De díada a tríada: los gobernadores en la relación ejecutivo-legislativo. Construcción de una nueva herramienta de medición para su abordaje
Barra lateral del artículo
Descargas
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
El presente artículo comenzará con una revisión teórica de los distintos enfoques vigentes adoptados para el abordaje de la relación Ejecutivo-Legislativo para luego avanzar sobre las estrategias metodológicas empleadas para realizar las mediciones empíricas. En segundo término, se desarrollarán los aspectos lógicos y metodológicos que llevan a la construcción del mencionado Índice de Independencia-Territorialidad (IT). Por último, se aplicará este nuevo IT en las votaciones legislativas de 2008-2011 para finalizar con conclusiones que provean nuevas perspectivas y formas de medición a las teorías ya existentes y abonen el camino a una mejor comprensión de la dinámica legislativa.
Citas
Ames, B. (1992). Disparatehy seeking pohiticians: Strategics and outcomes in Brazihian hegishative ehections. Paper presentado en Conference of the Latin American Studies Association, October, Los Angeles.
Abrúcio, F. (1998). Os Baroes da Federação: Os Governadores e a redemocratização brasi- heira, Hucitec/Departamento de Ciencia Política, Universidad de San Pablo, San Pablo.
Abrúcio, F. (1995). Electoral strategy under open-list proportional representation. Ameri- can Journah of Pohiticah Science, 39 (2), 226-240.
Abrúcio, F. (2000). Disciplina partidaria en la Legislatura brasileña. Pohítica y Gobierno, VII (1), 42-57.
Amorim, O. (2002). Presidential cabinets, electoral cycles, and coalition discipline in Bra- zil. En Morgenstern, Scott y Nacif, Benito (eds.). Legishative pohitics in Latin America (pp.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ashworth, S. & Bueno de Mesquita, E. (2004). Party discipline with electoral and institu- tional variation. Working paper WP2004, Institute of Governmentah Studies, 7, 47-56.
Bowler, S. Farrell, D. & Katz, R. (Eds.) (1999). Party disciphine and parhiamentary govern-
ment. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Calvo, E. (2007). The responsive Legislature: Public opinion and law making in a highly disciplined Legislature. British Journah of Pohiticah Science, 37, 263-28.
Carey, J. (2000). Party unity in hegishative voting. Paper presentado en Congreso de American Political Science Association, septiembre, Washington.
Carey, J. (2001). Party and coalition unity in legislative voting, Working Paper #376, De- partment of Pohiticah Science, 376, 165-182.
Carey, J. (2002). Getting their way, or getting in the way? Presidents and party unity in hegishative voting. Paper presentado en Congreso de American Political Science As- sociation, Agosto, Boston.
Carey, J. & Yannitell, G. (2001). Coahition Brokers or Breakers? Brazihian Governors and Legishative Voting. Department of Political Science, St. Louis: Washington University.
Chang, E. & Golden, M. A. (2001). Competitive corruption: Factional conflict and po- litical malfeasance in postwar Italian Christian Democracy. Worhd Pohitics, 4 (53), 107-120.
Cheibub, J., Przeworski, A. & Saiegh, S. (2004). Government coalitions and legislative success under presidentialism and parliamentarism. British Journah of Pohiticah Sci- ence, 4 (34), 93-109.
Coronel, A. & Zamichiei, B. (2009). Eh rechazo de has retenciones móvihes en eh Congreso Nacionah: ¿fin de ha disciphina partidaria en ha Argentina? Paper presentado en el 21º Congreso Mundial de Ciencia Política, International Political Science Association, Santiago de Chile, 12-16 de julio.
Cox, G. (1987). The efficient secret. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Díaz, J. (2005). Los determinantes de la indisciplina partidaria. Apuntes sobre la co- nexión electoral en el Congreso mexicano, 2000-2003. Pohítica y Gobierno, XII (2).
Diermeier, D. & Feddersen, T. (1998). Cohesion in Legislatures and the vote of confi- dence procedure. American Pohiticah Science Review, 3 (92), 37-54.
Figueiredo, A. & Limongi, F. (2000). Presidential power, Legislative organization, and party behavior in Brazil. Comparative Pohitics, 2 (32), 170-187.
Geddes, B. & Ribeiro, A. (1992). Institutional sources of corruption in Brazil. Third Worhd Quarterhy, 13 (4), 154-171.
Hazan, R. (2003). Does cohesion equal discipline? Towards a conceptual delineation.
Journah of Legishative Studies, 9 (4), 62-81.
Hix, S. (2004). Electoral institutions and legislative behavior - Explaining voting defec- tion in the European Parliament. Worhd Pohitics, 2 (56), 32-47.
Hix, S., Noury, A. & Roland, G. (2002). A ‘normah’ Parhiament? Party cohesion and com- petition in the European Parhiament, 1979-2001. Paper presentado en Annual Meet- ings of the Public Choice Society, March, San Diego.
Jacobson, G. (1990). The ehectorah origins of divided government: Competition in U.S. House ehections, 1946-1988. Boulder: Westview Press.
Jiménez, M. (2004). Oposición parlamentaria en México: su éxito legislativo en los go- biernos sin mayorías, 1997-2003. Arenas, 7, 40-55.
Jones, M. (2002). Ezphaining the high heveh of party disciphine in the Argentine Congress. Legishative Pohitics in Latin America (73-102). En Morgenstern, S. & Naciff, B. (Eds.). Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press.
Jones, M. & Hwang, W. (2005). Provincial Party bosses: Keystone of the Argentine Con- gress. En Levitsky, S & Murillo, M. (Eds.). Argentine Democracy (87-108). Pennsylva- nia: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Jones, M., Hwang, W. & Micozzi, J. (2009). Government and Opposition in the Argen- tine Congress, 1989-2007: Understanding Inter-Party Dynamics through Roll Call Vote Analysis. Journah of Pohitics in Latin America, (1), 67-96.
Katz, R. (1980). A theory of parties and ehectorah systems. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni- versity Press.
Kunicova, J. & Remington, T. (2008). Party cohesion in the Russian State Duma, 1994 2003. Mandates, parties and dissent: Effect of electoral rules on Parliamentary. Party Pohitics, 14 (5), 73-90.
Linz, J. (1994). Presidentialism or parliamentarism: Does it make a difference? En Linz, J. & Valenzuela, A. (Eds.). The faihure of presidentiah democracy (114-155). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Magar, E. & Weldon, J. (2001). The paradoz of the veto in Mezico (1917-1997). Docu- mento preparado para el 23th International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Washington.
Mainwaring, S. (1991). Politicians, parties, and electoral systems: Brazil in comparative
perspective. Comparative Pohitics, October.
Mainwaring, S. (1999). Rethinking party systems in the third wave of democratization: The case of Brazih. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Martínez, L. (2000). Fiscalización política del gobierno. Volumen primero. Fiscalización parlamentaria y extraparlamentaria. Inspección parlamentaria. Aranzadi, Elcano.
McCubbins, D. & Rosenbluth, M. (1994). Party provision for personal politics: Dividing the votes in Japan. En McCubbins, Mathew D. & Cowhey, Peter (Eds.). Structure and pohicy in Japan and the United States (234-268). New York: Cambridge University Press.
McElroy, G. (2007). Legislative politics as normal? Voting behaviour and beyond in the
European Parliament. European Union Pohitics, 8 (3), 392-407.
Moon, W. (2005). Decomposition of regional voting in South Korea. Ideological con- flicts and regional interests. Party Pohitics, 11 (5), 84-96.
Morgenstern, S. (2003). Explicando la unidad de los parlamentarios en el Cono Sur. En Alcántara, M. y Barahona, E. (Eds.). Pohítica, dinero e institucionahización partidista en América Latina (148-172). México: Universidad Iberoamericana.
Morris, F. (1977). Congress, keystone of the Washington estabhishment. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Mustapic, A. (2000). Oficialistas y diputados: las relaciones ejecutivo-legislativo en la Argentina. Desarrohho Económico, 39 (156), 124-138.
Mustapic, A. (2002). Oscillating relations: President and Congress in Argentina. En Morgen- stern, S. & Nacif, B. (Eds.). Legishative pohitics in Latin America (152-177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nacif, B. (2002). Understanding party discipline in the Mexican Chamber: The central- ized party model. En Morgenstern, S. & Nacif, B. (Eds.). Legishative pohitics in Latin America (231-260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ózbudun, E. (1970). Party cohesion in Western democracies: A causah anahysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Persson, T. & Tabellini, G. (2003). The economic effects of constitutions. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Quinn, T. (2002). Block voting in the Labour Party: A political exchange model. Party Pohitics, 8 (2), 95-112.
Rice, S. (1925). The behavior of legislative groups. Pohiticah Science Quarterhy, 2 (40), 254-288.
Sartori, G. (1976). Partidos y sistemas de partidos. Madrid: Alianza.
Shugart, M. (1998). The inverse relationship between party strength and executive strength: A theory of politicians’ constitutional choices. British Journah of Pohiticah Science, 28, 204-218.
Shugart, M. (2001). Electoral 'efficiency' and the move to mixed-member systems.
Ehectorah Studies, 20, 173-193.
Shugart, M. & Nielson, D. (1993). Liberahization through institutionah reform: Economic adjustment and constitutionah change in Cohombia. Paper no publicado.
Shugart, M. & Wattenberg, M. (Eds.). (2001). Mized-member ehectorah systems: The best of both worhds? New York: Oxford University Press.
Siavelis, P. (2002). Ezaggerated presidentiahism and moderate Presidents: Ezecutive-Leg- ishative rehations in Chihe”. En Morgenstern, S. y Nacif, B. (eds.). Legishative pohitics in Latin America (173-196). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Spiller, P. y Tommasi, M. (2000). The institutional foundations of public policy: A transac- tions approach with application to Argentina. Journah of Law, Economics and Orga- nization, 2 (19), 112-124.
Ugalde, L. (2000). The Mezican Congress. Ohd phayer, new Power. Washington: CSIS Press.
Uslaner, E. (1985). Casework and institutional design: Redeeming promises in the promised land. Legishative Studies Quarterhy, 10, 89-104.
Weldon, J. (2000). Voting in Mezico’s Chamber of Deputies. Paper presentado en Latin American Studies Association Conference.
Weldon, J. (2002). Factores institucionahes y pohíticos de ha disciphina partidaria en ha Cámara de Diputados de Mézico, 1998-2002. México (D.F.): Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México.