Over a period of half a century, from the 1940s to the 1990s, Edmundo O'Gorman came to occupy a unique place in Mexican historiography. Though he might be considered as quasi-aristocratic in his thought and in his bearing, he spent his entire career as teacher and scholar at the popular Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), not at the more elitist El Colegio de México. Unlike Daniel Cosío Villegas, with whom he is often paired as the leading Mexican historians of their generation, he was not politically engaged, nor was he a ‘cultural caudillo’; he appeared to shun the attractions of academic administration and power. He was, however, an avid intellectual organiser and provocateur, who relished debate and welcomed polemical interchanges with colleagues at home and abroad.

This commentary aimed originally to compare the function of the principle of consent in Latin and Anglo-American history. Yet, as it developed, I could no longer ignore the reasons behind the neglect of the close links between the principle of consent and the law of nature and nations. I grew increasingly interested in a comparison between this and another equally interesting anomaly emerging from it: the limitations nationalism has imposed on historians in studying their national histories. The end result has been to use my original subject as a means to reflect on some of the presuppositions that can limit historical research.

The severe economic crisis facing several countries in the region over the last couple of years has led many observers to predict a backlash against market policies and even against democracy in the region. An economic crisis of such proportions should also, in theory, have negative effects on subjective well being. Our analysis, based on the Latinobarómetro surveys from 2000–2002, finds some unexpected positive trends, as well as notable differences between those countries that suffered from crises and those that did not. Satisfaction with market policies and with the way democracy is working has decreased among all groups except the very wealthy. In contrast, support for democracy as a system of government has increased, suggesting that respondents are increasingly distinguishing between democracy as a system of government, and the manner in which particular governments are performing. We also find evidence of changing attitudes towards redistributive taxation among the wealthy.

JEL Codes. D63 (welfare economics, equity, justice, inequality); D84 (information and uncertainty, expectations); I31 (general welfare; basic needs; quality of life); J62 (mobility, unemployment, intergenerational mobility)

In the 1920s oligarchic rule in Brazil was perceived to be constantly under threat from ‘revolution’. Domestic developments and the impact of the First World War had brought about major changes in the political arena. In this context, the resources of the Ministry of Foreign Relations (Itamaraty) were systematically used by the Brazilian government as a means to monitor and counteract presumed overseas connections of a ‘revolutionary’ nature. Actions against tenentismo in the Río de la Plata region and diplomatic efforts to oppose the 1930 Revolution, among other issues, are examined in this article in order to provide further understanding of the role played by Brazilian diplomacy in the final years of the Old Republic.