The papers in this symposium have demonstrated in many ways Costa Rican exceptionalism. In the twentieth century Costa Rica has justifiably earned the reputation as one of the world's most democratic countries in a region where democratic practice has been difficult at best. At the same time, a number of the papers have challenged the Costa Rican mythology of democracy and egalitarianism, pointing to notable similarities with the other Central American states, despite Costa Rica's exceptional success in self government. Professors Booth, Kelly and Fonseca yesterday gave us fresh insight into the quality of Costa Rican democracy, but left no doubt as to its vitality. Booth's conclusion, that Costa Rican democratization stands apart from the other Central American states more by its timing than by the events and processes involved, is an especially provocative notion that has considerable relevance as Central America enters the new millennium. Costa Rica has also established an exceptional record of concern for protection of the environment, as Professors Rich, Cortés and Hartshorn-as well as Pedro León-demonstrated in their presentations. Throughout this century Costa Rica has been at the forefront in efforts to maintain peace and protect human rights, playing a role in foreign relations in these areas far out of proportion to its size. Professors Salisbury, Muñoz and Crahan gave us examples of significant areas of this activity. The professional competence that is more often than not found in the Costa Rican public services is another area where we have heard, from Professors Evans, Mohs and Zeledón, concrete evidence of Costa Rican exceptionalism. The success of Costa Rica health services as described by Edgar Mohs was especially notable for its ability to achieve so much with relatively few resources. His comparison with the United States in this respect offers us some interesting questions in analyzing North American difficulties in this area. This morning's speakers-Longley, Leonard and Guzmán-provided us with new perspectives on the significance of the '48 Civil War, unquestionably a watershed in Costa Rican history, as well as in her foreign relations. The papers by Bozzoli, Granados, and Herzfeld, focusing on Costa Rican National Identity further enriched our understanding of the consequences of Costa Rican exceptionalism. This afternoon's papers, by Professors Quesada, Cordero, and Molina Jiménez focusing on the costs of exceptionalism, have highlighted important issues relating to Costa Rican success in many areas. Professor Molina's argument that the increasing urbanization of Costa Rica after 1950 explains much of the change in culture, life-style and politics is especially telling, for it is yet another area where Costa Rican experience is not exceptional at all, but rather closely parallels the experience of much of the rest of Latin America. Yet all in all, this conference has made the point that Costa Rica is truly an exceptional country that deserves the accolades it so often receives.

So exceptional is Costa Rica to the generalizations that are so often held about the Latin American region, that I have often cautioned students who are attracted to focusing their thesis or dissertation research on Costa Rica that they run the risk of learning much about a very nice country, but learning little about characteristics Latin American. I do not mean to say that scientific study of the reasons for Costa Rican exceptionalism, or those that question it, are not worthwhile, however.

Despite serious historiographical debate on the nature and extent of Costa Rican egalitarianism, there is no doubt as to the unique quality of the Costa Rican State as it has evolved historically. Remote and aloof from the centers of authority of the Central American nation since colonial times, Costa Rica has repeatedly rejected Central American union and been wary even of cooperative entanglements with its Central American neighbors, as we have seen recently with its refusal to participate in the Central American Parliament and other interstate programs. The fear of a leveling process by too close involvement with its poorer and less well-governed neighbors is not hard to understand, and may often have been justified by past experience. Yet the explosion of Costa Rica's population and growing economic and social cleavages within Costa Rica are diminishing its differences with the other Central American states, and in the next century may require a revision in its aloof attitude toward union into a larger and more powerful state. Throughout its independent life, on the other hand, the Costa Rican state has often been willing to cooperate with its sister isthmian republics to protect itself from outside forces and to maintain its independence. A Costa Rican-Guatemalan axis in dealing with the middle states, for example, has reasserted itself repeatedly, notably in Costa Rican collaboration with Guatemala in leading the resistance to William Walker in the mid-nineteenth century, and most recently in promotion of a peaceful settlement of the civil strife of the 1980s.

Within Costa Rica, the evolution of the State has followed a very different course than in the other states of Central America. There has always been a strong element of decentralization and grass-roots participation found nowhere else on the isthmus. Yet, notwithstanding some reservations-as expressed for example by Booth-regarding the limits of Costa Rican democracy and egalitarianism, popular demands for a government that serves the needs and interests of the entire population have led to one of the most strongly centralized welfare states in the hemisphere, as Mario Carvajal explained to us so well at lunch today. The extent and quality of Costa Rican welfare institutions have been limited by their cost, and in the late twentieth century have faced financial crises as the public debt has soared. The neo-liberal governments of the 1990s have begun to roll back benefits and trim costs, but a balance between productivity in the private sector and benefits from the public sector has not yet been achieved. Ronald Garciá Soto has elaborated on these questions for us. This issue looms as one that will challenge the state and the society even more in the twenty-first century than it has in the twentieth.

In at least one respect, Costa Rica has shared a characteristic with many other Latin American states during the twentieth century, that of a rising foreign debt. While Costa Rica's good credit and strong reputation among the western democracies has enabled it to manage its debt somewhat more successfully than some other Latin American states, it has been at a high cost. The mounting debt has increased dependence on the United States and other major powers, thereby limiting national sovereignty. It has also been the cause of serious inflation and a lowering of the general prosperity and of individual standards of living. The debt has been primarily responsible, therefore, for growing difficulties with organized labor, for the rolling back of welfare state benefits, and ultimately for the weakening of Costa Rican democracy. This challenge to the state in the twenty-first century looms as both immediate and long term, and will have much to do with the nature of the state and its activities in the coming decades.

The decade of the 1980s, when much of the rest of the isthmus was torn by civil war and internal dissensions, also challenged Costa Rica's tradition of democracy and political stability. She was under strong pressure to remilitarize and play a stronger role in opposition to Nicaragua's Sandinista revolution. Massive immigration from Nicaragua put enormous strains on the welfare system and on the mythology of ethnic purity in the country. Powerful ideological differences on the direction of the state threatened both the stability and the popular consensus of support for the political system.

Yet Costa Rica weathered that storm and maintained its enviable image as Latin America's most democratic state. The problems of the last two decades, however, leave a heavy burden to which the state must adapt. Adaptation to new challenges has repeatedly been a strength of Costa Rican political leaders, and we may expect the new millennium to continue that tradition. But democratic institutions must respond to changing times and the Costa Rican state faces enormous challenges. While striving to increase productivity and efficiency, as President Arias has told us it must also address the rising inequities in distribution of wealth. It must address government lethargy and irresponsibility in combating poverty, in maintaining public health, and in protecting human rights. And it must reverse the serious trend toward rising government corruption and irresponsibility on the part of some political leaders.

Costa Rica remains a powerful model for the other isthmian states. The last two decades, however, have made Costa Rica in many respects more like the other states of the isthmus. And to some extent the advances toward democratization, however imperfect, have moved those states closer to the Costa Rican model. Globalization, political maturity, and the advantages of greater interstate trade and movement of people all would appear to strengthen the opportunity for a new attempt at Central American union early in the twenty-first century, perhaps also including Panama. Gabriel Macaya has called for a greater role for the Universidad de Costa Rica in regional cooperation in support of President Arias' vision of peace and harmony on the isthmus. Such a union would offer new opportunities for Costa Rican leadership and statesmanship and would be a major step toward reversing the setbacks of the late twentieth century.
 

Lawrence, Kansas, 3 April 1999