The Institutional Determinants of Political Transactions (original) (raw)
Related papers
Policymaking in Latin America, How Politics Shape Policies
What determines the capacity of countries to design, approve, and implement effective public policies? To address this question, this book builds on the results of case studies of political institutions, policymaking processes, and policy outcomes in eight Latin American countries, structured around a common methodology with foundations in game theory and institutional analysis. The result is a volume that benefits from both micro detail on the intricacies of policymaking in individual countries and a broad cross-country interdisciplinary analysis of policymaking processes in the region.
Political Institutions, Actors, and Arenas in Latin American Policymaking
2010
In the past thirty years, democratic freedom and competitive electoral processes have taken hold as never before in Latin America. is book zeroes in on the intricate workings of democratic institutions, the actors that participate in democratic systems, and the arenas in which political and policy interactions take place in Latin America. e focus is on how those institutions, actors, and arenas a ect the policymaking processes (PMP) of Latin American countries for better or worse.
Determinantes institucionales de transacciones políticas
2007
Public policies are the outcome of the interaction among a variety of key political actors, each with its own preferences and incentives, who meet in different arenas and interact within the constraints of the institutions that frame their engagement. Therefore, to recognize the reasons behind the success or failure of any public policy it is necessary to understand the country's political institutions and the policymaking process they in turn help shape.
How Democracy Works. Political Institutions, Actors, and Arenas in Latin American Policymaking
Over the past 30 years, democratic freedoms and competitive electoral processes have taken hold as never before in Latin America. How Democracy Works takes a detailed look, from an institutional perspective, at each of the main actors on the policymaking stage in Latin America, emphasizing the extent to which institutions facilitate or hinder intertemporal political cooperation and compromise. It analyzes official political actors and arenas, as well as a number of societal actors, and explores the (formal) roles of these players, their incentives, capabilities, and the way in which they actually engage in the policymaking game. The conclusion: these political institutions and actors matter for policymaking in Latin America and leave an indelible imprint on the policy process and the resulting policies.
Political Institutions, Policymaking, and Policy Stability in Latin America
Latin American Politics and …, 2011
In some Latin American nations, policy change occurs frequently, while in others it is stable, less prone to shifts with the prevailing political climate or shocks. The conditions under which institutional rules and the powers of key actors influence the capacity for governance vary, and this variation is seldom addressed in the literature. This project examines the effects of the interactions between key policymakers (the executive and the legislature) in Latin America on policy stability across different institutional frameworks. Countries with simultaneously strong executives and weak legislatures are shown to have unstable policy environments, as are countries with a history of unified government and, to a lesser extent, candidate-centered electoral systems.
How (Not) to Produce Effective Policies? Institutions and Policymaking in Latin America
The Oxford Handbook of Latin American Political Economy
Analysts and practitioners have always searched for policy recipes to solve the economic and social problems of developing countries. The last "universal recipe" recommended and adopted throughout Latin America were the market-oriented reforms of the 1990s. The varied and less-than-stellar performance that ensued have redirected intellectual attention. The so called "Washington Consensus" has lost its intellectual appeal and has been replaced by a number of initiatives, none of which has completely gained center stage. Perhaps one of the most respected lines of reasoning is the one pioneered by Dani Rodrik and others, which calls for "home-made" as opposed to universal solutions: identify the most binding constraints to development in your country, experiment with policy or institutional innovations to see what works for you, and adjust accordingly. 1 Both the old style policy recipes and the new more eclectic approach place a heavy burden of responsibility on the countries' capacity to develop and implement complex public policies.
2004
Este artículo caracteriza la evolución del proceso de elaboración de políticas (PMP) en Paraguay durante el período 1954-2003. El siguiente trabajo ofrece una perspectiva general del PMP durante la dictadura de Alfredo Stroessner (1954-89) y explora el contexto institucional resultante a partir de 1989. Tras analizar la fragmentación del partido Colorado, se describen los patrones característicos de la elaboración de políticas surgidas con la Constitución de 1992. Se sostiene como hipótesis que la presencia de un amplio número de jugadores con capacidad de veto ha dificultado el cambio y que los legisladores tienden a promover políticas particularistas. Para poner a prueba tal supuesto, utiliza una base de datos que contiene los proyectos de ley ingresados al Congreso desde abril de 1992. Las conclusiones sugieren que el proceso político paraguayo puede ser flexible para generar beneficios particularistas y rígido a la hora de realizar amplias transformaciones de tipo regulatorio o redistributivo.
Political Institutions, Policymaking Processes, and Policy Outcomes: The Case of Uruguay
… Processes and Policy …, 2004
Uruguay generates different kinds of policy outcomes. First, relatively stable policies, such as the commercial and financial openness of the country. Second, inflexible and low quality policies, such as those related to social policies, some areas of the State reform (civil servants' wages and hiring mechanisms), the bankruptcy regime, and so on. Third, volatile outcomes across economic shocks, such as the discretionary public spending side. In the cases in which history or the availability of external enforcement devices do not lead to relatively stable policies, the main outer feature of Uruguayan policies is rigidity. The source of rigidity appears to be a mixture of institutional factors (multiple veto points, factionalized parties and direct democracy mechanisms) and political conflict (divergent policy preferences), in which it is very costly to move from the status quo, due to the credible threat of policy reversal. Political institutions in Uruguay are conducive to political compromise with a short run perspective, but not to effective cooperation about stable and flexible policies in the long run. The difficulty to achieve intertemporal political exchanges is consistent with the main characteristics of the political environment: large number of key political actors and veto points, a relevant amount of unobservable political moves, poor enforcement technologies in the economic arena, politically influenced bureaucracy, political exchanges occuring outside the legislative arena, a particular constellation of parties and preferences, and costly policymaking and institutional change.