.svg)
.svg)
Thepink tide (Spanish:marea rosa;Portuguese:onda rosa;French:marée rose), or theturn to the left (Spanish:giro a la izquierda; Portuguese:virada à esquerda; French:tournant à gauche), is a political wave and turn towardsleft-wing governments inLatin America throughout the 21st century. As a term, both phrases are used inpolitical analysis in thenews media and elsewhere to refer to a move toward moreeconomically progressive orsocially progressive policies in the region.[1][2][3] Such governments have been referred to as "left-of-centre", "left-leaning", and "radicalsocial-democratic".[4] They are also members of theSão Paulo Forum, a conference of left-wing political parties and other organizations from the Americas.[5]
The Latin American countries viewed as part of this ideological trend have been referred to as pink tide nations,[6] with the termpost-neoliberalism orsocialism of the 21st century also being used to describe the movement.[7] Elements of the movement have included a rejection of theWashington Consensus.[8] At the same time, some pink tide governments, such as those ofArgentina,Brazil, andVenezuela,[9] have been varyingly characterized as being "anti-American",[10][11][12] prone topopulism,[13][14][15] as well asauthoritarian,[14] particularly in the case ofNicaragua and Venezuela by the 2010s, although many others remained democratic.[16]
The pink tide was followed by theconservative wave, a political phenomenon that emerged in the early 2010s as a direct reaction to the pink tide. Some authors have proposed that there are multiple distinct pink tides rather than a single one, with the first pink tide happening during the late 1990s and early 2000s[17][18] and a second pink tide encompassing the elections of the late 2010s to early 2020s.[19][20] A resurgence of the pink tide was kicked off byMexico in 2018 andArgentina in 2019[21] and further established byBolivia in 2020,[22] along withPeru,[23]Honduras,[24] andChile in 2021,[25] and thenColombia andBrazil in 2022,[26][27][28] with Colombia electingthe first left-wing president in their history.[29][30][31] In 2023, centre-leftBernardo Arévalo secureda surprise victory inGuatemala.[32][33] In 2024,Claudia Sheinbaum won theMexican presidency in a landslide, a continuation ofAndrés Manuel López Obrador's left-wing government,[34][35] andYamandú Orsi'svictory inUruguay marked a return to power for theBroad Front.[36]
Following thethird wave of democratization in the 1980s, the institutionalisation of electoral competition in Latin America opened up the possibility for the left to ascend to power. For much of the region's history, formal electoral contestation excluded leftist movements, first through limited suffrage and later through military intervention and repression during the second half of the 20th century.[37] Thedissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of theCold War changed the geopolitical environment, as many revolutionary movements vanished, and the left embraced the core tenets of capitalism. In turn, the United States no longer perceived leftist governments as a security threat, creating a political opening for the left.[38]
In the 1990s, as the Latin American elite no longer feared a communist takeover of their assets, the left exploited this opportunity to solidify their base, run for local offices, and gain experience governing on the local level. At the end of the 1990s and early 2000s, the region's initial unsuccessful attempts with theneoliberal policies ofprivatisation, cuts insocial spending, and foreign investment left countries with high levels ofunemployment,inflation, and risingsocial inequality.[39]
This period saw increasing numbers of people working in theinformal economy and suffering material insecurity, and ties between the working classes and the traditional political parties weakening, resulting in a growth of mass protest against the negative social effects of these policies, such as thepiqueteros in Argentina, and in Bolivia indigenous and peasant movements rooted among smallcoca farmers, orcocaleros, whose activism culminated in theBolivian gas conflict of the early-to-mid 2000s.[40] The left's social platforms, which were centered on economic change andredistributive policies, offered an attractive alternative that mobilized large sectors of the population across the region, who voted leftist leaders into office.[38]
.jpg)
The pink tide was led byHugo Chávez of Venezuela, who waselected into the presidency in 1998.[41] National policies among the left in Latin America are divided between the styles of Chávez and Lula as the latter not only focused on those affected by inequality, but also catered to private enterprises and global capital.[42]Lucio Gutiérrez imitated Chávez, staged acoup d'état in 2000 and waselected in 2002 on a leftist platform[43] but by 2003, the IndigenistPachakutik andCONAIE withdrew their support seeing him as a traitor and in 2005,protests led to his removal from power. In 2006,Rafael Correaelected president.[44] In Bolivia,Evo Morales unexpectedly came second in the2002 presidential election and waselected by a large margin in 2005.[45] In 2006,Daniel Ortegareturned to power in Nicaragua.
With the difficulties facing emerging markets across the world at the time, Latin Americans turned away fromliberal economics and elected leftist leaders who had recently turned toward more democratic processes.[46] The popularity of such leftist governments relied upon by their ability to use the2000s commodities boom to initiate populist policies,[47][48] such as those used by the Bolivarian government in Venezuela.[49] According to Daniel Lansberg, this resulted in "high public expectations in regard to continuing economic growth, subsidies, and social services".[48] With China becoming a more industrialized nation at the same time and requiring resources for its growing economy, it took advantage of the strained relations with the United States andpartnered with the leftist governments in Latin America.[47][50] South America in particular initially saw a drop in inequality and a growth in its economy as a result of Chinese commodity trade.[50]
As the prices of commodities lowered into the 2010s, coupled with welfare overspending with little savings by pink tide governments, policies became unsustainable and supporters became disenchanted, eventually leading to the rejection of leftist governments.[48][51] Analysts state that such unsustainable policies were more apparent in Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, and Venezuela,[50][51] who received Chinese funds without any oversight.[50][52] As a result, some scholars have stated that the pink tide's rise and fall was "a byproduct of the commodity cycle's acceleration and decadence".[47]
Some pink tide governments, such as Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela, allegedly ignoredinternational sanctions against Iran, allowing the Iranian government access to funds bypassing sanctions as well as resources such asuranium for theIranian nuclear program.[53]
_(cropped_2).jpg)
The US government said Chávez had "dreams of continental domination", was a threat to his own people. According to Michael Reid writing in theCouncil on Foreign Relations magazine,Foreign Affairs, Chávez' regional influence peaked in 2007 and interest in him waned after Venezuela's dependence on oil revenue led it into aneconomic crisis and he grew increasingly authoritarian.[54]
In 2009, Honduran presidentManuel Zelaya who started of as centre-right but moved to the left was removed in acoup d'état.[55]
Thedeath of Chávez in 2013 left the most radical wing without a clear leader asNicolás Maduro did not have the international influence and prestige of his predecessor. Chinese trade and loans, which were more favourable than those provided by theInternational Monetary Fund, resulted in economic growth, a steep fall in poverty, a decline in extreme income inequality, and a swelling of the middle class in South America. By the mid-2010s, Chinese investment in Latin America began to decline.[50]
By 2015, the shift away from the left became more pronounced in Latin America, withThe Economist saying the pink tide had ebbed,[56] andVice News stating that 2015 was "The Year the 'Pink Tide' Turned".[57] In the2015 Argentine general election,Cristina Fernández de Kirchner's favoured candidate for the presidencyDaniel Scioli was defeated by his centre-right opponentMauricio Macri, against a background of rising inflation, reductions in GDP, and declining prices forsoybeans, which was a key export for the country, leading to falls in public revenues and social spending.[40]
Shortly afterwards, thecorruption scandal surrounding Petrobras engulfed Brazilian politics and led to the impeachment of Brazilian presidentDilma Rousseff, culminating in her removal from office. In Ecuador, retiring presidentRafael Correa's successor was his vice-president,Lenín Moreno, who took a narrow victory in the2017 Ecuadorian general election, a win that received a negative reaction from the business community at home and abroad. However, after his election, Moreno shifted his positions rightwards and sidelined Correa's allies, resulting in Correa branding his former deputy "a traitor" and "a wolf in sheep's clothing".[40][58]
By 2016, the decline of the pink tide saw an emergence of a "new right" in Latin America,[59] withThe New York Times stating "Latin America's leftist ramparts appear to be crumbling because of widespread corruption, a slowdown in China's economy and poor economic choices", with the newspaper elaborating that leftist leaders did not diversify economies, had unsustainable welfare policies and disregarded democratic behaviors.[60] In mid-2016, theHarvard International Review stated that "South America, a historical bastion of populism, has always had a penchant for the left, but the continent's predilection for unsustainable welfarism might be approaching a dramatic end."[9]
Far-right candidateJair Bolsonaro was elected in Brazil in2018 Brazilian general election, providing Brazil with its most right-wing government since the military dictatorship.[61]
Some countries, however, pushed back against the trend and elected more left-leaning leaders, such asMexico with the electoral victory ofAndrés Manuel López Obrador in the2018 Mexican general election andArgentina where the incumbentcentre-right presidentMauricio Macri lost againstcentre-left challengerAlberto Fernández (Peronist) in the2019 Argentine general election.[62][63][64] This development was later strengthened by thelandslide victory of the left-wingMovement for Socialism and its presidential candidateLuis Arce inBolivia in the2020 Bolivian general election.[65][66]
A series of violent protests againstausterity measures andincome inequality scattered throughout Latin America have also occurred within this period inChile, Colombia (in2019 and2021),Haiti andEcuador.[62][67]
This trend continued throughout 2021 and 2022, when multiple left-wing leaders won elections in Latin America. In the2021 Peruvian general election,Peru elected the maverick peasant union leaderPedro Castillo on a socialist platform, defeating neoliberal rivals.[68] In the2021 Honduran general election held in November, leftistXiomara Castro was elected president ofHonduras,[20] and weeks later leftistGabriel Boric won the2021 Chilean general election to become the new president ofChile.[69] The2022 Colombian presidential election was won by leftistGustavo Petro,[70] making him the first left-wing president ofColombia in the country's 212-year history.[71][72] Lula followed suit inOctober 2022 by returning to power after narrowly beating Bolsonaro.[73] In 2023, Guatemalaelected centre-leftBernardo Arévalo as its president.[74][75] In 2024,Claudia Sheinbaum won theMexican presidency in a landslide, a continuation ofAndrés Manuel López Obrador's left-wing government,[34][35] andYamandú Orsi'svictory inUruguay marked a return to power for theBroad Front.[36]
Since mid-2022, some political commentators have suggested that Latin America's second pink tide may be dissipating, citing the unpopularity of Boric and the2022 Chilean national plebiscite,[76][77]the deposition of Castillo,[76] the shift of many elected leaders towards thepolitical center,[77] theelection of conservativeSantiago Peña as president ofParaguay.[78] and Ecuador'selection of centre-right president,Daniel Noboa, over his leftist rival,Luisa González.[79] Also in 2023, Argentina elected —for the first time in the country's history— afar-right candidate,Javier Milei, as president, after November 19th'sgeneral elections.[80]
The rightward trend in Latin American politics largely continued through 2025. In Ecuador, President Noboa was easilyre-elected in a rematch against Luisa González. Noboa's 11% margin of victory was the largest of any Ecuadorian president since the2013 election.[81] The AugustBolivian general election saw the rulingMovement for Socialism lose every seat in theChamber of Senators and all but two seats in theChamber of Deputies. The presidential election went to a runoff between two right-of-center candidates,Rodrigo Paz Pereira and former presidentJorge Quiroga, thus ensuring the end of leftist rule in Bolivia for the first time in twenty years.[82]
 | Theneutrality of this section isdisputed. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please do not remove this message untilconditions to do so are met.(October 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The pink tide governments aimed to improve the welfare of the constituencies that brought them to power, which they attempted through measures intended to increase wages, such as raisingminimum wages, and softening the effects of neoliberal economic policies through expandingwelfare spending, such as subsidizing basic services and providingcash transfers to vulnerable groups like the unemployed, mothers outside of formal employment, and theprecariat.[40] In Venezuela, the first pink tide government of Chávez increased spending on social welfare, housing, and local infrastructures, and established theBolivarian missions, decentralised programmes that delivered free services in fields, such as healthcare and education, as well as subsidised food distribution.[40]
Before Lula's election, Brazil suffered from one of the highest rates of poverty in the Americas, with the infamousfavelas known internationally for its levels of extreme poverty, malnutrition, and health problems. Extreme poverty was also a problem in rural areas. During Lula's presidency several social programs like Zero Hunger (Fome Zero) were praised internationally for reducing hunger in Brazil,[83] poverty, and inequality, while also improving the health and education of the population.[83][84] Around 29 million people becamemiddle class during Lula's eight years tenure.[84] During Lula's government, Brazil became aneconomic power and member ofBRICS.[83][84] Lula ended his tenure with 80% approval ratings.[85]
In Argentina, the administrations ofNéstor Kirchner andCristina Fernández de Kirchner restoredsectoral collective bargaining, strengtheningtrade unions: unionisation increased from 20 percent of the workforce in the 1990s to 30 percent in the 2010s, and wages rose for an increasing proportion of the working class.[40]Universal allocation per child, aconditional cash transfer programme, was introduced in 2009 for families without formal employment and earning less than the minimum wage who ensured their children attended school, received vaccines, and underwent health checks;[86] it covered over two million poor families by 2013,[40] and 29 percent of all Argentinian children by 2015. A 2015 analysis by staff at Argentina'sNational Scientific and Technical Research Council estimated that the programme had increased school attendance for children between the ages of 15 and 17 by 3.9 percent.[86] The Kirchners also increased social spending significantly: upon Fernández de Kirchner leaving office in 2015, Argentina had the second highest level of social spending as a percentage of GDP in Latin America, behind only Chile. Their administrations also achieved a drop of 20 percentage points in the proportion of the population living on three US dollars a day or less. As a result, Argentina also became one of the most equal countries in the region according to its Gini coefficient.[40]
In Bolivia, Morales's government was praised internationally for its reduction of poverty, increases in economic growth,[87] and the improvement of indigenous, women,[88] andLGBT rights,[89] in the very traditionally minded Bolivian society. During his first five years in office, Bolivia'sGini coefficient saw an unusually sharp reduction from 0.6 to 0.47, indicating a significant drop in income inequality.[40]Rafael Correa, economist from theUniversity of Illinois,[90] won the2006 Ecuadorian general election following the harsh economic crisis and social turmoil that caused right-wing[citation needed]Lucio Gutiérrez's resignation as president.[91]
Correa, a practicing Catholic influenced byliberation theology,[90] was pragmatic in his economical approach in a similar manner to Morales in Bolivia.[41] Ecuador soon experienced a non-precedent economic growth that bolstered Correa's popularity to the point that he was the most popular president of the Americas' for several years in a row,[90] with an approval rate between 60 and 85%.[92] In Paraguay, Lugo's government was praised for its social reforms, including investments in low-income housing,[93] the introduction of free treatment in public hospitals,[94][95] the introduction of cash transfers for Paraguay's most impoverished citizens,[96] andindigenous rights.[97]
Some of the initial results after the first pink tide governments were elected in Latin America included a reduction in theincome gap,[7]unemployment,extreme poverty,[7]malnutrition and hunger,[2][98] and rapid increase in literacy.[2] The decrease in these indicators during the same period of time happened faster than in non-pink tide governments.[99] Several of countries ruled by pink tide governments, such as Bolivia, Costa Rica,[100] Ecuador,[101][102] El Salvador, and Nicaragua,[103] among others, experienced notable economic growth during this period. Both Bolivia and El Salvador also saw a notable reduction in poverty according to theWorld Bank.[104][105] Economic hardships occurred in countries such as Argentina,Brazil, andVenezuela, as oil and commodity prices declined and because of their unsustainable policies according to analysts.[50][51][106] In regard to the economic situation, the president ofInter-American Dialogue,Michael Shifter, stated: "TheUnited States–Cuban Thaw occurred with Cuba reapproaching the United States when Cuba's main international partner, Venezuela, began experiencing economic hardships."[107][108]
Following the initiation of the pink tide's policies, the relationship between both left-leaning and right-leaning governments and the public changed.[109] As leftist governments took power in the region, rising commodity prices funded their welfare policies, which lowered inequality and assisted indigenous rights.[109] These policies of leftist governments in the 2000s eventually declined in popularity, resulting in the election of more conservative governments in the 2010s.[109] Some political analysts consider that enduring legacies from the pink tide changed the location of Latin America's center of the political spectrum,[110] forcing right-wing candidates and succeeding governments to also adopt at least some welfare-oriented policies.[109]
Under theObama administration, which held a less interventionist approach to the region after recognizing that interference would only boost the popularity of populist pink tide leaders like Chávez, Latin American approval of the United States began to improve as well.[111] By the mid-2010s, "negative views of China were widespread" due to the substandard conditions of Chinese goods, professional actions deemed unjust, cultural differences, damage to the Latin American environment and perceptions of Chinese interventionism.[112]
As a term, the pink tide had become prominent in contemporary discussion of Latin American politics in the early 21st century. Origins of the term may be linked to a statement byLarry Rohter, aNew York Times reporter inMontevideo who characterized the2004 Uruguayan general election ofTabaré Vázquez as the president of Uruguay as "not so much a red tide ... as a pink one".[15] The term seems to be aplay on words based onred tide—a biological phenomenon of analgal bloom rather than a political one—withred, a color long associated withcommunism, especially as part of theRed Scare andred-baiting in the United States, being replaced with the lighter tone of pink to indicate the more moderatesocialist ideas that gained strength.[113]
Despite the presence of a number of Latin American governments that professed to embracingleft-wing politics, it is difficult to categorize Latin American states "according to dominant political tendencies" likered states and blue states in the United States.[113] While this political shift was difficult to quantify, its effects were widely noticed. According to theInstitute for Policy Studies, a left-wingthink-tank based in Washington, D.C., 2006 meetings of the South American Summit of Nations and the Social Forum for the Integration of Peoples demonstrated that certain discussions that used to take place on the margins of the dominant discourse ofneoliberalism, which moved to the center ofpublic sphere and debate.[113]
In the 2011 bookThe Paradox of Democracy in Latin America: Ten Country Studies of Division and Resilience, Isbester states: "Ultimately, the term 'the Pink Tide' is not a useful analytical tool as it encompasses too wide a range of governments and policies. It includes those actively overturning neoliberalism (Chávez and Morales), those reforming neoliberalism (Lula), those attempting a confusing mixture of both (the Kirchners and Correa), those having rhetoric but lacking the ability to accomplish much (Toledo), and those using anti-neoliberal rhetoric to consolidate power through non-democratic mechanisms (Ortega)."[110]
In 2006,The Arizona Republic recognized the growing pink tide, stating: "A couple of decades ago, the region, long considered part of the United States' backyard, was basking in a resurgence of democracy, sending military despots back to their barracks", further recognizing the "disfavor" with the United States and the concerns of "a wave of nationalist, leftist leaders washing across Latin America in a 'pink tide'" among United States officials.[114] A 2007 report from theInter Press Service news agency said how "elections results in Latin America appear to have confirmed a left-wing populist and anti-U.S. trend – the so-called 'pink tide' – which ... poses serious threats to Washington's multibillion-dollar anti-drug effort in the Andes".[115] In 2014, Albrecht Koschützke and Hajo Lanz, directors of theFriedrich Ebert Foundation for Central America, discussed the "hope for greater social justice and a more participatory democracy" following the election of leftist leaders, though the foundation recognized that such elections "still do not mean a shift to the left", but that they are "the result of an ostensible loss of prestige from the right-wing parties that have traditionally ruled".[116]
Writing inAmericas Quarterly after the election ofPedro Castillo in 2021, Paul J. Angelo and Will Freeman warned of the risk of Latin American left-wing politicians embracing what they dubbed "regressive social values" and "leaning into traditionally conservative positions on gender equality, abortion access, LGBTQ rights, immigration, and the environment". They cited Castillo blaming Peru's femicides on male "idleness" and criticizing what he called "gender ideology" taught in Peruvian schools, as well as Ecuador, governed by left-wing leaders for almost twenty years, having one of the strictest anti-abortion laws worldwide. On immigration, they mentioned Mexico's southern border militarization to stop Central American migrant caravans and Castillo's proposal to give undocumented migrants 72 hours to leave the country after taking office, while on the environment they cited Ecuadorian progressive presidential candidateAndrés Arauz insisting on oil drilling in the Amazon, as well as the Bolivian presidentLuis Arce allowing agribusinesses unchecked with deforestation.[117]
The timeline below shows periods where a left-wing or center-left leader governed over a particular country
No matter the shades of pink in the Latin American 'pink tide', and recalling that political change was not the norm for the whole region during that period, there seems to be greater agreement when it comes to explaining its emergence. In terms of this canonical interpretation, the left turn should be understood as a feature of general redemocratisation in the region, which is widely regarded as an inevitable result of the high levels of inequality in the region.
In general, one must say that these governments have as defining common feature ample and generous social inclusion policies that link effectively for social investments that certainly had an impact on regional social indicators (LIMA apud SILVA, 2010a). In this sense, so far, all of these countries had positive improvements. As a result, it was observed the reduction in social inequality, as well as the reduction of poverty and other social problems (SILVA, 2010a)
South America, a historical bastion of populism, has always had a penchant for the left, but the continent's predilection for unsustainable welfarism might be approaching a dramatic end. ... This 'pink tide' also included the rise of populist ideologies in some of these countries, such as Kirchnerismo in Argentina, Chavismo in Venezuela, and Lulopetismo in Brazil.
... one finds as many local left-leaning governments as there are countries making up the so-called left turn, because they emerged from distinct institutional settings ... espoused distinct degrees of anti-Americanism ...
The wrong left, by contrast, was said to be populist, old-fashioned, and irresponsible ...
... the populous of Latin America are voting in the Pink Tide governments that struggle with reform while being prone to populism and authoritarianism.
However, these analytical and taxonomic efforts often led to new dichotomies ... democrats and authoritarians ...
... half a dozen countries, led by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, formed a hard-left anti-American bloc with authoritarian tendencies...
The fate of Latin America's left turn has been closely associated with the commodities boom (or supercycle) of the 2000s, largely due to rising demand from emerging markets, notably China.
As China industrialized in the first decade of the century, its demand for raw materials rose, pushing up the prices of South American minerals, fuels, and oilseeds. From 2000 to 2013, Chinese trade with Latin America rocketed from $12 billion to over $275 billion. ... Its loans have helped sustain leftist governments pursuing otherwise unsustainable policies in Argentina, Ecuador, and Venezuela, whose leaders welcomed Chinese aid as an alternative to the strict conditions imposed by the International Monetary Fund or the financial markets. ... The Chinese-fueled commodity boom, which ended only recently, lifted Latin America to new heights. The region – and especially South America – enjoyed faster economic growth, a steep fall in poverty, a decline in extreme income inequality, and a swelling of the middle class.
In 2004-13 many pink tide countries benefited from strong economic growth, with exceptionally high commodities prices driving exports, owing to robust demand from China. These conditions brought regional growth ... However, the negative impact of expansionary policy on inflation, fiscal deficits and non-commodity exports in many countries soon began to prove that this boom period was unsustainable, even before international oil prices plummeted alongside prices of other key commodities at the end of 2014. ... These challenging economic conditions have exposed the negative consequences of years of policy mismanagement in various countries, most notably in Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela.
[China] promised to impose no political conditions on its economic and technical assistance, in contrast to the usual strings-attached approach from Washington, Europe, and the international financial institutions, and committed to debt cancellation 'as China's ability permits.' ... As one South American diplomat put it, given the choice between the onerous conditions of the neoliberal Washington consensus and the no-strings-attached largesse of the Chinese, elevating relations with Beijing was a no-brainer.
Countries that are part of the so-called "pink tide" in Latin America, most notably Venezuela, have tended to defy international sanctions and partner with Iran. Venezuela's economic ties to Iran reportedly have helped Tehran to skirt international sanctions through the establishment of joint companies and nancial entities. Other ALBA countries such as Ecuador and Bolivia have also been important strategic partners to Iran, allowing the regime to extract uranium needed for its nuclear program.
Washington's trade strategy was to contain Chávez and his dreams of continental domination ... the accurate assessment that Chávez was a threat to his own people. ... Chávez's regional influence peaked around 2007. His regime lost appeal because of its mounting left-wing authoritarianism and economic difficulties.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)[reduction of inequality gap] On average, the decrease was much slower for countries not under the Pink Tide governments (Cornia 2012). In light of this, it is clear that the Pink Tide governments positively impacted the living standards of the working classes.
Officials in the Obama administration argued that it was counterproductive to publicly criticize Chávez, since doing so failed to change his behavior and merely allowed him to pose as a popular campaigner against American imperialism ... According to Latinobarómetro, a polling organization, an average of 69 percent of respondents in the region held a favorable view of the United States in 2013, up from 58 percent in 2008. ... In today's Latin America, it is hard to imagine that more confrontational policies would have achieved better results, ... the United States is no longer the only game in town in much of Latin America, bullying is often ineffective. ... circumstances in the region are becoming increasingly favorable for the United States.
Meanwhile, recent public opinion polls of Latin Americans reveal wavering attitudes toward China's influence in the region ... opinions of China as a model and as a rising power declined between 2012 and 2014. ... the authors concluded that negative views of China were widespread, mainly regarding the poor quality of Chinese goods, unfair business practices, incompatible language and culture, unsustainable development policies harmful to the environment, and fears of Chinese economic and demographic domination in international relations.