Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:50:03.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rewarding Lula: Executive Power, Social Policy, and the Brazilian Elections of 2006

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Wendy Hunter  and
Timothy J. Power
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyzes Luiz Inácio da Silva's resounding reelection victory in the wake of corruption scandals implicating his party and government. Voters with lower levels of economic security and schooling played a critical role in returning Lula to the presidency. Least prone to punish the president for corruption, poorer Brazilians were also the most readily persuaded by the provision of material benefits. Minimum wage increases and the income transfer program Bolsa Família expanded the purchasing power of the poor. Thus, executive power and central state resources allowed Lula to consolidate a social base that had responded only weakly to his earlier, party-based strategy of grassroots mobilization for progressive macrosocietal change. Although Lula won handily, the PT's delegation to Congress shrank for the first time, and the voting bases of president and party diverged. The PT benefited far less than the president himself from government investment in social policy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , Spring 2007 , pp. 1 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2007

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

Almeida, Alberto Carlos 2006a. Por que Lula? O contexto e as estratégias políticas que explicam a eleição e a crise. Rio de Janeiro: Record.Google Scholar
Alberto Carlos, Almeida. 2006b. Brasil: a Iuta entre o arcáico e o moderno. Revista Insight Inteligência: September. <http://www.insightnet.com.brinteligencia>..>Google Scholar
Barry, Ames. 2001. The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Banco Central do Brasil. 2006a. Effective Interest Rates. <http://www.bcb.gov.br> ?indicators.+?indicators.>Google Scholar
Banco Central do Brasil. 2006b. Sales Volume Index in the Retail Sector. <http://www.bcb.gov.br> ?indicators.+?indicators.>Google Scholar
Marcos Otávio, Bezerra. 1999. Em nome das bases: política, favor e dependência pessoal. Rio de Janeiro: Relume Dumará.Google Scholar
Alvaro, Bianchi, and Braga, Ruy 2005. The Lula Government and Financial Globalization. Social Forces 83, 4: 1745–62.Google Scholar
Robert, Dahl. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Datafolha, . 2006. Opinion Poll Project No. Po3369. <http://www.datafolha.com.br>..>Google Scholar
Desposato, Scott W. 2006. From Revolution to Rouha Mas Faz Re Vista: Harvard Review of Latin America 5, 1 (Spring-Summer): 29–32.Google Scholar
Economist Intelligence Unit. 2006. Country Report: Brazil. London: Eiu. 34. September.Google Scholar
Estado de São Paulo. 2006. Para os mais pobres, um crescimento chinês. Interview with Ipea economist Ricardo Paes de Barros. November 12. <http://www.estadao.com.br>..>Google Scholar
Claúdio, Ferraz, and Finan, Frederico 2006. Exposing Corrupt Politicians: the Effects of Brazil's Publicly Released Audits on Electoral Outcomes. Unpublished mss. University of California, Los Angeles. September.Google Scholar
Carlos Mauricio, Figueiredo, Melo, Marcus, and Pereira, Carlos. 2006. Does Corruption Enhance the Role of Reelection Incentives? Evidence from Brazil's Municipal Audit Reports. Paper prepared for the 10th Annual Conference of the International Society for New Institutional Economics (Isnie), Boulder, September 21–24.Google Scholar
Folha de São Paulo 2005. Cresce percepção de responsabilidade de Lula na corrupção. October 23.Google Scholar
Folha Online. 2006. “Petismo” deve prevalecer sobre “lulismo,” diz dirigente do Pt. November 13. <http://www.folha.com.br>..>Google Scholar
Abramo, Fundação Perseu. 2006. Imagem partidária e cultura política. Public opinion poll. March. São Paulo: Fundação Perseu Abramo.Google Scholar
Barbara, Geddes, and Neto, Artur Ribeiro 1999. Institutional Sources of Corruption in Brazil. In Corruption and Political Reform in Brazil: The Impact of Collor's Impeachment, ed. Rosenn, Keith S. and Downes, Richard Coral Gables: North-South Center Press. 21–48.Google Scholar
O Globo (Rio de Janeiro). 2006. A bolsa e os bolsões. Caderno especial, eleições 2006. August 12.Google Scholar
Anthony, Hall. 2006. From Fome Zero to Bolsa Família: Social Policies and Poverty Alleviation under Lula. Journal of Latin American Studies 38, 3 (November): 689–709.Google Scholar
Wendy, Hunter, and Power, Timothy J. 2005. Lula's Brazil at Midterm. Journal of Democracy 16, 3 (July): 127–39.Google Scholar
Ronald, Inglehart, and Welzel, Christian 2005. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
IBOPE. 2006. Time series data. <http://www.ibope.com.br>..>Google Scholar
Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA). 2006. Indicadores sociais: Idh. <http://www.ipeadata.gov.br>..>Google Scholar
Herbert, Kitschelt. 2000. Linkages between Citizens and Politicians in Democratic Polities. Comparative Political Studies 33, 6–7: 845–79.Google Scholar
Victor Nunes, Leal. 1949. Coronelismo, enxada e voto: o municipio e o regime representativo no Brasil. Sáo Paulo: Alfa e Omega.Google Scholar
Scott, Mainwaring. 1999. Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social (MDS). 2006a. Programa Bolsa Família, guia do gestor. Brasília: MDS.Google Scholar
Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social (MDS). 2006b. Ministry official (anonymous). Author interview, Brasília, August 16.Google Scholar
Marcelo Cortes Coord, Neri. 2006. Poverty, Inequality, and Labor Dynamics: the Second Real. Report. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas.Google Scholar
David, Samuels. 2006. Sources of Mass Partisanship in Brazil. Latin American Politics and Society 48: 2 (Summer): 1–27.Google Scholar
André, Singer. 1990. Collor na periferia: a volta por cima do populismo? In De Geisel a Collor: o balanço da transição, ed. Bolivar, Lamounier. São Paulo: Sumarê. 135–52.Google Scholar
Fábio Veras, Soares, Soares, Sergei, Medeiros, Marcelo, and Osório, Rafael Guerreiro 2006. Programas de transferência de renda no Brasil: impactos sobre a desigualdade. IPEA Texto para Discussào 1228 (October).Google Scholar
Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE). 2006. Election data. <http://www.tse.gov.br>..>Google Scholar
Tatu, Vanhanen. 1990. The Process of Democratization: A Comparative Study of 147 States, 1980–1988. New York: Crane Russak.Google Scholar
Gustavo, Venturi. 2006. A opinião pública diante da crise. Teoria e Debate 19, 66 (April-June): 20–26.Google Scholar
Kurt, Weyland. 2001. Clarifying a Contested Concept: Populism in the Study of Latin American Politics. Comparative Politics 34 (October): 1–22.Google Scholar