IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecm/latm04/178.html

Partisan Goals and Electoral Interests: Brazilian Economic Reforms under Lula

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Carolina da Silva Leme
  • Tomás Málaga

Abstract

Almost everyone was surprised by the reforms proposed by the Lula administration in Brazil. Once in power, they proposed reforms they voted against when in opposition. We analyze a game in which political parties, with partisan and electoral interest, try to approve reforms that benefit the majority of population but face an opposition with substantial power to determine their fate. The Opposition’s behavior may lead to different equilibrium: approval of the reform after an electoral cycle, with the party initially against the reform making it their own; not approval, with the parties taking turn in power; not approval, with the party that originally proposed the reform remaining in power, but with the deterioration of the economic situation

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Carolina da Silva Leme & Tomás Málaga, 2004. "Partisan Goals and Electoral Interests: Brazilian Economic Reforms under Lula," Econometric Society 2004 Latin American Meetings 178, Econometric Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecm:latm04:178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.org/esLATM04/up.12335.1081983189.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alesina, Alberto & Drazen, Allan, 1991. "Why Are Stabilizations Delayed?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1170-1188, December.
    2. Fernandez, Raquel & Rodrik, Dani, 1991. "Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1146-1155, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Prato, Carlo & Wolton, Stephane, 2018. "Rational ignorance, populism, and reform," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 119-135.
    2. Lastauskas, Povilas & Stakėnas, Julius, 2020. "Labor market reforms and the monetary policy environment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    3. Che, Jiahua & Facchini, Giovanni, 2004. "Dual Track Liberalization: With and Without Losers," Working Papers 04-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    4. Madjid Eshaghi Gordji & Mohammadali Berahman & Hasti Eshaghi, 2026. "Why Efficient Reforms Fail: Endogenous Game Transformation under Status Quo Bias and Social Preferences," Papers 2605.21656, arXiv.org.
    5. Luisa Montuschi & Omar Chisari, 2016. "En memoria de Julio H. G. Olivera (1929 – 2016)," Económica, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, vol. 0(1), pages 3-21, January-D.
    6. Agnello, Luca & Castro, Vitor & Jalles, João Tovar & Sousa, Ricardo M., 2015. "What determines the likelihood of structural reforms?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 129-145.
    7. Andreas Bernecker & Pierre C. Boyer & Christina Gathmann, 2021. "The Role of Electoral Incentives for Policy Innovation: Evidence from the US Welfare Reform," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 26-57, May.
    8. Hefeker, Carsten & Neugart, Michael, 2010. "Labor market regulation and the legal system," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 218-225, September.
    9. Ethan Ilzetzki, 2015. "A Positive Theory of Tax Reform," Discussion Papers 1526, Centre for Macroeconomics (CFM).
    10. Corbo, Vittorio & Fischer, Stanley, 1995. "Structural adjustment, stabilization and policy reform: Domestic and international finance," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Hollis Chenery & T.N. Srinivasan (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 44, pages 2845-2924, Elsevier.
    11. Mondino, Guillermo & Sturzenegger, Federico & Tommasi, Mariano, 1996. "Recurrent High Inflation and Stabilization: A Dynamic Game," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 37(4), pages 981-996, November.
    12. Alessandra Bonfiglioli & Gino Gancia, 2010. "The Political Cost of Reforms," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 847.10, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC), revised 30 May 2011.
    13. Vincenzo Galasso, 2014. "The role of political partisanship during economic crises," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 143-165, January.
    14. Randall S. Kroszner, 1999. "Is the Financial System Politically Independent? Perspectives on the Political Economy of Banking and Financial Regulation," University of Chicago - George G. Stigler Center for Study of Economy and State 151, Chicago - Center for Study of Economy and State.
    15. Saint-Paul, Gilles, 2021. "Pareto-improving structural reforms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    16. Ernesto Dal Bo & Rafael Di Tella, 2003. "Capture by Threat," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(5), pages 1123-1152, October.
    17. Ernesto Dal Bó & Pedro Dal Bó & Erik Eyster, 2018. "The Demand for Bad Policy when Voters Underappreciate Equilibrium Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(2), pages 964-998.
    18. Panova, Elena, 2015. "A passion for voting," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 44-65.
    19. Gabriel Leon, 2013. "Bad Apples: Political Paralysis and the Quality of Politicians," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 15(3), pages 433-447, June.
    20. Sumon Majumdar & Sharun W. Mukand, 2004. "Policy Gambles," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 1207-1222, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecm:latm04:178. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.