Characteristics of Presidencies and the PMP

February 28, 2005

Mark Payne, IDB

What about presidencies/executives matters to the PMP of state reform? (Inner Black Box)

• Effective decision-making, strategizingCompetence of core decision-makers and broader

cabinetCabinet stability Cabinet cohesion in policy-makingEffective articulation of cabinet with the bureaucracy

• Cooperativeness of relations between the executive and congress

• Effective communications/relations with broader society

Presidents are central to this. Why do they govern in the way they do? Why do they

appoint who they appoint?

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXTInstitutionalization of governing party and broader party system. Level of legislative support and level of initial popular support. Constitutional powers of the president (legislative, appointment etc.)

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICSLeadership experience, style and skill. Political career background – party experience. Intelligence (education experience). Communication ability.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTe.g. Severity of problems/challenges confronted.

Some preliminary questions

How much do personal characteristics and styles of leadership matter? (Cardoso vs. Collor; de la Rua vs. Kirchner…)

If they do matter how do we escape tautologies or go beyond stating the obvious? Effective leadership makes for good outcomes.

Especially given small N are there any generalizations that can be made linking personal background/recruitment process to leadership qualities or independently measurable characteristics to governmental outcomes? What links can be drawn between presidential leadership qualities/styles and other institutional features of the PMP?

Other than sheer luck, what broad factors might matter for getting “good” presidents

and presidencies?

Recruitment processElectoral rulesInstitutional context for governing

Constitutional legislative and non-legislative powers; partisan legislative support; governing party cohesion/institutionalization; polarization of party system etc.

Institutional Setting vs. Luck

Institutional context: can make more or less probable the nomination of candidates and the election of presidents constrained by party ties, helped by experience in the legislature, with ample experience in public office etc.

But, institutional context cannot fully account for competence, skill, charisma etc.

Some Links between Presidency

Qualities and Institutional Context PresidentialRecruitmentProcess

Type of Candidate*

Quality of Presidency

GeneralElectionProcess

Source: Siavelis and Morgenstern, 2004

Type of Pres-Elect*Residual Personal Qualities*Legis. Support*Presidential Powers*Cohesive Cabinet

Recruitment: Factors Affecting the Type of Candidates/President-Elects That Emerge

Party Variables

Party institutionalization/ party system institutionalization

Candidate nomination process

Campaign financing

Electoral/Legal Variables

Presidential electoral systemTiming of electionsRules on ReelectionBarriers to independent candidates

Source: Siavelis and Morgenstern, 2004

Types of Candidates

• Party insiders: Candidates emerge from long-standing, institutionalized party with fairly cohesive ideology; have held positions in party (e.g. Lagos, Sanguinetti, Cardoso)

• Party adherents: Candidates emerge from outside the core of established party or from more personalized or fragmented party (e.g. Menem, Febres Cordero)

• Group agents: Recognized leaders of specific societal groups: business, labor, indigenous, religious. No elected presidents with this profile. (e.g. Evo Morales)

• Free-wheeling independents: No long-term identification with a party; typically such candidates use an existing small or new party as an electoral vehicle; or split-off from existing party (e.g. Collor, Gutierrez, Chavez)

Some sample hypotheses: how institutions might affect type of candidateParty insider nomination/election encouraged by: 1) institutionalized party systems; 2) selection by party elites;

3) plurality election systems; 4) concurrent elections; 5) centralized campaign finance; 6) high barriers to independent candidates; 7) low party system fragmentation

Party adherent nomination/election encouraged by: 1) more weakly institutionalized, personalistic party systems; 2) use of closed or open primaries; 3) financing somewhat decentralized

Free-wheeling independent nomination/election encouraged by: 1) weakly institutionalized/fragmented party system; 2) low barriers to independent candidates; 3) majority runoff system

Source: Siavelis and Morgenstern, 2004

Dataset on Backgrounds of Presidents

• 105 presidencies in 18 LA countries (complete data for 96 presidencies) (Reelected presidents appear as additional observation)

• Covers party background, how nominated, educational experience, previous public offices

• Sources: Case studies from the project of “Pathways to power: Political recruitment and Democracy in Latin America” Siavelis and Morgenstern, 2004; Biographies of political leaders. Fundación CIDOB. http://www.cidob.org/bios/

• Created by Juan Cruz Perusia, IDB.

Process Used to Select Presidents (No. of Presidencies)

Elite election/ convention

Closed primary

Open primary

Self-Nomination Other

Non-elected

Grand Total

ARG 2 1 1 1 1 6BOL 5 1 6BRA 3 1 1 5CHL 1 1 1 3COL 2 4 1 7CRI 1 4 5DOM 6 6ECU 3 1 3 3 10SLV 4 1 5GTM 3 1 1 1 6HND 4 1 5MEX 3 1 4NIC 2 1 3PAN 3 1 4PRY 4 1 5PER 1 1 4 1 7URY 1 1 3 5VEN 2 1 2 1 6LA Total 46 17 9 12 5 9 98

Party Backgrounds (% of Presidencies by Country)

Party Insider

Party Affiliate

Free-Wheeling

IndependentNot

Elected

Total Presidencies

ARG 33 50 0 17 6BOL 57 29 0 14 7BRA 60 0 20 20 5

CHL 100 0 0 0 3COL 14 71 14 0 7CRI 57 43 0 0 7DOM 100 0 0 0 6ECU 20 20 30 30 10SLV 60 40 0 0 5GTM 50 17 17 17 6HND 0 100 0 0 5MEX 0 100 0 0 4NIC 67 33 0 0 3PAN 100 0 0 0 4PRY 0 60 0 40 5PER 14 14 57 14 7URY 100 0 0 0 5VEN 50 0 33 17 6LA Total 46 32 12 11 101

Presidents’ Previous Role in Political Parties

Indisputed Leader

Relevant leader

Low level leader Independent Total

ARG 5 1 6BOL 4 1 1 6BRA 1 2 2 5CHL 3 3COL 4 2 1 7CRI 4 1 5DOM 3 3 6ECU 2 4 4 10SLV 1 2 2 5GTM 2 2 1 1 6HND 5 5MEX 2 2 4NIC 3 3PAN 1 3 4PRY 2 2 1 5PER 1 2 4 7URY 1 4 5VEN 3 1 2 6LA Total 16 53 13 16 98

Previous Prominent Political Offices of Presidents

country

Only National

Leg

Only Cabinet Minister

Only Subnational

ExecutiveMultiple Offices

No Offices

Grand Total

ARG 1 3 2 6BOL 2 4 6BRA 1 4 5CHL 2 1 3COL 1 6 7CRI 1 1 2 1 5DOM 1 5 6ECU 2 1 3 2 8SLV 2 1 1 1 5GTM 2 1 1 2 6HND 1 1 3 5MEX 3 1 4NIC 1 2 3PAN 4 4PRY 1 1 3 5PER 2 5 7URY 1 1 2 1 5VEN 3 2 1 6LA Total 18 9 8 27 34 96

Experience in the National Legislature Prior to Election

% With some

Under 4 years

4 years or more None Total

BRA 100.0 5 5COL 85.7 3 3 1 7VEN 83.3 5 1 6CHL 66.7 2 1 3CRI 60.0 1 2 2 5SLV 60.0 2 1 2 5URY 60.0 3 2 5ARG 50.0 3 3 6ECU 50.0 4 4 8BOL 33.3 2 4 6GTM 33.3 2 4 6PER 28.6 2 5 7MEX 25.0 1 3 4HND 20.0 1 4 5PRY 20.0 1 4 5DOM 0.0 6 6NIC 0.0 3 3PAN 0.0 4 4LA Total 50.9 16 72 85 173

Education Level (% of Presidencies by Country)

CountrySecondary or Less

Vocat. School University Graduate Military

Total Presidencies

ARG 83 17 6BOL 83 17 6BRA 20 40 40 5CHL 67 33 3COL 43 57 7CRI 40 60 5DOM 17 83 6ECU 40 50 10 10SLV 20 40 40 5GTM 67 33 6HND 40 60 5MEX 25 75 4NIC 33 67 3PAN 25 25 50 4PRY 60 20 20 5PER 14 86 7URY 80 20 5VEN 17 17 50 17 6LA Total 4 3 44 45 4 98

University Education Abroad (% of Presidencies by Country)

ARG 0.0BOL 66.7BRA 40.0CHL 33.3COL 42.9CRI 80.0DOM 50.0ECU 30.0SLV 60.0GTM 16.7HND 80.0MEX 75.0NIC 33.3PAN 75.0PRY 0.0PER 85.7URY 20.0VEN 16.7LA Total 44.3

University/Graduate Fields of Study of Presidents

Law Engin.Social

SciencesPhilosophy/

Literature Military BusinessOther/

MulipleNo Univ. Education

Total Presiden

ciesARG 100 6BOL 17 50 17 17 6BRA 20 60 20 5CHL 33 33 33 3COL 14 14 14 57 7CRI 20 20 40 20 5DOM 33 67 6ECU 60 10 10 20 10SLV 20 20 20 40 5GTM 50 33 17 6HND 20 40 40 5MEX 25 50 25 4NIC 33 33 33 3PAN 25 25 25 25 4PRY 40 40 20 5PER 29 43 14 14 7URY 80 20 5VEN 17 33 17 17 17 6LA Total 36 14 17 3 4 3 18 4 98

Institutional Context for Governing

• Presidents/executives that can count on strong partisan support in legislature or lack strong proactive powers may be more inclined to pursue strategy of cooperation: rely on appointment powers, agenda-setting powers instead of legislative powers; appoint party leaders in cabinet

• Presidents/executives with weak partisan support and greater proactive powers are more likely to try to circumvent congress by use of decree powers and pack cabinet with personal loyalists and technocrats

• But Collor vs. Cardoso suggests that different strategies may be possible in similar institutional context

Source: Cox and Morgenstern, 2002; Amorim Neto (1998)

Proactive Powers of Presidents

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

CO L

PER

CHL

ECU

URY

PAN

VEN

ARG

SLV

HND

NIC

CRI

PRY

DO M

GTM

BO L

MEX

Legislative Powers of Presidents

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

CHL

BRA

ECU

CO L

PER

ARG

PAN

URY

SLV

VEN

GTM

HND

MEX

DO M

BO L

CRI

PRY

NIC

Graphs/Tables on Partisan Powers of Presidents

• Average share of seats of governing party

• Average share of seats of governing coalition

• Effective number of parties in legislature