Schenoni, Bringing War Back In

Mechanisms of state capacity (Sept 22)

Why is Latin America a good testing ground?

Nineteenth-century Latin America provides an ideal testing ground for classical bellicist theory, for wars were frequent in that era and yet, unlike in Europe, losers always survived

core elites

Those in favor of a process of state strengthening and centralization. These were primarily—but not necessarily—urban elites closely connected to the national government and bureaucracy in the capital cities.

city, urban centers, national interests, state strengthening and centralization

peripheral elites

closer to local or parochial interests, usually based in the countryside or secondary cities where caudillos or warlords, the church, and landed elites preserved autonomous orders. Wary they would lose autonomy and privileges, peripheral elites always struck a bargain with core elites, which determined the pace of state formation.

rural, parochial interests, countryside

what happens after war loss?

the institutionalization of a state-weakening trajectory via the depletion of the armed forces and state bureaucracy, and the expulsion of core elites from main political parties.

Peripheral take over and decentralize, core elites are delegitimized.

peripheral are interested in local interests

Experience long-term declines in state capacity

EX - Paraguay and Peru

what happens after victory?

strengthened the wartime coalition built around core elites. In the short term the spoils of victory certainly boosted the state-building effort, but institutions, again, explain the consolidation of this upward trajectory in the long term. resulted in a reconfiguration of the party system so that all relevant parties became largely supportive of state building.

• peripheral elites who did not bandwagon and support this were outcasted

• Build stronger state institutions

EX - Argentina, Brazil, Chile

How does she measure the state’s capability to effectively connect its territory and population

railroad mileage

• as railway companies extended their reach, telegraphs lines, post offices, police stations, and many other proxies of state presence were deployed along the way. The train also facilitated the deployment of bureaucrats and troops to the peripheries, resulted in the creation of state agencies, and expanded the reach of the press and education

How does she measure the extractive element of state capacity (economic extraction)

national government revenue per capita (Banks and Wilson 2019) which is intended to grasp the extent to which the state could tax its population

• tariffs, emission, and even debt, were ultimately transferred to domestic prices and undoubtedly affected elites. Moreover, preventing smuggling, imposing duties, and securing seigniorage should be considered impressive feats for nineteenth-century states

what were the results of her general findings?

losing states lost an equivalent to the regional average in both railroads and revenue, suggesting the impact of war outcomes was substantively very important.

why is this a good test case?

it provides contrast to Europe

similarities between lain America and Europe

• frequency (#) of wars

• state resources

  • European states relied on income tax (20th century) in the 19th both relied on custom duties

Differences between Latin America and Europe

• in Europe, states that were not as efficient as national states disappeared after war, that did not happen in Latin America (survival of state forms)

• colonization

meachanisms of state formation redux

1) resource management (same path of development for winners and losers) and preparation for war

2) survival of the fittest

3) state that loses becomes weaker because elites that were weaker until that point have the opportunity for domination

what is the dependent variable? what are the units of measure?

state capacity

1) miles of railroad (show transport and state presence)

2) per capita revenue

= correlational analysis

define state capacity

mechanism that increases the ability of the state to increase its power

What is Schenoni's main argument?

Schenoni challenges the view that war did not matter for Latin American state formation.

He argues that: Victory strengthens state-building trajectories, while defeat weakens them.

His revised bellicist argument is: "Victory made the state."

Unlike Tilly, he focuses on what happens after wars end

How does Schenoni revise Tilly?

Schenoni argues that war outcomes also matter.

• Victory strengthens states after the war.

• Defeat weakens states after the war.

Therefore, postwar effects are crucial to understanding state formation

How does the Paraguayan War support Schenoni's argument?

he Paraguayan War (1864-1870) was fought between:

Winners

• Argentina

• Brazil

• Uruguay

Loser

• Paraguay

Before the war, Paraguay was actually one of the strongest and most centralized states in Latin America.

It had:

• State-owned industry

• Railroads

• Shipyards

• Foundries

• Strong military institutions

This is important because Paraguay was not weak before defeat.

After losing:

• Much infrastructure was destroyed.

• Manufacturing collapsed.

• The military was dismantled.

• Public lands were sold off.

• Peripheral elites gained power.

Political parties focused on local power struggles instead of state building.

Schenoni argues that defeat pushed Paraguay onto a long-term trajectory of state weakness that lasted well beyond the war itself.

Exam Significance:

Paraguay is the strongest evidence that defeat can reverse state-building progress.

How does Argentina illustrate Schenoni's theory?

Argentina was one of the winners of the Paraguayan War.

Before the war:

• Political authority was fragmented.

• Regional elites challenged the central government.

• State formation remained incomplete.

Victory strengthened the coalition supporting state building.

After the war:

• Domingo Sarmiento became president.

• The national army became stronger.

• Provincial militias were eliminated.

• Patagonia was incorporated.

• Central authority expanded.

The war helped convince elites that stronger national institutions were necessary.

According to Schenoni, victory consolidated the state-building project and helped Argentina become one of the strongest states in Latin America.

Exam Significance:

Argentina shows how victory helped lock in state strengthening.

How does Brazil illustrate Schenoni's theory?

Brazil also emerged victorious from the Paraguayan War.

Before the war:

• Regional elites still had considerable influence.

• The process of centralization was incomplete.

During and after the war:

• The military expanded dramatically.

• The central government increased its authority.

• Anti-state factions weakened.

• Conservatives used victory to strengthen institutions.

Most importantly, the army gained prestige and became a powerful actor in national politics.

Rather than challenging the state, political parties increasingly accepted the existence of a stronger centralized government.

Exam Significance:

Brazil illustrates Schenoni's argument that victory strengthens armies, elites, and institutions in ways that persist after the war ends.

How does the War of the Pacific support Schenoni's argument?

The War of the Pacific (1879-1883) was fought between:

Winner

• Chile

Losers

• Peru

• Bolivia

The war produced dramatically different state-building outcomes.

Chile emerged stronger.

Peru emerged weaker.

Schenoni argues that this divergence cannot be explained by the war itself.

Instead, it was the outcome of the war that mattered.

Victory strengthened Chile's state-building coalition while defeat destroyed Peru's.

Exam Significance:

This war serves as a second major piece of evidence for Schenoni's theory and mirrors the pattern seen in the Paraguayan War.

How does Peru illustrate Schenoni's theory?

Peru is one of Schenoni's most important examples.

Before the War of the Pacific, Peru was actively building state capacity.

The Civilista Party introduced reforms such as:

• Centralization

• National education

• Census collection

• Bureaucratic expansion

• Military reform

Peru was actually moving toward a stronger state before defeat.

Military setbacks during the war discredited these reformers.

After defeat:

• Nicolás de Piérola seized power.

• State-building reforms unraveled.

• Regional strongmen regained influence.

• Fiscal authority became decentralized.

• Political fragmentation returned.

The Civilista project collapsed.

Exam Significance:

Peru demonstrates that defeat can interrupt and reverse an ongoing state-building process.

How does Chile illustrate Schenoni's theory?

Chile was the major winner of the War of the Pacific.

Victory increased the legitimacy of the Chilean state.

After the war:

• New taxes were introduced.

• State revenue increased.

• Railroad construction expanded.

• The military gained prestige.

• State authority penetrated new territories.

The government built roughly 2,000 miles of railroad and expanded national integration.

Political conflict continued, but debate shifted away from whether the state should be strong.

Instead, parties argued about who should control the state.

The military became a powerful institution protecting the centralized order.

Exam Significance:

Chile demonstrates how victory creates a self-reinforcing process of state strengthening.

Example thesis:

Schenoni argues that war outcomes shape state formation. Victories in the Paraguayan War and War of the Pacific strengthened states such as Argentina, Brazil, and Chile by legitimizing central institutions, while defeats weakened Paraguay and Peru by empowering peripheral elites and dismantling state-building projects.