Money and success in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 local elections in Brazil

0Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The close relationship between money and votes has been exposed in contemporary democracies through the influence of the former in election results and in the creation of public policies. Studies have pointed out that the progressive inequity of financial resources available to the candidates running for elections unbalances democracy and promotes plutocracy, increasing the oligarchical ruling over the political processes by the wealthiest citizens and groups. This work contributes to this debate by analyzing the relationship between fundraising and electoral performance and the success of 317,107 candidates running in local legislative elections in 2008, 2012, and 2016 in 441 Brazilian municipalities with over 50,000 inhabitants. This is an unprecedented study regarding its period, filling a gap in electoral studies on sub-national elections, particularly regarding elections for the legislative branch. Data was collected from the Brazilian Superior Electoral Court, from candidate lists, results, and accounting. The tests and data analysis and information employed correlation and regression statistical resources, along with central measures and odds ratio. The results confirmed a strong association between money, vote, and electoral success, including in the 2016 election when company donations had been prohibited. The maintenance of a pattern, regarding both time and geography, indicates the existence of structural characteristics of a plutocratic character in the election funding of those running for the council in the municipalities studied and, consequently, in the creation of public policies in Brazil.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Deschamps, J. P., Junckes, I. J., Horochovski, R. R., & Camargo, N. F. (2021). Money and success in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 local elections in Brazil. Revista de Administracao Publica, 55(3), 736–756. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220200117

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free