Palavras-chave
Como Citar
Resumo
Los sistemas de partidos institucionalizados pueden convivir con una alta incongruencia programática entre élite y ciudadanía. Por el contrario, sistemas de partidos menos institucionalizados podrían estar en la posición de generar una mayor congruencia programática. Analizamos esta aparente anomalía en el Cono Sur de América Latina, comparando Argentina, Chile y Uruguay. Metodológicamente, utilizamos tres medidas de congruencia: promedios, comparación de distribuciones (many to many), distancia entre los votantes y un representante típico (many to one). Sobre esta última medida diseñamos modelos de regresión múltiple para identificar las variables que predicen mayor congruencia. Concluimos que en sistemas estables las preferencias electorales se mantienen a pesar de la distancia entre élite y votantes en algunos ejes de competencia, siendo Uruguay el caso más representativo.
Referências
ACHEN, C. “Measuring representation: perils of the correlation coefficient”. American Journal of Political Science, vol. 21, n° 4, 1977.
ACHEN, C. “Measuring representation”. American Journal of Political Science, vol. 22, n° 3, 1978.
ADAMS, J. Party competition and responsible party government. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001.
AMES, B.; SMITH, E. “Knowing left from right: ideological identification in Brazil, 2002-2006”. Journal of Politics in Latin America, vol. 3, nº 2, 2010.
BELCHIOR, A. “Ideological congruence among European political parties”. The Journal of Legislative Studies, vol. 16, n°1, 2010.
BLAIS, A.; BODET, M. “Does proportional representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policymakers?”. Comparative Political Studies, vol. 36, 2006.
BUQUET, D.; SELIOS, L. Political congruence in Uruguay. In: FUENTES, C.; JOIGNANT, A.; MORALES, M. (eds.). Malaise in representation in Latin American countries: Chile, Uruguay and Argentina. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2017.
DALTON, J. “Political parties and political representation: party supporters and party elites in nine nations”. Comparative Political Studies, vol. 18, nº 3, 1985.
ESPAÑA-NÁJERA, A.; MARTÍNEZ, M. “Political representation in Central America”. Latin Americas Studies Association Congress, 2010.
GIGER, N.; AINA, G.; LEFKOFRIDI, Z. “Ideological congruence and voter tournout”. Conferencia Tag der Politikwissenschaft, 2011.
GOLDER, M.; LLOYD, G. “Re-evaluating the relationship between electoral rules and ideological congruence”. European Journal of Political Research, vol. 53, nº 1, 2014.
GOLDER, M.; STRAMSKI, J. “Ideological congruence and electoral institutions”. American Journal of Political Science, vol. 54, n° 1, 2010.
HAWKINS, K.; MORGENSTERN, S. “Cohesion of legislators in Latin America: patterns and explanations”. Latin Americas Studies Association Congress, 2000.
HUBER, J.; POWELL, B. “Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy”. World Politics, vol. 46, nº 3, 1994.
KITSCHELT, H. “Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities”. Comparative Political Studies, vol. 33, n° 6, 2000.
KITSCHELT, H., et al. Post-communist party systems: competition, representation, and inter-party cooperation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
KITSCHELT, H., et al. Latin American party systems. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
LEVINE, D.; MOLINA, J. “La calidad de la democracia en América Latina: una visión comparada”. América Latina Hoy, vol. 45, 2007.
LEVINE, D.; MOLINA, J. The quality of democracy in Latin America. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2011.
LUNA, J. “Representación política en América Latina: el estado de la cuestión y una propuesta de agenda”. Política y Gobierno, vol. 14, n° 2, 2007.
LUNA, J.; ZECHMEISTER, E. “The quality of representation in Latin America: a study of elite-mass congruence in nine countries”. Comparative Political Studies, vol. 38, n° 4, 2005.
LUNA, J.; ZECHMEISTER, E. “Political representation in Latin America”. In: KITSCHELT, H., et al. (eds.). Latin American party systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
LUPU, N.; WERNER, Z. “Mass-elite congruence and representation in Argentina”. In: FUENTES, C.; JOIGNANT, A.; MORALES, M. (eds.). Malaise in representation in Latin American Countries: Chile, Uruguay and Argentina. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2017.
MAGAR, E.; ROSENBLUM, M.; SAMUELS, D. “On the absence of centripetal incentives in double-member districts. The case of Chile”. Comparative Political Studies, vol. 31, n° 6, 1998.
MAINWARING, S.; SCULLY, T. “La institucionalización de los sistemas de partidos en América Latina”. Revista de Ciencia Política, vol. 17, n° 1, 1995.
MAINWARING, S.; TORCAL, M. “La institucionalización de los sistemas de partidos y la teoría del sistema partidista después de la tercera ola democratizadora”. América Latina Hoy, vol. 41, 2005.
MILLER, W.; STOKES, D. “Constituency influence in Congress”. American Political Science Review, vol. 57, nº 1, 1963.
MORALES, M. “Congruencia programática entre partidos y votantes en Chile”. Perfiles Latinoamericanos, vol. 22, nº 44, 2014.
MORGAN, D. “Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained”. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, vol. 1, n° 1, 2007.
NAVIA, P. “La transformación de votos en escaños: leyes electorales en Chile, 1833-2004”. Política y Gobierno, vol. 12, n° 2, 2005.
O’DONNELL, G. “Delegative democracy”. Journal of Democracy, vol. 5, n° 1, 1994.
PAYNE, M., et al. ¿La política importa? Democracia y desarrollo en América Latina. Washington: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, 2003.
PITKIN, H. The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.
POWELL, B. “Experimental analysis of the social value of flocking by starlings (sturnus vulgaris) in relation to predation and foraging”. Animal Behaviour, vol. 22, nº 2, 1974.
POWELL, B. Elections as instruments of democracy: majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001.
POWELL, B. “Political representation in comparative politics”. Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 7, nº 1, 2004.
POWELL, B. “The ideological congruence controversy: the impact of alternatives measures, data, and time series periods on the effects of election rules”. Comparative Political Studies, vol. 42, nº 12, 2009.
PRZEWORSKI, A.; ORTEGA, J.; GORDON, S. “Una defensa de la concepción minimalista de la democracia”. Revista Mexicana de Sociología, vol. 59, n° 3, 1997.
MARIO HERRERA; MAURICIO MORALES OPINIÃO PÚBLICA, Campinas, vol. 24, nº 2, maio-agosto, 2018 425
PRZEWORSKI, A.; STOKES, S.; BERNARD, M. Democracy, accountability and representation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
SCHMITT, H.; THOMASSEN, J. (eds.). Political representation and legitimacy in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
SIAVELIS, P. “Enclaves de la transición y la democracia chilena”. Revista de Ciencia Política, vol. 29, n° 1, 2009.
STOKES, S. Mandates and democracy: neoliberalism by surprise in Latin America. Cambridge University Press: New York, 2001.
WARWICK, P. “The ideological congruence illusion: the impact of violence”. Legislative Studies Quarterly, vol. 41, n° 1, 2016.
WESSELS, B. “System characteristics matter: empirical evidence from ten representation studies”. In: MILLER, W.; PIERCE, R.; THOMASSEN, J. (eds.). Policy representation in Western democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
WEYLAND, K. “Neoliberalism and democracy in Latin America: a mixed record”. Latin American Politics and Society, vol. 46, n° 1, 2004.
A Opinião Pública utiliza a licença do Creative Commons (CC), preservando assim, a integridade dos artigos em ambiente de acesso aberto.
Downloads
