Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:13:37.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legislative Coalitions in Presidential Systems: The Case of Uruguay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Cesar Zucco Jr.
Cesar Zucco Jr.*
Affiliation:
Political Science Department at Rutgers University. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article analyzes executive-legislative relations in Uruguay between 1985 and 2005. It demonstrates that even after controlling for ideological affinity and acknowledging that ideology affects presence in the cabinet, legislators whose factions hold ministerial positions behave in a more progovernment way than their ideology would predict. This result not only shows that coalitions “work” but suggests that they work because the presidents use resources under their control to attract support from legislators. This article presents a systematic analysis of executive-legislative relations in multiparty settings that builds on the finding that nonideologically contiguous coalitions often form to separate the ideological from the strategic determinants of legislative behavior. It also contributes to the literature by presenting a new set of roll call data and, more generally, highlights the risks of attempting to infer ideology directly from legislative behavior in presidential multiparty settings.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , Spring 2013 , pp. 96 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldrich, John H., and McKelvey, Richard D.. 1977. A Method of Scaling, with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections. American Political Science Review 71, 1: 111–30.Google Scholar
Alemán, Eduardo, and Saiegh, Sebastián M.. 2007. Legislative Preferences, Political Parties, and Coalition Unity in Chile. Comparative Politics 39, 3: 253–72.Google Scholar
Alston, Lee J., and Mueller, Bernardo. 2006. Pork for Policy: Executive and Legislative Exchange in Brazil. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 22, 1: 87–114.Google Scholar
Altman, David. 2000. The Politics of Coalition Formation and Survival in Multiparty Presidential Democracies: the Case of Uruguay, 1989–1999. Party Politics 6, 3: 259–83.Google Scholar
Ames, Barry. 2001. The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Buquet, Daniel. 20014. Encuesta permanente de elites. Elite Survey. Montevideo : Instituto de Ciencia Política, Universidad de la República.Google Scholar
Buquet, Daniel, Chasquetti, Daniel, and Andrés Moraes, Juan. 1998. Fragmentación política y gobierno en Urugay: ¿Un enfermo imaginario? Montevideo : ICP.Google Scholar
Chasquetti, Daniel. 2000. Gobierno y coalición en el Uruguay: 1985–1999. In Coparticipación y coalición: 164 años de acuerdo entre blancos y colorados, ed. Pelas, D., Prez, R., Buquet, D., Piero, R., Chasquetti, , and Gatto, H.. Montevideo : Arca. 70–91.Google Scholar
Chasquetti, Daniel. 2001. La oposición en la era de las coaliciones: el desempeo parlamenterio del FA (1985–2003). In Ti pos de presidencialismo y coaliciones políticas en América Latina, ed. Lanzaro, Jorge. Buenos Aires : CLACSO. 353–80.Google Scholar
Chiou, Fang-Yi, and Rothenberg, Lawrence S.. 2003. When Pivotal Politics Meets Partisan Politics. American Political Science Review 47, 3: 503–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data. American Political Science Review 98, 2: 355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston : Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Figueiredo, Argelina Cheibub, and Limongi, Fernando. 2002. Incentivos eleitorais, partidos e política orçamentária. Dados 45, 2: 303–44.Google Scholar
Former Blanco Minister. 2005a. Author interview. Montevideo, October.Google Scholar
Former Blanco Minister. 2005b. Author interview. Montevideo, October.Google Scholar
Former Colorado Legislator and Minister. 2005a. Author interview. Montevideo, October.Google Scholar
Former Colorado Legislator and Minister. 2005b. Author interview. Montevideo, September.Google Scholar
González, Luis E. 1991. Political Structures and Democracy in Uruguay. Notre Dame : University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Ho, Daniel E., Imai, Kosuke, King, Gary, and Stuart, Elizabeth. 2007. Matching as Non-parametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference. Political Analysis 15, 3: 199–236.Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, Tingley, Dustin, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2011. Unpacking the Black Box: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies. American Political Science Review 105, 4: 765–89.Google Scholar
Jones, Mark P., Hwang, Wonjae, and Micozzi, Juan Pablo. 2009. Government and Opposition in the Argentine Congress, 1989–2007: Understanding Inter-Party Dynamics through Roll Call Vote Analysis. Journal of Politics in Latin America 1, 1: 67–96.Google Scholar
King, Garry, Honaker, James, Joseph, Anne, and Scheve, Kenneth. 2001. Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data. American Political Science Review 95, 1: 49–69.Google Scholar
Krakovics, Fernanda. 2004. Palocci acalma Pt e libera verba para emendas. Folha de São Paulo. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/brasil/fc1002200406.htm.Google Scholar
Leoni, Eduardo, Pereira, Carlos, and Rennó, Lucio. 2004. Political Survival Strategies: Political Career Decisions in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies. Journal of Latin American Studies 36, 1 (February): 109–30.Google Scholar
Luna, Juan Pablo. 2007. Frente Amplio and the Crafting of a Social Democratic Alternative in Uruguay. Latin American Politics and Society 49, 4 (Winter): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Scully, Timothy R.. 1995. Introduction: Party Systems in Latin America. In Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America, ed. Mainwaring and Scully. Stanford : Stanford University Press. 1–36.Google Scholar
Moraes, Juan Andrés, Chasquetti, Daniel, and Bergara, Mario. 2005. The Political Economy of the Budgetary Process in Uruguay. Paper prepared for the Research Network project “Who Decides on Public Expenditures? A Political Economy Analysis of the Budget Process.” Washington, DC : Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, Scott. 2001. Organized Factions and Disorganized Parties: Electoral Incentives in Uruguay. Party Politics 7, 2: 235–56.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, Scott. 2004. Patterns of Legislative Politics: Roll Call Voting in Latin America and the United States. New York : Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Payne, J. Mark, Daniel, Zovatto G., and Díaz, Mercedes Mateo. 2007. Democracies in Development: Politics and Reform in Latin America. 2nd ed. Washington, DC : Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
Pereira, Carlos, and Mueller, Bernardo. 2004. The Cost of Governing: Strategic Behavior of the President and Legislators in Brazil's Budgetary Process. Comparative Political Studies 37, 7: 781–815.Google Scholar
Pereira, Carlos, Power, Timothy J., and Raile, Eric D.. 2011. The Executive Toolbox: Building Legislative Support in a Multiparty Presidential Regime. Political Research Quarterly 64, 2: 323–34.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York : Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shor, Boris, Berry, Christopher, and McCarty, Nolan. 2000. A Bridge to Somewhere: Mapping State and Congressional Ideology on a Cross-Institutional Common Space. Legislative Studies Quarterly 35, 3: 417–48.Google Scholar
Souza, Josias de. 2005. Lula extingue direito da sociedade ao otimismo. Folha de São Paulo. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/brasil/fc0210200523.htm.Google Scholar
Spirling, Arthur, and McLean, Ian. 2006. Uk Oc Ok? Intepreting Optimal Classification Scores for the U.K. House of Commons. Political Analysis 15, 1: 85–96.Google Scholar
Zucco, Cesar Jr. 2009. Ideology or What? Legislative Behavior in Multiparty Presidentialist Settings. Journal of Politics 71, 3: 1076–92.Google Scholar
Zucco, Cesar Jr., and Lauderdale, Benjamin. 2011. Distinguishing between Influences on Brazilian Legislative Behavior. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36, 3: 363–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar