Comparative Political Elites

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20928-9_1269

Synonyms

Elites; Latin America; Leadership; Power and politics

Definition

Political elite members are individuals who influence or make political decisions that have consequences at the national level. De jure elite members control the top positions in the three powers of the state, while de facto members exercise influence from the shadows, based on their prominent role in society. Political elites vary across countries in their number, recruitment, circulation, integration, and diversity.

Section

Public Administration and Policy in Latin America.

Introduction

In 1976, Robert Putnam complained that the comparative study of elites remained overly theoretical, with few studies conducting empirical analyses. Such description is currently untenable. In the last decades, research on comparative elites has observed a notorious increase in the number of studies using longitudinal elite surveys and quantitative techniques to analyze data for different regions. Latin Americanists have followed...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

FONDECYT Project N°3160357 generously funded this research.

References

  1. Albala A (2016) Élites políticas de América Latina: una agenda de investigación abierta. Colombia Internacional 87:13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich JH (1995) Why parties?: the origin and transformation of political parties in America. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arana Araya I (2012) ¿Quién le susurra al presidente? Asesores vs. ministros en América Latina. Política 50(2):33–61Google Scholar
  4. Arana Araya I (2016) The quest for uncontested power: how presidents’ personality traits leads to constitutional change in the western hemisphere. Doctoral dissertation, University of PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett WJ (2004) Presidential leadership: rating the best and the worst in the White House. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Blondel J, Müller-Rommel F (2007) Political elites. In: The Oxford handbook of political behavior. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Burton M, Higley J (2001) The study of political elite transformations. Int Rev Sociol 11(2):181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camerlo M (2014) The ministers of the president, 1983–2013. In: The selection of ministers around the world. Routledge, London, p 223Google Scholar
  9. Codato A, Costa LD, Massimo L (2014) Classificando ocupações prévias à entrada na política: uma discussão metodológica e um teste empírico. Opinião Pública 20(3):346–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corral M (2011) The state of democracy in Latin America: a comparative analysis of the attitudes of elites and citizens. Boletín PNUD and Instituto de Iberoamérica 1:1–13Google Scholar
  11. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992) Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: the NEO Personality Inventory. Psychol Assess 4(1):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox GW, Morgenstern S (2001) Latin America’s reactive assemblies and proactive presidents. Comp Polit 33:171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahl RA (1973) Polyarchy: participation and opposition. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahl RA (2005) Who governs?: democracy and power in an American city. Yale University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Dávila M, Olivares Lavados A, Avendaño O (2013) Los gabinetes de la Concertación en Chile (1990–2010). América Latina Hoy 64:67–94Google Scholar
  16. Diamond LJ (1996) Is the third wave over? J Democr 7(3):20–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dye TR (2002) Who’s running America? The Bush restoration. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  18. Elms AC (1997) Uncovering lives: the uneasy alliance of biography and psychology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Galton F (1869) Hereditary genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences, vol 27. Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldberg LR (1990) An alternative “description of personality”: the big-five factor structure. J Pers Soc Psychol 59(6):1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Higley J, Burton MG (1989) The elite variable in democratic transitions and breakdowns. Am Sociol Rev 54:17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Higley J, Gunther R (eds) (1992) Elites and democratic consolidation in Latin America and Southern Europe. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Higley J, Deacon D, Smart D (1979) Elites in Australia. Routledge/K. Paul, London/BostonGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoffmann-Lange U (2007) Methods of elite research. In: The oxford handbook of political behavior. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobs LR, Shapiro RY (2000) Politicians don’t pander: political manipulation and the loss of democratic responsiveness. University of Chicago Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones MP (2002) Legislator behavior and executive-legislative relations in Latin America. Lat Am Res Rev 37:176–188Google Scholar
  27. Keller SI (1991) Beyond the ruling class: strategic elites in modern society. Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  28. Kitschelt H (1999) Post-communist party systems: competition, representation, and inter-party cooperation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lerner R, Nagai AK, Rothman S (1996) American elites. Yale University Press, New HeavenGoogle Scholar
  30. Lipset S, Solari E (1967) Elites in Latin America. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. López-Pintor R (1987) Mass and elite perspectives in the process of transition to democracy. In: Baloyra EA (ed) Comparing new democracies. Westview press, Boulder, pp 79–106Google Scholar
  32. Luna JP, Zechmeister EJ (2005) Political representation in Latin America: a study of elite-mass congruence in nine countries. Comp Pol Stud 38(4):388–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McDonough P (2014) Power and ideology in Brazil. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyer MA, Booker JM (2001) Eliciting and analyzing expert judgment: a practical guide. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Michels R (1915) Political parties: a sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. Hearst’s International Library Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Mosca G (1896) Elementi di scienza politica. Fratelli Bocca, RomeGoogle Scholar
  37. O’donnell G, Schmitter PC (1986) Transitions from authoritarian rule: tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. JHU Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  38. Pareto V (1900) Un’Applicazione di teorie sociologiche. Librairie Droz, Genéve, pp 178–238Google Scholar
  39. Putnam RD (1976) The comparative study of political elites. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosas G (2005) The ideological organization of Latin American legislative parties: an empirical analysis of elite policy preferences. Comp Pol Stud 38(7):824–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Róvira Kaltwasser C (2009) Towards a historical analysis of elites in Latin America. In 21st world congress of political science, Santiago, Chile, pp 12–16Google Scholar
  42. Schumpeter J (1942/2008) Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Simonton DK (1986) Presidential personality: biographical use of the Gough Adjective Check List. J Pers Soc Psychol 51(1):149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Song AV, Simonton DK (2007) Personality assessment at a distance. Handbook of research methods in personality psychology. Guilford, New York, pp 308–321Google Scholar
  45. Stein AJ (1998) The consequences of the Nicaraguan revolution for political tolerance: explaining differences among the mass public, Catholic priests, and secular elites. Comp Polit 30:335–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stein E, Tommasi M, Scartascini C, Spiller P (2008) Policymaking in Latin America. How politics shapes policies, IADB. Harvard University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Stevens D, Bishin BG, Barr RR (2006) Authoritarian attitudes, democracy, and policy preferences among Latin American elites. Am J Polit Sci 50(3):606–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Suedfeld P, Corteen RS, McCormick C (1986) The role of integrative complexity in military leadership: Robert E. Lee and his opponents. J Appl Soc Psychol 16(6):498–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sullivan JL, Walsh P, Shamir M, Barnum DG, Gibson JL (1993) Why politicians are more tolerant: selective recruitment and socialization among political elites in Britain, Israel, New Zealand and the United States. Br J Polit Sci 23(1):51–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tsebelis G, Alemán E (2005) Presidential conditional agenda setting in Latin America. World Polit 57(3):396–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Winter DG, Carlson LA (1988) Using motive scores in the psychobiographical study of an individual: the case of Richard Nixon. J Pers 56(1):75–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zuvanic L, Iacoviello M, Gusta ALR (2010) The weakest link: the bureaucracy and civil service systems in Latin America. In: Scartascini C, Stein E, Tommasi M (eds) How democracy works: political institutions, actors, and arenas in Latin American policymaking. David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard University, Cambridge, pp 147–176Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Ciencia PolíticaPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile