Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-pgkvd Total loading time: 0.427 Render date: 2022-08-08T08:51:30.885Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

The Electoral Consequences of Direct Political Action: Evidence from Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

David S. Brown
Affiliation:
University of Colorado and Institute of Behavioral Science. dsbrown@colorado.edu
J. Christopher Brown
Affiliation:
University of Kansas. jcbrown2@ku.edu
Maureen M. Donaghy
Affiliation:
University of Colorado. maureen.donaghy@colorado.edu

Abstract

Democracy affords citizens the ability to influence policy through participation in elections and through direct political action. Though previous scholarship evaluates the impact each strategy has on outcomes, little if any work exists that examines how one strategy, direct action, affects success in the other, elections. This study analyzes the relationship between land occupations and the electoral success of the Workers' Party in Brazil between 1996 and 2006. It finds that the relationship varies in presidential and mayoral elections depending on income inequality and incumbency. Once the PT captures the presidential office in 2002, these effects disappear, suggesting that the effect of political protest also depends on who is in office.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abers, Rebecca. 1996. The Workers’ Party and Participatory Planning in Brazil: from Ideas to Practice in Emerging Democracy. Latin American Perspectives 23, 4: 3553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abers, Rebecca. 1998. From Clientelism to Cooperation: Local Government, Participatory Policy, and Civic Organizing in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Politics and Society 26, 4: 511–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almeida, Paul. 2006. Social Movement Unionism, Social Movement Partyism, and Policy Outcomes: Health Care Privatization in El Salvador. In Latin American Social Movements: Globalization, Democratization, and Transnational Networks, ed. Johnston, Hank and Almeida, . Lanham : Rowman and Littlefield. 5773.Google Scholar
Ames, Barry. 1994. The Reverse Coattails Effect: Local Party Organization in the 1989 Brazilian Presidential Election. American Political Science Review 88, 1: 95111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ames, Barry. 2001. The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ames, Barry, Baker, Andy, and Renno, Lucio R.. 2006. Social Context and Campaign Volatility in New Democracies: Networks and Neighborhoods in Brazil's 2002 Elections. American Journal of Political Science 50, 2: 379–96.Google Scholar
Ames, Barry, Baker, Andy, and Renno, Lucio R.. 2008. The “Quality” of Elections in Brazil: Policy, Performance, Pageantry, or Pork? In Democratic Brazil Revisited, ed. Kingstone, Peter and Power, Timothy J.. Pittsburgh : University of Pittsburgh Press. 107–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J., and Mendes, Silvia. 2006. Learning to Lose: Election Outcomes, Democratic Experience and Political Protest Potential. British Journal of Political Science 36, 1: 91111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anselin, Luc, and Rey, Sergio. 1991. Properties of Tests for Spatial Dependence in Linear Regression Models. Geographical Analysis 23, 2: 112–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auyero, Javier, Lapegna, Pablo, and Poma, Fernanda Page. 2009. Patronage Politics and Contentious Collective Action: a Recursive Relationship. Latin American Politics and Society 51, 3 (Fall): 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baiocchi, Gianpaolo. 2003. Radicals in Power: The Workers’ Party (PT) and Experiments in Urban Democracy in Brazil. New York : Zed Books.Google Scholar
Branford, Sue. 2010. Lidando com governos: o MST e as administrações de Cardoso e Lula. In Combatendo a desigualdade social: O MST e a reforma agraria no Brasil, ed. Carter, Miguel. São Paulo : Editora UNESP. 409–31.Google Scholar
Branford, Sue, and Kucinski, Bernardo, with Wainwright, Hillary. 2003. Lula and the Workers’ Party in Brazil. New York : New Press.Google Scholar
Branford, Sue, and Rocha, Jan. 2002. Cutting the Wire: The Story of the Landless Movement in Brazil. London : Latin American Bureau.Google Scholar
Bratton, Michael, and van de Walle, Nicolas. 1992. Popular Protest and Political Reform in Africa. Comparative Politics 24, 4: 419–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brazil. Tribunal Superior Eleitoral. Various years. Electoral data. http://www.tse.gov.br.Google Scholar
Brown, David, Brown, J. Christopher, and Desposato, Scott. 2007. Promoting and Preventing Political Change through Internationally Funded Ngo Activity. Latin American Research Review 42, 1: 126–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstein, Paul. 1999. Social Movements and Public Policy. In Giugni et al. 1999. 321.Google Scholar
Caldart, Roseli S. 1997. Educação em movimento. Petrópolis : Vozes.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, and Murillo, María Victoria. 2004. Who Delivers? Partisan Clients in the Argentine Labor Market. American Journal of Political Science 48, 4: 742–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Miguel. 2009. The Landless Rural Workers’ Movement and the Struggle for Social Justice in Brazil. In Rural Social Movements in Latin America: Organizing for Sustainable Livelihoods, ed. Diana Deere, Carmen and Royce, Frederick S.. Gainseville : University Press of Florida. 87115.Google Scholar
Carter, Miguel, ed. 2010. Combatendo a desigualdade social: O MST e a reforma agraria no Brasil. São Paulo : Editora UNESP.Google Scholar
Comissão Pastoral da Terra (CPT). 2007. Especial: conflitos no campo Brasil 2006. No. 187. http://www.cptnacional.org.br.Google Scholar
Costain, Anne. 1992. Inviting Women's Rebellion: A Political Process Interpretation of the Women's Movement. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Della Porta, Donatella, and Diani, Mario. 2006. Social Movements: An Introduction. 2nd edition. Oxford : Blackwell.Google Scholar
Desposato, Scott. 2006. The Impact of Electoral Rules on Legislative Parties: Lessons from the Brazilian Senate and Chamber of Deputies. Journal of Politics 68, 4 (November): 1018–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diniz, Eli. 1982. Voto e máquina política: patronagem e clientelismo no Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro : Paz e Terra.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah, and Roniger, Luis. 1984. Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society. New York : Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandes, Bernardo Mançano. 1998. Gênese e desenvolvimento do MST. São Paulo : Gráfica e Editora.Google Scholar
Fernandes, Bernardo Mançano. 1999. MST: formação e territorialização. São Paulo : Hucitec.Google Scholar
Fernandes, Bernardo Mançano. 2000. A Formação do MST no Brasil. Petrópolis : Vozes.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven : Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Friends of the MST (FMST). 2009. About the Mst. <http://www.mstbrazil.org/?q=about> Accessed August 28, 2009.+Accessed+August+28,+2009.>Google Scholar
Gay, Robert. 1994. Popular Organization and Democracy in Rio de Janeiro: A Tale of Two Favelas. Philadelphia : Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Giugni, Marco, McAdam, Douglas, and Tilly, Charles, eds. 1999. How Social Movements Matter. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Gould, Peter R. 1969. Spatial Diffusion. Resource paper. Washington , DC : Association of American Geographers, Commission on College Geography.Google Scholar
Green, John C., Guth, James L., and Wilcox, Clyde. 1998. Less than Conquerors: The Christian Right in State Republican Parties. In Social Movements and American Political Institutions, ed. Costain, Anne and McFarland, Andrew. Lanham : Rowman and Littlefield. 117–35.Google Scholar
Grindle, Merilee. 1977. Bureaucrats, Politicians, and Peasants in Mexico: A Case Study in Public Policy. Berkeley : University of California Press.Google Scholar
Guevara, Aleida. 2009. MST: simiente de la vida y la esperanza. Mexico City : Ocean Sur.Google Scholar
Holzner, Claudio A. 2007. The Poverty of Democracy: Neoliberal Reforms and Political Participation of the Poor in Mexico. Latin American Politics and Society 49, 2 (Summer): 87122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, Wendy. 2007. The Normalization of an Anomaly: the Workers’ Party in Brazil. World Politics 59, 3: 440–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, Wendy, and Power, Timothy J.. 2007. Rewarding Lula: Executive Power, Social Policy, and the Brazilian Elections of 2006. Latin American Politics and Society 49, 1 (Spring): 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). 2007. Síntese de indicadores sociais 2006. <http://www.ibge.gov.br> Accessed September 5, 2009.+Accessed+September+5,+2009.>Google Scholar
Instituto de Pesquisa Económica Aplicada (IPEA). Various years. http://www.idpeadata.gov.br. Accessed September 5, 2009.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Craig. 1985. The Politics of Insurgency. New York : Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Craig, and Klandermans, Bert, eds. 1995. The Politics of Social Protest: Comparative Perspectives on States and Social Movements. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Keck, Margaret E. 1992. The Workers’ Party and Democratization in Brazil. New Haven : Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Key, Valdimer Orlando. 1966. The Responsible Electorate. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriesi, Hanspeter, Koopmans, Ruud, Duyvendak, Jan W., and Giugni, Marco. 1995. New Social Movements in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Minneapolis : University of Minneapolis Press.Google Scholar
Linhares, Maria Yedda Leite, and da Silva, Francisco Carlos Teixeira. 1999. Terra prometida: uma história da questão agrária no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro : Editora Campus.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott. 1999. Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Stanford : Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
McAdam, Douglas. 1982. Political Process and the Development of the Black Insurgency, 1930–1970. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McAdam, Douglas, Tarrow, Sidney, and Tilly, Charles. 2001. The Dynamics of Contention. New York : Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, Luis Fernando, and Stokes, Susan. 2007. Monopoly and Monitoring: An Approach to Political Clientelism. In Patrons, Clients, and Policies, ed. Kitschelt, Herbert and Wilkinson, Steven. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. 6883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST). 1999. O massacre de Eldorado dos Carajá—Pará/Brasil. Caderno de Formação 32.Google Scholar
Nylen, William R. 2003. Participatory Democracy Versus Elitist Democracy: Lessons from Brazil. New York : Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo. 1992. Transitions, Continuities, and Paradoxes. In Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective, ed. Scott Mainwaring, O'Donnell, and Valenzuela, Samuel. Notre Dame : University of Notre Dame Press. 1756.Google Scholar
Oliveira, Ariovaldo U. de. 1988. A geografia das lutas no campo. São Paulo : Contexto/EDUSP.Google Scholar
O'Loughlin, John. 2002. The Electoral Geography of Weimar Germany: Exploratory Spatial Data Analyses (Esda) of Protestant Support for the Nazi Party. Political Analysis 10, 3: 217–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ondetti, Gabriel. 2008. The Landless Movement and the Struggle for Agrarian Reform in Brazil. University Park : Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Robertson, Graeme B. 2004. Leading Labor: Unions, Politics, and Protest in New Democracies. Comparative Politics 36, 3: 253–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souza, Eduardo Ferreira de. 2004. Do silêncio à sanitização: o discurso de Veja e o MST. São Paulo : Annablume.Google Scholar
Stédile, João Pedro. 2002. Landless Battalions: the Sem Terra Movement of Brazil. New Left Review 15: 77104.Google Scholar
Stédile, João Pedro, and Mançano Fernandes, Bernardo. 1999. Brava gente: a trajetória do MST e a luta pela terra no Brasil. São Paulo : Fundação Perseu Abramo.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan C. 2005. Perverse Accountability: a Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review 99, 3: 315–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney. 1994. Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action, and Politics. New York : Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading : Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Tucker, Joshua A. 2007. Enough! Electoral Fraud, Collective Action Problems, and Post-Communist Colored Revolutions. Perspectives on Politics 5, 3: 535–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 2008. Human Development Report 2007–2008. Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World. New York : United Nations.Google Scholar
Wolford, Wendy. 2006. Families, Fields, and Fighting for Land: The Spatial Dynamics of Contention in Rural Brazil. In Latin American Social Movements: Globalization, Democratization and Transnational Networks, ed. Johnston, Hank and Almeida, Paul. Lanham : Rowman and Littlefield. 163–78.Google Scholar
Wolford, Wendy. 2010. This Land Is Ours Now: Social Mobilization and the Meanings of Land in Brazil. Durham : Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Angus, and Wolford, Wendy. 2003. To Inherit the Earth: The Landless Movement and the Struggle for a New Brazil. Oakland : Food First Books.Google Scholar
Ziblatt, Daniel. 2009. Shaping Democratic Practice and the Causes of Electoral Fraud. American Political Science Review 103, 1: 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Electoral Consequences of Direct Political Action: Evidence from Brazil
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Electoral Consequences of Direct Political Action: Evidence from Brazil
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Electoral Consequences of Direct Political Action: Evidence from Brazil
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *