Can a highly participatory and democratic civic culture evolve rapidly in a context marked by relative poverty, and then buttress democracy in the face of weak institutions? In this informative and thought-provoking book, Leslie Anderson contends that this is exactly what has occurred in Nicaragua. In contrast, in economically more affluent Argentina she finds comparatively strong institutions but a relatively anemic civic culture. By contrasting these cases, Anderson places two critical components of a robust democratic political system—“bridging” social capital and formal institutions—under the same lens in order to show how it is that a country can come to possess one but not the other, and to raise intriguing questions about the dynamic relationship between the two and their relevance for democratic development.

Anderson argues that variation in the nature and quantity of social capital across Nicaragua and Argentina can be traced to distinct political movements that emerged during the last century. She develops this argument in Part I of the book, which presents a rich analysis that makes a compelling case for the ways in which Sandinismo and Peronism, respectively, altered these countries' sociopolitical landscapes. In Nicaragua, the Sandinistas cultivated a revolution characterized by the extension of horizontal ties and grassroots engagement, which reaped a participatory and democratic political culture. In Argentina, Juan Perón structured a movement around a single individual whose emphasis on vertical ties fueled the development of “bonding” rather than bridging social capital.

A real strength of the discussion in Part I lies in Anderson's detailed elucidation of the many factors that contributed to these different movements and outcomes. In her choice of cases, the author deliberately and effectively diminishes the importance of economic affluence as a precondition for the development of democratic culture and politics. In dissecting the cases, she notes instead the significance of preexisting stockpiles of social capital and historical timing. With respect to the latter, for example, she points to the favorable political timing that marked the arrival in Nicaragua of liberation theology, a perspective that shaped and moderated the thinking of intellectuals and other leaders within the Sandinista movement. An emphasis on the role of individuals is threaded throughout both case studies. But structure also matters, as seen in Anderson's argument (p. 65) that in Nicaragua, the “magnitude of danger the revolutionaries faced” influenced their “conscious decision to reach out” to each other, to other groups, and across classes.

Are countries deficient in ideal types of social capital doomed to democratic decay? Anderson provocatively argues against such a conclusion in Part III, which considers the extent to which Argentina's formal political institutions, in particular the Congress, exhibit signs of strength that compensate for weak social capital. Once again contrasting the cases, she evaluates multiple indicators, ranging from the brick and mortar of the congressional building to the role played by the institution in the policymaking process and in balancing the executive's political weight. Anderson's analysis provides convincing reason to judge Argentina's institutions as comparatively stronger than those in Nicaragua. The study appropriately highlights the relevance of Congress and individual politicians to the democratization process, and for scholars of Latin American politics, these discussions convey bountiful knowledge concerning how Congress is organized and how it acts in each of these cases.

In Part II, Anderson analyzes public opinion data as a means of assessing the implications of her argument that Nicaraguans (particularly those with Sandanista loyalties) will exhibit evidence of high social capital and more favorable and coherent democratic attitudes in contrast to Argentines (particularly those with loyalties linked to Peronism). The data come from surveys of two towns and from several national surveys. Unfortunately, a number of limitations pervade the data and analyses in this section, making it comparatively less satisfying than the first and third parts of the book. While Anderson may have had the ability to make some different analytical choices, much of the blame rests in problems familiar to scholars of comparative public opinion: differences in sample designs and less-than-ideal questions to proxy important attitudes. As a result, for example, much of her analysis of democratic attitudes is conducted at arm's length and in a manner that conflates partisan loyalties with democratic preferences. Further, while she makes the explicit assumption that at least certain types of civic engagement reflect social trust, surprisingly absent is explicit analysis of indicators of interpersonal trust. This is important, as the author herself acknowledges that not all types of civic engagement are democracy enhancing; in fact, a study of contemporary public opinion in Nicaragua finds a positive relationship between interpersonal trust and only one of five types of civic engagement (see John A. Booth and Mitchell A. Seligson, Political Culture of Democracy, Nicaragua, 2010: Democratic Consolidation in the Americas in Hard Times, 2011).

While critiques can be made of the survey data analyses, as a whole they provide support for the notion that civic culture, in particular with respect to civic engagement, developed differently in Nicaragua in recent times compared to Argentina. Those scholars wishing to probe more deeply into the subject will find it to be a particularly auspicious time to do so, as the amount of public opinion data available for the study of Latin American politics has virtually exploded in recent years (see Elizabeth J. Zechmeister and Mitchell A. Seligson, “Public Opinion Research in Latin America,” in Handbook of Latin American Politics, ed. Peter Kingstone and Deborah Yashar, 2012).

One of the most significant aspects of this book is the argument made by Anderson regarding the potential for robust levels of social capital to emerge quickly. As a clear challenge to conventional wisdom that culture changes slowly, she provides reason to believe that in a relatively short period of time, a confluence of favorable (or unfavorable) factors can define a comprehensive mass movement that significantly influences the ways that individuals engage with one another and with their political system. Teasing out the relative importance of each “ingredient,” to use Anderson's term, could provide excellent fodder for counterfactual and other analytical exercises on the basis of this book. Intriguingly, she notes (p. 168) that “differences between these two countries were not as pronounced in 2007 as they were in the late 1990s,” at least with respect to preferences over democracy. Thus, the book also raises the question: What factors might now be building or eroding democratic political culture so as to cause convergence across the cases?

On a final note, in an era in which it is common to hear scholars and policymakers voice concern about democratic backsliding in Latin America, this book serves as a nice counterpoint by making visible some of the strengths that have recently characterized these two democratic systems: Nicaragua's comparatively strong stock of social capital and Argentina's comparatively strong institutions. While systems that lack both may face nearly insurmountable barriers to democratization, Social Capital in Developing Democracies provides reason to believe that countries with either high levels of civic engagement or a strong formal institutional structure may be able to hobble along at the least, or steadily progress at the most, while buying time to develop the other and achieve that best of both worlds: an engaged and democratic civic culture surrounded by strong democratic institutions.