Associations, active citizenship, and the quality of democracy in Brazil and Mexico (original) (raw)

Abstract

In many Third Wave democracies large classes of people experience diminished forms of citizenship. The systematic exclusion from mandated public goods and services significantly injures the citizenship and life chances of entire social groups. In democratic theory civil associations have a fundamental role to play in reversing this reality. One strand of theory, known as civic engagement, suggests that associations empower their members to engage in public politics, hold state officials to account, claim public services, and thereby improve the quality of democracy. Empirical demonstration of the argument is surprisingly rare, however, and limited to affluent democracies. In this article, we use original survey data for two large cities in Third Wave democracies-São Paulo and Mexico City-to explore this argument in a novel way. We focus on the extent to which participation in associations (or associationalism) increases "active citizenship"-the effort to negotiate directly with state agents access to goods and services legally mandated for public provision, such as healthcare, sanitation, and security-rather than civic engagement, which encompasses any voluntary and public spirited activity. We examine separately associationalism's impact on the quality of citizenship, a dimension that varies independently from the level of active citizenship, by assessing differences in the types of citizenship practices individuals use to obtain access to vital goods and services. To interpret the findings, and identify possible causal pathways, the paper moves back-and-forth between two major research traditions that are rarely brought into dialogue: civic engagement and comparative historical studies of democratization.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (83)

  1. Abel, R. L. (1981). Law in context, the sociology of legal institutions, litigation in society. In R. Luckham (Ed.), Law and social enquiry. New York: International Center for Law and Development.
  2. Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes in five nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  3. Anheier, H. K., & Salamon, L. M. (1998). The nonprofit sector in the developing world. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  4. Armony, A. C. (2007). Fields of citizenship. In J. S. Tulchin & M. Rutherburg (Eds.), Citizenship in Latin America. Boulder: Lynn Rienner.
  5. Avritzer, L. (2002). Democracy and the public space in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  6. Bane, M. J. (2005). The catholic puzzle: Parishes and civic life. In M. J. Bane, B. Coffin, & R. Higgins (Eds.), Taking faith seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  7. Booth, J. A., & Seligson, M. A. (2009). The legitimacy puzzle in Latin America: Political support and democracy in eight nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Bound, J., Brown, C., & Mathiowetz, N. (2001). Measurement error in survey data. In J. J. Heckman & E. Leamer (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics, vol. 5. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
  9. Bratton, M., Mattes, R., & Gyimah-Boadi, E. (2005). Public opinion, democracy and market reform in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Clemens, E. S. (1993). Organizational repertoires and institutional change: women's groups and the transformation of American politics, 1890-1920. American Journal of Sociology, 98(4), 755-798.
  11. Collier, R. B. (1999). Paths toward democracy: The working class and elites in Western Europe and South America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Collier, D., & Collier, R. B. (1991). Shaping the political arena: Critical junctures, the labor movement, and regime dynamics in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  13. Comin, A. A. (2003). Mudanças na estrutura ocupacional do mercado de trabalho em São Paulo. Doctoral dissertation, University of São Paulo.
  14. Dagnino, E. (2003). Sociedade Civil e Espaços Públicos no Brasil. In E. Dagnino (Ed.), Sociedade Civil e Espaços Públicos no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. Paz e Terra.
  15. Dagnino, E. (2007). Dimensions of citizenship in contemporary Brazil. Fordham Law Review, 75(5), 2469-2482.
  16. Dalton, R. J. (2006). Citizen politics: Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies (4th ed.). Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.
  17. Davis, D. E. (2006). Undermining the rule of law: democratization and the dark side of police reform in Mexico. Latin American Politics & Society, 48(1), 55-86.
  18. Deaton, A. S. (1997). The analysis of household surveys: A microeconometric approach to development policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  19. Dehejia, R., & Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for non-experimental causal studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 151-161.
  20. Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  21. Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (Eds.). (2005). Assessing the quality of democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  22. Diomo, A. M. (1995). A Vez e Voz do Popular: Movimentos Sociais e Participação Política no Brasil Pós-70. Rio de Janeiro: ANPOCS/Relume Dumará.
  23. Durand Ponte, V. M. (2004). Ciudadanía y cultura política: México 1993-2001. Mexico DF: Siglo veintiuno.
  24. Foweraker, J., & Landman, T. (1997). Citizenship rights and social movements: A comparative statistical analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  25. Fox, J. A. (1994). The difficult transition from clientelism to citizenship: lessons from Mexico. World Politics, 46(2), 151-184.
  26. Friedman, J., & Hochstetler, K. (2002). Assessing the third transition in Latin American democratization: representational regimes and civil society in Argentina and Brazil. Comparative Politics, 35(1), 21-42.
  27. Fung, A. (2003). Associations and democracy: between theories, hopes, and realities. American Review of Sociology, 29, 515-539.
  28. Garth, B. G., & Sarat, A. (Eds.). (1998). How does law matter? (Volume 3, Fundamental issues in Law and Society Research. Evanston: Northwestern University Press and the American Bar Foundation.
  29. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT.
  30. Gurza Lavalle, A., Houtzager, P. P., & Acharya, A. K. (2005). Beyond comparative anecdotalism: how civil and political organizations shape participation in São Paulo, Brazil. World Development, 33(6), 951-961.
  31. Harriss, J. (2005). Political participation, representation and the urban-poor: Findings from research in Delhi. Economic and Political Weekly, 1041-1054. March 12.
  32. Heckman, J. (1990). Varieties of selection bias. American Economic Review, 80, 313-318.
  33. Heller, P. (2009). Democratic deepening in India and South Africa. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 44(1), 123-149.
  34. Heller, P., Harilal, K. N., & Chaudhuri, S. (2007). Building local democracy: evaluating the impact of decentralization in Kerala, India. World Development, 35(4), 626-648.
  35. Holston, J. (2007). Insurgent citizenship: Disjunctions of democracy and modernity in Brazil. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  36. Houtzager, P. P., & Gurza Lavalle, A. (2010). Civil society's claims to political representation in Brazil. Studies in Comparative International Development, 45(1), 1-29.
  37. Hunt, A. (1993). Explorations in law and society: Toward a constitutive theory of law. New York: Routledge. IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). (1996). Pesquisa mensal de emprego: abril de 1996. Associativismo, representação de interesses e participação política. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.
  38. IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). (2001). Censo Demográfico 2000: Características da população e dos domicílios: Resultados do universo. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.
  39. INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática), (2003). Encuesta Nacional sobre Cultura Política y Prácticas Ciudadanas, 2003. Mexico City: INEGI and SEGOB.
  40. Jha, S., Rao, V., & Woolcock, M. (2007). Governance in the gullies: democratic responsiveness and leadership in Delhi Slums. World Development, 35(2), 230-246.
  41. Krishna, A. (2006). Do poor people care less for democracy? Testing individual-level assumptions with individual-level data from India. Paper presented at the Workshop on Poverty and Democracy, Duke University, February 17-18, 2006.
  42. Kymlicka, W., & Norma, W. (1994). Return of the citizen: a survey of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics, 104(2), 352-381.
  43. Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  44. Locke, R., & Thelen, K. (1995). Apples and oranges revisited: contextualized comparisons and the study of labor politics. Politics and Society, 23(3), 337-367.
  45. Lomnitz, C. (2001). Deep Mexico, silent Mexico: an anthropology of nationalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  46. Mathiowetz, N. A. (2000). The effect of length of recall on the quality of survey data. Paper presented at the Fourth Conference on Methodological Issues in Official Statistics, Stockholm, Sweden.
  47. McAdam, D. (1999). Political process and the development of black insurgency, 1930-1970 (2nd ed.). Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
  48. McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1996). Comparative perspectives on social movements: political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  49. McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  50. Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  51. Méndez, J. E., O'Donnell, G., & Pinheiro, P. S. (Eds.). (1999). The (Un)rule of law and the underprivileged in Latin America. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
  52. Narayanan, S. (2005). A certain Bangalore: Associational activity in a globalizing Indian City. Unpublished project paper, "Rights, Representation and the Poor," Institute of Development Studies, UK.
  53. O'Donnell, G. (1993). On the state, democratization, and some conceptual problems: a latin american view with glances at some postcommunist countries. World Development, 21, 1355-1369.
  54. O'Donnell, G. (1994). Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5(1), 55-69.
  55. O'Donnell, G. (2005). Why the rule of law matters. In L. Diamond & L. Morlino (Eds.), Assessing the quality of democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  56. Olvera, A. (Ed.). (2003). Sociedad civil, esfera pública y democratización en América Latina: México. Mexico: Universidad Veracruzana-Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  57. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1966). Equivalence in cross-national research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 30(4), 551-568.
  58. Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  59. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  60. Roberts, K. (2002). Party-society linkages and democratic representation in Latin America. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 27(53), 9-34.
  61. Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity. American Statistician, 75(371), 591-593.
  62. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Longman.
  63. Rueschemeyer, D., Stephens, E. H., & Stephens, J. D. (1992). Capitalist development and democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press, and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  64. Santos, B. (1987). Law-a map of misreading: towards a postmodern conception of law. Law and Society, 14(1), 279-302.
  65. Santos, B. (1995). Toward a new common sense: law, science and politics in the paradigmatic transition (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
  66. Schmitter, P. C. (2004). The ambiguous virtues of accountability. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 47-60.
  67. SEADE, Fundação Sistema Estadual de Análise de Dados. (1998). Pesquisa de condições de vida. São Paulo: Fundaçao SEADE.
  68. Skocpol, T. (1992). Protecting soldiers and mothers: the political origins of social policy in the United States. Cambridge: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.
  69. Skocpol, T. (1999). Advocates without members: The recent transformation of American Civic Life. In T. Skocpol & M. P. Fiorina (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
  70. Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
  71. Snyder, R. (2001). Scaling down: the subnational comparative method. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(1), 93-110.
  72. Somers, M. (1993). Citizenship and the place of the public sphere: law, community, and political culture in the transition to democracy. American Sociological Review, 58, 587-620.
  73. STATA 9-STATACorp LP. (2005). STATA Reference-Release 9, College Station, TX: Stata Press.
  74. Theor Soc Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  75. Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  76. Tilly, C. (1986). The contentious French. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  77. Tilly, C. (1997). Parliamentarization of popular contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834. Theory and Society, 26(2/3), 245-273.
  78. Tilly, C. (2004). Contention and democracy in Europe, 1650-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  79. Verba, S., Nie, N. H., & Kim, J. O. (1978). Participation and political equality: A seven-nation comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  80. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  81. World Values Survey. (2005). Non-OECD WVS Questionnaire, A Ballot. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/ Yashar, D. (2005). Contesting citizenship in Latin America: The rise of indigenous movements and the post-liberal challenge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  82. Peter P. Houtzager is a Research Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex, and has been a Visiting Professor at MIT, Brown, and Stanford. He is co-editor of Changing Paths: International Development and the Politics of Inclusion (University of Michigan Press, 2003) and author of Os Ultimos cidadãos: Conflito e modernização no Brasil rural (1964-1995) (Editora Globo, 2004). He is co-author of "Civil Society's Claims to Political Representation in Brazil," Studies in Comparative International Development (2010) and "The Institutional Roots of Popular Mobilization: State Transformation and Rural Politics in Brazil and Chile, 1960-95," Comparative Studies in Society and History (2000). He is currently co-authoring a book manuscript on active citizenship and new politics of civil society after the double transition in Brazil, India, and Mexico, and (in quite different work) exploring how professional and issue networks permeate the state and have shaped public sector reforms in Brazil and India.
  83. Arnab K. Acharya is a Senior Lecturer on Quantitative Health Economics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). He has published on economic theory, planned economies, distributive justice, citizen collective action, disease eradication, and cost-effectiveness of health projects. He is co-author of "Understanding disability-adjusted life years," The Journal of Health Economics (1997), "Time preference and life cycle consumption with endogenous survival," Economic Inquiry (2004), and author of "Towards establishing a universal health norm," Ethics and International Affairs (2004). His current work focuses on impact evaluation of development projects, the regulatory role of civil society in service delivery, how population health levels shapes economic growth, and the interconnec- tedness between poverty and health.