'Break-In Parties' and Changing Patterns of Democracy in Latin America

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Kestler,Thomas
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Lucca,Juan Bautista, Krause,Silvana
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