This article explains the unanticipated emergence of party-oriented legislators and rising party discipline in Brazil since the early 1990s. The authors contend that deputies in Brazil became increasingly party oriented because the utilities of party-programmatic and patronage-based electoral strategies shifted with market reforms that created a programmatic cleavage in Brazilian politics and diminished the resource base for state patronage. The study introduces new measures of partisan campaigns, party polarization, and values that legislators attached to party programs and voter loyalty based on an original survey of the Brazilian Congress. Regression analysis confirms that deputies who believe that voters value party programs have run partisan, programmatic campaigns, and those in polarized parties and those who believe voters are loyal to the party are willing to delegate authority to party leaders and do not switch parties. Party polarization and the proximity of deputies' policy preferences to their party's mean explain discipline on 236 roll-call votes in the 51st legislature (1999-2001).
Aldrich, J.H., & Rohde, D.W. (1998). Measuring conditional party government. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
2.
Ames, B. (1995a). Electoral rules, constituency pressures, and pork barrel: Bases of voting in the Brazilian Congress. Journal of Politics, 57, 324-343.
3.
Ames, B. (1995b). Electoral strategy under open-list proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 406-433.
4.
Ames, B. (2001). The deadlock of democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
Ames, B. (2002). A theory of legislative parties in Brazil. In S. Morgenstern & B. Nacif (Eds.), Legislative politics in Latin America (pp. 185-221). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
6.
Ames, B., & Power, T. (2007). Parties and governability in Brazil. In P. Webb & S. White (Eds.), Political parties in transitional democracies (pp. 179-212). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7.
Amorim Neto, O., Cox, G.W., & McCubbins, M.D. (2003). Agenda power in Brazil's Câmara dos Deputados, 1989-98. World Politics, 55, 550-578.
8.
Bressan, S. (2002). Reforma Administrativa [Administrative reform] . In B. Lamounier & R. Figueiredo (Eds.), A Era FHC: Um balanço [The FHC era: An accounting] (pp. 369-394). São Paulo, Brazil: Cultura.
9.
Campello de Souza, M. do C. (1976). Estado e partidos políticos no Brasil (1930 a 1964) [State and political parties in Brazil (1930 to 1964)] . São Paulo, Brazil: Alfa-Omega .
10.
Cardoso, F.H. (1996). In praise of the art of politics. Journal of Democracy, 7, 8-19.
11.
Carey, J. (2002). Getting their way or getting in the way? Presidents and party unity in legislative voting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
12.
Carey, J., & Shugart, M.S. (1995). Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies, 14, 417-439.
13.
Carreirão, Y. de S., & Kinzo, M.D.A.G. (2004). Partidos Políticos, Preferencia Partidária e Decisão Eleitoral no Brasil (1989/2002) [Political parties, party preference, and electoral choice in Brazil (1989-2002)]. Dados, 47, 131-168.
14.
Chubb, J. (1982). Patronage, power, and poverty in Southern Italy: A tale of two cities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Cox, G.W. (1987). The efficient secret: The Cabinet and the development of political parties in Victorian England. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Cox, G.W., & McCubbins, M.D. (1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
Desposato, S. (2006). Parties for rent? Ambition, ideology, and party switching in Brazil's Chamber of Deputies. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 62-80.
18.
Estudo Eleitoral Brasileiro (ESEB). (2002, December). In Banco de Dados do Centro de Estudos de Opinião Pública-CESOP-UNICAMP [Brazilian National Election Study] (01838-ESEB-2002). Available from http://www.cesop.unicamp.br/site/htm/busca/php
19.
Faoro, R. (1958). Os donos do poder: Formação do patronato político brasileiro [The power barons: The formation of the Brazilian patrimonial order] . Porto Alegre, Brazil: Globo.
20.
Figueiredo, A.C., & Limongi, F. (1999). Executivo e Legislativo na nova ordem constitucional [Executive and legislature in the New Constitutional Order]. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: FGV.
21.
Figueiredo, A.C., & Limongi, F. (2002). Incentivos Eleitorais, Partidos e Política Orçamentária [Electoral incentives, parties, and budgetary politics]. Dados, 45, 303-344.
22.
Folha de São Paulo. (2002, September 27). Caderno Olho no Voto [Eye on the vote]. Available at http://www.1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u38553.shtml
23.
Gaetani, F., & Heredia, B. (2002). The political economy of civil service reform in Brazil: The Cardoso years. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
24.
Grzymala-Busse, A.M. (2002). Redeeming the communist past: The regeneration of communist parties in East Central Europe. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Jacobson, G.C. (2000). Party polarization in national politics. In J. R. Bond & R. Fleischer (Eds.), Polarized politics: Congress and the president in a partisan era (pp. 9-30). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
26.
Kitschelt, H. (2000). Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities. Comparative Political Studies, 33, 845-879.
27.
Kitschelt, H., & Wilkinson, S.I. (2007). Citizen-politician linkages: An introduction. In H. Kitschelt & S. I. Wilkinson (Eds.), Patrons, clients, and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition (pp. 1-49). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Lavareda, A. (1991). A democracia nas urnas: O processo partidário-eleitoral brasileiro [Democracy at the polls: The Brazilian partisan-electoral process] . Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: IUPERJ /Rio Fundo.
29.
Leoni, E. (2002). Ideologia, Democracia e Comportamento Parlamentar: A Câmara dos Deputados (1991-1998) [Ideology, democracy, and parliamentary behavior: The Chamber of Deputies (1991-1998)]. Dados, 45, 361-386.
30.
Levitsky, S. (2003). Transforming labor-based parties in Latin America: Argentine Peronism in comparative perspective. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Lyne, M.M. (2004). Endogenous institutions: Electoral law and internal party dynamics in Brazil. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
32.
McCubbins, M.D., & Rosenbluth, F.M. (1995). Party provision for personal politics: Dividing the vote in Japan. In P. F. Cowhey & M. D. McCubbins (Eds.), Structure and policy in Japan and the United States (pp. 35-55). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
33.
Mainwaring, S.P. (1999). Rethinking party systems in the third wave of democratization: The case of Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
34.
Melo, C.R. (2004). Retirando as cadeiras do lugar: Migração partidaria na Câmara dos deputados (1985-2002) [Pulling the seats out of place: Party migration in the Chamber of Deputies (1985-2002)]. Belo Horizonte: UFMG.
35.
Morgenstern, S. (2004). Patterns of legislative politics: Roll-call voting in Latin America and the United States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Panizza, F. (2000). Is Brazil becoming a "boring" country? Bulletin of Latin American Research, 19, 501-525.
37.
Pereira, C., & Renno, L. (2003). Successful re-election strategies in Brazil: The electoral impact of distinct institutional incentives. Electoral Studies, 22, 425-448.
38.
Pereira, C., & Mueller, B. (2004). The cost of governing: Strategic behavior of the president and legislators in Brazil's budgetary process. Comparative Political Studies, 37, 781-815.
39.
Power, T. (2000). The political right in postauthoritarian Brazil: Elites, institutions, and democratization. University Park : Pennsylvania State University Press.
40.
Roberts, K.M., & Wibbels, E. (1999). Party systems and electoral volatility in Latin America: A test of economic, institutional, and structural explanations. American Political Science Review, 93, 575-590.
41.
Rohde, D. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42.
Roma, C.R. (2004). Atores, Preferências e Instituição na Câmara dos Deputados [Actors, preferences, and institutions in the Chamber of Deputies]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of São Paulo , Brazil.
43.
Samuels, D. (2003). Ambition, federalism, and legislative politics in Brazil. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Samuels, D. (2004, April). Political ambition, candidate recruitment, and legislative politics in Brazil. Paper presented at the conference Pathways to Power: Political Recruitment and Candidate Selection in Latin America, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC.
45.
Samuels, D. (2006). Sources of mass partisanship in Brazil. Latin American Politics and Society, 48, 1-27.
46.
Sani, G., & Sartori, G. (1983). Polarization, fragmentation and competition in Western democracies. In H. Dalder & P. Mair (Eds.), Western European party systems (pp. 307-340). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
47.
Santos, F. (2002). Partidos e Comissões no Presidencialismo de Coalizão [Parties and committees in coalition presidentialism]. Dados , 45, 237-264.
48.
Silveira, F.E. (1998). A decisão do voto no Brasil [Deciding to vote in Brazil]. Porto Alegre, Brazil: EDIPUCRS.
