Good dictator, bad dictator article summary - Essay Example

Reaction Paper THESIS MENT The purpose of this reaction paper is to summarize and make arguments in relation to the article “Good dictator, bad dictator: United Fruit Company and Economic Nationalism in Central America in the Twentieth Century” written by Marcelo Bucheli. SUMMARY Marcelo Bucheli in his article “Good dictator, bad dictator: United Fruit Company and Economic Nationalism in Central America in the Twentieth Century” addressed the pejorative term “Banana Republic”, which is often used to define small, retrograde, deprived, and unstable country with extensive corruption and a subservient association with the United States.

He further regarded United Fruit Company, the US multinational as a quintessential American colonialism in Central America. In this article, Bucheli argued that the strong affiliation of the company with the local dictators facilitated it to acquire considerable status in Latin America. He further illustrated the prevalence of three periods in Central American nationalism that impacted overall functioning of United Fruit. Accordingly, Bucheli related first period as an era of resistance in the context of labor movement, which witnessed by United Fruit relating to power and supportive nature of government.

Furthermore, he relates second period when United Fruit faced government opposition to its operations for the first time. The third period has been related with the target of seeking nationalism, wherein the company was forced to sale a few of its properties (Bucheli 1-42). Based on the above analysis, it can be summarized that alliances can survive as long as the multinationals facilitate the dictators to experience financial stability of the country. On the other hand, he argued that when the multinationals become powerless or their capabilities are reduced to provide adequate benefits to the dictators, they adopt rigid approaches to find out other alternative ways for gaining well-acknowledged reputation especially in Latin America (Bucheli 1-42).

RESPONSE AND ARGUMENTS I firmly agree with the response of the authors related with multinationals in the early part of 20th century. However, it would be not valid to support the same facts as stated by the author i.e. Bucheli in the current context of multinationals. I think that during the phase of 20th century, the governments of various nations were struggling with gaining power and were less focused upon developing financial conditions of their respective nations. However, it can be apparently observed that the present scenario is mostly concerned with economic development and welfare of the society rather than gaining power.

It can be affirmed that Bucheli is correct when he states that alliance between the multinationals and government last “as long as the multinational’s operations provide a constant flow of income and economic stability” (Bucheli 1-42). In my opinion, such action of the government can be firmly attributed with the ideology of “self-interested political attitude.” Moreover, it can be argued that United Fruit operated in the countries having unstable and poor economic background. It seems that because of such factor, the company established a broader dominance over these nations during the early period of its operations.

However, the gradual development and awareness amid the people of these countries in the later period may be the other major factor, which caused the decline of United Fruit. In conclusion, such instances as in the case of United Fruit are rarely visible as every country has incorporated broad policies and legislations to govern the activities of multinationals. Work Cited Marcelo Bucheli, “Good dictator, bad dictator: United Fruit Company and Economic Nationalism in Central America in the Twentieth Century.

” University of Illinois at Urbana (2006): 1-42. Print.