Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:42:51.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Valuable Is a Presidential Cabinet? Measuring Ministries’ Political Attractiveness in Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2020

Arnaldo Mauerberg Junior Open the ORCID record for Arnaldo Mauerberg Junior [Opens in a new window]  and
Carlos Pereira Open the ORCID record for Carlos Pereira [Opens in a new window]
Arnaldo Mauerberg Junior*
Affiliation:
Arnaldo Mauerberg Junior is a professor of political science at the University of Brasília.
Carlos Pereira*
Affiliation:
Carlos Pereira is a professor of political science at the Getulio Vargas Foundation.
*
[email protected]
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How valuable is a cabinet position? While the current literature does not ignore the reality that ministries differ from one another, it does not offer either theoretical or methodological procedures to assess such differences. This article introduces a refined measure of coalescence degree that considers several characteristics ministries may have, as well as politicians’ preferences about cabinet appointments. We estimate the effect of this alternative measure of coalescence on the president’s legislative success using large Brazilian datasets from 1995 to 2014 and an elite survey conducted with 62 Brazilian legislators. Controlling for other coalition management variables (coalition size and ideological heterogeneity), our refined coalescence metric turns out to be a more appropriate tool to assess the president’s performance in Congress.

Keywords

Multiparty presidential systemscabinet proportionalityBrazilcabinet ministries
Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 25 - 45
Copyright
© University of Miami 2020 

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

Abeyasekera, Savitri. 2005. Quantitative Analysis Approaches to Qualitative Data: Why, When and How? In Methods in Development Research: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, ed. Holland, Jeremy and Campbell, John. Bradford, Warwickshire: ITDG Publishing. 97–106.Google Scholar
Amorim Neto, Octavio. 1994. Formação de gabinetes presidenciais no Brasil: coalizäo versus cooptação. Nova Economia 4, 1: 9–34.Google Scholar
Amorim Neto, Octavio. 2000. Gabinetes presidenciais, ciclos eleitorais e disciplina legislativa no Brasil. Dados 43, 3: 479–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amorim Neto, Octavio. 2002. Presidential Cabinets, Electoral Cycles and Coalition Discipline in Brazil. In Legislative Politics in Latin America, ed. Morgenstern, Scott and Nacif, Benito. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 48–78.Google Scholar
Amorim Neto, Octavio. 2006. Presidencialismo e governabilidade nas Américas. 1st ed. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV).Google Scholar
Amorim Neto, Octavio. 2007. O poder executivo, centro de gravidade do sistema politico brasileiro. In Sistema político brasileiro: uma introdução, ed. Avelar, Lucia and Cintra, Antonio Octavio. Säo Paulo: Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP). 123–33.Google Scholar
Amorim Neto, Octavio, and Samuels, David. 2010. Democratic Regimes and Cabinet Politics: A Global Perspective. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estudos Legislativos 1, 1: 10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amorim Neto, Octavio, and Strøm, Kaare. 2006. Breaking the Parliamentary Chain of Delegation: Presidents and Non-Partisan Cabinet Members in European Democracies. British Journal of Political Science 36, 4: 619–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amorim Neto, Octavio, and Tafner, Paulo. 2002. Governos de coalizäo e mecanismos de alarme de incêndio no controle legislativo das medidas provisórias. Dados 45, 1: 5–38.Google Scholar
Amorim Neto, Octavio, Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Matthew. 2003. Agenda Power in Brazil’s Cãmara dos Deputados, 1989–1998. World Politics 55, 4: 550–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arretche, Marta, and Rodden, Jonathan. 2004. Política distributiva na Federação: estratégias eleitorais, barganhas legislativas e coalizões de governo. Dados 47, 3: 549–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baptista, Tatiana. 2007. Análise das portarias ministeriais da saúde e reflexões sobre a con-dução nacional da politica de saúde. Cadernos de Saude Publica 23, 3: 615–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberia, Lorena, and Praça, Sérgio. 2014. Who Gets Political Appointments? Party Loyalty and Bureaucratic Expertise in Brazil. Paper presented at the 72nd Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, April 3–6.Google Scholar
Bascos-Deveza, Teresita. 2011. Quantifying Qualitative Data from Expectation Surveys: How Well Do Expectation Surveys Forecast Inflation? Irving Fisher Committee Bulletin 34: 128–37.Google Scholar
Bertholini, Frederico, and Pereira, Carlos. 2017. Pagando o preço de governar: custos de gerência de coalizäo no presidencialismo brasileiro. Revista de Administração Publica 51, 4: 528–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borges, André. 2011. The Political Consequences of Center-Led Redistribution in Brazilian Federalism: The Fall of Subnational Party Machines. Latin American Research Review 46, 3: 21–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaisty, Paul, Cheeseman, Nic, and Power, Timothy. 2012. Rethinking the Presidentialism Debate: Conceptualizing Coalition Politics in Cross Reginal Perspective. Democratization 21, 1: 72–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheibub, José Antonio, Przeworski, Adam, and Saiegh, Sebastian. 2004. Government Coalitions and Legislative Success Under Presidentialism and Parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science 34, 4: 565–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, Alastair. 1997. Quantifying Survey Data. Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin Q3: 292–300.Google Scholar
D’Elia, Enrico. 2005. Using the Results of Qualitative Surveys in Quantitative Analysis. Working Paper 56. Rome: Instituto di Studi e Analisi Economica.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaz, Sebastian, Swan, Karen, Ice, Philip, and Kupczynski, Lori. 2010. Student Ratings of the Importance of Survey Items, Multiplicative Factor Analysis and the Validity of the Community of Inquiry Survey. Internet and Higher Education 13, 1–2: 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueiredo, Argelina, and Limongi, Fernando. 1999. Poder de agenda, disciplina e apoio partidario na Cãmara dos Deputados. In Executivo e legislativo na nova ordem constitucional, ed. Figueiredo and Limongi. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas. 101–24.Google Scholar
Figueiredo, Argelina, Salles, Denise, and Vieira, Marcelo. 2010. Presidencialismo de coalizäo na América Latina. Insight Inteligência 12: 126–33.Google Scholar
Figueiredo, Argelina, Vieira, Marcelo, and Canello, Julio. 2012. Governos minoritarios no presidencialismo latino-americano: determinantes institucionais e politicos. Dados 55: 839–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenreich, Johannes. 2016. The Formation of Cabinet Coalitions in Presidential Systems. Latin American Politics and Society 58, 4: 80–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galstayan, Martin, and Movsisyan, Vahe. 2010. Quantification of Qualitative Data: The Case of the Central Bank of Armenia. Irving Fisher Committee Bulletin 33: 202–15.Google Scholar
Greene, William. 2003. Econometric Analysis. 5th ed. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Henzel, Steffen, and Wollmershäuser, Timo. 2005. An Alternative to the Carlson-Parkin Method for the Quantification of Qualitative Inflation Expectations: Evidence from the World Economic Survey. Working Paper 9. Munich: IFO Institute–Leibniz/Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.Google Scholar
Hochschild, Jennifer. 2005. Conducting Intensive Interviews and Elite Interviews. Paper presented at the Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research, Arlington, VA, May 19–20.Google Scholar
Kalt, Joseph, and Zupan, Mark. 1984. Capture and Ideology in the Economic Theory of Politics. American Economic Review 74, 3: 279–300.Google Scholar
Kau, James, and Rubin, Paul. 1979. Self-interest, Ideology, and Logrolling in Congressional Voting. Journal of Law and Economics 22, 2: 365–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, Nirmalaya, Stern, Louis, and Anderson, James. 1993. Conducting Interorganizational Research Using Key Informants. Academy of Management Journal 36, 6: 1633–51.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Kajal, and Zhao, Yongchen. 2015. Quantifying Survey Expectations: A Critical Review and Generalization of the Carlson-Parkin Method. International Journal of Forecasting 31: 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Oliveira, Lima, Renato, Julia Guerreiro, and Mauerberg, Arnaldo. 2015. Ministers as Active Political Actors in Brazil: Pork Barrel Inside the Cabinet from 2011 Until 2014. Paper presented at the 33rd Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 27–30.Google Scholar
Lopez, Felix, and Praça, Sérgio. 2015. Critérios e lógicas de nomeação para o alto escalço da burocracia federal brasileira. In Cargos de confiança no presidencialismo de coalizço brasi-leiro, ed. Lopez. Rio de Janeiro: Institute for Applied Economic Research. 107–38.Google Scholar
Martinez-Gallardo, Cecilia. 2011a. Designing Cabinets: Presidential Politics and Cabinet Instability in Latin America. Kellogg Institute for International Studies Working Paper 375. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Martinez-Gallardo, Cecilia. 2011b. Out of the Cabinet: What Drives Defections from Government in Presidential Systems? Comparative Political Studies 45, 1: 62–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Negretto, Gabriel. 2006. Minority Presidents and Democratic Performance in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society 48, 3: 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Malley, Eoin. 2007. The Power of Prime Ministers: Results of an Expert Survey. International Political Science Review 28, 1: 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, Carlos, and Bertholini, Frederico. 2018. Coalition Management in Multiparty Presidential Regimes. In Routledge Handbook of Brazilian Politics, ed. Ames, Barry. London: Routledge. 313–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, Carlos, Bertholini, Frederico, and Raile, Eric. 2016. All the President’s Men and Women: Coalition Management Strategies and Governing Costs in Multiparty Presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly 46, 3: 550–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raile, Eric, Pereira, Carlos, and Power, Timothy. 2011. The Executive Toolbox: Building Legislative Support in a Multiparty Presidential Regime. Political Research Quarterly 64: 323–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saiegh, Sebastián. 2009. Recovering a Basic Space from Elite Surveys: Evidence from Latin America. Legislative Studies Quarterly 34, 1: 117–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Ben Ross. 1993. The Career Connection: A Comparative Analysis of Bureaucratic Preferences and Insulation. Comparative Politics 25, 3: 331–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpser, Alberto, Duquette-Rury, Lauren, Company, José, and Ibarra, Juan. 2016. The Political Economy of Social Spending by Local Government: A Study of the 3x1 Program in Mexico. Latin American Research Review 51, 1: 62–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, Marc-Adélard. 1957. The Key Informant Technique: A Non-Ethnographic Application. American Anthropologist 59, 4: 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucco, Cesar Jr. 2013. Legislative Coalitions in Presidential Systems: The Case of Uruguay. Latin American Politics and Society 55, 1: 96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucco, Cesar Jr., Batista, Mariana, and Power, Timothy. 2019. Measuring Portfolio Salience Using the Bradley-Terry Model: An Illustration with Data from Brazil. Research and Politics January–March: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mauerberg and Pereira supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Mauerberg and Pereira supplementary material(File)
File 57.6 KB