Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T12:35:24.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Quality of Democratic Accountability: A Comparative View of Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2014

Mikel Barreda
Mikel Barreda*
Affiliation:
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
*
Department of Law and Political Science, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Av. Tibidabo 39-43, 08035 Barcelona (Spain). E-mail: mbarreda@uoc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a comparative analysis of the quality of democratic accountability mechanisms in Latin America. It begins by reviewing the concept of democratic accountability quality and its operationalization by means of factor analysis. As a result, three quality indicators are identified corresponding to the types of accountability that prevail in the literature: horizontal, electoral and social. The study reveals considerable differences among the Latin American democracies. Set out below is an exploratory analysis of the factors explaining these differences. The analysis yields three main conclusions. First, it confirms the usefulness of the model. Second, the quality of each type of accountability is explained by specific factors: no one factor explains all three cases. Third, a different logic behind social accountability mechanisms is detected as compared with the other two types of accountability mechanisms.

Résumé

Cet article présents une analyse comparée de la qualité des mécanismes d'accountability démocratique en Amérique Latine. D'abord, le concept de qualité d'accountability démocratique est examiné et opérationnalisé au moyen d'une analyse factorielle. En conséquence, trois indicateurs de qualité, qui prévalent dans la littérature spécialisée, sont identifiés selon la typologie d'accountability: horizontal, électoral et social. L’étude révèle des différences considérables parmi les démocraties latino-américaines. Ensuite, une analyse exploratoire des facteurs qui expliquent ces différences, a été menée. Trois conclusions se dégagent de cette analyse: première, la confirmation de l'utilité du model développé. Deuxième, la qualité de chaque type d'accountability est expliquée par des facteurs spécifiques, par conséquent, aucun facteur n'explique pas à lui seul les trois cas. Troisième, une logique différente à été détecté dans le cas des mécanismes d'accountability social, comparés avec les autres deux mécanismes d'accountability.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 307 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2014 

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

Álamo, Oscar del. 2006. “El regreso de las identidades perdidas: Movimientos indígenas en países centro-andinos.” Doctoral dissertation. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Alcántara, Manuel. 2008. “Luces y sombras de la calidad de la democracia de América Latina.” Revista de Derecho Electoral 6: 1–15.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, Devleeschauwer, Arnaud, Easterly, William, Kurlat, Sergio and Wacziarg, Romain. 2003. “Fractionalization.” Journal of Economic Growth 8 (2): 155–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altman, David. 2010. “Plebiscitos, referendos e iniciativas populares en América Latina.” Perfiles Latinoamericanos 35: 9–34.Google Scholar
Altman, David and Pérez-Liñán, Aníbal. 2002. “Assessing the Quality of Democracy: Freedom, Competitiveness and Participation in Eighteen Latin American Countries.” Democratization 9 (2): 85–100.Google Scholar
Barreda, Mikel. 2011. “La calidad de la democracia. Un análisis comparado de América Latina.” Política y Gobierno 18 (2): 265–95.Google Scholar
Beetham, David. 1994. “Key Principles and Indices for a Democratic Audit.” In Defining and Measuring Democracy, ed. Beetham, David. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bermeo, Nancy. 2009. “Poverty, Inequality and Democracy. Does Electoral Democracy Boost Economic Equality?” Journal of Democracy 20 (4): 21–35.Google Scholar
Corral, Margarita and Martínez, Mar. 2013. “When do legislators engage in vote buying?” Paper presented at XXXI Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Diamond, Larry and Morlino, Leonardo. 2004. “The Quality of Democracy: An Overview.” Journal of Democracy 15 (4): 20–31.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1998. “Introduction.” In Deliberative Democracy, ed. Elster, Jon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fraile, Marta. 2007. “Political Knowledge and the Logic of Voting: A Comparative Study.” In Voters, Institutions and Accountability, ed. Maravall, José M. and Sánchez-Cuenca, Ignacio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen and Levitsky, Steven. 2006. “Introduction.” In Informal Institutions and Democracy, ed. Helmke, Gretchen and Levitsky, Steven. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Henisz, Witold Henisz. 2014. The Political Constraint Index Dataset. http://www-management.wharton.upenn.edu/henisz/ (April 16, 2014).Google Scholar
Human Rights Watch. 2008. A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela. New York: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
Inter-American Development Bank. 2014. DataGob (Governance Indicators Database). http://www.iadb.org/datagob/ (April 16, 2014).Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay and Massimo Mastruzzi. 2013. Worldwide Governance Indicators. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home (April 16, 2014).Google Scholar
La Porta, Rafael, López-de-Silanes, Florencio, Shleifer, Andrei and Vishny, Robert. 1999. “The Quality of Government.” The Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 15 (1): 222–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latinobarómetro Database. 2014. http://www.latinobarometro.org/latOnline.jsp (April 16, 2014).Google Scholar
Levine, Daniel H. and Molina, José E.. 2011a. “Evaluating the Quality of Democracy in Latin America.” In The quality of democracy in Latin America, ed. Levine, Daniel H. and Molina, José E.. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Levine, Daniel H. and Molina, José E.. 2011b. “Measuring the Quality of Democracy.” In The quality of democracy in Latin America, ed. Levine, Daniel H. and Molina, José E.. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott. 2003. “Introduction: Democratic Accountability in Latin America.” In Democratic Accountability in Latin America, ed. Mainwaring, Scott and Welna, Christopher. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott and Pérez-Liñán, Aníbal. 2008. “Regime legacies and democratization: Explaining variance in the level of democracy in Latin America, 1978–2004.” Working paper, no. 354. The Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies. University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott P. and Torcal, Mariano. 2006. “Party System Institutionalization and Party System Theory after the Third Wave of Democratization.” In Handbook of Party Politics, ed. Katz, Richard S. and Crotty, William J.. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1987. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation.” Political Theory 15 (3): 338–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manin, Bernard, Przeworski, Adam and Stokes, Susan. 1999. “Elections and Representation.” In Democracy, Accountability and Representation, ed. Manin, Bernard, Przeworski, Adam and Stokes, Susan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mauro, Paolo. 1995. “Corruption and Growth.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 (3): 681–712.Google Scholar
Mazzuca, Sebastián L. 2007. “Reconceptualizing Democratization: Access to Power versus Exercise of Power.” In Regimes and Democracy in Latin America: Theories and Methods, ed. Munck, Gerardo. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moreno, Erika, Crisp, Brian F. and Shugart, Mathew Soberg. 2003. “The Accountability Deficit in Latin America.” In Democratic Accountability in Latin America, ed. Mainwaring, Scott and Welna, Christopher. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Munck, Gerardo. 2013. “Conceptualizing the Quality of Democracy: The Framing of a New Agenda for Comparative Politics.” In La calidad de la democracia: perspectivas desde América Latina, ed. Mantilla, Sebastián and Munck, Gerardo. Quito: CELAEP- Hanns Seidel Foundation.Google Scholar
Nannicini, Tommaso, Stella, Andrea, Tabellini, Guido and Troiano, Ugo. 2013. “Social Capital and Political Accountability.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5 (2): 222–50.Google Scholar
Negretto, Gabriel. 2009. “La Reforma Electoral en América Latina. Entre el Interés Partidario y las Demandas Ciudadanas.” In Reforma del Sistema Electoral Chileno, ed. Fontaine, Arturo, Larroulet, Cristián, Navarrete, Jorge and Walker, Ignacio. Santiago de Chile: PNUD.Google Scholar
Ocampo, José A. 2002. “Media década perdida.” Notas de la CEPAL 24. http://www.eclac.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=%20/prensa/noticias/columnas/8/10778/P10778.xml&xsl=/prensa/tpl/p8f.xsl&base=/prensa/tpl/top-bottom.xsl (August 20, 2013).Google Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo. 2004a. “Why the Rule of Law Matters.” Journal of Democracy 15 (4): 32–46.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo. 2004b. “Accountability horizontal: la institucionalización legal de la desconfianza política.” Revista Española de Ciencia Política 11: 11–31.Google Scholar
Persson, Torsten, Tabellini, Guido and Trebbi, Francesco. 2003. “Electoral Rules and Corruption.” Journal of the European Economic Association 1 (4): 958–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peruzzotti, Enrique. 2007. “Rendición de cuentas, participación ciudadana y agencias de control en América Latina.” Paper presented at XVII Asamblea General Ordinaria OLACEFS, Santo Domingo.Google Scholar
Peruzzotti, Enrique and Smulovitz, Catalina. 2000. “Societal accountability in Latin America.” Journal of Democracy 11 (4): 147–58.Google Scholar
Peruzzotti, Enrique and Smulovitz, Catalina. 2006. “Social Accountability: An Introduction.” In Enforcing the Rule of Law. Social Accountability in the New Latin American Democracies, ed. Peruzzotti, Enrique and Smulovitz, Catalina. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Popkin, Margaret. 2002. “Efforts to Enhance Judicial Independence in Latin America: A Comparative Perspective.” In Guidance for Promoting Judicial Independence and Impartiality, ed.USAID. Office of Democracy and Governance, Technical Publication Series (PN-ACM-007).Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Álvarez, Michael, Cheibub, José Antonio and Limongi, Fernando. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. 2004. “The Quality of Democracy: Addressing Inequality.” Journal of Democracy 15 (4): 76–90.Google Scholar
Schedler, Andreas. 1999. “Conceptualizing Accountability.” In The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies, ed. Schedler, Andreas, Diamond, Larry and Plattner, Marc F.. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Schmitter, Philippe C. 2004. “The Ambiguous Virtues of Accountability.” Journal of Democracy 15 (4): 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shumpeter, Joseph. A. 2003. “Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.” In The Democracy Sourcebook, ed. Dahl, Robert A., Shapiro, Ian and Cheibub, José A.. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Peter H. 2004. “Los ciclos de democracia electoral en América Latina, 1900–2000.” Política y Gobierno 11 (2): 189–228.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan. 2006. “Do Informal Rules Make Democracy Work? Accounting for Accountability in Argentina.” In Informal Institutions and Democracy, ed. Helmke, Gretchen and Levitsky, Steven. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
The Quality of Government Institute. 2013. The Quality of Government Standard Dataset. http://www.qog.pol.gu.se/data/datadownloads/qogstandarddata/ (April 16, 2014).Google Scholar
Van Cott, Donna L. 2003. “Cambio institucional y partidos étnicos en Suramérica.” Análisis político 48 (2003): 26–51.Google Scholar