Using individual-level data collected in Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela, this article argues that electoral accountability revolves around the centralized nature of presidential regimes in the region and the relatively low level of institutionalization of party systems, which, under certain circumstances, constrain the ability of voters to hold the incumbent party responsible for past economic performance. In addition to probing the broader applicability of the economic voting models developed with reference to well-established democracies, the analysis contributes to improving our understanding of the interaction between institutional design and electoral behavior.
Alford, Robert R.1963. Party and society: The Anglo-American democracies. Chicago: Rand McNally.
2.
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Jonathan Nagler .1998. When politics and models collide: Estimating models of multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science42:55-96.
3.
Anderson, Christopher J.1995a. Blaming the government: Citizens and the economy in five European democracies. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
4.
———. 1995b. The dynamics of public support for coalition governments . Comparative Political Studies28:350-83.
5.
———. 2000. Economic voting and political context: A comparative perspective . Electoral Studies19:151-70.
6.
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes .1960. The American voter. New York: Wiley.
7.
Carey, John.2003. The reelection debate in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society45:119-33.
8.
Crisp, Brian F.2000. Democratic institutional design. The powers and incentives of Venezuelan politicians and interest groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
9.
Downs, Anthony.1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
10.
Fiorina, Morris P.1978. Economic retrospective voting in American national elections: A micro-level analysis. American Journal of Political Science22:426-43.
11.
———. 1981. Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Gélineau, François.2002. Economic voting in volatile contexts: National and subnational politics in Latin America. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
13.
Greene, William H.2003. Econometric analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall .
14.
Key, V.O., Jr.1966. The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting, 1936-1960. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
King, Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg .2000. Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44: 347-61.
16.
Leyden, Kevin M., and Stephen A. Borrelli .1995. The effect of state economic conditions on gubernatorial elections: Does unified government make a difference?Political Research Quarterly48:275-90.
17.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S.1988. Economics and elections. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
18.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Martin Paldam , eds. 2000. Economics and elections. Electoral Studies19 (Special Issue).
19.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Mary Stegmaier.2000. Economic determinants of electoral outcomes . Annual Review of Political Science3:183-219.
20.
Lipset, Seymour M.1960. Political man: The social bases of politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
21.
Lipset, Seymour M., and Stein Rokkan, eds. 1967. Party systems and voter alignments. New York: Macmillan .
22.
Lowry, Robert C., James E. Alt, and Karen E. Ferree .1998. Fiscal policy outcomes and electoral accountability in American states. American Political Science Review92:759-74.
23.
Mainwaring, Scott P.1999. Rethinking party systems in the third wave of democratization. The case of Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
Mainwaring, Scott P., and Timothy R. Scully, eds. 1995. Building democratic institutions. Party systems in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25.
Mainwaring, Scott P., and Matthew Shugart, eds. 1997. Presidentialism and democracy in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Manin, Bernard, Adam Przeworski, and Susan C. Stokes.1999. Elections and representations. In Democracy, accountability, and representation , ed. A. Przeworski, S. C. Stokes, and B. Manin. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Morgenstern, Scott, and Elizabeth Zechmeister.2001. Better the devil you know than the saint you don't? Risk propensity and vote choice in Mexico. Journal of Politics63:93-119.
28.
Nadeau, Richard, and Michael Lewis-Beck .2001. National economic voting in U.S. presidential elections. Journal of Politics63:159-81.
29.
Nannestad, Peter, and Martin Paldam.1994. The VP-function: A survey of the literature on vote and popularity functions after 25 years. Public Choice79:213-45.
30.
Norpoth, Helmut, Michael S. Lewis-Beck, and Jean-Dominique Lafay, eds. 1991. Economics and politics: The calculus of support. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
31.
O'Donnell, Guillermo.1994. Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy5:55-69.
32.
———. 1996. Illusions about consolidation. Journal of Democracy7:34-51.
33.
Paldam, Martin.1991. How robust is the vote function? A study of seventeen nations over four decades. In Economics and politics: The calculus of support, ed. H. Norpoth, M. Lewis-Beck, and J.-D. Lafay.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
34.
Powell, G. Binghan, and Guy Whitten.1993. A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of political context. American Journal of Political Science37:391-414.
35.
Przeworski, Adam, and Henry Teune.1970. The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
36.
Samuels, David.2004. Presidentialism and accountability for the economy in comparative perspective. American Political Science Review98:425-36.
37.
Tomz, Michael, Jason Wittenberg, and Gary King.2003. CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Version 2.1. Stanford University , University of Wisconsin, and Harvard University. http://gking.harvard.edu/ .
