'Break-In Parties' and Changing Patterns of Democracy in Latin America
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2016 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Brazilian Political Science Review |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1981-38212016000100204 |
Resumo: | Although Lijphart's typology of consensus and majoritarian democracy can be regarded as the most widely used tool to classify democratic regimes, it has been rarely applied to Latin America so far. We try to fill this gap by adapting Lijphart's typological framework to the Latin American context in the following way. In contrast to previous studies, we treat the type of democracy as an independent variable and include informal factors such as clientelism or informal employment in our assessment of democratic patterns. On this basis, we aim to answer the following questions. First, how did the patterns of democracy evolve in Latin America over the two decades between 1990 and 2010 and what kind of differences can be observed in the region? Second, what are the institutional determinants of the observed changes? We focus on the emergence of new parties because of their strong impact on the first dimension of Lijphart's typology. From our observations we draw the following tentative conclusions: If strong new parties established themselves in the party system but failed to gain the presidency, they pushed the system towards consensualism. Conversely, new parties that gained the presidency produced more majoritarian traits. |
id |
ABCP-1_c91216a24c7c8ac852ca43f374bd1ef9 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1981-38212016000100204 |
network_acronym_str |
ABCP-1 |
network_name_str |
Brazilian Political Science Review |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
'Break-In Parties' and Changing Patterns of Democracy in Latin AmericaBreak-in partiestypes of governmentLatin AmericademocracyinformalityAlthough Lijphart's typology of consensus and majoritarian democracy can be regarded as the most widely used tool to classify democratic regimes, it has been rarely applied to Latin America so far. We try to fill this gap by adapting Lijphart's typological framework to the Latin American context in the following way. In contrast to previous studies, we treat the type of democracy as an independent variable and include informal factors such as clientelism or informal employment in our assessment of democratic patterns. On this basis, we aim to answer the following questions. First, how did the patterns of democracy evolve in Latin America over the two decades between 1990 and 2010 and what kind of differences can be observed in the region? Second, what are the institutional determinants of the observed changes? We focus on the emergence of new parties because of their strong impact on the first dimension of Lijphart's typology. From our observations we draw the following tentative conclusions: If strong new parties established themselves in the party system but failed to gain the presidency, they pushed the system towards consensualism. Conversely, new parties that gained the presidency produced more majoritarian traits.Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política2016-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1981-38212016000100204Brazilian Political Science Review v.10 n.1 2016reponame:Brazilian Political Science Reviewinstname:Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política (ABCP)instacron:ABCP10.1590/1981-38212016000100004info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessKestler,ThomasLucca,Juan BautistaKrause,Silvanaeng2016-03-28T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1981-38212016000100204Revistahttps://brazilianpoliticalsciencereview.org/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpbpsr@brazilianpoliticalsciencareview.org||bpsr@bpsr.org.br1981-38211981-3821opendoar:2016-03-28T00:00Brazilian Political Science Review - Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política (ABCP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
'Break-In Parties' and Changing Patterns of Democracy in Latin America |
title |
'Break-In Parties' and Changing Patterns of Democracy in Latin America |
spellingShingle |
'Break-In Parties' and Changing Patterns of Democracy in Latin America Kestler,Thomas Break-in parties types of government Latin America democracy informality |
title_short |
'Break-In Parties' and Changing Patterns of Democracy in Latin America |
title_full |
'Break-In Parties' and Changing Patterns of Democracy in Latin America |
title_fullStr |
'Break-In Parties' and Changing Patterns of Democracy in Latin America |
title_full_unstemmed |
'Break-In Parties' and Changing Patterns of Democracy in Latin America |
title_sort |
'Break-In Parties' and Changing Patterns of Democracy in Latin America |
author |
Kestler,Thomas |
author_facet |
Kestler,Thomas Lucca,Juan Bautista Krause,Silvana |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Lucca,Juan Bautista Krause,Silvana |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Kestler,Thomas Lucca,Juan Bautista Krause,Silvana |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Break-in parties types of government Latin America democracy informality |
topic |
Break-in parties types of government Latin America democracy informality |
description |
Although Lijphart's typology of consensus and majoritarian democracy can be regarded as the most widely used tool to classify democratic regimes, it has been rarely applied to Latin America so far. We try to fill this gap by adapting Lijphart's typological framework to the Latin American context in the following way. In contrast to previous studies, we treat the type of democracy as an independent variable and include informal factors such as clientelism or informal employment in our assessment of democratic patterns. On this basis, we aim to answer the following questions. First, how did the patterns of democracy evolve in Latin America over the two decades between 1990 and 2010 and what kind of differences can be observed in the region? Second, what are the institutional determinants of the observed changes? We focus on the emergence of new parties because of their strong impact on the first dimension of Lijphart's typology. From our observations we draw the following tentative conclusions: If strong new parties established themselves in the party system but failed to gain the presidency, they pushed the system towards consensualism. Conversely, new parties that gained the presidency produced more majoritarian traits. |
publishDate |
2016 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2016-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1981-38212016000100204 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1981-38212016000100204 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/1981-38212016000100004 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Political Science Review v.10 n.1 2016 reponame:Brazilian Political Science Review instname:Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política (ABCP) instacron:ABCP |
instname_str |
Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política (ABCP) |
instacron_str |
ABCP |
institution |
ABCP |
reponame_str |
Brazilian Political Science Review |
collection |
Brazilian Political Science Review |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Political Science Review - Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política (ABCP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
bpsr@brazilianpoliticalsciencareview.org||bpsr@bpsr.org.br |
_version_ |
1754302907912552448 |