Political parties and presidents in contemporary Latin America vary considerably in the extent to which they emphasize policy when appealing to voters (programmatism). We use Confirmatory Factor Analysis and data from the Chapel Hill Expert Survey—Latin America (CHES-LA) to examine how three key party characteristics relate to programmatism: ideological positions, particularistic strategies, and populism. Our results show that political actors on the ideological extremes rely more heavily on programmatism, that particularism and programmatism have a strong negative relationship, and that populism and programmatism are positively associated. These findings document important variation in how Latin American parties compete for votes, revealing concerning patterns in contemporary party competition. Highly populist parties also tend to be programmatic, creating potential trade-offs between clear policy positions and democratic accountability.
Abente BrunDDiamondLJ (eds) (2014) Clientelism, Social Policy, and the Quality of Democracy. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
2.
Alcántara SáezM (2018) Proyecto Elites Latinoamericanas (PELA-USAL). Universidad de Salamanca(1994-2018).
3.
Andrews-LeeC (2021) The Emergence and Revival of Charismatic Movements: Argentine Peronism and Venezuelan Chavismo. 1st edition. Cambridge University Press.
4.
AresCVolkensA (2017) Representación, estructura de la competencia e ideología de los partidos políticos. Revista Latinoamericana de Política Comparada13: 9–28.
5.
ArzaCCastiglioniRFranzoniJM, et al. (2022) The Political Economy of Segmented Expansion: Latin American Social Policy in the 2000s. 1st edition. Cambridge University Press.
6.
BakkerRde VriesCEdwardsEHoogheLJollySMarksGPolkJRovnyJanSteenbergenMVachudovaMA (2015) Measuring party positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2010. Party Politics21(1): 143–152. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068812462931
7.
BakkerRJollySPolkJ (2012) Complexity in the European party space: Exploring dimensionality with experts. European Union Politics13(2): 219–245. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116512436995
8.
BarredaMOtero-FelipePRuiz RodríguezLM (2023) Clientelism and ideological competition: the impact on ideological overlapping. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties34: 1–21.
9.
BornschierS (2019) Historical polarization and representation in south American party systems, 1900–1990. British Journal of Political Science49(1): 153–179.
10.
CasulloME (2019) ¿Por Qué Funciona el Populismo? El Discurso Que Sabe Construir Explicaciones Convincentes de un Mundo en Crisis. Siglo XXI Editores.
11.
CasulloMEFreidenbergF (2021) Populist parties of Latin America: the cases of Argentina and Ecuador. In: HeinischRHoltz-BachaCMazzoleniO (eds) Political Populism. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, 347–360.
12.
CollierRBCollierD (2002) Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. University of Notre Dame Press.
13.
CoppedgeM (1998) The dynamic diversity of Latin American party systems. Party Politics4(4): 547–568.
14.
CoppedgeMGerringJKnutsenCH, et al. (2024) V-Dem Codebook (No. v14; Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project). University of Gothemburg, V-Dem Institute, 1–466.
15.
CruzCKeeferP (2015) Political Parties, Clientelism, and Bureaucratic Reform. Comparative Political Studies48(14): 1942–1973. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015594627
16.
De La CerdaNHartlynJMartínez-GallardoC (2024) Ideological and populist bases of partisan responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America. Journal of Politics in Latin America16(2): 252–271.
17.
de la TorreC (2017) Populism in Latin America. In: KaltwasserCRTaggartPEspejoPO, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Populism. Oxford University Press, Vol. 1, 195–213.
18.
EpsteinDJ (2009) Clientelism versus ideology: problems of party development in Brazil. Party Politics15(3): 335–355.
19.
FilgueiraFReygadasLLunaJP, et al. (2011) The limits of conservative modernization: the politics and policies of incorporation in Latin America. In: BlofieldM (ed) The Great Gap: Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution in Latin America. The Pennsylvania State University Press, 245–277.
20.
FreidenbergFCasulloME (2018) Con líder y con programa: partidos populistas y partidos programáticos en América Latina. Revista Latinoamericana de Política Comparada14: 91–112.
21.
GarayC (2021) Including outsiders in Latin America. In: KapiszewskiDLevitskySYasharDJ (eds) The Inclusionary Turn in Latin American Democracies. Cambridge University Press.
22.
GramachoWLlamazaresI (2007) Ideología y preferencias de intervención económica estatal entre los diputados latinoamericanos. CIDOB edicions.
23.
HarbersIde VriesCESteenbergenMR (2013) Attitude variability among Latin American publics: how party system structuration affects Left/Right ideology. Comparative Political Studies46(8): 947–967.
24.
HartlynJ (1988) The Politics of Coalition Rule in Colombia. Cambridge University Press.
25.
HawkinsKARovira-KaltwasserC (2019) Introduction. In: HawkinsKACarlinRELittvayL, et al. (eds) The Ideational Approach to Populism: Concept, Theory, and Analysis. 1st edition. Routledge, 1–24.
26.
HickenA (2011) Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science14(1): 289–310.
27.
HuLBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal6(1): 1–55.
28.
HuberEStephensJD (2012) Democracy and the Left: Social Policy and Inequality in Latin America. The University of Chicago Press.
29.
KitscheltH (2000) Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities. Comparative Political Studies33(6–7): 845–879.
30.
KitscheltHWilkinsonSI (2007) Citizen–politician linkages: an introduction. In: KitscheltHWilkinsonSI (eds) Patrons, Clients, and Policies. Cambridge University Press, 1–49.
31.
KitscheltHHawkinsKALunaJP, et al. (2010) Latin American Party Systems. Cambridge University Press.
32.
LevitskySLoxtonJ (2013) Populism and competitive authoritarianism in the Andes. Democratization20(1): 107–136.
33.
LevitskySRobertsKM (2011). In: LevitskySRobertsKM (eds) Latin America’s “Left Turn”: A Framework for Analysis. Johns Hopkins University Press.
34.
LunaJP (2014) Segmented Representation: Political Party Strategies in Unequal Democracies. Oxford University Press.
35.
LunaJPAltmanD (2011) Uprooted but stable: chilean parties and the concept of party system institutionalization. Latin American Politics and Society53(2): 1–28.
36.
LupuN (2016) Party Brands in Crisis: Partisanship, Brand Dilution, and the Breakdown of Political Parties in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
37.
MainwaringS (ed) (2018) Party Systems in Latin America: Institutionalization, Decay, and Collapse. 1st edition. Cambridge University Press.
38.
MantillaB, S (ed) (2020) Los Partidos Políticos En América Latina: Ideología Y Estructura De La Competencia (1a. edición). CELAEP.
39.
Martínez-GallardoCde la CerdaNHartlynJ, et al. (2023) Revisiting party system structuration in Latin America and Europe: economic and socio-cultural dimensions. Party Politics29(4): 780–792.
40.
Meléndez-SánchezM (2021) Latin America erupts: millennial authoritarianism in El Salvador. Journal of Democracy32(3): 19–32.
41.
MoffittB (2015) How to perform crisis: a model for understanding the key role of crisis in contemporary populism. Government and Opposition50(2): 189–217.
42.
MorganJ (2011) Bankrupt Representation and Party System Collapse. Pennsylvania State University Press.
43.
MorganJHinojosaM (2018) Women in political parties: seen but not heard. In: Schwindt-BayerL (ed) Gender and Representation in Latin America. Oxford University Press, Vol. 1, 74–98.
44.
MuddeC (2017). Populism: An Ideational Approach. In: KaltwasserCRTaggartPEspejoPO, et al. (eds). Oxford University Press. Vol. 1. 27–47.
45.
MuddeCRovira KaltwasserC (2017) Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
46.
MuddeCRovira-KaltwasserC (2013) Exclusionary vs. inclusionary populism: comparing contemporary Europe and Latin America. Government and Opposition48(2): 147–174.
47.
MurilloMVOliverosV (2024) Argentina 2023: la irrupción de Javier Milei en la política argentina. Revista de ciencia política (Santiago), ahead.
48.
NeunerFGWratilC (2022) The populist marketplace: unpacking the role of “Thin” and “Thick” ideology. Political Behavior44(2): 551–574.
49.
NichterS (2018) Votes for Survival: Relational Clientelism in Latin America. 1st edition. Cambridge University Press.
50.
Nieto-MatizCSkiginN (2023) Why programmatic parties reduce criminal violence: theory and evidence from Brazil. Research & Politics10(1): 20531680231155615.
51.
Pop-ElechesG (2020) Changing patterns of ideology and partisanship in Latin America. In: KapiszewskiDLevitskySYasharDJ (eds) The Inclusionary Turn in Latin American Democracies. Cambridge University Press, 185–218.
52.
PosnerPW (2022) Buen Vivir under Correa: the rhetoric of participatory democracy, the reality of rentier populism. Latin American Research Review57(4): 794–812.
53.
PowerTJZuccoC (2009) Estimating ideology of Brazilian legislative parties, 1990–2005: a research communication. Latin American Research Review44(1): 218–246.
54.
RennóLR (2020) The bolsonaro voter: issue positions and vote choice in the 2018 Brazilian presidential elections. Latin American Politics and Society62(4): 1–23.
55.
RobertsKM (2014) Changing Course in Latin America: Party Systems in the Neoliberal Era. Cambridge University Press.
56.
RobertsKM (2018) Left, right, and the populist structuring of political competition. In: de la TorreC (ed) Routledge Handbook of Global Populism. Routledge, 149–162.
57.
RobertsKM (2022) Populism and polarization in comparative perspective: constitutive, spatial and institutional dimensions. Government and Opposition57(4): 680–702.
58.
RobertsKMWibbelsE (1999) Party systems and electoral volatility in Latin America: a test of economic, institutional, and structural explanations. American Political Science Review93(3): 575–590.
59.
RuthSP (2016) Clientelism and the utility of the left-right dimension in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society58(1): 72–97.
60.
SaieghSM (2009) Recovering a basic space from elite surveys: evidence from Latin America. Legislative Studies Quarterly34(1): 117–145.
61.
Sánchez-SibonyO (2024) Why Latin American parties are not coming back. Latin American Politics and Society66(3): 164–193.
62.
SingerMKitscheltH (2011) “Do Everything” (DoE) Parties: When Can Politicians Combine Clientelistic and Programmatic Appeals? Workshop on Democratic Accountability Strategies. Duke University.
63.
StokesSCDunningTNazarenoM, et al. (2013) Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. Cambridge University Press.
64.
Weitz-ShapiroR (2012) What wins votes: why some politicians opt out of clientelism. American Journal of Political Science56(3): 568–583.
65.
WeylandK (1996) Neopopulism and neoliberalism in Latin America: Unexpected affinities. Studies in Comparative International Development31: 3–31. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02738987
66.
WeylandK (2001) Clarifying a contested concept: populism in the study of Latin American politics. Comparative Politics34(1): 1.
67.
WeylandK (2017). Populism: A Political-Strategic Approach. In: KaltwasserCRTaggartPEspejoPO, et al. (eds). Oxford University Press, Vol. 1, 48–72.
68.
WiesehomeierNBenoitK (2009) Presidents, parties, and policy competition. The Journal of Politics71(4): 1435–1447.
69.
WiesehomeierNDoyleD (2012) Attitudes, ideological associations and the left–right divide in Latin America. Journal of Politics in Latin America4(1): 3–33.
70.
ZulianelloMGahner LarsenE (2024) Blurred positions: The ideological ambiguity of valence populist parties. Party Politics30(1): 190–199. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688231161205
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.
