Brazil: The Costs of Multiparty Presidentialism
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Them’ without ‘us’: Negative identities and affective polarization in Brazil
Areal, J. (2022) · Political Research Exchange · doi:10.1080/2474736x.2022.2117635 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- 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