Unpacking Patronage: The Politics of Patronage Appointments in Argentina's and Uruguay's Central Public Administrations

IF 1.6 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Politics in Latin America Pub Date : 2018-12-01 DOI:10.1177/1866802X1801000303
F. Panizza, Conrado Ricardo Ramos Larraburu, Gerardo Scherlis
{"title":"Unpacking Patronage: The Politics of Patronage Appointments in Argentina's and Uruguay's Central Public Administrations","authors":"F. Panizza, Conrado Ricardo Ramos Larraburu, Gerardo Scherlis","doi":"10.1177/1866802X1801000303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study makes the following contributions to the study of the politics of patronage appointments in Latin America: Conceptually it adopts Kopecký, Scherlis, and Spirova's (2008) distinction between clientelistic and nonclientelistic types of patronage politics and widens these authors classification of patrons’ motivations for making appointments, specifically as a lens for the study of patronage practices within Latin America's presidentialist regimes. Analytically, it sets up a new taxonomy of patronage appointments based on the roles that appointees’ play vis-à- vis the executive, the ruling party, and the public administration – one that can be used for the comparative study of the politics of patronage. Empirically, it applies this taxonomy to a pilot study of the politics of patronage in Argentina and Uruguay under two left-of-center administrations. Theoretically, it contributes to theory-building by relating the findings of our research to the differences in party systems and presidential powers within the two countries under study, and to agency factors associated with the respective governments’ own political projects. The article concludes that differences in patronage practices are a manifestation of two variant forms of exercising governmental power: a hyper-presidentialist, populist one in Argentina and a party-centered, social-democratic one in Uruguay.","PeriodicalId":44885,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Politics in Latin America","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1866802X1801000303","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Politics in Latin America","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802X1801000303","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

This study makes the following contributions to the study of the politics of patronage appointments in Latin America: Conceptually it adopts Kopecký, Scherlis, and Spirova's (2008) distinction between clientelistic and nonclientelistic types of patronage politics and widens these authors classification of patrons’ motivations for making appointments, specifically as a lens for the study of patronage practices within Latin America's presidentialist regimes. Analytically, it sets up a new taxonomy of patronage appointments based on the roles that appointees’ play vis-à- vis the executive, the ruling party, and the public administration – one that can be used for the comparative study of the politics of patronage. Empirically, it applies this taxonomy to a pilot study of the politics of patronage in Argentina and Uruguay under two left-of-center administrations. Theoretically, it contributes to theory-building by relating the findings of our research to the differences in party systems and presidential powers within the two countries under study, and to agency factors associated with the respective governments’ own political projects. The article concludes that differences in patronage practices are a manifestation of two variant forms of exercising governmental power: a hyper-presidentialist, populist one in Argentina and a party-centered, social-democratic one in Uruguay.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
拆解赞助:阿根廷和乌拉圭中央公共行政部门的赞助任命政治
本研究对拉丁美洲赞助人任命政治的研究做出了以下贡献:从概念上讲,它采用了Kopecký、Scherlis和Spirova(2008)对赞助人政治和非赞助人政治类型的区分,并扩大了这些作者对赞助人任命动机的分类,特别是作为研究拉丁美洲总统制政权内部庇护做法的镜头。从分析角度来看,它根据被任命者相对于行政部门、执政党和公共行政部门所扮演的角色,建立了一种新的赞助人任命分类法,可用于赞助人政治的比较研究。从经验上讲,它将这一分类法应用于对阿根廷和乌拉圭两个中间偏左政府的庇护政治的试点研究。从理论上讲,它通过将我们的研究结果与所研究的两国内部政党制度和总统权力的差异以及与两国政府自身政治项目相关的代理因素联系起来,有助于理论建设。文章的结论是,庇护做法的差异是行使政府权力的两种不同形式的表现:阿根廷的超总统民粹主义者和乌拉圭的以政党为中心的社会民主主义者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Why Are Constitutional Amendments in Mexico so Frequent? Assessing Electoral Personalism in Latin American Presidential Elections Where did Hyper-Presidentialism Go? The Origin of Bills and Laws Passed in Chile, 1990–2022 Assessing the Relationship Between Compulsory Voting and Over-Representation of Extreme Parties Do Disciplinary Sanctions Affect Political Parties’ Re-election? Evidence from Colombia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1