Gun Policy Processes and Interest Group Politics in Latin America

  • Diego Sanjurjo
Part of the International Series on Public Policy book series (ISPP)


This Chapter analyzes the agenda-setting and policy formation processes of the Brazilian Disarmament Statute (2003) and the Uruguayan Responsible Firearm Ownership Law (2014) from a comparative perspective. The use of the comparative method provides an explanation on which specific elements of each case study account for the dissimilar outcomes. This, in turn, allows drawing generalizations that can inform other gun policy processes in Latin America. The findings are not just relevant for policy scholars analyzing gun policies in the region but also for policy advocates and policy-makers working on gun violence and control. At last, the comparative study is used to evaluate the suitability of the MSF and its theoretical modifications to explain agenda and policy changes in the region. Based on this evaluation, the chapter ends with a discussion over the possibility that interest groups play an enhanced role in Latin American politics and over then implications that this might have for policy studies in the region.


Multiple streams framework Comparative method Interest groups Latin America 


  1. Agg, Catherine. 2006. “Trends in Government Support for Non-Governmental Organizations: Is the ‘Golden Age’ of the NGO Behind Us?” In Civil Society and Social Movements. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).Google Scholar
  2. Álvarez-Rivadulla, María José. 2015. “Squatters and Politics in Montevideo at the Turn of the Century.” In Handbook of Social Movements Across Latin America, edited by Paul Almeida and Allen Cordero Ulate, 205–20. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Álvarez Velasco, Carla. 2016. “Armas Pequeñas y Países Pequeños: Armas de Fuego En La Agenda de Seguridad Internacional.” Íconos. Revista de Ciencias Sociales 55: 139–59.Google Scholar
  4. Arce, Moisés. 2010. “Parties and Social Protest in Latin America’s Neoliberal Era.” Party Politics 16 (5): 669–86.Google Scholar
  5. Baqueiro, Alberto Hernández. 2016. “The Participation of Civil Society Organizations in Public Policies in Latin America.” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 27 (1): 86–104.Google Scholar
  6. Baumgartner, Frank R., Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, David C. Kimball, and Beth L. Leech. 2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Béland, Daniel, and Michael Howlett. 2016. “The Role and Impact of the Multiple-Streams Approach in Comparative Policy Analysis.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 18 (3): 221–27.Google Scholar
  8. Bentancur, Nicolás, and José Miguel Busquets. 2019. “La Izquierda Gobernante En Uruguay (2005–2015). Análisis de Un Experimento Democrático Participativo.” Latin American Perspectives 46 (1): 137–51.Google Scholar
  9. Bergara, Mario, Andrés Pereyra, Ruben Tansini, Adolfo Garcé, Daniel Chasquetti, Daniel Buquet, and Juan Andrés Moraes. 2006. “Political Institutions, Policymaking Processes, and Policy Outcomes: The Case of Uruguay.” Research Network Working Papers #R-510. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  10. Bidegain, Germán. 2017. “From Cooperation to Confrontation: The Mapuche Movement and Its Political Impact, 1990–2014.” In Social Movements in Chile: Organization, Trajectories, and Political Consequences, edited by Sofia Donoso and Marisa von Bülow, 99–129. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Brasil, Felipe Gonçalves, and Ana Cláudia Niedhardt Capella. 2017. “Translating Ideas into Action: Brazilian Studies of the Role of the Policy Entrepreneur in the Public Policy Process.” Policy and Society 36 (4): 504–22.Google Scholar
  12. Caetano, Gerardo, and Jose P. Rilla. 1992. “Raíces y Permanencias de La Partidocracia Uruguaya.” Secuencia 22: 143–72.Google Scholar
  13. Carey, John M., and Matthew Soberg Shugart. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies 14 (4): 417–39.Google Scholar
  14. Chasquetti, Daniel, and Daniel Buquet. 2004. “La Democracia En Uruguay: Una Partidocracia de Consenso.” Política 42 (Otoño): 221–47.Google Scholar
  15. Chen, Linda. 2018. “Corporatism Reconsidered: Howard J. Wiarda’s Legacy.” Polity 50 (4): 601–11.Google Scholar
  16. Collier, David. 1995. “Trajectory of a Concept: ‘Corporatism’ in the Study of Latin American Politics.” In Latin American Comparative Perspective, edited by Peter H. Smith, 135–62. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  17. Dahl, Robert A. 1961. Who Governs? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. DerGhougassian, Khatchik. 2011. “Las Armas Livianas En La Agenda Internacional y El Excepcionalismo Americano: Estados Unidos y América Latina En La Perspectiva Conceptual de La Seguritización.” Urvio, Revista Latinoamericana de Seguridad Ciudadana 10: 23–35.Google Scholar
  19. Dür, Andreas. 2008. “Interest Groups in the European Union: How Powerful Are They?” West European Politics 31 (6): 1212–30.Google Scholar
  20. Eissler, Rebecca, Annelise Russell, and Bryan D. Jones. 2014. “New Avenues for the Study of Agenda Setting.” Policy Studies Journal 42 (S1): 71–86.Google Scholar
  21. Gamboa, Ricardo, Carolina Segovia, and Octavio Avendaño. 2016. “Interest Groups and Policymaking: Evidence from Chile, 2006–2014.” Interest Groups and Advocacy 5 (2): 141–64.Google Scholar
  22. George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Goss, Kristin A. 2006. Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Greenwood, J., J. R. Grote, and K. Ronit, eds. 1992. Organized Interests and the European Community. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Gupta, Kuhika. 2012. “Comparative Public Policy: Using the Comparative Method to Advance Our Understanding of the Policy Process.” The Policy Studies Journal 40 (1): 11–26.Google Scholar
  26. Hagopian, Frances, Carlos Gervasoni, and Juan Andres Moraes. 2009. “From Patronage to Program: The Emergence of Party-Oriented Legislators in Brazil.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (3): 360–91.Google Scholar
  27. Hochstetler, Kathryn, and Elisabeth Jay Friedman. 2008. “Can Civil Society Organizations Solve the Crisis of Partisan Representation in Latin America?” Latin American Politics and Society 50 (2): 1–32.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, Diane E. 2008. “Continuity and Change in Argentine Interest Group Activity and Lobbying Practices.” Journal of Public Affairs 8: 83–97.Google Scholar
  29. Jones, Mark P. 2010. “Beyond the Electoral Connection: The Effect of Political Parties on the Policymaking.” In How Democracy Works: Political Institutions, Actors, and Arenas in Latin American Policymaking, edited by Carlos Scartascini, Ernesto Stein, and Mariano Tomassi, 19–46. Cambridge, MA: Inter-American Development Bank and David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies.Google Scholar
  30. Jordan, Grant, Darren Halpin, and William Maloney. 2004. “Defining Interests: Disambiguation and the Need for New Distinctions?” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6 (2): 195–212.Google Scholar
  31. Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy. 2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  32. Klimovich, Kristina, and Clive S. Thomas. 2014. “Power Groups, Interests and Interest Groups in Consolidated and Transitional Democracies: Comparing Uruguay and Costa Rica with Paraguay and Haiti.” Journal of Public Affairs 14 (3): 183–211.Google Scholar
  33. Kline, Harvey F., and Christine J. Wade. 2018. “The Latin American Tradition and Process of Development.” In Latin American Politics and Development, 9th ed., edited by Harvey F. Kline, J. Wade, Christine, and Howard J. Wiarda, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Knaggård, Åsa. 2016. “Framing the Problem: Knowledge-Brokers in the Multiple-Streams Framework.” In Decision-Making Under Ambiguity and Time Constraints: Assessing the Multiple-Streams Framework, edited by Reimut Zohlnhöfer and Friedbert W. Rüb, 111–23. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  35. LAPOP. 2014. The Political Culture of Democracy in the Americas, 2014: Democratic Governance Across 10 Years of the Americas Barometer. Nashville: USAID and Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  36. Lodge, Martin. 2007. “Comparative Public Policy.” In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods, edited by F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, and M. S. Sidney, 273–88. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mainwaring, Scott. 2018a. “Party System Institutionalization, Predictability, and Democracy.” In Party Systems in Latin America: Institutionalization, Decay, and Collapse, edited by Scott Mainwaring, 71–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2018b. “Party System Institutionalization in Contemporary Latin America.” In Party Systems in Latin America: Institutionalization, Decay, and Collapse, edited by Scott Mainwaring, 34–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mainwaring, Scott, and Timothy Scully. 1995. Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mendizabal, Enrique, and Norma Correa Aste, eds. 2011. Vínculos Entre Conocimiento y Política: El Rol de La Investigación En El Debate Público En América Latina. Diagnóstico y Propuesta. Lima: Consorcio de Investigación Económica y Social (CIES), Universidad del Pacífico.Google Scholar
  41. Moreira, Carlos. 2011. “Movimientos Populares y Luchas Sociales En Uruguay.” In Una Década En Movimiento: Luchas Populares En América Latina En El Amanecer Del Siglo XXI, edited by Massimo Modonesi and Julián Rebón, 107–23. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.Google Scholar
  42. O’Donnell, Guillermo A. 1977. “Corporatism and the Question of the State.” In Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America, edited by James Malloy, 47–88. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  43. ———. 1993. “Delegative Democracy?” (April). Kellogg Institute Working Paper No. 192.
  44. Oliveira Gozetto, Andréa Cristina, and Clive S. Thomas. 2014. “Interest Groups in Brazil: A New Era and Its Challenges.” Journal of Public Affairs 14 (3–4): 212–39.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 2017. “Public Affairs in Latin America: The Gradual and Uneven Formalization of a Long-Time Informal Activity.” In The SAGE Handbook of International Corporate and Public Affairs, edited by Phil Harris and Craig S. Fleisher, 405–21. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Randall, Vicky, and Lars Svåsand. 2002. “Introduction: The Contribution of Parties to Democracy and Democratic Consolidation.” Democratization 9 (3): 1–10.Google Scholar
  47. Rosenberg, Jonathan. 2004. “Entry 12.10: Latin America.” In Research Guide to U.S. and International Interest Groups, edited by Clive S. Thomas, 338–39. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Rozbicka, Patrycja, and Florian Spohr. 2016. “Interest Groups in Multiple Streams: Specifying Their Involvement in the Framework.” Policy Sciences 49 (1): 55–69.Google Scholar
  49. Sartori, Giovanni. 2005. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  50. Scartascini, Carlos. 2010. “Who’s Who in the PMP: An Overview of Actors, Incentives, and the Roles They Play.” In Policymaking in Latin America: How Politics Shapes Policies, edited by Carlos Scartascini, Pablo Spiller, Ernesto Stein, and Mariano Tommasi, 29–65. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank and David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies.Google Scholar
  51. Schlager, Edella. 2007. “A Comparison of Frameworks, Theories and Models of the Policy Process.” In Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd ed., edited by Paul A. Sabatier, 293–319. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  52. Schmitter, Philippe C. 1974. “Still the Century of Corporatism?” The Review of Politics 36 (1): 85–131.Google Scholar
  53. Sousa Braga, Maria do Socorro, Pedro Floriano Ribeiro, and Oswaldo E. Do Amaral. 2016. “El Sistema de Partidos En Brasil: Estabilidad e Institucionalización (1982–2014).” In Los Sistemas de Partidos En América Latina 1978–2015: Cono Sur y Países Andinos - Tomo 2, edited by Flavia Freidenberg, 69–133. Ciudad de México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
  54. Thomas, Clive S., and Kristina Klimovich. 2014. “Power Groups, Interests and Interest Groups in Latin America: A New Era or More of the Same?” Journal of Public Affairs 14 (3): 392–422.Google Scholar
  55. ———. 2017. “Three Case Studies from Latin America: A Living Museum of Government Affairs.” In The SAGE Handbook of International Corporate and Public Affairs, edited by Phil Harris and Craig S. Fleisher, 585–600. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Truman, David. 1951. The Governmental Process. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
  57. UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime). n.d. “UNODC Statistics Online: Intentional Homicide Victims.” Accessed November 1, 2018.
  58. Wiarda, Howard J. 1999. “Toward Consensus in Interpreting Latin American Politics: Developmentalism, Dependency, and ‘The Latin American Tradition.’” Studies in Comparative International Development 34 (2): 50–69.Google Scholar
  59. Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 2015. “The Shield of Heracles: Multiple Streams and the Emotional Endowment Effect.” European Journal of Political Research 54 (3): 466–81.Google Scholar
  60. Zahariadis, Nikolaos, and Christopher S. Allen. 1995. “Ideas, Networks, and Policy Streams: Privatization in Britain and Germany.” Review of Policy Research 14 (1–2): 71–98.Google Scholar
  61. Zohlnhöfer, Reimut, and Friedbert W. Rüb. 2016. “Introduction: Policy-Making Under Ambiguity and Time Constraints.” In Decision-Making Under Ambiguity and Time Constraints: Assessing the Multiple-Streams Framework, edited by Reimut Zohlnhöfer and Friedbert W. Rüb, 2–17. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diego Sanjurjo
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Political ScienceUniversity of the Republic (UdelaR)MontevideoUruguay

Personalised recommendations