One of the most significant developments in Latin American democracies since the beginning of the third wave of democratization is the rise to political prominence of outsider candidates in presidential elections. I use an original database of political outsiders in Latin America to examine the institutional factors that contribute to the emergence of political outsiders. Using a fixed effects variance decomposition (FEVD) model, I find that, in addition to the favorable conditions already identified in the literature—legitimacy crisis of traditional political parties and negative socioeconomic conditions—the rise of political outsiders is determined by institutional factors, such as nonconcurrent elections, compulsory voting rules, and reelection provisions.
AchenC. H. (2001, July). Why lagged dependent variables can suppress the explanatory power of other independent variables. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association, Los Angeles, CA.
2.
AdrianzénA.RialJ.RoncaglioloR. (2008). Países andinos: Los políticos [Andean Countries: The Politicians]. Stockholm, Sweden: IDEA.
3.
AlesinaA.DevleeschauwerA.EasterlyW.KurlatS.WacziargR. (2003). Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth, 8, 155-194.
4.
ArmonyV. (2002). Populisme et néopopulisme en Argentine: De Juan Perón à Carlos Menem [Populism and Neopopulism in Argentina: From Juan Perón to Carlos Menem]. Politique et Sociétés, 21(2), 51-77.
5.
BarrR. R. (2003). The persistence of neopopulism in Peru? From Fujimori to Toledo. Third World Quarterly, 24(6), 1161-1778.
6.
BarrR. R. (2009). Populists, outsiders, and anti-establishment politics. Party Politics, 15(1), 29-48.
7.
BartoliniS.MairP. (1990). Identity, competition, and electoral availability: The stabilisation of European electorates 1885–1985. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BeckN. (2001). Time-series-cross-section data: What have we learned in the past few years?Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 271-293.
9.
BeckN.KatzJ. N. (1996). Nuisance vs. substance: Specifying and estimating time-series-cross-section models. Political Analysis, 6(1), 1-36.
10.
BélangerÉ. (2004). Antipartyism and third-party vote choice: A comparison of Canada, Britain, and Australia. Comparative Political Studies, 37(9), 1054-1078.
11.
BentonA. L. (2005). Dissatisfied democrats or retrospective voters? Economic hardship, political institutions, and voting behavior in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 38(4), 417-442.
12.
CammackP. (2000). The resurgence of populism in Latin America. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 19(2), 149-161.
13.
CanonD. T. (1990). Actors, athletes, and astronauts: Political amateurs in the United States Congress. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
CanonD. T. (1993). Sacrificial lambs or strategic politicians? Political amateurs in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 1119-1141.
15.
CastorinaE. (2009, July). Center-left (neo)populism: The case of Kirchner. Paper presented at the 21st IPSA World Congress, Santiago, Chile.
16.
CorralesJ. (2008). Latin America’s neocaudillismo: Ex-presidents and newcomers running for president . . . and winning. Latin American Politics and Society, 50(3), 1-35.
17.
CrabtreeJ. (1999). Neopopulismo y el fenómeno Fujimori . In CrabtreeJ.ThomasJ. (Eds.), El Perú de Fujimori (pp. 45-71). Lima, Peru: Univesidad del Pacífico, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
18.
DietzH. A.MyersD. J. (2007). From thaw to deluge: Party system collapse in Venezuela and Peru. Latin American Politics and Society, 49(2), 59-86.
19.
FiorinaM. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20.
FreidenbergF. (2007). La tentación populista: Una vía de acceso al poder en América Latina [The populist temptation: A path to power in Latin America]. Madrid, Spain: Editorial Síntesis.
21.
García MonteroM. (2001). La década de Fujimori: Ascenso, mantenimiento y caída de un líder antipolítico [The Fujimori decade: Rise and fall of an anti-political leader]. América Latina Hoy, 28, 49-86.
22.
Gutiérrez SanínF. (2007). ¿Lo que el viento se llevó? Los partidos políticos y la democracia en Colombia 1958–2002 [Gone with the wind? Political parties and democracy in Colombia 1958-2002]. Bogota, Columbia: Editorial Norma.
23.
HagopianF. (2005). Government performance, political representation, and public perceptions of contemporary democracy in Latin America. In HagopianF.MainwaringS. P. (Eds.), The third wave of democratization in Latin America: Advances and setbacks (pp. 319-362). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24.
HawkinsK. A. (2009). Is Chávez populist? Measuring populist discourse in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 1040-1067.
25.
HawkinsK. A. (2010). Venezuela’s chavismo and populism in comparative perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
26.
HirschmanA. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27.
JackmanS. D. (2001). Compulsory voting. In SmelserN. J.BaltesP. B. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 16314-16318). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
28.
JonesM. P. (1994). Presidential election laws and multipartism in Latin America. Political Research Quarterly, 47(1), 41-57.
29.
JonesM. P. (1995). A guide to the electoral systems of the Americas. Electoral Studies, 14(1), 5.
30.
JonesM. P. (1999). Electoral laws and the effective number of candidates in presidential elections. Journal of Politics, 61(1), 171-184.
31.
KenneyC. D. (1998). Outsider and anti-party politicians in power: New conceptual strategies and empirical evidence from Peru. Party Politics, 4(1), 57-75.
32.
KinsbrunerJ.LangerE. D. (Eds.). (2008). Encyclopedia of Latin American history and culture. Detroit, MI: Gale/Cengage.
33.
KnightA. (1998). Populism and neo-populism in Latin America, especially Mexico. Journal of Latin American Studies, 30(2), 223-248.
34.
LagosM. (2008). Latin America’s diversity of views. Journal of Democracy, 19(1), 111-125.
35.
LeamanD. E. (1999). Populist liberalism as dominant ideology: Competing ideas and democracy in post-authoritarian Argentina, 1989–1995. Studies in Comparative International Development, 34(3), 98-118.
36.
LevitskyS.CameronM. A. (2003). Democracy without parties? Political parties and regime change in Fujimori’s Peru. Latin American Politics and Society, 45(3), 1-33.
37.
LinzJ. J. (1990). The perils of presidentialism. Journal of Democracy, 1(1), 51-69.
38.
LinzJ. J. (1994). Presidential or parliamentary democracy: Does it make a difference? In LinzJ. J.ValenzuelaA. (Eds.), The failure of presidential democracy (pp. 3-90). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
39.
LynchN. (1999). Neopopulismo: Un concepto vacío [Neopopulism: An empty concept]. Socialismo y participación, 86, 63-80.
40.
MaddisonA. (2010). Statistics on world population, GDP and per capita GDP, 1–2008 AD. Groningen, Netherlands: Growth and Development Center.
41.
MadridR. (2005). Ethnic cleavages and electoral volatility in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 38(1), 1-20.
42.
MadridR. L. (2008). The rise of ethnopopulism in Latin America. World Politics, 60(3), 475-508.
43.
MainwaringS. P. (1993). Presidentialism, multipartism, and democracy: The difficult combination. Comparative Political Studies, 26, 198-228.
44.
MainwaringS.ScullyT. R. (1995). Introduction: Party systems in Latin America. In MainwaringS.ScullyT. R. (Eds.), Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America (pp. 1-36). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
45.
MainwaringS.ShugartM. S. (1997). Presidentialism and the party system. In MainwaringS.ShugartM. S. (Eds.), Presidentialism and democracy in Latin America (pp. 394-439). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
MayorgaR. (2006). Outsiders and neopopulism: The road to plebiscitary democracy. In MainwaringS.BejaranoA. M.Pizarro LeongómezE. (Eds.), The crisis of democratic representation in the Andes (pp. 132-170). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
47.
O’DonnellG. (1994). Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5(1), 55-69.
48.
PanizzaF. (2000). Neopopulism and its limits in Collor’s Brazil. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 19(2), 177-192.
49.
PedersenM. N. (1979). The dynamics of European party systems: Changing patterns of electoral volatility. European Journal of Political Research, 7(1), 1-26.
50.
Pérez-LiñánA. (2003). Presidential crises and democratic accountability in Latin America, 1990–1999. In EcksteinS. E.Wickham-CrowleyT. P. (Eds.), What justice? Whose justice? Fighting for fairness in Latin America (pp. 98-129). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pérez-LiñánA. (2007). Presidential impeachment and the new political instability in Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
RobertsK. M. (1995). Neoliberalism and the transformation of populism in Latin America: The Peruvian case. World Politics, 48(1), 82-116.
54.
RobertsK. M. (2007). Latin America’s populist revival. Sais Review, 27(1), 3-15.
55.
SamuelsD. J.ShugartM. S. (2010). Insiders and outsiders: Madison’s dilemma and leadership selection. In SamuelsD. J.ShugartM. S. (Eds.), Presidents, parties, and prime ministers (pp. 62-93). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
56.
SchlesingerJ. A. (1994). Political parties and the winning of office. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
57.
SchlesingerJ. A.SchlesingerM. (1990). The reaffirmation of a multiparty system in France. American Political Science Review, 84(4), 1077-1101.
58.
SchmidtG. D. (1996). Fujimori’s 1990 upset victory in Peru: Electoral rules, contingencies, and adaptive strategies. Comparative Politics, 28(3), 321-354.
59.
SeligsonM. A. (2002a). The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: A comparative study of four Latin American countries. Journal of Politics, 64(2), 408-433.
60.
SeligsonM. A. (2002b). Trouble in paradise: The impact of the erosion of system support in Costa Rica, 1978–1999. Latin American Research Review, 37(1), 160-185.
61.
ShugartM. S.CareyJ. M. (1992). Presidents and assemblies: Constitutional design and electoral dynamics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
62.
ShugartM. S.TaageperaR. (1994). Plurality versus majority election of presidents—A proposal for a double complement rule. Comparative Political Studies, 27, 323-348.
63.
SiavelisP. M.MorgensternS. (2008). Political recruitment and candidate selection in Latin America: A framework for analysis. In SiavelisP. M.MorgensternS. (Eds.), Pathways to power: Political recruitment and candidate selection in Latin America (pp. 3-38). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
64.
StimsonJ. (1985). Regression in space and time: A statistical essay. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 914-947.
65.
SuárezW. C. (1982). El poder ejecutivo en América Latina: su capacidad operativa bajo regímenes presidencialistas de gobierno [The executive power in Latin America: its operative capacity under presidential systems of government]. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 29, .
66.
TanakaM. N. (1998). Los espejismos de la democracia: El colapso del sistema de partidos en el Peru, 1980–1995, en perspectiva comparada [Mirages of democracy: The collapse of the party system in Peru, 1980-1995, in comparative perspective]. Lima, Peru: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
67.
United Nations Development Programme. (2004). Democracy in Latin America: Towards a citizens’ democracy. New York, NY: Author.
68.
WalkerI. (2008). Democracy and populism in Latin America (Working Paper 347). South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame, Kellogg Institute of International Studies.
69.
WeylandK. (1999). Neoliberal populism in Latin America and Eastern Europe. Comparative Politics, 31(4), 379-401.
70.
WeylandK. (2002). The politics of market reform in fragile democracies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
