Beginning with the publication in 1972 of Ecuador: Conflicting Political Culture and the Quest for Progress, John Martz has pursued his own personal quest: the penetration in his writings of both the myth and the reality of Ecuadoran politics. His quest has now materialized in what is his most ambitious work thus far, Politics and Petroleum in Ecuador.
In Politics, Martz sets for himself two objectives: (1) to test the concept of linkages between regime type and public policy in the specific case of petroleum in Ecuador, and (2) to gather together the pieces of the complex petroleum mosaic in Ecuador and assemble them in an intelligible fashion.
The possibility of a connection between regime type and public policy is, according to Martz, “one of the classic issues of political theory and philosophy” (p. 10). The Ecuadoran case seemed to offer ideal conditions for testing the thesis of regime-policy linkage. Petroleum was a discrete sector that was highly visible, and thus subject to detailed scrutiny. Moreover, the period studied—from the advent of the modern petroleum era in 1972 to the end of the constitutional regime of Jaime Roldós (completed by Osvaldo Hurtado) in 1984—was dominated by two distinct and opposing regime types, one military-authoritarian (1972-79), the other democratic-pluralist (1979-84). Both historical experience and the theoretical literature reviewed by Martz suggested that the character of policy making within a given regime would be unique to the type of regime in question. Thus, policies issuing from the authoritarian regime would likely be born of an innovative form of incrementalism; in contrast, the incrementalist thrusts of the pluralistic regime would be cast in a more traditional mold.
Martz traces in detail the events of the petroleum era, both the boom and the bust. The contrast between the euphoria of 1972 and the gloom of 1984, which saw Ecuador move from a period of unprecedented wealth to one of impending economic disaster, is daunting. And because it was the lifeblood of the nation, petroleum became the chief protagonist of the historical drama. For the military dictatorship, petroleum was seen as a legitimizing resource, a symbol of national sovereignty protected behind a shield of vigorous nationalism. For the democratic regime, it was to be an instrument of social reform and modernization. But as economic conditions progressively worsened, both regimes were forced to abandon their idealistic impulses, and petroleum policy increasingly took on the character of pragmatic crisis management. Thus, the tension between national sovereignty, national development, and economic survival as motivating forces in setting petroleum policy became a leitmotif of the period.
For both regimes, the primacy of economic stability in the end won out over less pragmatic imperatives that might be ascribed to each regime type. Tradition rather than innovation became the key to policy making for the military and the democratic government alike. Martz thus concludes that regime type indeed was not in the Ecuadoran case a significant factor in determining policy.
Inevitably, those familiar with the events of the period analyzed in Politics will quarrel with the author over the details and interpretations of some events described. And the general reader will lament the astonishing profusion of typographical errors and editorial lapses (averaging one every three pages), just as he will despair over the hopelessly inadequate index. Notwithstanding these regrettable shortcomings, however, Politics and Petroleum in Ecuador is a viable and illuminating analysis of Ecuador’s petroleum politics and policy during an important period in the country’s life. It is destined to become a significant landmark in the growing body of literature on contemporary Ecuador.
