Efforts to study the dynamics of legislative and party politics in developing countries often confront a serious obstacle – lack of public data on legislative actions. This paper proposes a new feasible approach for obtaining legislative information indirectly – analyzing the perceptions and lobbying behaviors of business interest groups who are experienced, knowledgeable and highly invested in staying informed on policymaking processes. I build on extant literatures on political parties and lobbying to show how we can systematically exploit group insights to study legislative parties in data-scarce environments and complement existing approaches in data-rich cases. I then demonstrate and evaluate this approach by using original data from a 2006 survey of 158 groups in a data-rich case, Brazil, to mediate existing scholarly debates regarding the sources of legislative unity of Brazilian parties.
AlemánE (2006) Policy gatekeepers in Latin American Legislatures. Latin American Politics & Society48: 125–155.
2.
AlstonLJMuellerB (2006) Pork for policy: Executive and legislative exchange in Brazil. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization22: 87–114.
3.
AmesB (2001) The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
4.
AmesBPowerT (2007) Parties and governability in Brazil. In: WebbPWhiteS (eds) Party Politics in New Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 179–212
5.
BennedsenMFeldmannSE (2002) Lobbying legislatures. Journal of Political Economy110: 919–946.
6.
BowlerSFarrellDKatzR (1999) Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
7.
CammettM (2007) Globalization and Business Politics in Arab North Africa: A Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.
CareyJ (2008) Legislative Voting and Accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
CEDI (2006) The Brazilian Legislative Branch: Chamber of Deputies. Brasilia: Publications Department, Center for Documentation and Information.
10.
CheibubJ (2006) Presidentialism, Parliamentarism and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CheibubJPrzeworskiASaieghSM (2004) Government coalitions and legislative success under presidentialism and parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science34: 565–587.
12.
ClintonJMeirowitzA (2003) Integrating voting theory and roll call analysis: A framework. Political Analysis11: 381–396.
13.
CowheyPMcCubbinsM (1995) Structure and Policy in Japan and the United States: An Institutionalist Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
CoxGMcCubbinsM (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
De FigueiredoJRichterB (2014) Advancing the empirical research on lobbying. Annual Review of Political Science17: 163–185.
17.
DesposatoS (2006) Parties for rent? Ambition, ideology, and party switching in Brazil’s chamber of deputies. American Journal of Political Science50(1): 62–80.
18.
DiermeierDFeddersenTJ (1998) Cohesion in legislatures and the vote of confidence procedure. American Political Science Review92(3): 611–621.
19.
DinizEBoschiR (2003) The business class and development strategies. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais18: 15–34.
20.
DöringHHallerbergM (2004) Patterns of Parliamentary Behavior: Passage of Legislation across Western Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.
21.
FigueiredoALimongiF (2000) Presidential power, legislative organization, and party behavior in Brazil. Comparative Politics32: 151–170.
22.
FishMSKroenigM (2009) The Handbook of National Legislatures: A Global Survey. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
FryeT (2010) Building States and Markets after Communism: The Perils of Polarized Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
GerringJThackerS (2008) A Centripetal Theory of Democratic Governance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
GrossmanGMHelpmanE (2001) Special Interest Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26.
HagopianFGervasoniCMoraesJ (2009) From patronage to program: The emergence of party-oriented legislators in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies42(3): 360–391.
27.
HallRDeardorffA (2006) Lobbying as legislative subsidy. American Political Science Review100(1): 69–84.
28.
HellerWMershonC (eds) (2009) Political Parties and Legislative Switching. New York: Palgrave.
29.
HelpmanEPerssonT (2001) Lobbying and legislative bargaining. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy1(1): 1–33.
30.
HojnackiMKimballDBaumgartnerF. (2012) Studying organizational advocacy and influence: Reexamining interest group research. Annual Review of Political Science15: 379–399.
31.
HuberJShipanC (2002) Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
HunterWPowerT (2007) Rewarding Lula: Executive power, social policy, and the Brazilian elections of 2006. Latin American Politics and Society49(1): 1–30.
33.
JandaK (2009) Laws against party switching, defecting, or floor-crossing in national parliaments. Paper presented at the World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Santiago, Chile, July 12–16.
34.
KingstoneP (1999) Crafting Coalitions for Reform: Business Preferences, Political Institutions, and Neoliberal Reform in Brazil. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
35.
LaverMBenoitK (2003) The evolution of party systems between elections. American Journal of Political Science47: 215–233.
36.
LemosL (2006) Horizontal accountability in Brazil: Congressional oversight of the executive branch. Working paper number CBS-76-06. Centre for Brazilian Studies, University of Oxford, UK.
37.
LyneM (2008) Proffering pork: How party leaders build party reputations in Brazil. The American Journal of Political Science52: 290–303.
38.
MainwaringSP (1999) Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
39.
MartinLVanbergG (2011) Parliaments and Coalitions: The Role of Legislative Institutions in Multiparty Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
MattsonI (1995) Private members’ initiatives and amendments. In: DöringH (ed.) Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. Berlin: Campus Verlag, pp.448–487.
41.
MilnerH (1997) Interests, Institutions and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
RaileCPereiraCPowerTJ (2011) The executive toolbox: Building legislative support in a multiparty presidential regime. Political Research Quarterly64: 323–334.
43.
RockmanBWeaverK (1993) Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
44.
RohdeD (1991) Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
45.
SaieghS (2009) Political prowess or ‘lady luck’? Evaluating chief executives’ legislative success rates. Journal of Politics71(4): 1342–1356.
46.
SamuelsD (2003) Ambition, Federalism and Legislative Politics in Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press.
47.
SamuelsDMatthewShugart (2010) Presidents, Parties, and Prime Ministers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
48.
SantosF (2003) O Poder Legislativo no Presidencialismo de Coalizão. Rio de Janeiro: IUPERJ.
49.
SantosFVilaroucaM (2008) Political institutions and governability from FHC to Lula. In: KingstonePPowerT (eds) Democratic Brazil Revisited. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press pp.57–80.
50.
SchneiderBR (2004) Business Politics and the State in Twentieth-Century Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
51.
ShugartMCareyJ (1992) Presidents and Assemblies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
52.
TrainK (2009) Discrete Choice Models with Simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
53.
WeylandK (2005) The growing sustainability of Brazil’s low-quality democracy. In: HagopianFMainwaringS (eds) The Third Wave of Democratization in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.90–120.
54.
YadavV (2011) Political Parties, Business Groups and Corruption in Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press.
55.
ZuccoCLauderdaleB (2011) Distinguishing between influences on Brazilian legislative behavior. Legislative Studies Quarterly36: 363–396.
56.
ZuccoC (2009) Ideology or what? Legislative Behavior in Multiparty Presidential Settings. Journal of Politics71: 1076–1092.
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.
