Advertisement

Party Switching in Brazil: Causes, Effects, and Representation

  • Scott Desposato
Chapter

Abstract

Brazil has a long history of frequent party switching by sitting legislators. Although there are other countries with higher rates of switching, most are transitioning democracies with evolving party systems. In such contexts, switching goes hand in hand with less-developed party brands, weaker voter partisan attachments, and evolving norms and procedures of recruitment and hierarchy. The Brazilian case appears to represent a stable long-term equilibrium, with fairly steady rates of switching over the last 20 years: approximately one-third of deputies have switched in each legislature since democratization. Table 5.1 shows switching rates in the last several legislatures. During the 49th legislature (1991–1994), there were 262 incidents of switching, for an average switching rate of .52 per legislator-term. That figure slips slightly to .41 in the second period, and rises to .51 in the third.1 Switching was prohibited for most of Brazil’s authoritarian period (1964–1985), but scholars of previous periods have noted high rates of switching in the 1960s and even as far back as the 1800s (Graham, 1990): Switching apparently was common during the Second Republic (1946–1964), and there is evidence as well of frequent switching during the First Republic (1889–1930).

Keywords

Ideal Point Private Good Party System Party Affiliation Party Membership 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

5.6 References

  1. Abrúcio, Fernando. 1998. Os Barões da Federação: Os Governadores e a Redemocratização Brasileira. São Paulo: Editora Hucitec.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldrich, John H., and William T. Bianco. 1992. A Game-Theoretic Model of Party Affiliation of Candidates and Office Holders. Mathematical Computer Modeling 16(8-9): 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ames, Barry. 1995a. Electoral Rules, Constituency Pressures, and Pork Barrel: Bases of Voting in the Brazilian Congress. Journal of Politics 57(May): 324–343.Google Scholar
  5. Ames, Barry. 1995b. Electoral Strategy under Open-List Proportional Representation. American Journal of Political Science 39(May): 406–433.Google Scholar
  6. Ames, Barry. 2001. The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  7. Amorim Neto, Octavio. 1998. Of Presidents, Parties, and Ministers: Cabinet Formation and Legislative Decision-Making Under Separation of Powers. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  8. Beck, Nathaniel, Jonathan N. Katz, and Richard Tucker. 1999. Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable. American Journal of Political Science 42(October): 1260–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ben-Akiva, Moshe, and Steven R. Lerman 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Carey, John M., and Matthew Soberg Shugart. 1995. Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas. Electoral Studies 14(December): 417–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Desposato, Scott W. 2006. The Impact of Party Switching on Legislative Behavior in Brazil. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  12. Glasgow, Garrett. 2001. Mixed Logit Models for Multiparty Elections. Political Analysis 9(Spring): 116–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham, Richard. 1990. Patronage and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Brazil. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Heller, William B., and Carol Mershon. 2005. Party Switching in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 1996–2001. Journal of Politics 67(May): 536–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heller, William B., and Carol Mershon. 2008. Dealing in Discipline: Party Switching and Legislative Voting in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 1988–2000. American Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 910–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keck, Margaret E. 1995. The Workers’ Party and Democratization in Brazil. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Leal, Victor N. 1977. Coronelismo: The Municipality and Representative Government in Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Londregan, J. B. 2002. Appointment, Reelection, and Autonomy in the Senate of Chile. In Legislative Politics in Latin America, ed. Scott Morgenstern and Benito Nacif, 341–376. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Number 7 in Advanced Quantititative Techniques in the Social Sciences Series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Maddala, G. S. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mainwaring, Scott. P. 1997. Multipartism, Robust Federalism, and Presidentialism in Brazil. In Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America, ed. Scott P. Mainwaring and Matthew Soberg Shugart, 55–109. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mainwaring, Scott. P. 1999. Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. McFadden, Daniel. 1973. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics, ed. Paul Zarembka, 105–142. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  24. Mershon, Carol, and Olga Shvetsova. 2008a. Parliamentary Cycles and Party Switching in Legislatures. Comparative Political Studies 41(1): 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mershon, Carol, and Olga Shvetsova. 2008b. Party Switching in Sitting Parliaments and the Midterm Effect. Annual Joint Sessions of the European Consortium for Political Research, Rennes, France.Google Scholar
  26. Pereira, Carlos, and Bernardo Mueller. 2004. The Cost of Governing: Strategic Behavior of the President and Legislators in Brazil’s Budgetary Process. Comparative Political Studies 37(7): 781–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Samuels, David. 2003. Ambition, Federalism, and Legislative Politics in Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Samuels, David. 2006. Sources of Mass Partisanship in Brazil. Latin American Politics and Society 48(Summer): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schneider, Aaron. 2001. Federalism against Markets: Local Struggles for Power and National Fiscal Adjustment in Brazil. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  31. Snyder Jr., James M., and Michael M. Ting. 2001. An Informational Rationale for Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science 46(January): 90–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© William B. Heller and Carol Mershon 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Desposato

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations