalism can’t mix. Economic and political development are finally impossible in any given society without investment in and development of all national human resources. This development includes the education and training of workers in health measures.