To Carlos Filgueira, In Memoriam
This article helps fill the void in U.S. political science's approach to
Latin American political science and its institutionalization. One example
of that void is that PS: Political Science & Politics has
recently published several pieces on the state of the discipline in diverse
regions of the world but, despite its relative importance, none on the state
of the discipline in Latin America (see, for example,
and Turan 2004; Rizayev 2004; and
Sharapova 2005). This omission is remarkable
because this continent has both nourished U.S. political science by
providing several outstanding colleagues, many of whom have generated
controversial and important arguments against the dominant paradigms in the
discipline, and because, for better or worse, Latin America has been
considered the “backyard” of the United States. Arguably, because of its
economic, social, and political ties with the U.S., any major change in
Latin America would have greater and more immediate implications for the
U.S. than similar events elsewhere in the world. These topics are
particularly pertinent with the upcoming conference of the International
Political Science Association (IPSA) being held in Santiago, Chile, in 2009,
and the APSA's new efforts to recruit members from overseas, especially from
not-so privileged countries.
Latin American political science shows enormous variation in terms of what we
could call the institutionalization of the discipline. For instance, in some
countries no political science degree can be obtained, not even at the
undergraduate level; in others, less than five Ph.D.s in political science
are currently working in universities; and in still others, a high degree of
political science institutionalization exists in terms of the availability
of university degrees, number of research programs, and quality of academic
life in general. These deficiencies are not only closely tied to different
historic contexts but also are in part inherently related to academic
politics.
The Impact of the Political Context on Political Science
Latin American political science experienced its “golden age” in the
1970s, and then had to wait another 30 years to regain its momentum. The
major exponents of the discipline in this period were socialized in the
Southern Cone of the continent (especially in Argentina and Chile) and
in Brazil, with important contributions coming from Mexico a bit later.
It is undeniable that Latin American political science is immersed in a
constant process of transformation that is highly contingent on the
history of the continent. Although contributing to the same discipline,
each country's historical trajectory and political context has affected,
and continues to affect, the evolution of the field at the local
level.
Significant asymmetries exist in regard to the state of the discipline
within the region; with the exception of the “big ones” (Argentina,
Brazil, and Mexico), a national institutionalized political science does
not exist (i.e., offering degrees at all levels—B.A., M.A., Ph.D.—,
having consolidated research programs, having clear criteria for quality
in research, established professional careers, providing a decent
standard of living to those who chose to work in the field, etc.).
Clustering all national Latin American political science departments and
programs creates a triad with the three “big ones” in the first group, a
second group of countries presenting clear signs of improvement, but
with some ways to go (Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Uruguay, and
Venezuela), and, finally, the rest, countries where the gap is even
broader. Within this last group, it is even difficult to speak of a
discipline with a minimum degree of autonomy.
In spite of the existing differences and nuances in each of the national
academies, it is possible to find common evolutionary processes in
certain sub-groups of countries. Perhaps the most homogenous subgroup is
the Southern Cone (Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay). In this region (led
by Argentina, with Chile and Uruguay lagging behind) the bases of
political science were truncated by authoritarian governments and only
with the reinstallation of democracy did the discipline acquire new
life.
In Argentina and Chile the discipline began to expand its roots at the
end of the 1960s, catalyzed by years of ideological polarization and
constant political mobilization. Argentina was—and, as we will see,
continues to be—a great producer of outstanding social and political
scientists. Figures like Gino Germani, Torcuato Di Tella, and Guillermo
O'Donnell transcended the limits of their own country and even of Latin
America. Nevertheless, political science did not have time to complete
its consolidation when the region was overtaken by authoritarian regimes
that saw in political science, which was dominated in those years by
“radical” ideas, a threat to their interests.
Those dictatorial regimes brought about a two-fold exile that is still,
20 years later, playing an important role in the development of the
discipline, and in academia in general. The military regimes encroached
upon university affairs and censured many scholars. These academics,
barred from working in universities, began to gather in centers that
were dedicated to “low profile” research and were largely financed by
international organizations whose goals were the reinstallation of
democracy and the quest for social justice. Many blacklisted scholars
were forced into exile and had to build new lives in other
countries.
Violence and exile were not in any way the exclusive patrimony of
citizens in the Southern Cone. In some countries, political scientists
sought to foster democracy and peace. For example, the climate of
polarization, war, and repression in Guatemala inspired political
scientists and scholars in general to think of ways to resolve conflicts
and democratize their country (Azpuru 2005).
In Colombia, during the 1980s, when the conflict was still characterized
as an “armed conflict” and not yet as a “war,” the academy sought to
propose routes of democratic consolidation as a way of deactivating the
political violence (Bejarano and Wills 2005).
In other countries, the dangers associated with being an academic under
a repressive regime made exile a common option. For example, exile
played a preponderant and negative role in the development of the
discipline in El Salvador starting in the late 1970s (Artiga-González 2005).
Evidently, the political context in which political science develops
marks the research agenda of the discipline. Yet the consequences of a
particular regime do not always have the same effects. As a matter of
fact, authoritarian regimes have not been uniformly adverse to the
development of the discipline in the continent, as some would believe.
In this regard, the cases of Brazil and Mexico are worth mentioning, as
is the case of Peru (Tanaka 2005). In some
countries, the dictatorships brought research to a halt; in others, the
violence made research simply untenable; and in yet others, the same
climate generated the incentive for political scientists to think about
politics and policies and hence actually helped foster academic
life.
Returning to the Southern Cone, exile nourished other Latin American
academies that took advantage of the opportunity to incorporate those
affected by the repression. For example, although FLACSO (Facultad
Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales—Latin American Social Science
Faculty) in Argentina was a very important center of refuge for Chilean
and Uruguayan academics from 1973 until the Argentinean military coup in
1976, the countries that “capitalized” the most by attracting colleagues
from the south were Mexico and Brazil in the first instance and then
Venezuela and Costa Rica (Alfaro Redondo and Cullell
2005; Alvarez and Dahdah 2005). For
example, the CIDE (Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas—Center
for Economic Research and Education) in Mexico was, at a given moment, a
kind of refugee center for outstanding social scientists from South
America, especially from the Southern Cone. IUPERJ (Instituto
Universitário de Pesquisas do Río de Janeiro—University Research
Institute of Rio de Janeiro) in Brazil was one of the favorite centers
for pursuing doctoral studies for people coming from the River Plate. In
this respect we might include the Kellogg Institute for International
Studies at the University of Notre Dame as one of the most prominent
centers for Latin American intellectuals at the time.
Once democracy was (re)established in the region in the 1980s and many
political scientists returned from exile to their countries, two
significant phenomena happened simultaneously. First, given that
universities inherited the thin budgets of the authoritarian regimes,
many scholars had to look for complementary sources of income because,
in general terms, universities were not a place that allowed
academicians to live at a dignified level. In most countries, political
scientists had to take on multiple jobs, teaching courses at several
universities simultaneously and taking on other miscellaneous jobs to
supplement their academic income (on the practice of
“multi-empleo,” see Garcé 2005).
Second, many of the scholars returning to their countries were absorbed
by the new democratic governments. Chile stands out as the most extreme
case, result clearly associated with the governments of the Concertación
de Partidos por la Democracia (Garretón 2005).
But the practice was widespread. Although this trend was a great bonus
for these governments, it robbed the universities of some of their
country's best minds.
Another corollary of the return and stability of democracy in the region
was that many international organizations of cooperation turned their
focus to other regions of the world. With this move, important sums of
money destined for research stopped flowing to the region and
universities were consequently overwhelmed with researchers who had
previously worked in NGOs and research centers that had relied largely
on external funding. Obviously, universities could not absorb everyone
on a full-time basis and this demand for jobs, partially met through
massive hiring, especially by public universities, greatly contributed
to the vicious cycle of multi-empleo. In fact,
multi-empleo continues to exist in the great majority of
Latin American countries and is currently perhaps the greatest obstacle
to the professionalization of the discipline.
In general terms, democratization in Latin America also brought the
deregulation of the politics of education. As a consequence of
competition, postgraduate programs mushroomed in the region.
Unfortunately, many of these programs have core deficiencies: except for
the filter exerted by the market, with some exceptions very few
supervisory education policies exist; in many countries the comptroller
organizations in charge of university programs are also providers and
evaluators of these programs.
The explosion of the private universities produced more competitors in
the academic labor market. This has had enormous consequences for our
discipline (and others). First, it is clear that today “the market” has
determined that an undergraduate degree is not enough to find a good
job, less still to be employed in the academic world. In many of the
region's prestigious universities having a Ph.D. constitutes a
sine-qua-non condition to be hired as a full-time
researcher, albeit this norm is not uniform. Catalyzed by the deficiency
of local postgraduate programs, many Latin Americans look to continue
their professional training overseas. Many, educated at public
universities and with financial resources, stay in the places where they
studied abroad (especially the U.S.).
This last phenomenon has had great repercussions in our academies. Those
who did not obtain a doctorate degree from Latin American universities
with prestigious programs are threatened by the new generation of
foreign-trained academics who are up on the latest trends and skills in
the discipline. In several academic centers, those who remained have
resorted to actions of self-preservation and are usually the staunchest
opponents to establishing transparent criteria for academic careers. On
the other hand, academic staffing has been inflated
excessively—following the praiseworthy logic that it is better for many
to have little than to have a few professionals dedicated full-time.
Such intercollegiate competition has not necessarily been accompanied by
improvements in programs, but has resulted rather in the systematization
of what has come to be known as opiniology. Although the great majority
of the academic world is led by research and teaching, it is also true
that the great majority of private universities depend on the tuitions
paid by students. Thus, the universities seek “to sell” their “product”
in the market hoping to have the greatest possible return. Following a
logic of name recognition, a certain degree of public presence is
required. The quest for the spotlight has created academics willing to
share their opinions on the most miscellaneous aspects of life. Some
institutions even provide monetary rewards to those that excel at being
in the public eye. This strategy can bear immediate fruits, but one
would hope that the scientific community will end up avoiding these
tactics.
Disciplinary Institutionalization in Latin America
This section must begin with the obvious observation that Latin American
countries must dedicate more resources to scientific research. Latin
American countries' investments in education, research, and
technological development lag far behind those of the “developed world.”
Despite these shortfalls, the performance of Latin American sciences in
some arenas is comparable to that in other regions of the world. This is
not the case with political science. Taking as a given their scarcity,
how should available resources be suitably distributed through a
merit-based evaluation system?
Evaluating the quality of political science programs remains an
incredibly important goal. It includes, for instance, determining
whether program “a” is better than program “b” in job-placement, or
whether an international foundation should be financing a specific
project, or whether a job candidate from one university is substantially
better prepared than a candidate from another. The dilemma arises when
trying to establish the most objective criteria to weigh the quality of
the political science programs. Which criteria would we have to
consider? The list is almost endless, but one could well include: the
number of full-time professors with Ph.D.s in a department, amount and
quality of faculty publications in blind peer-reviewed journals, the
types of faculty publications (books, articles, notes in newspapers),
faculty success in attaining competitive research funds, or the success
of a program's students in the labor market. Undoubtedly we can find
some guidance in the (minimum) consensus that the American and European
academies have reached on evaluation, and from the wealth of literature
on the subject (Ballard and Mitchell 1998;
Garand and Graddy 1999; Hix 2004; Jackman and Siverson
1996; Katz and Eagles 1996; Lowry and Silver 1996; McCormick and Rice 2001; Miller, Tien,
and Peebler 1996; Schmitter 2002;
Welch and Hibbing 1983). Yet, despite the
lack of information required for ranking political science departments
in Latin America, we can trace some broad lines about the state of
political science at the national level.
Latin American political science presents a fragmented visage at the
national level. However, inspired by the literature, Table 1 displays a series of estimations on the state of the
institutionalization of the discipline in Latin America. This table is
structured on four pillars: Teaching, Research, Community, and
Professional Life.
Broad Estimations about Political Science in Latin America
Education of political science
International comparisons are very problematic; it would make no
sense to compare the number of Ph.D. programs in a country without
weighing that country's available resources (human and economic).
Obviously, resources are not the same in Brazil as in Panama, or in
Mexico as in Uruguay. Besides, the number of programs a country
offers says nothing of their quality. For example, some universities
offer Ph.D. degrees “almost by correspondence” while others require
four- or five-year programs with courses, comps, and all the
elements typical of a U.S. university. Some programs are extremely
successful in retaining their students, while in others the ratio
between students and those who finish their degree is amazingly low.
In Uruguay this relation is about 5% (Garcé
2005, 239); in Argentina it is hardly superior to 3%
(Leiras, Abal Medina (h.), and D'Alessandro 2005, 83–84).
Nevertheless, having stated these reservations about the quality of
the programs, it is interesting to see the dispersion of degrees in
the region. Table 2 shows an approximate
measurement of the number of degrees offered in each Latin American
country. The region boasts approximately 150 B.A. programs (or
equivalents), 100 M.A. programs, and a little more than 30 Ph.D.
programs in political science. There is a clear correlation (Pearson
0.637, sig. to 001) between the population of a country and the
number of B.A.s offered in that country. Nevertheless, this
correlation does not hold for M.A.s and Ph.Ds.
Numbers of degrees offered in Latin American Countries
Although Mexico represents 30% of the B.A.s in Latin America (Table 2), we can observe that the ratio
between B.A.s offered and population is far from being the highest.
When controlling for population size, Argentina offers the greatest
amount of B.A.s, with a ratio of 0.86, followed immediately by
Chile, with a ratio of 0.70. Although Argentina is the country that
offers the greatest number of Masters programs (0.70), Chile has a
higher ratio between population and degrees obtained (1.01).
Research: Resources and Publications
Within the scope of research we must compare not only research output
(information, books, articles, databases, etc.) but also the
capacity of those practicing our discipline to obtain the necessary
resources to carry it out. As is the case of the National Science
Foundation (NSF) in the U.S., which is an independent federal agency
created by Congress in 1950, some Latin American countries have
national science foundations (CONICET in Argentina, CONICYT in
Chile, FONACIT in Venezuela, etc.). Unfortunately, to a large extent
in Latin American, competitive national resources for political
science research do not exist. Table 1,
simply dichotomizes the existence (or absence) of these resources,
without weighting their accessibility, competitiveness, or another
criterion that could be crucial. Only seven of the 18 countries have
these resources available to a greater or lesser degree (Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, and Venezuela).
Evaluation of the quality and quantity of faculty research is
becoming increasingly important and commonplace in universities and
academic centers. Of course, significant differences in the research
culture exist: some sub-fields of political science research appear
in books, other subfields appear in articles. A comparison between
countries based on the bibliographical production of books would be
nearly impossible. Nevertheless it is important to indicate that, as
is the case in the great majority of disciplines, articles are
displacing books, which usually tend to be the culmination of “big”
research. In some North American universities, the requirement of
publishing political science doctoral theses in book format is
gradually being supplanted by journal articles (usually three).
To be considered competitive, a political science journal must meet a
series of requirements. Perhaps most crucial is the way manuscripts
are evaluated, the blind peer-review method being one of the crucial
criterion for quality. Another desirable criterion is the impact
these publications have on the peer community. Currently, there are
two international indexes that represent an “impact index” relevant
to Latin American academics: the Social Science Citation Index
(SSCI), and the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO).
Only Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico have journals indexed by
SSCI or SciELO, but this situation will shortly change as Argentina,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela are pursuing local
initiatives to develop SciELO projects.
I have studied the research production of scholars residing in Latin
American countries (based on the addresses they provide) in regard
to the journals categorized as political science and international
relations at the Social Science Scientific Index (SSCI)—see Annex 1
for all journals in both categories.1
I did not consider SciELO yet because of its short time
span.
summarizes the number of entries
each country has in each of the databases. Latin America's
production of political science is concentrated in the usual areas
(Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico). These three countries account for
over 70% of the political science entries, which is understandable
considering their relative proportions of population in the
continent.
Latin American countries' production in political science and
international relations
To account for the huge differences in the relative population of
each country I calculated the difference between the percentage of
continental population and production. Controlling for population
size, Brazil stands out as an underachiever, while Mexico and
Argentina still produce more than their populations would suggest
(see Figure 1). For instance, Mexico
accounts for 20% of the continental population and produces almost
35% of the published research in the discipline. In consequence,
Mexico has a positive 15% difference (the highest), and Brazil has a
negative 9% (the lowest); Brazil is far and away the second largest
producer of disciplinary literature, producing 25% of Latin
America's political science literature indexed at the SSCI.
Presumably, the Mexican record is partially biased, due to that
country's geographical, social, political, and economical ties with
the U.S. (and U.S. journals are the bulk of journals indexed at the
SSCI). Nonetheless, besides this apparent distortion, these figures
serve as a comparable measurement of research in the discipline
among Latin American countries.
The same exercise is done for journals considered to be focused on
international relations by the SSCI (see Figure
2). Basically, both ranks are consistent between
themselves, having a Pearson r of 7.31 (sig., 2-tail at .001). Cuba
is the most dissonant case, ranking third in the continent in
political science and 12th in regard to international relations. It
may be that we are witnessing a case of research “affirmative
action” within the context of political science but not in
international relations. As a matter of fact, Cuban entries at the
SSCI are highly concentrated in a couple of journals and mostly at
Latin American Perspectives.2
In future research it would be extremely interesting
to account for each journal's dispersion of entries for each
country.
Finally, in
Table
3, the average difference between the differences among
the percentage of continental population and production in political
science and international relations is calculated and a rank is
constructed. In this case, Argentina and Chile stand out as the
biggest producers of international relations in relation to their
size. Brazil again, the second largest producer of IR published
research at the SSCI, appears as the country that produces the least
in terms of its population.
One could rightfully ask whether the degree of political science
production is related to a country's ability to produce other types
of scientific research. Table 4 explores
this relationship by considering all of a country's entries in the
SSCI and SCI (see Table 4).
Latin American countries' SSCI and SCI
Community and Professional Life
I am not aware of any clear criterion that establishes the amount of
scholars necessary to create a scientific community. Certainly, we
could hardly have a critical mass of political scientists if courses
specialized in the discipline are not systematically offered and if
those that pursue a career in the field cannot earn a living as a
result of their studies. For that reason the existence of a vital
national association has been considered as a proxy for the
existence of a scientific community. I understand by a professional
association an organization that brings together most of the
political scientists in a country and which has a national congress
(at least once every two years) and some annually organized
activity.
Also as proxy for the professionalization of the discipline and to
illustrate the degree to which practitioners can have a career as an
academic in political science, I include in Table
1 two columns that account for the gross monthly wage of
a university professor (full-time) in U.S. dollars. That is, a
reasonable range of what a colleague could aspire to if dedicated to
academia. Of all the information provided in Table 1, these data offer the greatest amount of
possible complexities and it must be said again that all these data
respond only to approximate values (other possible personal income
are not included, as well as the taxes each individual must pay to
the state treasury).
Also, it is evident that a dollar is not worth the same in Honduras
or Bolivia as in Argentina or Chile. For this reason, I have added a
column to account for other aspects that we must consider, such as
the variations in the rate of exchange and the level of real wage
(“power of purchase”). The average of variation is enormous in the
region, oscillating between a minimum of 0.07 in Costa Rica and a
maximum of 0.97 in Honduras. In order to have a comparative
parameter, in the United States a professor at a Ph.D.-granting
university (n=220) has a gross annual income of between 60,000 and
170,000 dollars.3
If we make the same calculation that we have done with the other
Latin American countries controlling for the capacity to be able to
purchase (PPP), the relative monthly wage on PPP gives a rank that
oscillates between 0.14 and 0.39.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the necessity of professionalizing political science in
Latin America continues to be one of the most urgent topics within the
discipline in the region. This article does not attempt to be more than
a first approach to the state of the discipline in the continent,
therefore crucial subjects, particularly those related to the quality of
research and teaching, were neglected. Eventually, future research must
be done in this regard.
The state of political science in the Americas is one of enormous
deficiencies in most of the elements necessary for the
institutionalization of the discipline. Some countries do not offer any
degrees in political science (Sánchez Gonzalez
2005), while in others, less than 10 Ph.D.s in political
science are currently working in universities. Many universities in the
region continue fomenting the part-time job or low-intensity dedication,
and no clear criteria for professional excellence exist. In other
countries, such as in Chile, the discipline is blooming (Fuentes and Santana 2005), and in a small number
of countries we could properly talk about a discipline.
In order for political science to succeed in Latin America, our
discipline must be built around academic institutions that emphasize
clear rules and defined criteria that stimulate meritocracy. For
meritocracy to exist, criteria are necessarily to account for research
and teaching productivity, aspects that are lacking in most of the
countries in the region. Clearly, the establishment of these criteria is
necessary at the point of evaluation, a sine-qua-non reality in
these times of economic constraints and competition.
Appendix 1: Political Science and International Relations
Journals
Political Science
Africa Today, American Journal of Political Science, American
Political Science Review, Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, Annual Review of Political Science,
Australian Journal of Political Science, British Journal of
Political Science, Canadian Journal of Political Science, Chinese
Law and Government, Commentary, Communist and Post Communist
Studies, Comparative Political Studies, Comparative Politics,
Current History, Dissent, East European Politics and Societies,
Electoral Studies, European Journal of Political Research,
Europe-Asia Studies, Government and Opposition, Harvard
International Journal of Press-Politics, Human Rights Quarterly,
Internasjonal Politikk, International Political Science Review,
Issues and Studies, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Journal of
Democracy, Journal of Peace Research, Journal of Political
Philosophy, Journal of Politics, Journal of Strategic Studies,
Journal of Theoretical Politics, Latin American Perspectives, Latin
American Politics and Society, Legislative Studies Quarterly, Local
Government Studies, Monthly Review, Nation, New Left Review, New
Republic, Osteuropa, Parliamentary Affairs, Party Politics, Pensee,
Policy and Politics, Policy Review, Policy Sciences, Policy Studies
Journal , Political Behavior , Political Communication , Political
Geography, Political Psychology, Political Quarterly, Political
Research Quarterly, Political Science, Political Science Quarterly ,
Political Studies, Political Theory, Politicka Ekonomie, Politics
and Society, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Polity, Problems of
Post-Communism, PS: Political Science and Politics, Public Choice,
Public Opinion Quarterly, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Review
of International Political Economy, Russian Politics and Law,
Scandinavian Political Studies, Scottish Journal of Political
Economy, Studies in American Political Development, Studies in
Comparative International Development, Survival, West European
Politics.
International Relations
Alternatives, American Journal of Peace and Science, Cornell
International Law Journal, Current History, Emerging Markets Finance
and Trade, European Journal of International Relations, Foreign
Affairs, Foreign Policy, Global Governance, International Affairs,
International Interactions, International Journal, International
Organization, International Security, International Studies
Quarterly, Internationale Politik, Journal of Common Market Studies,
Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Journal of the Japanese and
International Economies, Journal of World Trade, Korean Journal Of
Defense Analysis, Marine Policy, Middle East Policy, Millennium
Journal of International Studies, Ocean Development and
International Law, Post-Soviet Affairs, Review of World Economics,
Review of International Studies, Russian and East European Finance
and Trade, Security Dialogue, Security Studies, Space Policy,
Stanford Journal of International Law, Terrorism and Political
Violence, Washington Quarterly, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv:Review
of World Economics, World Economy, World Policy Journal, World
Politics, World Today.
%20-%20https://sketch.com%20--%3e%3ctitle%3e3ECBBF50-FD08-412A-943D-2CFC5E025A16%3c/title%3e%3cdesc%3eCreated%20with%20sketchtool.%3c/desc%3e%3cg%20id='Stylesheet'%20stroke='none'%20stroke-width='1'%20fill='none'%20fill-rule='evenodd'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(-926.000000,%20-668.000000)'%20id='BUTTONS'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(100.000000,%20597.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='BTN-/-RIGHTS'%20transform='translate(816.000000,%2065.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='ICON-/-Rights'%20transform='translate(10.000000,%206.000000)'%3e%3cpath%20d='M13.5752841,0%20L1.34943182,0%20C0.59375,0%200,0.586666667%200,1.33333333%20L0,22.6666667%20C0,23.4133333%200.620738636,24%201.34943182,24%20L17.6505682,24%20C18.40625,24%2019,23.3866667%2019,22.6666667%20L19,5.36%20L13.5752841,0%20Z%20M13.5752841,1.89333333%20L17.0838068,5.36%20L13.5752841,5.36%20L13.5752841,1.89333333%20Z%20M1.34943182,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,5.36%20C12.1988636,6.10666667%2012.7926136,6.69333333%2013.5482955,6.69333333%20L17.6235795,6.69333333%20L17.6505682,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,22.6666667%20Z'%20id='Shape'%20fill='%23595959'%20fill-rule='nonzero'%3e%3c/path%3e%3ccircle%20id='Oval'%20stroke='%23595959'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20fill='%23595959'%20cx='9.5'%20cy='13.5355339'%20r='5.5'%3e%3c/circle%3e%3cpolyline%20id='Path-2'%20stroke='%23FFFFFF'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20transform='translate(9.500000,%2013.035534)%20rotate(45.000000)%20translate(-9.500000,%20-13.035534)%20'%20points='8%2016.0355339%2011%2016.0355339%2011%2010.0355339'%3e%3c/polyline%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
