How do politicians from programmatic parties govern when their programmatic commitments are inconsistent with voters’ expectations? This article demonstrates that anticipated electoral pressures can lead politicians from programmatic parties to resemble those from nonprogrammatic parties. When politicians from programmatic parties believe that voters will evaluate their performance using nonprogrammatic criteria, they engage in linkage switches: They initially campaign on programmatic platforms, but prioritize nonprogrammatic actions in office. I support this claim with evidence from Brazilian municipalities (1996-2012), where the Workers’ Party (PT) employed programmatic appeals in an otherwise nonprogrammatic political context. Using a regression discontinuity design and the semi-automated text analysis of campaign platforms, I demonstrate that PT mayors initially ran on programmatic platforms, but once in office, they responded to anticipated electoral pressures by prioritizing actions that were inconsistent with the party’s programmatic orientation.
AbersR. N. (2000). Inventing local democracy: Grassroots politics in Brazil. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
2.
AlmeidaA.LopezF. G. (2011). Representação Política Local: Padrões de Atuação dos Vereadores em Quatro Cidades Mineiras [Local Political Representation: Action Patterns of City Councilors in Four Cities in Minas Gerais]. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada.
3.
AlvesJ. A. (2018). Transformation or substitution? The Workers’ Party and the right in Northeast Brazil. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 10, 99-132.
4.
AmaralO. E.PowerT. J. (2016). The PT at 35: Revisiting scholarly interpretations of the Brazilian Workers’ Party. Journal of Latin American Studies, 48, 147-171.
5.
AshworthS. (2012). Electoral accountability: Recent theoretical and empirical work. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 183-201.
6.
BaiocchiG. (2003). Radicals in power: The Workers’ Party and experiments in urban democracy in Brazil. London, England: Zed Books.
7.
BardhanP.MookherjeeD. (2000). Capture and governance at local and national levels. The American Economic Review, 90, 135-139.
8.
BatleyR.McloughlinC. (2015). The politics of public services: A service characteristics approach. World Development, 74, 275-285.
BouldingC.BrownD. S. (2013). Political competition and local social spending: Evidence from Brazil. Studies in Comparative International Development, 49, 197-216.
CalonicoS.CattaneoM. D.TitiunikR.FarrellM. H. (2018). rdrobust: Robust data-driven statistical inference in regression-discontinuity designs. R package version 0.99.4. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rdrobust
16.
CampbellT. (2003). The quiet revolution: Decentralization and the rise of political participation in Latin American cities. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
17.
CampelloD. (2014). The politics of financial booms and crises: Evidence from Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 47, 260-286.
18.
CaseA.DeatonA. (1999). School inputs and educational outcomes in South Africa. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 1047-1084.
19.
CheesemanN.LunaJ. P.KitscheltH.PagetD.RosenblattF.SampleK.WangY.-T. (2014). Politics meets policies: The emergence of programmatic political parties. Stockholm, Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
20.
ClearyM. R. (2007). Electoral competition, participation, and government responsiveness in Mexico. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 283-299.
Committee on Political Parties. (1950). Toward a more responsible two-party system. American Political Science Review, 3, 488-499.
23.
da SilvaR. P. (1996). Conquistar as Prefeituras do Interior: Contribuição ao Ano Eleitoral [Winning Municipalities in the Countryside: A Contribution to the Electoral Year]. São Paulo, Brazil: Diretório Nacional.
24.
de JanvryA.FinanF.SadouletE. (2012). Local electoral incentives and decentralized program performance. Review of Economics and Statistics, 3, 672-685.
25.
de la CuestaB.ImaiK. (2016). Misunderstandings about the regression discontinuity design in the study of close elections. Annual Review of Political Science, 19, 375-394.
26.
DonaghyM. M. (2013). Civil society and participatory governance: Municipal councils and social housing programs in Brazil. New York, NY: Routledge.
27.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65, 135-150.
28.
EggersA. C.FowlerA.HainmuellerJ.HallA. B.SnyderJ. M. (2015). On the validity of the regression discontinuity design for estimating electoral effects: New evidence from over 40,000 close races. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 259-274.
29.
EpsteinD. J. (2009). Clientelism versus ideology: Problems of party development in Brazil. Party Politics, 15, 335-355.
30.
FaguetJ.-P. (2012.). Decentralization and popular democracy: Governance from below in Bolivia. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
31.
FerrazC.FinanF.MoreiraD. B. (2012). Corrupting learning: Evidence from missing federal education funds in Brazil. Journal of Public Economics, 96, 712-726.
32.
FerreiraP. (2004). Prefeituras do PT são as Mais Reeleitas [PT Administrations are the Most Reelected]. PT Notícias [PT News], 7(156), 1.
33.
FoxJ. A. (2007). Accountability politics: Power and voice in rural Mexico. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
34.
FujiwaraT. (2015). Voting technology, political responsiveness, and infant health: Evidence from Brazil. Econometrica, 83, 423-464.
35.
GonçalvesS. (2014). The effects of participatory budgeting on municipal expenditures and infant mortality in Brazil. World Development, 53, 94-110.
36.
GrimmerJ.StewartB. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21, 267-297.
37.
GrindleM. S. (2007). Going local: Decentralization, democratization, and the promise of good governance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
HagopianF.GervasoniC.MoraesJ. A. (2009). From patronage to program: The emergence of party-oriented legislators in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 360-391.
39.
HelendaH.BastosB. (2000). A Vitória do PT Vermelho [The Victory of the Red PT]. Em Tempo: Publicação da Tendência Democracia Socialista [In Time: Publication of the Democratic Socialist Faction] 318/319, 4-5.
40.
HickenA. (2011). Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 289-310.
41.
HochstetlerK. (2008). Organized civil society in Lula’s Brazil. In KingstoneP. R.PowerT. J. (Eds.), Democratic Brazil Revisited (pp. 33-53). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
42.
HunterW. (2007). The normalization of an anomaly: The Workers’ Party in Brazil. World Politics, 475, 440-475.
43.
HunterW. (2010). The transformation of the Workers’ Party in Brazil, 1989-2009. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
JohannessenP. (2017, September). Visibility and local electoral accountability. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
45.
KeckM. E. (1992). The Workers’ Party and democratization in Brazil. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
46.
KeeferP. (2007). Clientelism, credibility, and the policy choices of young democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 804-821.
47.
KeeferP.VlaicuR. (2008). Democracy, credibility, and clientelism. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 24, 371-406.
48.
KitscheltH. (2000). Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities. Comparative Political Studies, 33, 845-879.
49.
KitscheltH.HawkinsK. A.LunaJ. P.RosasG.ZechmeisterE. J. (Eds.). (2010). Latin American party systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50.
KitscheltH.WilkinsonS. I. (Eds.). (2007). Patrons, clients and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
KlašnjaM.TitiunikR. (2017). The incumbency curse: Weak parties, term limits, and unfulfilled accountability. American Political Science Review, 111, 129-148.
52.
LavaredaA.TellesH. (2015). Como o eleitor escolhe seu prefeito: Campanha e voto nas eleições municipais [How voters choose their mayor: Campaign and vote in municipal elections]. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Editora FGV.
53.
LucasC.NielsenR. A.RobertsM. E.StewartB. M.StorerA.TingleyD. (2015). Computer-assisted text analysis for comparative politics. Political Analysis23, 254-277.
54.
LunaJ. P. (2014). Segmented representation: Political party strategies in unequal democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
55.
LupuN.RiedlR. B. (2013). Political parties and uncertainty in developing democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 1339-1365.
56.
LyneM. M. (2005). Parties as programmatic agents: A test of institutional theory in Brazil. Party Politics, 11, 193-216.
57.
MainwaringS. (1995). Brazil: Weak parties, feckless democracy. In MainwaringS.ScullyT. R. (Eds.), Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America (pp. 354-398). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
58.
MainwaringS. (2018). Party systems in Latin America: Institutionalization, decay, and collapse. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
59.
MainwaringS.ScullyT. R. (Eds.). (1995). Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
60.
ManiA.MukandS. (2007). Democracy, visibility and public good provision. Journal of Development Economics, 83, 506-529.
61.
ManorJ. (1999). The political economy of democratic decentralization. Washington, DC: World Bank.
62.
MarquesL. (2000). Mudanças no PT Gaúcho [Changes in Rio Grande do Sul’s PT]. Em Tempo: Publicação da Tendência Democracia Socialista [In Time: Publication of the Democratic Socialist Faction], 313, 6-7.
63.
McCraryJ. (2008). Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 698-714.
64.
MontenegroD. (1996, February18). Brincando com o Dinheiro do Povo. Jornal Nãção Brasil.
65.
MonteroA. P. (2012). A reversal of political fortune: The transitional dynamics of conservative rule in the Brazilian Northeast. Latin American Politics and Society, 54, 1-36.
66.
NichterS.PeressM. (2017). Request fulfilling: When citizens demand clientelist benefits. Comparative Political Studies, 50, 1086-1117.
67.
NovaesL. M. (2018). Disloyal brokers and weak parties. American Journal of Political Science, 62, 84-98.
68.
Partido dos Trabalhadores: Secretaria de Assuntos Institucionais. (1996). O Modo Petista de Governar: Programa de Governo. São Paulo, Brazil: Diretório Nacional do PT.
69.
PereiraJ.PaschoalE. S. (1996). Preparando a Batalha Eleitoral [Preparing for the electoral battle]. São Paulo, Brazil: Diretório Nacional do PT.
70.
PietáE. (1996). O Modo Petista de Governar: Vereadores. São Paulo, Brazil: PT-SP.
71.
PlatteauJ.-P. (2004). Monitoring elite capture in community-driven development. Development and Change, 35, 223-246.
72.
PrzeworskiA.StokesS.ManinB. (1999). Democracy, accountability, and representation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
73.
RanneyA. (1954). The doctrine of responsible party government: Its origins and present state. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
RobertsM. E.StewartB. M.TingleyD.LucasC.Leder-LuisJ.GadarianS. K.RandD. G. (2014). Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 1064-1082.
76.
RobinsonJ. A.VerdierT. (2013). The political economy of clientelism. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 115, 260-291.
77.
RolnikR.IacoviniR. F. G.KlintowitzD. (2014). Habitação em municípios paulistas: construir políticas ou “rodar” programas?.”Revista Brasileira de Estudos Urbanos e Regionais, 16, 149-165.
78.
SamuelsD. (2006). Sources of mass partisanship in Brazil. Latin American Politics and Society, 48(2), 1-27.
79.
SartoriG. (1976.). Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
80.
ScarrowH. A. (1967). The function of political parties: A critique of the literature and the approach. The Journal of Politics, 29, 770-790.
81.
ScartasciniC.SteinE.TommasiM. (2010). How democracy works: Political institutions, actors, and arenas in Latin American policymaking. Washington, DC: Islamic Development Bank (IDB).
82.
SpadaP. (2010, September). The effects of participatory democracy on political competition: The case of Brazilian participatory budgeting. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Washington, DC.
83.
StokesS. C. (2001). Mandates and democracy: Neoliberalism by surprise in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
84.
StokesS. C.DunningT.NazarenoM.BruscoV. (2013). Brokers, voters, and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
85.
TouchtonM.SugiyamaN. B.WamplerB. (2017). Democracy at work: Moving beyond elections to improve well-being. American Political Science Review, 111, 68-82.
86.
TranjanJ. R. (2016). Participatory democracy in Brazil: Socioeconomic and political origins. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
87.
Van CottD. L. (2008). Radical democracy in the Andes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
88.
Weitz-ShapiroR. (2012). What wins votes: Why some politicians opt out of clientelism. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 568-583.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
