The Institutional Presidency from a Comparative Perspective: Argentina and Brazil since the 1980s

This paper focuses on the evolution of the institutional presidency – meaning the cluster of agencies that directly support the chief of the executive – in Argentina and Brazil since their redemocratization in the 1980s. It investigates what explains the changes that have come about regarding the si...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Magna Inácio, Mariana Llanos
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Brazilian Political Science Association 2015-04-01
Series:Brazilian Political Science Review
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bpsr/v9n1/1981-3821-bpsr-9-1-0039.pdf
id doaj-0a903f54033b4b2286d815426a439c89
record_format Article
spelling doaj-0a903f54033b4b2286d815426a439c892020-11-25T00:28:54ZengBrazilian Political Science AssociationBrazilian Political Science Review1981-38211981-38212015-04-01913964The Institutional Presidency from a Comparative Perspective: Argentina and Brazil since the 1980sMagna Inácio0Mariana Llanos1Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, BrazilGIGA Institute of Latin American Studies, GermanyThis paper focuses on the evolution of the institutional presidency – meaning the cluster of agencies that directly support the chief of the executive – in Argentina and Brazil since their redemocratization in the 1980s. It investigates what explains the changes that have come about regarding the size of the institutional presidency and the types of agency that form it. Following the specialized literature, we argue that the growth of the institutional presidency is connected to developments occurring in the larger political system – that is, to the political challenges that the various presidents of the two countries have faced. Presidents adjust the format and mandate of the different agencies under their authority so as to better manage their relations with the political environment. In particular, we argue that the type of government (coalition or single-party) has had consequences for the structure of the presidency or, in other words, that different cabinet structures pose different challenges to presidents. This factor has not played a significant role in presidency-related studies until now, which have hitherto mostly been based on the case of the United States. Our empirical references, the presidencies of Argentina and Brazil, typical cases of coalitional as well as single-party presidentialism respectively allow us to show the impact of the type of government on the number and type of presidential agencies.http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bpsr/v9n1/1981-3821-bpsr-9-1-0039.pdfArgentinaBrazilinstitutional presidencypresidential officecoalition presidentialism
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Magna Inácio
Mariana Llanos
spellingShingle Magna Inácio
Mariana Llanos
The Institutional Presidency from a Comparative Perspective: Argentina and Brazil since the 1980s
Brazilian Political Science Review
Argentina
Brazil
institutional presidency
presidential office
coalition presidentialism
author_facet Magna Inácio
Mariana Llanos
author_sort Magna Inácio
title The Institutional Presidency from a Comparative Perspective: Argentina and Brazil since the 1980s
title_short The Institutional Presidency from a Comparative Perspective: Argentina and Brazil since the 1980s
title_full The Institutional Presidency from a Comparative Perspective: Argentina and Brazil since the 1980s
title_fullStr The Institutional Presidency from a Comparative Perspective: Argentina and Brazil since the 1980s
title_full_unstemmed The Institutional Presidency from a Comparative Perspective: Argentina and Brazil since the 1980s
title_sort institutional presidency from a comparative perspective: argentina and brazil since the 1980s
publisher Brazilian Political Science Association
series Brazilian Political Science Review
issn 1981-3821
1981-3821
publishDate 2015-04-01
description This paper focuses on the evolution of the institutional presidency – meaning the cluster of agencies that directly support the chief of the executive – in Argentina and Brazil since their redemocratization in the 1980s. It investigates what explains the changes that have come about regarding the size of the institutional presidency and the types of agency that form it. Following the specialized literature, we argue that the growth of the institutional presidency is connected to developments occurring in the larger political system – that is, to the political challenges that the various presidents of the two countries have faced. Presidents adjust the format and mandate of the different agencies under their authority so as to better manage their relations with the political environment. In particular, we argue that the type of government (coalition or single-party) has had consequences for the structure of the presidency or, in other words, that different cabinet structures pose different challenges to presidents. This factor has not played a significant role in presidency-related studies until now, which have hitherto mostly been based on the case of the United States. Our empirical references, the presidencies of Argentina and Brazil, typical cases of coalitional as well as single-party presidentialism respectively allow us to show the impact of the type of government on the number and type of presidential agencies.
topic Argentina
Brazil
institutional presidency
presidential office
coalition presidentialism
url http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bpsr/v9n1/1981-3821-bpsr-9-1-0039.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT magnainacio theinstitutionalpresidencyfromacomparativeperspectiveargentinaandbrazilsincethe1980s
AT marianallanos theinstitutionalpresidencyfromacomparativeperspectiveargentinaandbrazilsincethe1980s
AT magnainacio institutionalpresidencyfromacomparativeperspectiveargentinaandbrazilsincethe1980s
AT marianallanos institutionalpresidencyfromacomparativeperspectiveargentinaandbrazilsincethe1980s
_version_ 1725333722335543296