The central research finding of this article is that the standard policy feedback effects in the literature cannot alone explain the outcomes of the Brazilian Bolsa Familia program/Programa Bolsa Família (PBF). While conditional cash transfers (CCTs) have remained a resilient policy instrument in Brazil – newly elected officials did not dismantle, replace or wholesale transform PBF – our empirical research tells us that this resilience is due not only to policy feedbacks, but also to another mechanism. We suggest that previous explanations have not paid sufficient attention to the concept of policy capacity or to the role of the bureaucracy in defending PBF over time. We analyse the internal dynamics of Brazil’s PBF in changing political and economic environments. Our key explanatory factor is the impact of alternations of power. We suggest that PBF’s resilience to changing political and economic contexts is underpinned by its policy capacity.
BélandDRoccoPWaddanA (2016) Reassessing policy drift: Social policy change in the United States. Social Policy and Administration50: 201–218.
7.
CampbellAL (2002) Self-interest, social security, and the distinctive participation patterns of senior citizens. American Political Science Review96: 565–574.
8.
ChuaireMScartasciniC (2014) The Politics of Policies: Revisiting the Quality of Public Policies and Government Capabilities in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
9.
CornellA (2014) Why bureaucratic stability matters for the implementation of democratic governance programs. Governance27(2): 191–214.
10.
CorrêaDSCheibubJA (2016) The anti-incumbent effects of conditional cash transfer programs. Latin American Politics and Society58(1): 49–71.
11.
CyrJ (2016) The pitfalls and promise of focus groups as a data collection method. Sociological Methods and Research45(2): 231–259.
12.
FenwickTB (2013) Stuck between the past and the future. Global Social Policy13(2): 144–167.
13.
FenwickTB (2017) From CCTs to a social investment welfare state? Brazil’s ‘new’ pro-poor strategy. Development Policy Review35(5): 659–674.
14.
HackerJS (2004) Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: The hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. American Political Science Review98: 243–260.
15.
HowlettMRameshMPerlA (2009) Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, 3rd edn.Toronto, ON, Canada: Oxford University Press.
16.
HuberEStephensJD (2012) Democracy and the Left: Social Policy and Inequality in Latin America. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
17.
HughesAGleesonDLeggeD, et al. (2015) Governance and policy capacity in health development and implementation in Australia. Policy and Society 344): 229–245.
18.
Instituto Brasileiro de Opinião Pública e Estatística (IBOPE) (2002) Pesquisa de Opinião Pública #558. Campinas: Universidade de Campinas.
19.
JacobsAMWeaverRK (2015) When policies undo themselves: Self-undermining feedback as a source of policy change. Governance28(4): 441–457.
20.
JonesBDEppDABaumgartnerFR (2019) Democracy, authoritarianism, and policy punctuations. International Review of Public Policy1(11): 7–26.
21.
LavinasL (2015) New trends in inequality: The financialization of social policies. In: GallasAHerrGallas AHerrHHofferF, et al (eds) Combating Inequality: The North and Global South. New York: Routledge, pp. 212–225.
22.
LaytonMDonaghyMRennóL (2017) Does welfare provision promote democratic state legitimacy? Evidence from Brazil’s Bolsa Família program. Latin American Politics and Society59(4): 99–120.
23.
LicioECRennóLRde CastroHCDO (2009) Bolsa Família e voto na eleição presidencial de 2006: em busca do elo perdido. Opinião Pública15(1): 31–54.
24.
LindertKVincensiniV (2010) Social policy, perceptions, and the press. Social protection discussion paper no. 1008. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
25.
LunaJPKaltwasserCR (eds) (2014) The Resilience of the Latin American Right. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
26.
MahoneyJThelenK (2010) A gradual theory of institutional change. In: MahoneyJThelenK (eds) Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–38.
27.
MostafaJda SilvaK (2007) Brazil’s Single Registry Experience: A Tool for Pro-Poor Social Policies. Brasilia: Brazilian Ministry of Social Development and Fight Against Hunger.
28.
NicolauJPeixotoV (2007) Uma disputa em três tempos: uma análise das bases municipais das eleições presidenciais de 2006. Encontro Anual da ANPOCS31: 22–26.
29.
PavãoN (2016) Conditional cash transfer programs and electoral accountability: Evidence from Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society58(2): 74–99.
30.
PeixotoVRennóL (2011) Mobilidade social ascendente e voto: as eleições presidenciais de 2010 no Brasil. Opinião Pública17(2): 304–332.
31.
PiersonP (1993) When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics45(4): 595–628.
32.
RennóL (2020) The Bolsonaro voter: Issue positions and vote choice in the 2018 Brazilian presidential elections. Latin American Politics and Society62(3): 1–23.
33.
RennóLAmesB (2014) PT no purgatório: ambivalência eleitoral no primeiro turno das eleições presidenciais de 2010. Opinião Pública20(1): 1–25.
34.
SkocpolT (1992) Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Politics of Social Provision in the United States, 1870s–1920s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
StreeckWThelenK (eds) (2005) Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
ThelenK (2004) How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
VossJPSimonsA (2014) Instrument constituencies and the supply side of policy innovation: The social life of emissions trading. Environmental Politics23(5): 735–754.
38.
WuXRameshMHowlettM (2015) Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society34(4): 165–171.
39.
ZuccoC (2013) When payouts pay off: Conditional cash transfers and voting behaviour in Brazil 2002–10. American Journal of Political Science57: 810–822.
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.
