Presidentialism, parliamentarism, and democracy

Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 1-206

  Cheibub, José Antonio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924515112     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511813344     Document Type: Book

References (189)

1. Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson. “The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation.” American Economic Review91, no. 5 (2001): 1369–1401.
2. Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson. “Reversal of Fortune: Geography and Institutions in the Making of the Modern World Income Distribution.” Quarterly Journal of Economics117, November (2002): 1231–94.
3. Ackerman, Bruce. “The New Separation of Powers.” Harvard Law Review113, no. 3 (2000): 642–727.
4. Ahmad, Zakaria Haji. “Malaysia: Quasi Democracy in a Divided Society.” In Larry Diamond, Juan J. Linz, and Seymour M. Lipset (Eds.), Democracy in Developing Countries: Asia. Boulder, CO: Lyne Rienner, 1988.
5. Altman, David. “The Politics of Coalition Formation and Survival in Multiparty Presidential Democracies: The Case of Uruguay, 1989–1999.” Party Politics6, no. 3 (2000): 259–83.
6. Alvarez, Michael. “Presidentialism and Parliamentarism: Which Works? Which Lasts?” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, 1997.
7. Alvarez, Michael E., José Antonio Cheibub, Fernando Limongi, and Adam Przeworski. “Classifying Political Regimes.” Studies in Comparative International Development31, no. 2 (1996): 3–36.
8. Ames, Barry. The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001.
9. Amorim Neto, Octavio. “Of Presidents, Parties, and Ministers: Cabinet Formation and Legislative Decision-Making under Separation of Powers.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 1998.
10. Amorim Neto, Octavio. “The Puzzle of Party Discipline in Brazil.” Latin American Politics and Society44, no. 1 (2002): 127–44.
11. Amorim Neto, Octavio. “Lula Sob a Luz da História.” O Globo, June 7 (2005).
12. Amorim Neto, Octavio, GaryCox, and Matthew D. McCubbins. “Agenda Power in Brazil’s Camara Dos Deputados, 1989–98.” World Politics55, no. 4 (2003): 550–78.
13. Andrews, William G. “The Constitutional Prescription of Parliamentary Procedures in Gaullist France.” Legislative Studies Quarterly3, no. 3 (1978): 465–506.
14. Armijo, Leslie Elliott, Philippe Faucher, and Magdalena Dembinska. “Compared to What? Assessing Brazilian Political Institutions.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, 2004.
15. Austen-Smith, David, and Jeffrey Banks. “Elections, Coalitions, and Legislative Outcomes.” American Political Science Review82, no. 2 (1988): 405–22.
16. Banks, Arthur S. Political Handbook of the World. New York: McGraw-Hill (various years).
17. Banks, Arthur S., Alan J. Day, and Thomas C. Muller. Political Handbook of the World 1997. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
18. Banlaoi, Rommel C., and Clarita R. Carlos. Political Parties in the Philippines: From 1900 to the Present. Makati City, Philippines: Konrad Adenauer Foundation, 1996a.
19. Banlaoi, Rommel C., and Clarita R. Carlos. Elections in the Philippines: From Pre-Colonial Period to the Present. Makati City, Philippines: Konrad Adenauer Foundation, 1996b.
20. Baron, David P. “Comparative Dynamics of Parliamentary Government.” American Political Science Review92 (1998): 593–610.
21. Bernhard, Michael, Timothy Nordstrom, and Christopher Reenock. “Economic Performance, Institutional Intermediation, and Democratic Survival.” Journal of Politics63, no. 3 (2001): 775–803.
22. Bernhard, Michael, Christopher Reenock, and Timothy Nordstrom. “The Legacy of Western Overseas Colonialism on Democratic Survival.” International Studies Quarterly48, no. 1 (2004): 225–50.
23. Binder, Sarah A. “The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947–96.” American Political Science Review93 (1999): 519–34.
24. Blaustein, A. P., and G. H. Flanz (Eds.). Constitutions of the Countries of the World. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana (various years).
25. Boothroyd, David. Government Defeats on the Floor of the House of Commons 2001[cited 14 September 2005], .
26. Bowler, Shaun, David M. Farrell, and Richard S. Katz. “Party Cohesion, Party Discipline, and Parliaments.” In Shaun Bowler, David M. Farrell, and Richard S. Katz (Eds.), Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government, pp. 3–22. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1999.
27. Bratton, Michael, and Nicolas van de Walle. Political Regimes and Regime Transitions in Africa: A Comparative Handbook. East Lansing: Department of Political Science, Michigan State University, 1996.
28. Bratton, Michael, and Nicolas van de Walle. Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
29. Cameron, Charles M. Veto Bargaining: Presidents and the Politics of Negative Power. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
30. Carey, John M. “Institutional Design and Party Systems.” In Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner, Yun-han Chu, and Hung-mao Tien (Eds.), Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies: Themes and Perspectives, pp. 67–92. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
31. Carey, John M. “Political Institutions, Competing Principals, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Government, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 2004.
32. Carey, John M., and Matthew Soberg Shugart. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies14, no. 4 (1994): 417–39.
33. Carey, John M., and Matthew Soberg Shugart. “Calling Out the Tanks or Filling Out the Forms?” In John M. Carey and Matthew Soberg Shugart (Eds.), Executive Decree Authority, pp. 1–32. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
34. Carlson, Rolf Eric. “Presidentialism in Africa: Explaining Institutional Choice.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, 1998.
35. Cheibub, José Antonio. “Elections and Alternation in Power in Democratic Regimes.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, 1998.
36. Cheibub, José Antonio. “MinorityGovernments, Deadlock Situations, and the Survival of Presidential Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies35, no. 3 (2002): 284–312.
37. Cheibub, José Antonio, and Jennifer Gandhi. “Classifying Political Regimes: A Six-Fold Classification of Democracies and Dictatorships.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 2006.
38. Cheibub, José Antonio, and Anastassios Kalandrakis. “Global Database of Political Institutions and Economic Performance.” Globalization and Self-Determination Project, Yale Center for International and Area Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 2004.
39. Cheibub, José Antonio, and Adam Przeworski. “Democracy, Elections, and Accountability for Economic Outcomes.” In Adam Przeworski, Susan C. Stokes, and Bernard Manin (Eds.), Democracy and Accountability, pp. 222–50. Cambridge University Press, 1999.
40. Cheibub, José Antonio, Adam Przeworski, and Sebastian Saiegh. “Government Coalitions and Legislative Success under Parliamentarism and Presidentialism.” British Journal of Political Science34, no. 4 (2004): 565–87.
41. Coleman, John J. “Unified Government, Divided Government, and Party Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review93 (1999): 821–36.
42. Collier, David, and Robert Adcock. “Democracy and Dichotomies:APragmaticApproach to Choices about Concepts.” Annual Review of Political Science2 (1999): 537–65.
43. Cotta, Maurizio. “The Centrality of Parliament in a Protracted Democratic Consolidation.” In Ulrike Liebert and Maurizio Cotta (Eds.), Parliament and Democratic Consolidation in Southern Europe, pp. 55–91. London: Pintere, 1990.
44. Cox, Gary. The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England. Cambridge University Press, 1987.
45. Cox, Gary, and Matthew D. McCubbins. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
46. Croissant, Aurel. “Legislative Powers, Veto Players, and the Emergence of Delegative Democracy: A Comparison of Presidentialism in the Philippines and South Korea.” Democratization10, no. 3 (2003): 68–98.
47. Damgaard, Erik. “Denmark: Experiments in Parliamentary Government.” In Erik Damgaard (Ed.), Parliamentary Change in Nordic Countries. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1992.
48. Davidson-Schmich, Louise K. “The Development of Party Discipline in New Parliaments: Eastern German State Legislatures 1990–2000.” Journal of Legislative Studies9, no. 4 (2003): 88–101.
49. Deheza, Grace Ivana. “Gobiernos de Coalición en el Sistema Presidencial: América del Sur.” Ph.D. dissertation, European University Institute, Florence, 1997.
50. Deininger, Klaus, and Lyn Squire. “ANew Data Set Measuring Income Inequality.” World Bank Economic Review10, no. 3 (1996): 565–91.
51. Depauw, Sam. “Government Party Discipline in Parliamentary Democracies: The Cases of Belgium, France and the United Kingdom in the 1990s.” Journal of Legislative Studies9, no. 4 (2003): 130–46.
52. Desposato, Scott. “Parties for Rent? Careerism, Ideology, and Party Switching in Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego, 2005.
53. Desposato, Scott, and David Samuels. “The Search for Party Discipline in the Brazilian Legislature and Implications for Comparative Institutional Research.” Paper presented at the Latin American Studies Association Meeting, Dallas, 2003.
54. Di Palma, Giuseppe. “Institutional Rules and Legislative Outcomes in the Italian Parliament.” Legislative Studies Quarterly1 (1976): 147–79.
55. Diermeier, Daniel, and Timothy Feddersen. “Cohesion in Legislatures and the Vote of Confidence Procedure.” American Political Science Review92 (1998): 611–22.
56. Diermeier, Daniel, and Keith Krehbiel. “Institutionalism as a Methodology.” Journal of Theoretical Politics15, no. 2 (2003): 123–44.
57. Diermeier, Daniel, and Antonio Merlo. “Government Turnover in Parliamentary Democracies.” Journal of Economic Theory94, no. 1 (2000): 46–79.
58. Doro, Marion (Ed.). Africa Contemporary Record: Annual Survey and Documents. New York: Africana (various years).
59. Duverger, Maurice. “A New Political System Model: Semi-Presidential Government.” European Journal of Political Research8, no. 2 (1980): 166–87.
60. Elgie, Robert. “Models of Executive Politics: A Framework for the Study of Executive Power Relations in Parliamentary and Semi-Presidential Regimes.” Political Studies45 (1997): 217–31.
61. Elgie, Robert. “Semi-Presidentialism: Concepts, Consequences, and Contested Explanations.” Political Studies Review2 (2004): 313–30.
62. Elgie, Robert. “A Fresh Look at Semipresidentialism: Variations on a Theme.” Journal of Democracy16, no. 3 (2005): 98–112.
63. Elkins, Zachary. “Designed by Diffusion: International Networks and the Spread of Democracy.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, 2003.
64. Engerman, Stanley L., and Kenneth L. Sokoloff. “Factor Endowments, Institutions, and Differential Paths of Growth among New World Economies: A View from Economic Historians of the United States.” In Stephen Haber (Ed.), How Latin America Fell Behind, pp. 260–304. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997.
65. Figueiredo, Argelina. “O Executivo nos Sistemas de Governo Democráticos.” Revista Brasileira de Informação Bibliográfica em Ciências Sociais, BIB58 (2005), pp. 7–28.
66. Figueiredo, Argelina, and Fernando Limongi. Executivo e Legislativo Na Nova Ordem Constitucional. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV, 1999.
67. Figueiredo, Argelina, and Fernando Limongi. “Presidential Power, Legislative Organization and Party Behavior in the Legislature.” Comparative Politics32, no. 2 (2000a): 151–70.
68. Figueiredo, Argelina, and Fernando Limongi. “Constitutional Change, Legislative Performance and Institutional Consolidation.” Brazilian Review of Social Sciences1, Special Issue (2000b): 73–94.
69. Figueiredo, Argelina, and Fernando Limongi. “Agenda Power in the Brazilian Democracy: Government Performance in a Multiparty Presidential System.” CEBRAP, São Paulo, 2005.
70. Fiorina, Morris. Divided Government, 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1996.
71. Fish, M. Steven. “The Dynamics of Democratic Erosion.” In Richard D. Anderson, Jr., M. Steven Fish, Stephen E. Hanson, and Philip G. Roeder (Eds.), Postcommunism and the Theory of Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.
72. Foweraker, Joe, and Todd Landman. “Constitutional Design and Democratic Performance.” Democratization9, no. 2 (2002): 43–66.
73. Freedom House. Freedom in the World. New York: Freedom House, 1992.
74. Freedom House. Freedom in the World 2005. New York: Freedom House, 2005.
75. Frye, Timothy. “A Politics of Institutional Choice: Post-Communist Presidencies.” Comparative Political Studies30, no. 5 (1997): 523–53.
76. Gandhi, Jennifer. “Political Institutions under Dictatorship.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Politics, New York University, 2004.
77. Gargarella, Roberto. “Towards a Typology of LatinAmericanConstitutionalism,1810–60.” Latin American Research Review39, no. 2 (2004): 141–53.
78. Gargarella, Roberto. “The Constitution of Inequality: Constitutionalism in the Americas, 1776–1860.” International Journal of Constitutional Law3, no. 1 (2005): 1–23.
79. Golder, Matt. “Presidential Coattails and Legislative Fragmentation.” American Journal of Political Science50, no. 1 (2006): 34–48.
80. González, Luis Eduardo, and Charles Guy Gillespie. “Presidentialism and Democratic Stability in Uruguay.” In Juan J. Linz and Arturo Valenzuela (Eds.), The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America, pp. 151–78. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
81. Hartlyn, Jonathan. “Presidentialism and Colombian Politics.” In Juan J. Linz and Arturo Valenzuela (Eds.), The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America, pp. 220–53. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
82. Hazan, Reuven Y. “Does Cohesion Equal Discipline? Towards a Conceptual Delineation.” Journal of Legislative Studies9, no. 4 (2003): 1–11.
83. Heller, William B., and Carol Mershon. “Party Switching in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 1996–2001.” Journal of Politics67, no. 2 (2005): 536–59.
84. Heston, Alan, Robert Summers, and Bettina Aten. “PennWorld Table Version 5.6.” Center for International Comparisons at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 2002.
85. Horowitz, Donald L. Ethnic Groups in Conflict, 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.
86. Huang, The-fu. “Party Systems in Taiwan and South Korea.” In Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner, Yun-han Chu, and Hung-mao Tien (Eds.), Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies: Themes and Perspectives, pp. 135–59. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
87. Huber, John D. “The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies.” American Political Science Review90 (1996): 269–82.
88. Johannsen, Lars, and Ole Nørgaard. “IPA: The Index of Presidential Authority: Explorations into the Measurement of the Impact of a Political Institution.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, 2003.
89. Jones, Mark P. Electoral Laws and the Survival of Presidential Democracies. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1995.
90. Jones, Mark P., and Wonjae Hwang. “PartyGovernment in Presidential Democracies: Extending Cartel Theory beyond the U.S. Congress.” American Journal of Political Science49, no. 2 (2005): 267–82.
91. Kalandrakis, Anastassios. “General Equilibrium Parliamentary Government.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, 2000.
92. Kalandrakis, Tasos. “General Political Equilibrium in Parliamentary Democracies.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, 1999.
93. Keefer, Philip. “DPI2000 – Database of Political Institutions: Changes and Variable Definitions.” Development Research Group, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2002.
94. Keesing’s Contemporary Archives. Keesing’s Record of World Events. London: Keesing’s Worldwide (various years).
95. Kenney, Charles. Fujimori’s Coup and the Breakdown of Democracy in Latin America. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004.
96. Kim, HeeMin. “Rational Choice Theory andThirdWorldPolitics:The1990Party Merger in Korea.” Comparative Politics30, no. 1 (1997): 83–100.
97. Kitschelt, Herbert. “Linkages between Citizens and Politicians in Democratic Polities.” Comparative Political Studies33, no. 6/7 (2000): 845–79.
98. Krehbiel, Keith. “Constituency Characteristics and Legislative Preferences.” Public Choice76 (1992): 21–37.
99. Kristinsson, Gunnar Helgi. “Iceland.” In Robert Elgie (Ed.), Semi-Presidentialism in Europe, pp. 86–103. Oxford University Press, 1999.
100. Krouwel, André. “Measuring Presidentialism of Central and East European Countries.” Working Paper no. 02/2003, Department of Political Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 2003.
101. Lane, Jan-Erik, David McKay, and Kenneth Newton. Political Data Handbook: OECD Countries,2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 1997.
102. Laver, Michael, and Norman Schofield. Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998.
103. Laver, Michael, and Kenneth A. Shepsle. Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
104. Lawrence, Chris, and Jennifer Hayes. “Regime Stability and Presidential Government: A Preliminary Analysis.” Paper presented at the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, 2000.
105. Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999.
106. Lijphart, Arend. “Democracy in the Twenty-first Century: Can We Be Optimistic?” The Eighteenth Uhlenbeck Lecture. Wassenaar: Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences, Institute of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2000.
107. Lijphart, Arend. “Constitutional Design for Divided Societies.” Journal of Democracy15, no. 2 (2004): 96–109.
108. Limongi, Fernando, and Argelina Figueiredo. “As Bases Institucionais do Presidencialismo de Coalizão.” Lua Nova44 (1998): 81–106.
109. Linz, Juan J. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.
110. Linz, Juan J. “The Perils of Presidentialism.” Journal of Democracy1, no. 1 (1990a): 51–69.
111. Linz, Juan J. “The Virtues of Parliamentarism.” Journal of Democracy1, no. 4 (1990b): 84–91.
112. Linz, Juan J. “Presidential or Parliamentary Democracy: Does It Make a Difference?” In Juan J. Linz and Arturo Valenzuela (Eds.), The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America, pp. 3–90. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
113. Linz, Juan J., and Alfred Stepan. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.
114. Loewenberg, Gerhard, and Samuel C. Patterson. Comparing Legislatures. Boston: Little, Brown, 1979.
115. Londregan, John B., and Keith T. Poole. “Poverty, the Coup Trap, and the Seizure of Executive Power.” World Politics42 (1990): 151–83.
116. Mainwaring, Scott. “Presidentialism in Latin America.” Latin American Research Review25, no. 1 (1990): 157–79.
117. Mainwaring, Scott. “Politicians, Parties, and Electoral Systems: Brazil in Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Politics24 (1991): 21–43.
118. Mainwaring, Scott. “Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: The Difficult Combination.” Comparative Political Studies26, no. 2 (1993): 198–228.
119. Mainwaring, Scott. Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999.
120. Mainwaring, Scott, and Timothy R. Scully. “Introduction: Party Systems in Latin America.” In Scott Mainwaring and Timothy R. Scully (Eds.), Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America, pp. 1–34. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995.
121. Mainwaring, Scott, and Matthew Soberg Shugart. “Conclusion: Presidentialism and the Party System.” In Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Soberg Shugart (Eds.), Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America, pp. 394–439. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
122. Manin, Bernard. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
123. Mayer, Kenneth. With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.
124. Mayhew, David R. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974.
125. Mayhew, David R. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–1990. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991.
126. Medina, Luis F. “Legislatures vs. Political Parties: Endogenous Policy with Strategic Voters.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, 2001.
127. Mershon, Carol. “The Costs of Coalition: Coalition Theories and Italian Governments.” American Political Science Review90, no. 3 (1996): 534–54.
128. Mershon, Carol. “The Costs of Coalition: A Five-Nation Comparison.” In Shaun Bowler, David M. Farrell, and Richard S. Katz (Eds.), Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government, pp. 227–68. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1999.
129. Metcalf, Lee Kendall. “Measuring Presidential Power.” Comparative Political Studies33, no. 5 (2000): 660–85.
130. Moestrup, Anna Sophia Nyholm. “Semipresidentialism in Comparative Perspective: Its Effects on Democratic Survival.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, George Washington University, Washington, DC, 2004.
131. Mozaffar, Shaheen. “Africa: Electoral Systems in Emerging Democracies.” In Josep Colomer (Ed.), The Handbook of Electoral System Choice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
132. Negretto, Gabriel L., and Jose Antonio Aguilar-Rivera. “Rethinking the Legacy of the Liberal State in Latin America: The Cases of Argentina (1853–1916) and Mexico (1857–1910).” Journal of Latin American Studies32 (2000): 361–97.
133. Niño, Carlos Santiago. “Hyperpresidentialism and Constitutional Reform in Argentina.” In Arend Lijphart and Carlos H. Waisman (Eds.), Institutional Design in New Democracies: Eastern Europe and Latin America, pp. 161–74. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1996.
134. Nohlen, Dieter. Enciclopedia Electoral Latinoamericana y Del Caribe. San Jose, Costa Rica: Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, 1993.
135. Nohlen, Dieter, Florian Grotz, and Christof Hartman (Eds.). Elections in Asia and the Pacific: A Data Handbook. Oxford University Press, 2001.
136. Nohlen, Dieter, Michael Krennerich, and Bernhard Thibaut (Eds.). Elections in Africa: A Data Handbook. Oxford University Press, 1999.
137. O’Donnell, Guillermo. Modernization and Bureacratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1973.
138. O’Donnell, Guillermo. “Delegative Democracy.” Journal of Democracy5 (1994): 55–69.
139. Ozbudun, Ergun. Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: A Causal Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1970.
140. Paz-Soldan, José Pareja. Historia de las Constituciones Nacionales. Lima: ZENIT, 1943.
141. Pereira, Carlos, and Bernardo Mueller. “The Cost of Governing: Strategic Behavior of the President and Legislators in Brazil’s Budgetary Process.” Comparative Political Studies37, no. 7 (2004): 781–815.
142. Pereira, Carlos, Timothy J. Power, and Lucio Rennó. “UnderWhat Conditions Do Presidents Resort to Decree Power? Theory and Evidence from the Brazilian Case.” Journal of Politics67, no. 1 (2005): 178–200.
143. Pérez-Liñán, Aníbal S. “The Political and Economic Consequences of Executive–Legislative Crises.” Paper presented at the Latin American Studies Association Annual Meeting, Dallas, 2003.
144. Power, Timothy J., and Mark Gasiorowski. “Institutional Design and Democratic Consolidation in the Third World.” Comparative Political Studies30, no. 2 (1997): 123–56.
145. Przeworski, Adam. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge University Press, 1991.
146. Przeworski, Adam. “Economic Development and Transitions to Democracy.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Politics, New York University, 2004.
147. Przeworski, Adam, Michael E. Alvarez, José Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
148. Przeworksi, Adam, and Carolina Curvale. “Political Institutions and Economic Development in the Americas: The Long Run.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Politics, New York University, 2006.
149. Przeworksi, Adam, and Carolina Curvale. Regional Surveys of the World. London: Europa Publications (various years).
150. Riggs, Fred W. “The Survival of Presidentialism in America: Para-Constitutional Practices.” International Political Science Review9, no. 4 (1988): 247–78.
151. Roper, Steven D. “Are All Semipresidential Regimes the Same? AComparison of Premier-Presidential Regimes.” Comparative Politics34, no. 3 (2002): 253–72.
152. Rouquié, Alain. “The Military in Latin American Politics Since 1930.” In Leslie Bethell (Ed.), Latin America Since 1930(Cambridge History of Latin America, vol. 6). Cambridge University Press, 1994.
153. Rose, Richard. “British MPs: More Bark Than Bite?” In Ezra N. Suleiman (Ed.), Parliaments and Parliamentarians in Democratic Politics. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1986.
154. Saiegh, Sebastian M. “Government Defeat: Coalitions, Responsiveness, and Legislative Success.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Politics, New York University, 2004.
155. Samuels, David. Ambition, Federalism, and Legislative Politics in Brazil. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
156. Samuels, David, and Kent Eaton. “Presidentialism and, or, and versus Parliamentarism: The State of the Literature and an Agenda for Future Research.” Paper presented at the Conference on the Consequences of Political Institutions in Democracy, Duke University, Durham, NC, 2002.
157. Sartori, Giovanni. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 1976.
158. Sartori, Giovanni. “Neither Presidentialism nor Parlimentarism.” In Juan J. Linz and Arturo Valenzuela (Eds.), The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America, pp. 106–18. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
159. Schleiter, Petra. “Mixed Constitutions and Political Instability.” Democratization10, no. 1 (2003): 1–26.
160. Schleiter, Petra, and Edward Morgan-Jones. “Semi-PresidentialRegimes: Providing Flexibility or Generating Representation and Governance Problems?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 2005.
161. Shugart, Matthew Soberg. “The Electoral Cycle and Institutional Sources of Divided Presidential Government.” American Political Science Review89, no. 2 (1995): 327–43.
162. Shugart, Matthew Soberg, and John M. Carey. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
163. Shugart, Matthew Soberg, and Stephan Haggard. “Institutions and Public Policy in Presidential Systems.” In Stephan Haggard and Matthew McCubbins (Eds.), Presidents, Parliaments, and Policy. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
164. Shugart, Matthew Soberg, and Scott Mainwaring. “Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America: Rethinking the Terms of the Debate.” In Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Soberg Shugart (Eds.), Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America, pp. 12–54. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
165. Siavelis, Peter. The President and Congress in Post-Authoritarian Chile: Institutional Constraints to Democratic Consolidation. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000.
166. Stanton, Kimberly Ann. “Transforming a Political Regime: The Chilean Constitution of 1925.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, 1997.
167. Stepan, Alfred. Military in Politics: Changing Patterns in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971.
168. Stepan, Alfred. Rethinking Military Politics: Brazil and the Southern Cone. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988.
169. Stepan, Alfred, and Cindy Skach. “Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation.” World Politics46, no. 1 (1993): 1–22.
170. Strøm, Kaare. Minority Government and Majority Rule. Cambridge University Press, 1990.
171. Strøm, Kaare. “Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research37, no. 3 (2000): 261–89.
172. Strøm, Kaare, and Wolfgang C. Müller. “The Keys to Togetherness: Coalition Agreements in Parliamentary Democracies.” Journal of Legislative Studies5, no. 3/4 (1999): 255–82.
173. Suberu, Rotimi T., and Larry Diamond. “Institutional Design, Ethnic Conflict-Management and Democracy in Nigeria.” In Andrew Reynolds (Ed.), The Architecture of Democracy: Constitutional Design, Conflict Management, and Democracy, pp. 400–28. Oxford University Press, 2002.
174. Than, Tin Maung Maung. “The Essential Tension: Democratization and the Unitary State in Myanmar (Burma).” South East Asia Research12, no. 2 (2004): 187–212.
175. Tsebelis, George. “Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism.” British Journal of Political Science25 (1995): 289–325.
176. Tsebelis, George. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.
177. Turan, Ilter. “Changing Horses in Midstream: Party Changers in the Turkish National Assembly.” Legislative Studies Quarterly10, no. 1 (1985): 21–34.
178. Valenzuela, Arturo. “Party Politics and the Crisis of Presidentialism in Chile: A Proposal for a Parliamentary Form of Government.” In Juan J. Linz and Arturo Valenzuela (Eds.), The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America, pp. 91–150. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
179. Valenzuela, Arturo. “The Crisis of Presidentialism in Latin America.” In Scott Mainwaring and Arturo Valenzuela (Eds.), Politics, Society, and Democracy: Latin America, pp. 121–39. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1998.
180. Valenzuela, Arturo. “Latin American Presidencies Interrupted.” Journal of Democracy15, no. 4 (2004): 5–19.
181. van deWalle, Nicolas. “Presidentialism and Clientelism in Africa’s Emerging Party Systems.” Journal of Modern African Studies41, no. 2 (2003): 297–321.
182. Verney, Douglas. “The Analysis of Political Systems.” In Arend Lijphart (Ed.), Parliamentary versus Presidential Government. Oxford University Press, 1992 [1979].
183. Viotti da Costa, Emilia. The Brazilian Empire: Myths and Histories. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000.
184. Wallack, Jessica Seddon, Alejandro Gaviria, Ugo Panizza, and Ernesto Stein. “Political Particularism Around the World.” World Bank Economic Review17, no.1 (2003):133–43.
185. Warwick, Paul V. Government Survival in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
186. Woldendorp, Jaap, Hans Keman, and Ian Budge. Handbook of Democratic Government: Party Government in 20 Democracies (1945–1990). Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993.
187. World Bank. World Development Indicators(CD-ROM). Washington, DC: World Bank, 2004.
188. Yonhyok, Choe. How to Manage Free and Fair Elections: A Comparison of Korea, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborg University Press, 1997.
189. Zelaznik, Javier. “The Building of Coalitions in the Presidential Systems of Latin America: An Inquiry into the Political Conditions of Governability.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex, 2001.