Cited by 56Politics and Society in Latin AmericaPolitical Dynamics in Latin AmericaPolitical Conflict and Governance

Brazil: The Costs of Multiparty Presidentialism

Mello, Eduardo, Spektor, Matias·2018·Journal of Democracy

Abstract

Political scientists have long debated the merits of multiparty presidentialism. The dominant view that has emerged over the past decade is that presidents can effectively build coalitions by sharing control over the executive’s vast resources with coalition partners in the legislature. This paper provides a more pessimistic account, focused on the problems of accountability created by powerful presidents working to build coalitions in fragmented legislatures. It argues that multiparty presidential systems foster legislatures dependent on patronage and clientelism, which are in fact too weak to check the executive. As a result, these systems are fertile ground for rent-seeking and corruption.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1353/jod.2018.0031

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Second-round voting captures the most relevant lines of political competition in Brazil, pitting the centre-left PT against right-wing and centre-right competitors since 1989.

    “Second-round voting captures the most relevant lines of political competition in Brazil, pitting the centre-left PT against right-wing and centre-right competitors since 1989 (Mello and Spektor 2018).”

    From Them’ without ‘us’: Negative identities and affective polarization in Brazil (2022) · cites this paper as Mello and Spektor 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mello, E., & Spektor, M.
Venue
Journal of Democracy
Publisher
Project MUSE
Published
2018
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
113-127
ISSN
  • 1045-5736 (ISSN-L)
  • 1086-3214
OpenAlex
W2796849203
Cited by
56
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
17.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of democracy (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Politics and Society in Latin America
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Dynamics in Latin America
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
Keywords
executive-legislative relations, coalition building, legislative accountability, patronage, clientelism, rent-seeking, corruption, executive power, Brazil

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review