Understanding Central America

by John A. Booth

Since the 1960s, political violence and war in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala have taken 300,000 lives, displaced millions, and reversed decades of economic gains. Progress toward peace has been made since 1989 as the decade of war has changed the politics of conflict in the region and in Washington. In this new edition of a widely praised book, two of the most respected writers on Central American politics examine the origins and development of the region's political conflicts and efforts to resolve them. Highlights of the new edition include an analysis of rapidly evolving regional peace processes, Nicaragua's 1990 elections, the exit of the Sandinistas from power, and the Salvadoran peace accord.The authors trace the roots of underdevelopment and crisis in the region by examining the shared and individual histories of the Central American nations. They offer a theory about rebellion and political stability to account for the striking contrast between war-torn Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua and the stability of Costa Rica and Honduras. Booth and Walker examine the forces driving popular mobilization—economic change, liberation theology, and Marxism—and evaluate the dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward Central America over the last decade as well as the implications of those changes for the future of the region.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction

264 pages, Paperback

First published October 29, 1989

Reviews

[Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

The best general overview that I have read of the Central American wars of the 1970-80s. Unlike most other English-language books on Central America, this one does not place the United States at the center of the narrative, but rather analyzes the region's history on its own terms. (To use political science jargon, this is primarily a book about comparative politics rather than international relations). Of course the book does not ignore U.S. policy entirely -- such an approach would be impossible given the deep U.S. involvement in the region, and in fact there is an entire chapter devoted to the subject. But the book's primary focus is on the internal dynamics that led to the dramatic upheavals of the '70s-80s, and it handles the subject with clarity and depth.

A few warnings are in order, however. Since this is an academic volume, what you receive in terms of depth of analysis, you pay for in the sheer dryness of the prose. Also, the book's coverage does not extend to Panama. That being said, anyone looking for a relatively quick primer on the region would do well to start here. (My edition clocks in at less than 200 pages, not counting endnotes and appendices).

Mine is the 1999 edition (w/ the green cover). For what it's worth, I think highly enough of this book that I would definitely purchase the updated edition should the opportunity ever arise.

[Derek · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a thorough and well-researched history of Central American history and political processes, mostly in the 20th century up to 1998. The authors are detailed in their investigations that examine each country’s historical backdrop from the 19th century onwards, and how the economic and social developments of each nation contributed to their regime changes throughout the tumultuous 20th century, with each culminating in what the authors deem ‘civilian democracies’. They also examine the similarities and differences between the nations, and take a pointed but nonideological look at US involvement on the isthmus. It’s a good text to become familiarized with the recent history of Central America that is accessible and not too long.

[Athalia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read 6th edition (2015)

[Krysti · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good primer in the politics of the region (Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Costa Rica). The book is too generic at times and I think I got more out of this book because I have already detailed accounts of Guatemalan history.

[Lionel]

I read part of this book for an Anthropology class in university. It didn't grab my attention and I have no intention of finishing it.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not the best writing