Search

In this paper we bring together institutional, contextual, and behavioral perspectives in a comprehensive model that explores determinants of executive and legislative approval based on economic performance in Brazil and Chile. Our main question is, do voters attribute responsibility for the state of the economy to their representatives in the Legislative Branch as they apparently do to officeholders in the Executive Branch? We search for answers to this question with an eye on how active the distinct branches of government are in economic policy-making and voters’ levels of political sophistication. Our main hypothesis is that less sophisticated voters will blame politicians indiscriminately for the state of the economy, independent of how influential each branch of government is on economic policy. More sophisticated voters will better discern the role each branch plays in economic policy-making and will not blame representatives in the Legislative Branch for the state of the economy when Congress is not active in economic policy-making. The cases of Brazil and Chile under Cardoso and Lagos offer the perfect opportunity to test this hypothesis, which is confirmed by our data., En este trabajo combinanos perspectivas institucionalistas, contextuales y behavioristas en un amplio modelo que explora determinantes de la aprobación del Ejecutivo y del Legislativo basada en el desempeño de la economía de Brasil y Chile. Nuestra pregunta central se ocupa de saber si los ciudadanos le asignan responsabilidad por el estado de la economía al Legislativo del mismo modo como aparentemente lo hacen con respecto al Ejecutivo. Buscamos respuestas a esas cuestiones observando los roles, más o menos relevantes, de esos diferentes Poderes durante la elaboración de políticas económicas y, además, teniendo en cuenta el nível de sofisticación política de los indivíduos. Nuestra hipóstesis principal sugiere que los ciudadanos menos sofisticados políticamente le echan la culpa por las condiciones econômicas a los políticos de modo indiscriminado, independientemente del grado de influencia de cada Poder sobre la política económica. Ciudadanos más sofisticados políticamente demuestran mayor grado de comprensión sobre el papel que cada Poder desempeña en la elaboración de la política económica y no culpan indistintamente el Legislativo por el estado de la economía cuando el Congreso no tiene un papel relevante sobre la política económica. Los casos de Brasil y Chile durante los gobiernos Cardoso y Lagos ofrecen una oportunidad adecuada para el test de nuestras hipótesis, que han logrado evidencia empírica.

La corrupción fue un tema central de las elecciones brasileñas del 2006, tanto en la rama Ejecutiva como en la Legislativa. Según nuestros datos, más de cien del los Delegados Federales, o un quinto de la quincuagésima segunda Sesión Legislativa (2003-2007), fueron relacionados por los medios con algún escándalo. Este artículo se enfoca en cómo es la suerte de los Delegados Federales involucrados en escándalos de corrupción. ¿Acaso los votantes castigan a los políticos supuestamente corruptos? Utilizamos un conjunto de datos acerca del desempeño legislativo y electoral de los Delegados Federales Brasileños para estudiar cómo el estar involucrado en corrupción se relaciona con decisiones de carrera y con el éxito en ser reelegidos. La corrupción fue un tema central de las elecciones brasileñas del 2006, tanto en la rama Ejecutiva como en la Legislativa. Según nuestros datos, más de cien del los Delegados Federales, o un quinto de la quincuagésima segunda Sesión Legislativa (2003-2007), fueron relacionados por los medios con algún escándalo. Este artículo se enfoca en cómo es la suerte de los Delegados Federales involucrados en escándalos de corrupción. ¿Acaso los votantes castigan a los políticos supuestamente corruptos? Utilizamos un conjunto de datos acerca del desempeño legislativo y electoral de los Delegados Federales Brasileños para estudiar cómo el estar involucrado en corrupción se relaciona con decisiones de carrera y con el éxito en ser reelegidos.

How do legislatures develop or institutionalize? Our knowledge about legislative development is mostly based on studies of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. state legislatures. However, we know next to nothing about legislative development in the emerging democracies of Latin America. Given the need to develop effective democratic institutions in that region, it is critical to understand how institutions change and how legislatures in particular develop. In this study, I develop a model of legislative development that complements rational choice and path dependent explanations of change. In particular, this model provides an answer to the question: how does a legislative organization change into a legislative institution?In particular, I hypothesize that legislative development varies depending on the extent to which electoral and constitutional reforms balance executive-legislative power asymmetries. To test this hypothesis, I compare legislative development in Nicaragua (1979-2005) and Costa Rica (1871-2005). Central to the process of legislative development are: (1) power asymmetries between presidents and assemblies, (2) the rules and organizations that are established to balance these asymmetries, (3) how rules and organizations affect the development of the legislatures from simple, subordinate organizations into complex and autonomous institutions, and (4) how the broader social, political, and economic environment contributes to legislative development.I find that political actors do not act or function within an historical or contextual vacuum, nor does history and context alone determine political choices and outcomes. Instead, political actors function within rational, institutional, and historical boundaries, so an approach that incorporates aspects of both rational choice and path dependent explanations is preferable to existing models of legislative change. Therefore, part of my contribution is (1) to clarify the conceptual confusion surroundi

This dissertation has two main goals. The first is to test how environments with distinct political, historical and institutional characteristics affect voters' ability to obtain information about candidates in legislative elections. In broader terms, this is an exploration of the correlates of learning about politics. More specifically, the emphasis is on how institutional environments condition learning. Second, I investigate how information affects specific vote choices related to holding individual politicians as well as political parties accountable for their performances in office. The emphasis, then, falls on the importance of information in affecting concrete electoral decisions.Overall, this dissertation is an investigation of the microfoundations of electoral accountability. Accountability is not possible without information. With this in mind, the focus is on how voters learn about candidates during elections and how such information affects electoral choices directly related to holding politicians accountable.This study focuses on the 2002 Brazilian elections for the Chamber of Deputies mostly, but not exclusively, because Brazil offers great variation in electoral environments. Brazil is also an interesting case because pundits and laymen alike have constantly claimed that corruption and clientelism abound in Brazil. Hence, an exploration of the microfoundations of accountability may shed some light in the roots of such problems.