Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T15:37:31.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legislative Parties in Volatile, Nonprogrammatic Party Systems: The Peruvian Case in Comparative Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Eduardo Alemán ,
Aldo F. Ponce  and
Iñaki Sagarzazu
Eduardo Alemán
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science at the University of Houston. [email protected]
Aldo F. Ponce
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science at the University of Houston, University of Connecticut, University of Houston. [email protected]
Iñaki Sagarzazu
Affiliation:
Nuffield College, University of Oxford. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article extends the analysis of political parties in electorally volatile and organizationally weak party systems by evaluating two implications centered on legislative voting behavior. First, it examines whether disunity prevails where weakness of programmatic and electoral commonalities abound. Second, it analyzes whether inchoate party systems weaken the ability of government parties to control the congressional agenda. The empirical analysis centers on Peru, a classic example of a weakly institutionalized party system, and how its legislative parties compare to those of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and the United States. The results lend support to the view that lower unity characterizes weakly institutionalized settings. The agenda-setting power of government parties, however, appears to be influenced more by the majority status of the government than by the level of party system institutionalization.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , Fall 2011 , pp. 57 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2011

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. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John, Berger, Mark, and Rohde, David. 2002. The Historical Variability in Conditional Party Government, 1877–1994. In Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress, Volume 2: Further New Perspectives on the History of Congress, ed. Brady, David and McCubbins, Matthew. Stanford : Stanford University Press. 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alemán, Eduardo. 2006. Policy Gatekeepers in Latin American Legislatures. Latin American Politics and Society 48, 3 (Fall): 125–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angell, Alan. 1979. Peruvian Labour and the Military Government Since 1968. Working Paper. London : Institute of Latin American Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
Aydelotte, William. 1963. Voting Patterns in the British House of Commons in the 1840s. Comparative Studies in Society and History 5, 2: 134–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bielasiak, Jack. 2002. The Institutionalization of Electoral and Party Systems in Postcommunist States. Comparative Politics 34: 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun. 2000. Parties in a Legislature: Two Competing Explanations. In Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, ed. Dalton, Russell J. and Wattenberg, Martin P.. Oxford : Oxford University Press. 157–79.Google Scholar
Carey, John. 2003. Transparency versus Collective Action: Fujimori's Legacy and the Peruvian Congress. Comparative Political Studies 36, 9: 983–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John. 2007. Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science 51, 1: 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, John, and Shugart, Matthew. 1995. Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote. Electoral Studies 14, 4: 417–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaisty, Paul. 2005. Party Cohesion and Policy-Making in Russia. Party Politics 11, 3: 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheibub, Jose Antonio. 2007. Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data. American Political Science Review 98: 355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppedge, Michael. 1997. A Classification of Latin American Party Systems. Working Paper 244. Notre Dame : Kellogg Institute, University of Notre Dame. November.Google Scholar
Coppedge, Michael. 1998. The Dynamic Diversity of Latin American Party Systems. Party Politics 4, 4: 547–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppedge, Michael. 2001. Latin American Parties: Political Darwinism in the Lost Decade. In Political Parties and Democracy, ed. Diamond, Larry and Gunther, Richard. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press. 173–205.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Mathew M.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley : University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Mathew M.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desposato, Scott. 2005. Correcting for Small Group Inflation of Roll-Call Cohesion Scores. British Journal of Political Science 35, 4: 731–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietz, Henry, and Myers, David. 2007. From Thaw to Deluge: Party System Collapse in Venezuela and Peru. Latin American Politics and Society 49, 2 (Summer): 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dix, Robert H. 1992. Democratization and the Institutionalization of Latin American Political Parties. Comparative Political Studies 24: 488–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Economist . 2008. The Latinobarómetro Poll: Democracy and the Downturn. November 13.Google Scholar
Field, Bonnie N., and Hamann, Kerstin, eds. 2008. Democracy and Institutional Development: Spain in Comparative Theoretical Perspective. New York : Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueiredo, Argelina Cheibub, and Limongi, Fernando. 2000. Presidential Power, Legislative Organization, and Party Behavior in Brazil. Comparative Politics 32, 2: 151–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Carol. 1990. Peru's Apra. Party in Power: Impossible Revolution, Relinquished Reform. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 32, 3 (Fall): 75–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 1965. Political Development and Political Decay. World Politics 17, 3: 386–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Mark P. 1995. Electoral Laws and the Survival of Presidential Democracies. Notre Dame : University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Mark P. 2007. Political Parties and Party Systems in Latin America. Paper prepared for the symposium “Prospects for Democracy in Latin America,” Department of Political Science, University of North Texas, Denton , April 5–6.Google Scholar
Kenney, Charles. 2003. The Death and Rebirth of a Party System: Peru 1978–2001. Comparative Political Studies 36, 10: 1210–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuenzi, Michelle, and Lambright, Gina. 2001. Party System Institutionalization in 30 African Countries. Party Politics 7: 437–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, Eric, Maltzman, Forrest, and Smith, Steven. 2006. Who Wins? Party Effects in Legislative Voting. Legislative Studies Quarterly 31, 2: 33–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Cameron, Maxwell. 2003. Democracy without Parties? Political Parties and Regime Change in Fujimorís Peru. Latin American Politics and Society 45, 3 (Fall): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linz, Juan. 1990. The Perils of Presidentialism. Journal of Democracy 1: 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linz, Juan. 1994. Presidential or Parliamentary Democracy: Does It Make a Difference? In The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America, ed. Linz, and Valenzuela, Arturo. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press. 3–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Londregan, John B. 2000. Legislative Institutions and Ideology in Chile. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott. 1992. Brazilian Party Underdevelopment in Comparative Perspective. Political Science Quarterly 107, 4: 677–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott. 1998. Rethinking Party Systems Theory in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Importance of Party System Institutionalization. Working Paper 260. Notre Dame : Kellogg Institute, University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott. 1999. Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Stanford : Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Zoco, Edurne. 2007. Political Sequences and the Stabilization of Interparty Competition: Electoral Volatility in Old and New Democracies. Party Politics 13, 2: 155–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Torcal, Mariano. 2006. Party System Institutionalization and Party System Theory After the Third Wave of Democratization. In Handbook of Party Politics, ed. Katz, Richard S. and Crotty, William. London : Sage. 204–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Shugart, Matthew S.. 1997. Conclusion: Presidentialism and the Party System. In Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America, ed. Mainwaring, and Shugart, . New York : Cambridge University Press. 394–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Scully, Timothy. 1995. Introduction: Party Systems in Latin America. In Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America, ed. Mainwaring, and Scully, . Stanford : Stanford University Press. 1–34.Google Scholar
Panebianco, Angelo. 1988. Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Payne, Mark, Zovatto, Daniel, Flórez, Fernando Carrillo, and Zavala, Andrés Allamand. 2002. Democracies in Development: Politics and Reform in Latin America. Washington , DC : Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith. 2000. Non-Parametric Unfolding of Binary Choice Data. Political Analysis 8, 3: 211–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith. 2005. Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. New York : Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York : Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rice, Stuart. 1925. The Behavior of Legislative Groups. Political Science Quarterly 40, 1: 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Kenneth. 2006. Do Parties Matter? Lessons from the Peruvian Experience. In The Fujimori Legacy, ed. Carrión, Julio. University Park : Pennsylvania State University Press. 81–101.Google Scholar
Rosas, Guillermo. 2005. The Ideological Organization of Latin American Legislative Parties: an Empirical Analysis of Elite Policy Preferences. Comparative Political Studies 38, 7 (September): 824–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, David. 1999. Incentives to Cultivate a Party Vote in Candidate-Centric Electoral Systems: Evidence from Brazil. Comparative Political Studies 32, 4: 487–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Gregory D. 2007. Back to the Future? the 2006 Peruvian General Election. Electoral Studies 26: 813–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Thomas. 1989. Why Parties? Research Memorandum. Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles .Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew, and Carey, John. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Lewis. 2007. Politicians without Parties, Parties without Politicians: the Foibles of the Peruvian Political Class, 2000–2006. Bulletin of Latin American Research 26, 1: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thies, Michael. F. 2000. On the Primacy of Party in Government: Why Legislative Parties Can Survive Party Decline in the Electorate. In Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, ed. Dalton, Russell J. and Wattenberg, Martin P.. Oxford : Oxford University Press. 238–57.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton : Princeton University Press/Russell Sage Foundation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Economic Forum. Various dates. Global Competitiveness Report. Washington , DC : Inter-American Development Bank. http://www.iadb.org/datagob/index.html. Accessed January 2010.Google Scholar
Zucco, Cesar. 2009. Ideology or What? Legislative Behavior in Multiparty Presidential Settings. Journal of Politics 71, 3: 1076–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar