By Risa Grais-Targow

With Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gravely ill and the Castro brothers in their twilight years, debate has begun to focus on the future of Chavez's brand of leftist politics in Latin America. There is widespread speculation as to which leader might assume Chavez's role in the region, even though his influence has arguably been on the decline. Among the possibilities bandied about is Ecuador's President Rafael Correa. Correa easily won a third term in the Feb. 17 elections, beating his closest opponent, Guillermo Lasso, by more than 30 percentage points. Correa also expanded his base of support in the National Assembly, where his Alianza Pais looks likely to achieve an absolute majority. Correa, like Bolivia's Evo Morales and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, owes much to Chavez, who served as a model for socialist policies, anti-imperialist rhetoric, and doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to his regional allies. While Correa may aspire to use his strong mandate to assume leadership of the Chavez-created Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, his ability to do so will be limited.

First and foremost, Correa simply lacks the resources. Ecuador is a relatively small country (its GDP is about 20 percent of Venezuela's), and while it is a major oil producer, it does not boast the quantity of oil that can sustain Chavez-like regional "petro-diplomacy" and aid programs. Moreover, in the likely event that Chavez's chosen successor, Vice President Nicolas Maduro, wins a new election, there is no evidence to suggest that he doesn't want to fill Chavez's regional leadership role himself. So far, Maduro's actions suggest that he will represent policy continuity. He is close with the Cuban regime and has imitated Chavez's playbook thus far, including cracking down on the private sector and suggesting that foreign agents were planning an assassination attempt against him.    

That doesn't mean that Correa won't try. He boasts much of Chavez's charisma, and has taken every opportunity to vault himself, and Ecuador, onto the international stage, typically at the expense of US policy interests. This has been particularly true since Chavez first became ill in June 2011. Correa boycotted last year's Summit of the Americas in protest of Cuba's absence, and more recently made headlines by granting Julian Assange political asylum. While Venezuela grapples with its internal transition challenges, rather than its regional agenda, Correa could heighten his anti-imperialist rhetoric. Regardless, however, Correa's decisive victory-along with the endurance of Morales in Bolivia, Ortega in Nicaragua, and more center -- left governments in Peru and Brazil -- suggests that the left in Latin America has staying power, with or without Chavez.

Risa Grais-Targow is an associate in Eurasia Group's Latin America practice.

By Cliff Kupchan

In Iran last week, sanctions pressure pushed frustration into violence. Iran's currency has lost half its free market value over the past month, and a clumsy policy response made matters worse.

The rial's dramatic depreciation is stoking a level of inflation that has become the most serious threat now facing the regime. The official inflation rate stands at 23.5 percent, but anecdotal evidence suggests the rate is much higher and climbing. The government's lack of a coherent anti-crisis strategy, economic mismanagement, corruption, and heavy transaction costs imposed by sanctions suggest the worst is yet to come. Sporadic protests are likely to become a fact of life in Tehran.

As a result, the bickering within Iran's political elite is becoming more vitriolic. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blames foreigners and their sanctions for the current crisis; parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani instead points the finger at the incompetence of Ahmadinejad's government. Ahmadinejad can't seek re-election next June, but his exit won'tprevent these fights from heating up in advance of the vote.

Yet, there is no evidence that Iran is close to the boiling point. Following the controversial presidential election of 2009 and the street demonstrations that followed, the regime proved it can and will use deadly force to intimidate Iran's fractious opposition. Nothing has happened to suggest that new protests would produce a different result.

So what should Western governments, anxious to slow Iran's momentum toward a nuclear program, be hoping for? Iran's economic turmoil is unlikely to topple the regime, at least not anytime soon, but it just might bring about a more conciliatory Iranian approach to nuclear talks after the U.S. presidential election -- and especially after Iran's presidential election next year.

Over the past half decade, Tehran has demonstrated an almost existential commitment to the nuclear program, but the sanctions-induced pain is squeezing Iran's economy ever tighter, and that could make Iran more flexible. In turn, it's now very important for Western negotiating partners to offer a diplomatic proposal that allows Iran's government to save face before its people.

The Iranian government will never negotiate away its domestic legitimacy, but there might be room for a crucial compromise on the nuclear issue. Without such a breakthrough and relief from tightening sanctions, the Iranian regime has a bleak future -- and the country's leaders know it.

Cliff Kupchan is director of Eurasia Group’s Eurasia practice. 

By Carroll Colley

While Russia will enter the WTO in late August, U.S. industry will be left on the sidelines until Congress removes the Cold War-era impediment to greater trade between the former foes. But it's a safe bet that Congress won't graduate Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which is necessary to grant permanent normal trade relations to Russia and take advantage of its accession to the WTO, before the November election. The reason? Russia is perpetually steeped in controversy, and U.S.-Russia relations have become a campaign issue in the race between Republican Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama. U.S. industry likely won't be able to take advantage of greater market access in Russia until the lame-duck session at the end of the year, and possibly later.

The White House is much more focused on November 6 (Election Day) than August 23 (the approximate date of Russia's WTO entry). Only after repeated requests from Republican lawmakers for senior level officials to testify on the Hill -- widely viewed as a Republican maneuver to force the administration to speak on the record about its Russian policy -- did the administration relent by sending the duo of Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to testify before the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. The White House calculates that a "yes" vote on graduating Russia from Jackson-Vanik (a 1974 provision that ties trade relations to freedom of emigration and other human rights considerations) would have little electoral upside, and might even harm Obama before the election.

Obama's meeting on June 18 with President Vladimir Putin on the margins of the G20 in Los Cabos seemingly failed to produce a breakthrough on Syrian policy. Headlines about ongoing arms shipments bound for Syria and the potential for continued Russian intransigence at the U.N. Security Council also represent potential political liabilities during the election home stretch, not to mention a host of domestic political issues. Romney, meanwhile, has called Russia the U.S.'s greatest political "enemy" -- and later changing that description to "foe" -- because he senses a potential weakness in an Obama foreign policy that has otherwise produced several notable successes.

It would be much simpler, politically, if supporters of graduating Russia from Jackson-Vanik could cast it as a vote for American business, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did in a recent opinion piece. But they can't. Passage is complicated by the Magnitsky bill, human rights legislation that targets government officials involved in the case of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who died in police custody in 2009. Largely viewed as a replacement for Jackson-Vanik, the stated aim of the bill is to deny visas to corrupt officials, freeze any U.S. accounts they have, and publish their names. The reality is that the Obama administration last summer instituted its own visa ban and any potential offenders have long ago transferred any funds from the U.S.. The net effect of the bill, therefore, is the "naming of names," which would represent a significant embarrassment to the Putin regime. The bill enjoys broad bipartisan support, with a number of lawmakers stating publicly that passage of the Magnitsky bill is a prerequisite for their vote on Jackson-Vanik.

The Obama administration has sent contradictory messages about its support for the Magnitsky bill. While originally opposing the bill, the administration seems to have accepted the inevitable and has been working with its primary author, Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland. One recent Senate version provides for the public list as well as a confidential annex, which would largely allow the administration to circumvent the thrust of the bill by invoking national security exemptions. This is strongly opposed by a number of senior lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain, who was a co-sponsor of the effort to repeal Jackson-Vanik on the caveat of corresponding passage of the Magnitsky bill.

As the August recess rapidly approaches, the window for graduating Russia from Jackson-Vanik prior to its WTO accession closes. Obama appears to have little room to maneuver in expending political capital on the matter without raising the risk of elevating Russia-and its collateral baggage including Syria, Georgia, Iran, and domestic protests-to a legitimate campaign issue. Unless Congress moves forward on its own prerogative-which appears unlikely-the repeal of Jackson-Vanik won't get passed before November, or later, leaving the world's largest economy unable to take advantage of the accession of the WTO's newest member.

Carroll Colley is the director of Eurasia Group’s Eurasia practice.

By Alexander Kliment

Russian President Vladimir Putin's last minute decision to skip a G8 summit with President Barack Obama is a snub to Washington, but the Russian president's no-show may in fact increase the chances for a constructive relationship between the two countries.

Last week, just days after his inauguration, Putin let it be known that he would not attend the upcoming G8 summit at Camp David, where he and Obama were set for a one on one meeting.

The White House, in turn, said Obama wouldn't attend the 2012 Asia Pacific Economic Conference (APEC) summit this fall in Vladivostok, Russia -- though it was always hard to imagine Obama skipping the Democratic National Convention.

According to the Kremlin's official explanation, Putin can't leave Russia right now because approving the cabinet nominations submitted to him by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev is too sensitive a task for Putin to oversee by phone from Maryland. So Medvedev will send the list to Putin and head to the summit himself.

Putin's decision is a breach of G8 protocol, which expects that sitting heads of state will attend the group's summits. French President Francois Hollande, for example, will attend, just days after his 15 May inauguration. And by sending his number two to an organization in which Russia is already something of a second fiddle, Putin is raising questions about the wisdom of keeping Russia in the group at all.

Accordingly, many analysts have cast the move as a brazen rebuke to the U.S., which Putin alleges is behind the unprecedented street protests that have become a feature of Moscow life since last December.

It's true that the Kremlin's official explanation isn't wholly credible. Most cabinet decisions have likely been agreed upon already, Putin's re-election was never in doubt, and the G8 summit's date has been known for some time. That said, he reassumes the presidency amid rising popular opposition, which has sowed fresh doubts about his legitimacy. Keen to prevent infighting or, worse, insubordination among Russia's powerful elites, Putin could well be preoccupied with some last minute horse-trading at home.

The timing may, in fact, be no better in Washington than it is in Moscow.

Obama is entering a challenging re-election campaign in which he has already drawn fire from his Republican opponent Mitt Romney about the pursuit of a reset with Russia and his broader foreign policy track record. U.S.-Russia ties have deteriorated recently -- on account of disagreements over Syria, continuing friction over missile defense, and Putin's allegations of U.S. complicity in the protest movement -- meaning the U.S. president would be under pressure to take a hard line with Putin.

But that could risk an unpredictable flare-up with the notoriously sharp-tongued and pugnacious Putin. At the very least, it might complicate White House attempts to secure congressional support for granting Russia normal trade relations status so that U.S. companies can benefit from Russia's WTO accession.

In short, with both men facing heightened domestic concerns and pressures, Obama's meeting with Medvedev, who has warmer relations with Obama and who is seen chiefly as a messenger for Putin, carries much less political significance, but also much lower political risk. The practical result is that it leaves open the chance of greater flexibility between Washington and Moscow that could help maintain a pragmatic relationship in the medium term.

Alexander Kliment is an analyst with Eurasia Group's Eurasia practice.

By Ayham Kamel

It may be tempting to view the plethora of recent gatherings -- the Arab League summit, the U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council Strategic Cooperation Forum, and the Friends of Syria conference -- as evidence that the global community is getting more serious about addressing the violence in Syria. But the summits really just exposed the rifts among the relevant players that will prevent a viable and coordinated response. Syrian President Bashar al Assad, in turn, will profit from the lack of coherence; he will only nominally entertain Kofi Annan's peace plan as he maintains his grip on power, and the bloodshed will worsen.

International powers remain hesitant regarding any form of direct intervention. They considered initiatives calling for buffer or humanitarian zones, but ultimately no country seems prepared to act. Key powers appear to be pursuing their distinct policies, with only a hint of coordination.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar will provide extensive support -- including arms -- to the Syrian opposition, but are unlikely to supply the heavy arms that would lead to an immediate change in the balance of power. Heavy arms are more difficult to smuggle and training rebels would be much more challenging than during the Libyan conflict. Moreover, the escalation could provoke an un-calculated response from Assad's military. While their interests differ, the two powers see Assad's survival as a threat to their influence. Riyadh's purpose is to limit Iran's regional influence. Meanwhile, Doha has invested significant diplomatic and political capital in the struggle against Assad and any failure to deliver would represent a tangible setback to its prestige. Behind the armament policy is also a deep concern that if Assad regains control, Damascus and Tehran would aim to destabilize the al Saud and al Thani ruling families' grip on power.

Arming the rebels, who have had trouble obtaining ammunition sine the regime began its extensive military campaign in early February, will provide much needed psychological support and will help weaken Assad's forces. While the resolve of Syria's opposition will not abate, arms from the Gulf will neither arrive overnight nor will they immediately change the balance of military power, which is still heavily tilted in the regime's favor. An equally important element of the Gulf strategy is providing monetary incentives to officers in the Syrian army to incite defections. But Assad has built multiple safeguards to prevent defections, a tactic he inherited from his father.

The U.S. is willing to overlook, perhaps even support, GCC efforts to weaken Assad. But Washington is definitely not interested in playing an active role. It is concerned about Saudi Arabia's and Lebanon's support of Salafist rebels and al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri's call for jihad in Syria. While Sunni monarchies in the Gulf benefit from rising sectarianism in Syria, the U.S. interest in long-term regional stability could be compromised if the Sunni-Shia confrontations spread to Iraq and other countries. U.S. officials believe that a political settlement will be needed to prevent prolonged instability. Verbal support for the Annan process is a reflection of the desire to keep negotiations open, but U.S. officials are convinced that under current conditions the Annan plan will only enable Assad to retain power.

Assad will probably not implement key elements of the Annan peace plan, which calls for a halt of hostilities from all sides, and a negotiated settlement between the regime and the opposition. The regime views cooperation with the UN envoy as a way to secure the successes achieved by its military strategy and to gain some breathing space. While Annan is a shrewd diplomat, there are few reasons to think that success is in reach. Syria's opposition will probably not negotiate with Assad or agree to a settlement that keeps him in power. Meanwhile, there are no indications that the Lion of Damascus has reached a point where he would accept his own ouster.

Ayham Kamel is an analyst in Eurasia Group's Middle East and North Africa practice.

With this week's Davos edition of The Economist, the concept of state capitalism has now graduated from provocative idea to conventional wisdom. The magazine's report on this trend is a must-read.

What exactly is state capitalism? No one knows better than Chinese and Russian leaders that communism doesn't work. They know from personal experience that the state can't engineer lasting long-term growth and that markets are crucial for the rising standards of living that autocratic governments must deliver if they are to remain in power. But these leaders also know that if they simply let markets decide who wins and who loses, they deny themselves control of the money needed to keep people in their jobs and off the streets in times of trouble -- and they risk enriching and empowering some who might use their newly won wealth to challenge for political power.

The goal of state capitalism then is to allow the state to play the largest possible role in controlling the wealth that markets generate within their borders. China, in particular, has used state-owned companies, privately owned national champions, sovereign wealth funds, and state influence over bank lending to build a powerhouse economic engine that its political leaders continue to drive.

This is a subject close to my heart. In fact, I've been invited to take part in an online debate on The Economist's website in which I argue that state capitalism is not a viable long-term alternative to the free market variety.  In general, I was impressed with The Economist's excellent comprehensive coverage of this trend.

Until the very end of its report.

The Economist argues that "both for their own sake, and in the interests of world trade, the practitioners of state capitalism need to start unwinding their huge holdings in favoured companies and handing them over to private investors. If these companies are as good as they boast they are, then they no longer need the crutch of state support.

It's no surprise that The Economist would argue against the use of this system. Pretty much everyone here at Davos who is not part of the Chinese, Russian or Gulf Arab delegations would agree. I know I do. But The Economist is telling China's leaders to immediately begin shedding the system that has made their economy the second largest in the world while helping them maintain their monopoly hold on political power-and to opt instead for the brand of capitalism blamed for the financial crisis, the global recession which followed, America's economic malaise, and the Eurozone's current crisis of confident. While we're at it, why don't we ask the Chinese leadership to become a "responsible stakeholder."

As I've said, I agree entirely with the larger point that state capitalism is not a viable long-term alternative to liberal capitalism, but there is no reason for the governments that use it to ditch it this year. 

Why not? Look again at China. The vast majority of its state-owned enterprises and privately owned national champions lag far behind multinational corporations in access to state-of-the-art technology, branding expertise, and market share. They still have work to do and can use every advantage their government can provide to narrow the gap with their foreign competition. In addition, China remains a hugely important market for foreign companies and investors. This provides Beijing with the leverage needed to help more Chinese companies find their footing.

In other words, China has not exhausted its opportunities to "level the commercial playing field" (from China's point of view) or "further stack the deck" (from everyone else's). 

One day, the changing competitive landscape in China will make that market much less attractive for outsiders, and things will have to change. A rising standard of living will make China's plentiful labor and capital much more expensive, encouraging companies to look elsewhere in Asia for these advantages. This process is already underway, and even some Chinese companies are joining their foreign competitors in opening up shop in places like Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines.

In the end, the Chinese government will have to liberalize its economy. It won't be easy, because all these state-owned companies will have their defenders within the political elite and the bureaucracy. But for the time being, it is clearly in China's interest to stay the course awhile longer.

Not that China's leaders care very much what we think.

Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group and author of End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations?

Today, The Call presents our top risks for 2012. Click HERE for Eurasia Group's complete report.

1. The End of the 9/11 Era -- It was a truism of globalization: economics drives markets, and national security drives geopolitics. No longer. Following the 2008 financial crisis, the killing of Osama bin Laden, the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and an end date for the war in Afghanistan, politics and economics will overlap almost entirely in 2012. Political officials around the world will worry mainly over economic risks -- the eurozone crisis, the strength of U.S. recovery, and China's evolving role in the global economy in 2012. Market players, in turn, are anxious mainly about political decisions, especially those that will be made in Europe, America, and China this year, as shortsighted leadership from virtually all the major geopolitical players generates policy stalemate and uncertainty.

2. G-Zero and the Middle East -- The inability/unwillingness of major powers to bolster the region's balance of force will generate greater turbulence across North Africa and the Middle East as unresolved religious, sectarian, and ethnic tensions threaten more unrest. The lack of a viable regional security framework, continuing protests, autocracies at risk, and enormous challenges facing newly democratic regimes will add to the potential turmoil. As this dynamic plays out in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Bahrain, regional heavyweights -- Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey -- will generate friction as they vie for proxy influence.

3. Eurozone: the rollercoaster ride rolls on -- In Europe, it's not the breakup of the Eurozone we need to fear in 2012 but the "reactive incrementalism" that could spin beyond the control of political officials. The uncertainty and volatility we saw in 2011 has only just begun.

4. United States: right after elections -- Once the votes are counted in November, lawmakers will take up the $5 trillion worth of tax and savings decisions that must be taken in the final nine weeks of the year. Investors face uncertainty about their taxes and government contracts as well as about the broader impact of lawmakers' choices on economic growth.

5. North Korea: implosion or explosion -- The world's most opaque nuclear-armed state enters a year of uncertainty as the battle for power and influence within the regime gathers force.

6 - Pakistan: turmoil, spillover -- The end of the 9/11 era threatens neglect of other hotspots, and none is more combustible than Pakistan, a terrorism-plagued, nuclear-armed power burdened with an unpopular civilian government, a meddlesome military, politically motivated judges and an increasingly dangerous security environment. The expected withdrawal of thousands of U.S. troops from Afghanistan this year will fuel regional competition for new influence.

7. China: trouble in the neighborhood -- The Obama administration's recent emphasis on Asia will embolden China's neighbors to take more assertive positions with Beijing. Rising nationalism in China, its ongoing political transition, and the leadership's unwillingness -- perhaps inability -- to resolve internal debates about the country's role in the world suggest Beijing is especially likely to meet provocation with provocation in months to come with both naval and economic muscle.

8. Egypt: a transition in trouble -- Egypt faces the risk of political disintegration this year as anger builds between military and civilian political forces, both Islamist and secular. Egypt's base-line stability, its economic recovery, and its broader regional influence will suffer.

9. South Africa: populism ascendant -- The struggle for leadership of the ruling African National Congress will slow the pace of both policy and economic growth at a time when the eurozone crisis already weighs heavily on South Africa's trade and currency.

10. Venezuela: a no-win election -- The country's big political story this year is October's presidential election, which incumbent Hugo Chavez, if healthy enough for a vigorous campaign, is likely to narrowly win. But the outlook for economic and political stability is bad no matter the election result. Should Chavez die or abandon the race, the deep fissures between the Chavista movement and the opposition could stoke violence.   

In addition, Eurasia Group identifies four red herrings, the big stories we don't believe will happen in 2012.

Fallout from the 2012 political transitions -- In 2012, we'll see political transitions in the U.S., China, Russia, and France, countries that together represent nearly half of global GDP and four-fifths of the UN Security Council. But there's surprisingly little at stake in the outcomes for geopolitics and the global economy.

Eurozone breakup -- This is probably the single most overrated risk of 2012. The political will to maintain the eurozone remains strong among all the major political parties in the core Eurozone states, almost across the board in the European periphery and, just as importantly, among eurocrats in the ever-growing European bureaucracy. And there's no effective political mechanism for a Eurozone breakup.

China's hard landing -- There are signs of overheated growth in China, but the state has the tools and resources to manage short-term trouble, and it will pull out every stop to prevent a serious slowdown, especially during a major political transition.

Mayan apocalypse -- Just isn't happening. And if it does, well, sorry.

Over the next three weeks, we'll be posting more ideas and information on each of these risks.

By Ian Bremmer and David Gordon

We've now released our annual report on the ten most important political risks for 2011. Over the next two weeks, we'll be discussing each risk in more depth in this space. We begin with a brief overview.

In the past, our coverage of political risk has centered on particular countries, regions, issues, or events. We worry about elections in brittle countries and their ability to generate unrest, military confrontations involving unpredictable governments, or a policy shift with serious implications for a country's business climate and growth trajectory. For 2011, we're focused on a fundamental ongoing change in the global order.

As we step into 2011, headlines in the United States suggest a little more optimism about recovery, but market players and business decision-makers aren't convinced. Gold prices remain relatively high, and trillions of dollars that could be invested remains on the sidelines. Why the caution?

We're entering an entirely new world order with new ways for states to relate to one another, both politically and economically. That problem could provoke new areas of conflict, and it will highlight an emerging vacuum of power in international leadership -- and the uncertainty that comes with it.

We're calling this new order the G-Zero, because no country or bloc of countries has the political and economic leverage today to drive an international agenda. The G-20 helped build a useful crisis response when the financial crisis hit, but as the sense of urgency evaporated, so did the unity. The G7 is an anachronism. The G2 (the United States plus China) won't work, because the United States can't afford to keep up its role as primary provider of public goods, and China (like other emerging states) is much more interested in protecting domestic growth and stability than in accepting new burdens abroad. The G3 (the United States, Europe, and Japan) isn't viable, because Europe is shoulder deep in a bid to save the eurozone, and Japan's government is dysfunctional.

There's no international leadership, and each government will increasingly protect its gains at the expense of others. That's why the dominant economic trend of the last 50 years, globalization, now faces a direct challenge from geopolitics. Governments in both the developed and the developing world have every incentive to throw up barriers to commerce and investment that are designed to protect their own workers and companies -- and no country or bloc of countries has the will or the muscle to reverse this trend.

Our list of risks for 2011 includes the potential for crisis in Europe, tensions at the intersection of cybersecurity and geopolitics, China's unwillingness to bow to a growing surge of international pressure for economic policy changes, provocations from North Korea, and the risk of a spike in currency controls. All these risks are intensified by this transition to a G-Zero order.

Next up, we'll look at the G-Zero in greater depth, because it's our top risk for 2011.

Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group. David Gordon is the firm's head of research.

I've been comparing notes with my colleague and close friend Nouriel Roubini on political and economic expectations for a few key regions in the year ahead -- a back and forth that's resulting in a global forecast for 2010. 

Today, we begin with Latin America.

Ian Bremmer: I do think we can expect a solid recovery in Latin America in 2010, as most governments in the region profited from sharply improved macroeconomic fundamentals to survive the slowdown with minimal damage. But a busy electoral calendar over the next two years, highlighted by Brazil's presidential election in October, will tempt policymakers to inflate their political popularity via heavy state spending. Governments like those in Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Peru will benefit from the sound macroeconomic policies of recent years. Political officials in places like Argentina, Venezuela, and Ecuador may find their popularity built atop shifting sands. The Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner government in Argentina, faced with rising inflation and an increasingly hostile congress, will prove especially vulnerable.

The really interesting story this year is in Brazil, where oil wealth and President Lula's popularity have seduced the government into less disciplined macroeconomic policy and a more statist approach to foreign investment and strategic economic sectors. Lula's preferred presidential successor, Dilma Rousseff, should be considered a slight favorite to win. If she does, she'll deepen state involvement in Brazil's economy. If opposition candidate Jose Serra wins, we'll see less bias toward state-owned enterprises and tighter fiscal policy. Whoever wins, there is one obvious wide-open sector for foreign investment: transport infrastructure. There's a lot of work to do to prepare Rio for the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016.

Nouriel Roubini: Latin America is divided between economies that follow market-oriented policies (while attentive to social issues) such as Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Colombia, Peru, and more populist governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, and Ecuador. The latter group maintained its political popularity and solid economic performance given that commodity prices recovered, but some of these regimes are fragile and weakening. Venezuela's recent devaluation is a signal of a seriously mismanaged economy; in Argentina, the popularity of the Kirchner duo is faltering and the next president -- whoever he may be -- is expected to be more moderate and market friendly; Ecuador's Correa populism is kept in check by the popularity of dollarization.

Even in market-oriented economies, important structural reform challenges remain. In Brazil, Lula maintained macro stability (sound fiscal policy and independent central bank but with some recent slippages in fiscal discipline), but he failed in implementing structural and micro reforms that would accelerate the potential growth of Brazil. Implementation of those reforms will depend on whether Jose Serra or Dilma Rousseff is elected president. In Chile, Pinera will have to work hard to ensure that more aggressive market-oriented reforms don't lead to a return to greater income and wealth inequality.

Throughout Latin America, democratic transitions require that presidents (i.e., Uribe, Lula, Correa, and Chavez) avoid tinkering with constitutions and electoral laws to seek endless terms in power. Otherwise, the nefarious regional tradition of strongmen and caudillos will return. Alternation of power is necessary to strengthen democratic institutions.

Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group. Nouriel Roubini is a professor of economics at New York University's Stern School of Business and chairman of RGE Monitor.