What explains the different rates of internet use across nations, otherwise known as the worldwide digital divide? Essentially, this is a question about the determinants of technology adoption, a debate that has been dominated by two schools of thoughtFone focuses on the characteristics of the technology itself, the other, on the characteristics of the adopting body, that is, the social and institutional context in which adopters operate. This paper attempts to integrate these two theories by focusing on the features of both information technologies and adopting entities. We confirm the well-documented findings that income, trade, infrastructure, market-oriented policies, and political liberties explain one measure of the digital divide. However, we also find a more complex relationship between political liberties and internet adoption. Differences in political liberties do not lead to uniform differences in internet use, as the literature often assumes. Specifically, not all authoritarian regimes discourage internet use similarly. High-income, market-oriented autocratic states are less draconian. Although they fear the political consequences of internet expansion, they also welcome its economic payoffs. We provide quantitative and qualitative evidence that the more authoritarian the country, the stronger the impact of income on internet expansion. This may be beneficial for economic development, but contrary to modernization theories, it may not necessarily bolster forces of democratization in these regimes.Less than two decades after the development of the worldwide web, the world faces a monumental digital divide. Some nations have become rapid adopters of the internet, while the majority lags far behind. Attempting to explain this digital divide provides an opportunity to address a crucial question in the social sciences: what factors determine technology adoption?This question is vital for at least two reasons. First, differences in technology adoption separate the highest economic-performing regions and nations from the rest. Factors typically associated with high growth rates, such as labor productivity, financial mobilization, and export competitiveness, seem to require some degree of domestic technological sophistication (Weber and Bussell 2005). Second, technology adoption is connected to issues of political liberties in complex ways. On the one hand, knowledge-based technologies may foster liberties, democratization, human rights, and even societal empowerment (e.g.

This paper contributes to the literature on dynamics of hybrid regimes, i.e., whether these regimes stay stable, or instead, turn more democratic or more autocratic with time. Venezuela since the mid-2000s is an example of the latter. I first focus on how this happened in Venezuela. I posit that the turn toward greater authoritarianism occurred through autocratic legalism. This refers to the use, abuse, and disuse of the law to disempower veto players. I then focus on the “why” question. The main cause of Venezuela’s regime dynamics is a combination of external factors (increasing tolerance from abroad) and the ruling party’s declining electoral competitiveness at home and institutional path dependence.

The acceleration of authoritarianism in Venezuela since 2004, together with Hugo Chávez's reelection in 2006, cannot be explained easily with functional theories. Instead, we focus on political opportunities: specifically, economic resources at the state's disposal together with weakened institutions of representation helped crowd out the opposition. We show how clientelism and electoral authoritarianism feed each other. Together with deliberate strategies of polarization, impunity, and job discrimination, lavish spending has allowed the state to mobilize majorities and emerge undefeatable at the polls. This invincibility is, paradoxically, the reason that the Venezuelan state has become an unreliable force for promoting democracy.

Abstract. An epidemiologic field study was conducted in the village of Borbòn in Esmeraldas province in northern Ecuador to compare different parasitologic methods in the diagnosis of infection with the Entamoeba histolytica/ Entamoeba dispar complex. The results of two stool antigen detection assays (the Prospect™ Entamoeba histolytica microplate assay and the E. histolytica II™ assay) were compared with isoenzyme characterization of the amebic isolates. Nearly all (176 of 178, 98.9%) subjects were positive for intestinal parasites on direct microscopic examination, and cysts and/or vegetative forms morphologically consistent with the E. histolytica/E .dispar complex were recorded in 48 of 178 cases (27%). Culture in Robinson's medium was positive for amebic stocks in 89 (50%) of the 178 samples tested. Of the 37 isolates successfully stabilized, cloned, and characterized by zymodeme analysis, seven (18.9%) showed isoenzyme patterns of E. histolytica, whereas 26 (70.3%) showed patterns of E. dispar. The remaining four strains were identified as Entamoeba coli (three isolates; 8.1%) and Dientamoeba fragilis (one strain; 2.7%).The immunochromatographic tests showed different degrees of sensitivity and specificity when compared with isoenzyme characterization as the reference technique. The microplate assay, which does not discriminate between E. histolytica and E.dispar, showed a sensitivity of 54.5% and a specificity of 94% for both these amebic species. In contrast, the second-generation E. histolytica II test had a sensitivity of 14.3% and a specificity of 98.4% for E. histolytica sensu stricto. Our survey clearly demonstrated that more specific and sensitive diagnostic tests, such as stool antigen detection assays and isoenzyme analysis, are needed to establish the actual worldwide distribution of E. histolytica and E. dispar.

LGBT rights have expanded unevenly across Latin America and the Caribbean. Recent scholarship has been able to explain some of the reasons for this unevenness. But new and old questions remain unaddressed. This article suggests areas for further research. Keywords:LGBT, rights, identity, gender, religion, political parties, courts, same-sex marriage, homophobia, conservatism.Resumen: Los derechos LGBT en la política de América Latina y el Caribe:Agendas para la investigación Los derechos LGBT han proliferado en América Latina y el Caribe de modo disparejo. Varios estudios académicos recientes han logrado explicar las razones de dicho crecimiento disparejo. Sin embargo, existen todavía preguntas sin responder al igual que nuevas preguntas por contestar. Este artículo sugiere algunas áreas que ameritan más investigación. Palabras clave:LGBT, derechos, identidad, género, religión, partidos políticos, tribunales, matrimonio igualitario, homofobia, conservadurismoWhen Mario Pecheny and I published our edited volume The Politics of Sexuality in Latin America in 2010, very few political scientists were paying attention to the evolution of LGBT rights in the region. This lack of attention has changed since then, although perhaps not sufficiently. Today, more political scientists are doing research on LGBT rights, and most scholars studying Latin America and the Caribbean recognize that LGBT rights are one of the fundamental human rights issues of our time. And yet, despite the rise in importance of this topic, many questions remain unanswered or even unaddressed. This essay identifies some research gaps.