Working Papers #191 - 200
Click Working Paper title to download (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader).
Please note, not all papers are available for download at this time.
Verónica Montecinos
Working Paper #191 - May 1993
Verónica Montecinos is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at The Pennsylvania State University, McKeesport. She has published on the transition to democracy in Chile and on interregional cooperation between Latin America and the European Community. In the fall 1988 she was a Visiting Fellow at the Kellogg Institute.
Abstract
After being the last to join the wave of democratic transitions in the 1980s, Chile is posing intriguing questions for those interested in understanding the present phase of democratic consolidation, not least because of the country's economic accomplishments. This paper suggests that the future of Chile's distinctive transition may be nearer the democratic pole than other "hybrid" democratic-authoritarian regimes that emerged in Latin America in the past decade. The performance of technocratic roles may result in less authoritarian styles of policy-making, due to a unique pattern of interaction between economic and political elites, aided by favorable economic conditions and the legacy of Chile's democratic traditions.
Resumen
Habiendo sido el último en unirse a la ola de transiciones democráticas de la década de los ochentas, Chile plantea preguntas intrigantes a aquéllos que están interesados en entender la fase actual de consolidación democrática, tanto más como consecuencia de los logros económicos del país. Este trabajo sugiere que el futuro de la transición de Chile puede estar más cerca del polo democrático que el de otros regímenes democrático-autoritarios "híbridos" que surgieron en Latinoamérica en la década pasada. El desempeño de los roles tecnocráticos puede dar lugar a estilos menos autoritarios de formulación de políticas, debido a un modelo único de interacción entre las élites económicas y políticas, apoyado por condiciones económicas favorables y por el legado de tradiciones democráticas de Chile.
(30 pages)
Guillermo O'Donnell
Working Paper #192 - April 1993
Guillermo O'Donnell, Helen Kellogg Professor of Sociology and Government and Inter-national Studies, is Academic director of the Institute.
The ideas presented here owe much to the meetings and various intellectual exchanges of the "East-South System Transformation" project, supported by the MacArthur Foundation. I am particularly grateful to the director and intellectual leader of this project, Adam Przeworski, for his many extremely helpful criticisms and suggestions. Some of the ideas of this text have been inserted and polished by Przeworski and inserted in a volume (Sustainable Democracy, Cambridge University Press: 1995), of which he is the principal author. I presented a previous version of this text at the meeting on "Democracy, Markets, and Structural Reforms in Latin America," sponsored by the North-South Center and CEDES, held in Buenos Aires, March 1992, and at the meeting on "Economic Liberalization and Democratic Consolidation," sponsored by the Social Science Research Council, for the project "Democratization and Economic Reform," held at Bologna-Forli, April 1992. I am grateful for many useful comments received during those meetings, including those of Carlos Acuña, Eduardo Gamarra, and William Smith, codirectors of the first mentioned project. I owe very special thanks to Laurence Whitehead, director of the SSRC project, not only for his helpful criticisms and suggestions but also for his generous efforts to make the present text a reasonably readable one-that he did not entirely succeed is certainly not his fault. I also thank my colleagues at CEBRAP and at the Kellogg Institute for several enlightening discussions.
Abstract
The article argues that for proper understanding of many processes of democratization, current conceptions of the state must be revised, especially with reference to its legal dimension. On this basis several contrasts are drawn between representative, consolidated democracies and the democratic (i.e., polyarchical) forms that are emerging in most newly democratized countries, East and South. From this perspective, various phenomena not presently theorized (except as deviations from a presumed modal pattern of democratization) are discussed. Concepts such as delegative democracy, low intensity citizenship, and a state that combines strong democratic and authoritarian features are introduced for the purpose of that discussion.
Resumen
Este artículo argumenta que, para entender adecuadamente diversos procesos de democratización, las concepciones corrientes sobre el estado deben ser revisadas, especialmente en lo que se refieren a la dimensión legal del mismo. Sobre esta base el artículo discute varios contrastes observables entre democracias representativas y consolidadas y las formas democráticas (es decir, poliárquicas) que están emergiendo en muchos de los países recientemente democratizados. Desde esta perspectiva, varios fenómenos que no han sido teorizados (excepto como desviaciones de un patrón presuntamente modal de democratización) son discutidos. Conceptos tales como democracia delegativa, ciudadanía de baja intensidad y un estado que combina fuertes elementos democráticos y autoritarios, son introducidos en función de dicha discusión.
(23 pages)
Edward J. Amadeo
Working Paper #193 - May 1993
Edward J. Amadeo, Associate Professor of the Department of Economics at PUC-RJ, obtained his Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University in 1985. He has been external consultant for the Brazilian Central Bank, WIDER, PREALC/ILO, the World Bank, and UNRISD. Among extensive publications, he has authored Keynes's Principle of Effective Demand (1989) and coauthored, with Amitava K. Dutt, Keynes's Third Alternative? The Neo-Ricardian Keynesians and the Post-Keynesians (1990) and, with Marcello Estevão, A Teoria Econômica do Desemprego (1991). He is editor of John Maynard Keynes: Cinquenta Anos da Teoria Geral (1989) and Ensaios sobre Economia Política Moderna (1990). He completed a book on 'New Unionism,' Collective Bargaining, and Distributive Conflict in Brazil.
The author is grateful to Eduarda La Rocque, Peter Skott, Willi Semmler, and Lance Taylor for providing useful comments. He is also thankful to José M. Camargo for earlier discussions on issues related to this paper. He is especially grateful to Jaime Ros and Amitava K. Dutt who, with their insightful comments, enhanced the rigor of the analysis and called his attention to some interesting extensions for the model. The author is entirely responsible for the remaining errors.
Abstract
In this paper we address the logic of wage determination in a regime of high and accelerating inflation, and the rational basis of 'overindexation' of wages. We discuss the incentives and costs of wage overindexation to the workers, and the determination of the 'optimal' level of wage adjustment. We argue that the degree of overindexation is likely to increase as negotiations become more centralized at the industry level. However, at near-national levels of wage negotiation, the incentives to overindex become much smaller. We also argue that increasing uncertainty over the future path of inflation tends to increase the degree of indexation of wages.
Resumen
En este trabajo analizamos la lógica de la determinación de los salarios en un régimen de inflación alta y acelerada, así como el fundamento racional de la "sobreindización" salarial. Discutimos los incentivos y los costos de la sobreindización salarial para los trabajadores, y la determinación del nivel "óptimo" de ajuste de los salarios. Proponemos que el grado de sobreindización tiende a aumentar conforme las negociaciones se vuelven más centralizadas a nivel de rama industrial. Sin embargo, a niveles aún mayores de centralización, cuando las negociaciones salariales se vuelven casi nacionales, los incentivos para la sobreindización se vuelven menores. También proponemos que una mayor incertidumbre con respecto a la trayectoria futura de la inflación tiende a incrementar el grado de indización salarial.
(17 pages)
JoAnn Martin
Working Paper #194 - June 1993
JoAnn Martin is Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana. She received her doctorate from the University of California at Berkeley. She is coeditor, with Carolyn Nordstrom, and contributor to The Paths to Domination, Resistance, and Terror (University of California Press, 1992) and author of "Motherhood and Power: The Production of a Women's Culture of Politics in a Mexican Community," American Ethnologist 17(3). In the fall semester 1991 she was a Residential Fellow at the Kellogg Institute.
Abstract
The Mexican state's use of revolutionary history to invoke nationalistic sentiments nurtures a lively tradition of storytelling. Ironically, Buena Vista's storytellers criticize the inauthenticity of official representations of the past even as they draw on the images and ideals of 'official' history to weave their own tales. This paper explores the power of storytelling to create an aura of authenticity in a setting where the boundary between true and false, pure and impure, is contested.
Resumen
La utilización de la historia revolucionaria por parte del estado mexicano para invocar sentimientos nacionalistas sustenta una viva tradición de cuentos. Irónicamente, los cuentistas de Buena Vista critican la falta de autenticidad de las representaciones oficiales del pasado, aun cuando ellos mismos emplean imágenes e ideales de la historia 'oficial' para forjar sus propios cuentos. Este trabajo explora el poder que tiene la narración de cuentos para crear un aura de autenticidad cuando los límites entre lo verdadero y lo falso, lo puro y lo impuro son debatidos.
(21 pages)
Fred Dallmayr
Working Paper #195 - June 1993
Fred Dallmayr is Packey Dee Professor of Political Theory at the University of Notre Dame. A native of Germany, he holds a Doctor of Law degree from the University of Munich and a Ph.D. degree in political science from Duke University. Before joining the University of Notre Dame in 1978, he taught at the Universities of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Georgia, and Purdue where he also served as department chair for five years. He has also been a visiting professor at Hamburg University in Germany and at the New School for Social Research in New York; in addition he has been a research fellow at Nuffield College in Oxford and a senior Fulbright scholar in India. Among his publications are: Beyond Dogma and Despair (1981); Twilight of Subjectivity (1981); Polis and Praxis (1984); Language and Politics (1984); Critical Encounters: Between Philosophy and Politics (1987); Margins of Political Discourse (1989); and Life-World, Modernity, and Critique (1991).
Abstract
This paper offers a discussion of development theory, with special attention to its relevance in the context of India. Three successive models of development are distinguished in the paper: empirical (structural-functional) development theory; philosophical modernization theory (deriving from Enlightenment teachings); and 'postmodernization' theory, emphasizing cultural resistance to global standardization. In its first section, the paper reviews (once again) the developmental model articulated during the postwar years by social scientists under the aegis of the SSRC. As the author shows, this model gave rise to numerous challenges and rejoinders on both theoretical and political grounds, rejoinders that often, however, bypassed one of the model's central features: its narrowly empiricist outlook. It was chiefly this feature that motivated a new wave of (postempiricist) theorizing which-under the banners of phenomenology, hermeneutics, and critical theory-raised the developmental debate to a philosophical and quasi-transcendental level. This move intensified existing controversies by making modernization and modernity itself central topics of critical inquiry, thus triggering a confrontation between defenders of modernity and of 'postmodernity.' Throughout the presentation, room is given to arguments of Indian philosophers and social theorists, to counteract the conceit of a Western monopoly of the development debate. This focus on Indian thinkers forms the heart of the paper's concluding section which illustrates a loosely postmodern view of development by referring to a strand of argumentation stretching from Gandhi to Ashis Nandy and others.
Resumen
Este trabajo presenta una discusión sobre la teoría del desarrollo, poniendo especial atención a su relevancia en el caso de la India. En el trabajo se distinguen tres modelos de desarrollo: la teoría empírica (estructural-funcionalista) del desarrollo; la teoría filosófica de la modernización (que proviene de las enseñanzas de la Ilustración); y la teoría de la 'postmodernización', que enfatiza la resistencia cultural a la normalización global. En la primera sección del trabajo se revisa (una vez más) el modelo desarrollista elaborado durante los años de la posguerra por científicos sociales bajo la égida de la SSRC. Como lo muestra el autor, este modelo dió origen a numerosos desafíos y réplicas, tanto en el terreno teórico como en el político. Sin embargo, dichas réplicas muchas veces pasaban por alto una de las características centrales del modelo: su estrecha perspectiva empírica. Fue principalmente esta característica la que originó una nueva corriente de teorías (postempíricas) las cuales-bajo las banderas de la fenomenología, de la hermenéutica, y de la teoría crítica-elevaron el debate sobre el desarrollo a un nivel filosófico y cuasitrascendental. Este movimiento intensificó las controversias existentes convirtiendo a la modernización y a la modernidad misma en temas centrales de la investigación crítica, provocando, así, una confrontación entre los defensores de la modernidad y de la 'postmodernidad'. A lo largo de la presentación, se da cabida a los argumentos de filósofos y teóricos sociales de la India, para contrarrestar la presunción de un monopolio occidental del debate sobre el desarrollo. La atención dada a los pensadores de la India constituye el núcleo de las conclusiones del trabajo, las cuales presentan una visión vagamente postmoderna del desarrollo al referirse a un tipo de argumentación que se extiende de Gandhi a Ashis Nandy y otros.
(27 pages)
Enrique Dussel Peters and Mathew A. Verghis
Working Paper #196 - June 1993
Enrique Dussel Peters and Mathew A. Verghis are graduate students in the Economics Department at Notre Dame. Dussel is working on current issues related to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) while Verghis's dissertation studies the macroeconomic constraints on Indian economic growth.
Abstract
This report summarizes the papers and discussions from a conference held at the Kellogg Institute on "The State, Markets and Development." The first section addresses theoretical issues while the second presents the case studies discussed at the conference.
Resumen
El reporte resume los trabajos y las discusiones de la conferencia realizada en el Kellogg Institute sobre "El Estado, Mercados y Desarrollo". La primera parte analiza temas teóricos y la segunda presenta los estudios de caso que se presentaron en la conferencia.
(14 pages)
Miriam Kornblith and Daniel H. Levine
Working Paper #197 - June 1993
Miriam Kornblith is a researcher at the Instituto de Estudios Políticos and Professor at the Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas of the Universidad Central de Venezuela. She is a past Visiting Fellow at the Center for Latin American Studies, Stanford University (1988-1991), and is a Visiting Researcher at the Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administración (IESA) in Caracas.
Daniel H. Levine is Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan, and is a past Fellow of the Kellogg Institute. In 1992 and 1993 he has been a Visiting Professor at IESA (Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administración) in Caracas, Venezuela. His most recent books are Popular Voices in Latin American Catholicism (Princeton University Press, 1992) and Constructing Culture and Power in Latin America (University of Michigan Press, 1993).
Abstract
Political parties have been at the center of modern Venezuelan democracy from the beginning. Strong, highly disciplined, and nationally organized parties have dominated political organization and action in the modern period. Parties have penetrated and controlled organized social life and effectively monopolized resources and channels of political action. Beginning in the 1980s, the political parties and the party system as a whole have experienced mounting criticism and challenge. In a time of growing economic, social, and political crisis, efforts have nonetheless been made to loosen national control and open new channels for citizen participation with the aim of 'democratizing Venezuelan democracy.' The ability of the parties to implement these reforms, and to reform themselves in the process, is central to the survival of effective democracy in Venezuela.
Resumen
Desde sus inicios, los partidos políticos han estado en el centro de la democracia en Venezuela. La vida política de la moderna Venezuela ha sido dominada por partidos políticos fuertes, disciplinados y organizados a escala nacional. Los partidos políticos han penetrado y controlado la vida social y han monopolizado los recursos y canales de la acción política. Desde inicios de la década de 1980, los partidos y el sistema de partidos como un todo han confrontado la crítica creciente, se han visto retados, y han puesto en marcha un conjunto de reformas. Estas reformas pretenden debilitar el control nacional de la dirigencia partidista, abrir nuevos canales de participación ciudadana, para de ese modo democratizar más la democracia venezolana. Estos intentos han ocurrido en un momento de creciente crisis económica, social y política. La habilidad de los partidos para poner en marcha estas reformas y para autorreformarse son cruciales para la sobrevivencia de una democracia efectiva en Venezuela.
(45 pages)
Ernest Bartell, CSC
Working Paper #198 - June 1993
Rev. Ernest Bartell, CSC, is Executive Director of the Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies and Professor of Economics at the University of Notre Dame. Among his publications are "John Paul II and International Development" in The Making of an Economic Vision, edited by O. Williams and J. Houck (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1991), and "Private Goods, Public Goods, and the Common Good: Another Look at Economics and Ethics in Catholic Social Teaching" in The Challenge of the Common Good and US Capitalism, edited by J. Houck and O. Williams (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1986).
Abstract
A close examination of the links between privatization programs and domestic business, both in theory and in practice, suggests that the relationships are not nearly so vigorous, uniform, or predictable as conventional promotional arguments imply. It will be argued here that the nature of the relationships between privatization programs and the behavior of domestic business depends upon the goals, methods, and financing of specific national privatization programs as well as on the economic and social characteristics of the private sector in a given country and its macro- and microeconomic policy regime. Privatization programs in themselves are likely to be a secondary and transitory influence on the aggregate behavior of national business with somewhat differing effects and responses within individual sectors of those economies with relatively diverse domestic business communities. As a result, privatization programs are likely to be less important to the incorporation of domestic business into a market-driven development process than other components of economic restructuring and liberalization. These conclusions will be examined briefly in light of the historical record of privatization in Chile, Argentina, Mexico, and Brazil and of interview data with business leaders in Brazil and Chile before and after the installation of their current democratic governments.
Resumen
El análisis detenido de los vínculos existentes entre los programas de privatización y las empresas locales, tanto en teoría como en la práctica, sugiere que las relaciones entre éstos no son, ni con mucho, tan fuertes, uniformes, o predecibles como lo implican los argumentos convencionales. En este trabajo se argumenta que la naturaleza de las relaciones entre los programas de privatización y el comportamiento de las empresas locales depende de los objetivos, métodos y financiamiento de los programas específicos de privatización, así como de las características económicas y sociales del sector privado de un país determinado y de su régimen de política macro- y microeconómica. En sí mismos, los programas de privatización ejercen, probablemente, una influencia secundaria y transitoria sobre el comportamiento agregado de las empresas nacionales, con efectos y respuestas variados en sectores individuales en aquéllas economías que cuentan con comunidades empresariales locales relativamente diversas. Como resultado, los programas de privatización son, probablemente, menos importantes para la incorporación de las empresas locales a un proceso de desarrollo orientado hacia el mercado que otros componentes de los programas de liberalización y reestructuración económica. Estas conclusiones se examinan brevemente a la luz de la evolución histórica de las privatizaciones en Chile, Argentina, México y Brasil, así como de la información obtenida a través de entrevistas con líderes empresariales en Brasil y Chile antes y después del inicio de sus actuales gobiernos democráticos.
(24 pages)
Timothy Scully, CSC and J. Samuel Valenzuela
Working Paper #199 - July 1993
Timothy R. Scully, CSC, is a Fellow of the Kellogg Institute and Associate Professor of Government and International Studies at the University of Notre Dame. His extensive writings on political parties include Rethinking the Center: Cleavages, Critical Junctures, and Party Evolution in Chile (Stanford University Press, 1992) and Los partidos del centro: La evolución política chilena (CIEPLAN, 1992), and he is coauthor and coeditor of a volume with Scott Mainwaring, Building Democratic Institutions: Parties and Party Systems in Latin America (Stanford University Press, 1995).
J. Samuel Valenzuela is a Fellow of the Kellogg Institute and Professor of Sociology at the University of Notre Dame. He is the author of Democratización vía reforma: La expansión del sufragio en Chile (IDES, 1985) and editor of a volume on Labor Movements in Transitions to Democracy (University of Notre Dame Press, 1988). He coedited and contributed to Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective (Kellogg Series with Notre Dame Press, 1992), Military Rule in Chile: Dictatorships and Oppositions (Johns Hopkins, 1986), and Chile: Politics and Society (Transaction Books, 1976). His articles on comparative labor, development theory, and political change have appeared in English, Spanish, Italian, and French publications.
The authors wish to thank Rodney Ganey of the Social Science Training Lab at the University of Notre Dame and Michael Pries for their help with getting the data in working order, and Jaime Ruiz-Tagle, head of the Programa de Economía del Trabajo in Santiago, Chile, for the use of an office where the first draft of this paper was written. Our appreciation as well to Alan Angell for his comments on an earlier draft. Our names appear in alphabetical order.
Abstract
After almost seventeen years of authoritarian rule with no regular national elections, Chileans have once again expressed themselves in the polls. The central question addressed in this paper is the extent to which there are continuities in the current elections with the past choices of the voters. This question is examined by comparing current vote totals by party and by tendency with those of the past, and by correlating the votes in the elections of 1969, 1970, and 1973 with the 1988 plebiscite and the 1989 presidential and parliamentary elections. The results show that there is a remarkable consistency of electoral choices in the country, which is still divided into left, center, and right tendencies. And yet there have been changes. New party labels have emerged, and the party system is currently much more centripetal than it was in the past, given a significant degree of consensus among the main political forces over the value of democracy as well as over fundamental socioeconomic policies. Whether these changes will prove to be long lasting in the face of renewed electoral competition over the next years is still an open question.
Resumen
Después de casi diecisiete años de régimen autoritario bajo el cual no se llevaron a cabo regularmente elecciones nacionales, los chilenos se han manifestado de nuevo en las urnas. La pregunta central de este trabajo es hasta qué grado existe una continuidad entre las elecciones presentes y las pasadas. Esta pregunta es examinada comparando el total de votos actuales por partido y por tendencia con los votos pasados, y correlacionando los votos de las elecciones de 1969, 1970, y 1973 con el plebiscito de 1988 y con las elecciones presidenciales y parlamentarias de 1989. Los resultados muestran que existe una consistencia notable en las opciones electorales en el país el cual todavía se encuentra dividido en tendencias de izquierda, centro y derecha. Y, sin embargo, ha habido cambios. Han surgido nuevos membretes partidistas y el sistema de partidos es, en la actualidad, mucho más centrípeto de lo que era en el pasado, dado el grado de consenso existente entre las principales fuerzas políticas en torno al valor de la democracia y a las políticas socioeconómicas fundamentales. La cuestión que queda pendiente es si estos cambios serán duraderos en presencia de la renovada competencia electoral de los próximos años.
(27 pages)
Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and Democracy: A Critical Appraisal
Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Shugart
Working Paper #200 - July 1993
Scott Mainwaring is Professor of Government and International Studies and Fellow of the Kellogg Institute at the University of Notre Dame. He is the author of The Catholic Church and Politics in Brazil, 1916-1985 (Stanford University Press, 1986), and coeditor of and contributor to The Progressive Church in Latin America (Kellogg Institute/University of Notre Dame Press, 1989) and Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective (Kellogg Institute/University of Notre Dame Press, 1992). He has published articles on political parties, social movements, and transitions to democracy in Latin America.
Matthew Shugart is Assistant Professor at The Graduate School of International Relations at the University of California, San Diego. He is the coauthor of Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems (Yale, 1989) and Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics (Cambridge, 1992).
The authors are grateful to Michael Coppedge, Steve Levitsky, and Timothy Scully for helpful criticisms on earlier drafts of this paper.
Abstract
This paper briefly reviews and critically assesses Juan Linz's arguments about the perils of presidentialism. We largely agree with Linz that presidentialism as it is normally practiced is less likely than parliamentarism to sustain democratic government. Nevertheless, we introduce a number of caveats into the argument. Although we agree with most aspects of Linz's four major criticisms of presidentialism, we disagree with one of them: we argue that presidentialism is less oriented towards winner-takes-all results than Westminster parliamentary systems. We also claim that presidentialism has some advantages that partially offset its drawbacks. These advantages can be maximized by paying careful attention to differences among presidential systems; we build a case for presidencies with weak legislative powers. Presidentialism also appears to be more viable with parties that are at least moderately disciplined, and it is especially problematic with highly fragmented multiparty systems and with congressional elections that occur more frequently than presidential elections. Finally, we argue that switching from presidentialism to parliamentarism could exacerbate problems of governability in countries with very undisciplined parties. All of these points suggest that even if Linz is largely correct in his argument that parliamentary government is more conducive to stable democracy, a great deal rests on what kind of parliamentarism and what kind of presidentialism are implemented.
Resumen
El presente trabajo analiza brevemente y evalúa críticamente los argumentos de Juan Linz sobre los riesgos del presidencialismo. Nosotros estamos de acuerdo en gran medida con Linz en que el presidencialismo, tal y como es llevado normalmente a la práctica, tiene menos posibilidades que el parlamentarismo de sostener formas democráticas de gobierno. Sin embargo, hacemos varias observaciones en torno a este argumento. Aunque coincidimos con la mayoría de los aspectos de las cuatro principales críticas de Linz al presidencialismo, estamos en desacuerdo con uno de ellos: argumentamos que el presidencialismo se presta menos a resultados de todo o nada que el parlamentarismo de tipo Westminster. También sostenemos que el presiden-cialismo tiene algunas ventajas que compensan parcialmente sus inconvenientes. Estas ventajas pueden maximizarse poniendo una cuidadosa atención a las diferencias existentes entre sistemas presidenciales; argumentamos en favor de presidencias con facultades legislativas limitadas. El presidencialismo también parece ser más viable cuando los partidos son al menos moderadamente disciplinados, y es especialmente problemático en sistemas multipartidistas altamente fragmentados y con elecciones legislativas que ocurren con más frecuencia que las elecciones presidenciales. Finalmente sostenemos que un cambio del presidencialismo al parlamentarismo podría exacerbar los problemas de gobernabilidad en países con partidos muy indisciplinados. Todas estas observaciones sugieren que, aunque el argumento de Linz de que el gobierno parlamentario es más conducente a una democracia estable es en gran parte correcto, mucho depende del tipo de parlamentarismo y del tipo de presidencialismo que se lleve a cabo.
(23 pages)
|
