1. O’Connor, James, The Fiscal Crisis of the State (New York, 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. S. Sebastian Calvo and Carmen M. Reinhart, “Capital Flows to Latin America: Is There Evidence of Contagion Effects?,” Policy Research Working Paper Series 1619, World Bank, Washington D.C., 1996; Frankel, Jeffrey A. and Rose, Andrew K., “Currency Crashes in Emerging Markets: An Empirical Treatment,” Journal of International Economics 41 (1996): 351–66;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Honig, Adam, “Do Improvements in Government Quality Necessarily Reduce the Incidence of Costly Sudden Stops?,” Journal of Banking and Finance 32 (2008): 360–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Bates, Robert, Markets and States in Tropical Africa (Berkeley, 1981)Google Scholar, and Bates, Open-Economy Politics: The Political Economy of the World Coffee Trade (Princeton, 1999).

4. Acemoglu, Daron and Robinson, James, “A Theory of Political Transitions,” American Economic Review 91 (2001): 938–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Rodrik, Dani, “Where Did All the Growth Go? External Shocks, Social Conflict, and Growth Collapses,” Journal of Economic Growth 4 (1999): 385–412.Google Scholar

6. Avinash Dixit, The Making of Economic Policy: A Transaction Cost Politics Perspective (Boston, 1996); and Douglass North, Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance (New York, 1990).

7. Gibson, Edward and Calvo, Ernesto, “Federalism and Low-Maintenance Constituencies: Territorial Dimensions of Economic Reform in Argentina,” Studies in Comparative International Development 35 (2000): 32–55.Google Scholar

8. Gordin, Jorge, “Testing Riker’s Party-based Theory of Federalism: The Argentine Case,” Publius 34 (2004): 21–34Google Scholar; Gordin, “Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations, Argentine Style,” Journal of Public Policy 26 (2006): 255–77.

9. Levey, Cara, Ozarow, Daniel, and Wylde, Christopher, Argentina since the 2001 Crisis (New York, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Oscar Cetrangolo and Juan Jimenez, “Política fiscal en Argentina durante el régimen de convertibilidad,” Serie Gestión Pública 35, Santiago de Chile, Mayo; Ken Eaton, Politics Beyond the Capital: The Design of Subnational Institutions in South America (Stanford, 2004); Webb, Steven, “Argentina: Hardening the Provincial Budget Constraint,” in Fiscal Decentralization and the Challenge of Hard Budget Constraints, ed. Rodden, Jonathan, Eskeland, Gunnar, and Litvack, Jennie (Cambridge, Mass., 2003), 122–44.Google Scholar

11. Argentina is the most decentralized country of Latin America in terms of public spending, with approximately 50 percent of the total public spending occurring at the subnational level. See Ernesto Stein, Ernesto Talvi, and Alejandro Grisanti, “Institutional Arrangements and Fiscal Performance: The Latin American Experience,” NBER Working Paper No. 6358 (1998). At a comparative level, it is worth mentioning that Argentina outdoes Brazil and Colombia, both regarded as extremely decentralized, and eclipses by far the average for the countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. See Stein, Ernesto, “Fiscal Decentralization and Government Size in Latin America,” Journal of Applied Economics 2 (1999): 357–91.Google Scholar

12. Ter-Minassian, Teresa, Fiscal Federalism in Theory and Practice (Washington, D.C., 1997).Google Scholar

13. Jones, Mark, Sanguinetti, Pablo, and Tommasi, Mariano, “Politics, Institutions, and Fiscal Performance in a Federal System: An Analysis of the Argentine Provinces,” Journal of Development Economics 61 (2000): 305–33Google Scholar.

14. Ernesto Calvo and Maria Victoria Murillo, “A New Iron law of Argentine Politics?,” in Rethinking Dual Transitions: Argentine Politics in the 2000s in Comparative Perspective, ed. Steven Levitzky and Maria Victoria Murillo (University Park, Pa., 2006): 207–29.

15. Alejandro Bonvecchi, “The Political Economy of Fiscal Reform in Latin America: The Case of Argentina,” IDB Working Papers Series, No. 175 (2010).

16. The notion of partisan enclaves refers to the territorial variation in the number of effective parties. Using data from 1983 to 2003, Calvo and Escolar show that the mean for that period is 2.60. A closer look at the figures corresponding to the most overrepresented provinces indicates that they all rank well below this mean: La Rioja (1.81), Catamarca (2.37), Santa Cruz (1.97), and Formosa (2.23). See Ernesto Calvo and Marcelo Escolar, La Nueva Política de Partidos en la Argentina (Buenos Aires, 2005), 111.

17. Alessina, Alberto and Rosenthal, Howard, Partisan Politics, Divided Government, and the Economy (New York, 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Calvo and Escolar, La Nueva Política de Partidos en la Argentina.

19. Milgrom, Paul, North, Douglass C., and Weingast, Barry R., “The Role of Institutions in the Revival of Trade: The Law Merchants, Private Judges, and the Champagne Fairs,” Economics and Politics 2 (1990): 1–23Google Scholar; and Weingast, Barry R., “The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development,” Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 11 (1995): 1–31.Google Scholar

20. Evans, Peter, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton, 1995)Google Scholar; Huntington, Samuel, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven, 1968)Google Scholar; and Margaret Levi, Of Rule and Revenue (Berkeley, 1988).

21. Weir, Margaret, “Ideas and the Politics of Bounded Innovation,” in Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics, ed. Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen, and Longstreth, Fred (New York, 1992), 188–216.Google Scholar

22. Immergut, Ellen, “The Rules of the Game: The Logic of Health Policy-Making in France, Switzerland, and Sweden,” in Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics, ed. Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen and Longstreth, Fred (New York, 1992), 57–89.Google Scholar

23. Wildavsky, Harold, “Policy as Its Own Cause,” in The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis, ed. Wildavsky, Harold (New York, 1980), 34–67.Google Scholar

24. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies, 12.

25. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, 3.

26. Polsby, Nelson W., “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives,” American Political Science Review 62 (1968): 14–68Google Scholar; Cooper, John and Harry, Brady, “Toward a Diachronic Analysis of Congress,” American Political Science Review 75 (1981): 988–1006Google Scholar; and Squire, Peverill,” The Theory of Legislative Institutionalization and the California Assembly,” Journal of Politics 54 (1992): 1026–54Google Scholar.

27. Mainwaring, Scott and Scully, Timothy R., “Introduction: Party Systems in Latin America,” in Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America, ed. Mainwaring, Scott and Scully, Timothy R. (Stanford, 1995), 14.Google Scholar

28. Levitsky, Steven and Murillo, Maria V., “Variation in Institutional Strength,” Annual Review of Political Science 12 (2009): 115–33.Google Scholar

29. Pierson, Paul, “The Limits of Design: Explaining Institutional Origins and Change,” Governance 13 (2000): 475–99Google Scholar; Pierson, “The Study of Policy Development,” Journal of Policy History 17 (2005): 34–51.

30. Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries (New Haven, 1999), 220–21.

31. Atlas, Cary M., Gilligan, Thomas W., Hendershott, Robert J., and Zupan, Mark, “Slicing the Federal Government Net Spending Pie: Who Wins, Who Loses and Why,” American Economic Review 85 (1995): 624–29Google Scholar; Knight, John B., “Legislative Representation, Bargaining Power, and the Distribution of Federal Funds: Evidence from the U.S. Senate,” Economic Journal 118 (2008): 1785–803;Google Scholar and Lee, Frances E., “Senate Representation and Coalition Building in Distributive Politics,” American Political Science Review 94 (2000): 59–72.Google Scholar

32. Stephen Ansolabehere, Jack M. Snyder Jr., and Michael M. Ting, “Bargaining in Bicameral Legislatures: When and Why Does Malapportionment Matter?,” American Political Science Review 97 (2002): 471–81; Frederickson, George H. and Cho, Yong Hyo, “Legislative Apportionment and Fiscal Policy in the American States,” Western Political Quarterly 27 (1974): 5–37Google Scholar; and Elaine K. Swift, The Making of an American Senate: Reconstitutive Change in Congress, 1787–1841 (Ann Arbor, 1996).

33. Pierson, “The Limits of Design,” 491.

34. While malapportionment is more commonly used at the micro level (i.e., the votes of some citizens weigh more than the votes of other citizens), overrepresentation is employed to denote institutional apportionment. Some scholars prefer the later term, because the term “malapportionment,” which is also used to denote underrepresentation, carries a more distinctive negative connotation. I, however, will use both terms interchangeably.

35. Robert Dahl, How Democratic Is the American Constitution? (New Haven, 2002) and Samuels, David and Snyder, Richard, “The Value of a Vote: Malapportionment in Comparative Perspective,” British Journal of Political Science 31 (2001): 651–71.Google Scholar

36. Norris, Pippa, Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior (New York, 2004), 44.Google Scholar

37. Stephen Ansolabehre, Allan Gerber, and Jack M. Snyder Jr., “Equal Votes, Equal Money: Court Order Redistricting and the Distribution of Public Expenditures in the American States,” Department of Political Science, MIT (2000); and John C. Courtney, “From Gerrymandering to Independence: District Boundary Readjustment in Canada,” in Redistricting in Comparative Perspective, ed. Lisa Hanley and Bernard Grofman (Oxford, 2008), 11–26.

38. Ames, Barry, The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil (Ann Arbor, 2001)Google Scholar.

39. Lee, Frances E. and Oppenheimer, Bruce, Sizing Up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation (Chicago, 1999), 161 (italics in original).Google Scholar

40. Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, 168–69.

41. Dornbusch, Rüdiger and Edwards, Sebastian, The Macroeconomics of Populism in Latin America (Chicago, 1991).Google Scholar

42. The fiscal sway of provincial governments is bolstered by the constitutional prerogative that allows provinces to borrow abroad and set up their own official banks. See Jones, Mark P., Sanguinetti, Pablo, and Tommasi, Mariano, “Politics, Institutions, and Fiscal Performance in a Federal System: An Analysis of the Argentine Provinces,” Journal of Development Economics 61 (2000): 305–33Google Scholar; and Remmer, Karen and Wibbels, Erik, “The Subnational Politics of Fiscal Adjustment: Provincial Politics and Fiscal Adjustment in Argentina,” Comparative Political Studies 33 (2000): 419–51.Google Scholar

43. Stepan, Alfred, Arguing Comparative Politics (Oxford, 2001), 344.Google Scholar

44. Edward Gibson and Ernesto Calvo, “Federalism and Low-Maintenance Constituencies: Territorial Dimensions of Economic Reform in Argentina,” 33.

45. Reynoso, Diego, “Bicameralismo y sobre-representación en Argentina en perspectiva comparada,” Revista SAAP 1 (2004): 75.Google Scholar

46. Gibson, Edward, Calvo, Ernesto, and Falleti, Tulia, “Reallocative Federalism: Legislative Overrepresentation and Public Spending in the Western Hemisphere,” in Federalism and Democracy in Latin America, ed. Gibson, Edward (Baltimore, 2004), 173–96.Google Scholar

47. Mariano Tommasi, “Federalism in Argentina and the Reforms of the 1990s,” Mimeo, Department of Economics, University of San Andres, 2002.

48. Christina Daseking, Atish R. Ghosh, Alun H. Thomas, A. H. and Timothy D. Lane, Lessons from the Crisis in Argentina, Occasional Paper No. 236, International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. (2004), 43–44; and Edwards, Sebastian, “The Great Exchange Rate Debate after Argentina,” North American Journal of Economics and Finance 13 (2002): 241.Google Scholar

49. Buscaglia, Marcos A., “The Political Economy of Argentina’s Debacle,” Journal of Policy Reform 7 (2004): 43–65;Google Scholar Anne O. Krueger, Crisis Prevention and Resolution: Lessons from Argentina, International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. (2002); and Pastor, Manuel and Wise, Carol, “Argentina: From Poster Child to Basket Case,” Foreign Affairs 80 (2001): 60–72.Google Scholar

50. Centro de Estrategias Regionales (CER), Informe de Competitividad de las Provincias (Buenos Aires, 1999–2000).

51. Paolo Benedetti, Aspectos institucionales de la administración pública: Implicancias para la Argentina, Documento de Trabajo, Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo Institucional, Buenos Aires (1999); and Serravalle, Horacio, “Propuestas y criterios para el ordenamiento federal fiscal,” Criterios Tributarios 12 (1998): 77–87Google Scholar.

52. Gordin, “Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations, Argentine Style.”

53. Ken Eaton, “Decentralisation, Democratisation, and Liberalisation: The History of Revenue-Sharing in Argentina, 1934–1999,” Journal of Latin American Studies 33 (2001): 1–28.

54. Mussa, Michael, Argentina y el FMI: Del triunfo a la tragedia (Buenos Aires, 2002).Google Scholar

55. de Economía, Ministerio, El programa económico del gobierno nacional (Buenos Aires, 2000).Google Scholar

56. There are several correlates to the small state advantage in Argentina. Rezk shows that ever since revenue sharing was implemented for the first time in 1935 a gradual trend in favor of overrepresented, mostly poor provinces, with the singular exception of oil-producing Santa Cruz, is conspicuous. While underrepresented and high-revenue provinces like Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, and Córdoba experienced a decrease of 24 percent, low-revenue provinces benefited from an increase of 21 percent. See Rezk, Ernesto, “Argentina: Fiscal Federalism and Decentralization,” in Fiscal Decentralization in Developing Countries, ed. Bird, Robert M. and Vaillancourt, Francois (Cambridge, 1998), 225, 231.Google Scholar Likewise, Sawers argues that “in 1990, when federal assistance was minimal, the most advanced provinces (Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Santa Fe, and Mendoza) spent five times per capita what the most backward provinces spent (La Rioja, Catamarca, Corrientes, Jujuy, Misiones, Chaco, Santiago, and Formosa). By 1960, they were spending roughly the same amount per capita. By the mid-1980s, the poorest provinces were spending almost twice what the most prosperous provinces spent on each citizen.” See Sawers, Larry, The Other Argentina: The Interior and National Development (New York, 1996), 245.Google Scholar

57. Juan Licari, Juan Calcagno, Jorge Oviedo, and Santiago Pellegrini, “Cuasimonedas Provinciales: Medición Absoluta y Comparada,” Instituto de Economía y Finanzas, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, 2002, http://ief.eco.unc.edu.ar/files/publicaciones/observatorio/nov02-licari-calcagno-oviedo.pdf.

58. Escude, Carlos, “Argentina: A ‘Parasite State’ on the Verge of Disintegration,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 15 (2002): 459–61.Google Scholar

59. Rodden, Jonathan, “Strength in Numbers: Representation and Redistribution in the European Union,” European Union Politics 3 (2002): 151–75.Google Scholar