Prospects for e-government in latin america: Satisfaction with democracy, social accountability, and direct democracy

International Review of Public Administration

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 5-20

  Altman, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012480860     PISSN: 12294659     EISSN: 2331795     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/12294659.2002.10805002     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Altman, David. 2002. “Popular Initiatives in Uruguay: Confidence Votes on Government or Political Loyalties?” Electoral Studies 21: 617-630.
2. Araos, Maria Raquel and Eduardo Engel. 1989. “Desempleo, Votación Histórica y el Plebiscito de 1988.” Estudios CIEPLAN 27: 5-17.
3. Arnold, Douglas R. 1979. Congress and Bureaucracy: A Theory of Influence. Yale University Press.
4. Backus, Michiel. 2001. “E-Governance in Developing Countries.” IICD Research Brief, 1: http://www. iicd.org/base/show_news?sc=205&id=1634.
5. Barczak, Monica. 2001. “Representation by Consultation? The Rise of Direct Democracy in Latin America.” LatinAmerican Politics & Society 43: 37-59.
6. Bell, A. Derrick Jr. 1978. “The Referendum: Democracy’s Barrier to Racial Equality.” Washington Law Review 54: 1-29.
7. Bishop, Patrick, John Kane and Haig Patapan. 2002. “E-Democracy: Technological Challenges to Democratic Theory.” In International Conference on E-Government and E-Policy: Past, Present and Future. Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea.
8. Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn and Morris Fiorina. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
9. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe, CEPAL. 2001. Anuario Estadístico de América Latina y el Caribe 2001. Santiago: ECLAC.
10. Gandásegui, Marco A. 1999. “The 1998 Referendum in Panama: A Popular Vote Against Neoliberalism.” Latin American Perspectives 26: 159-168.
11. Gerber, Elisabeth and Arthur Lupia. 1995. “Campaign Competition and Policy Responsiveness in Direct Legislation Elections.” Political Behaviour 17: 287-306.
12. Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
13. Gross, Andreas and Bruno Kaufmann. 2002. IRI Europe Country Index on Citizenlawmaking 2002: A Report on Design and Rating of the I&R Requirements and Practices of 32 European States. Amsterdam: IRI Europe.
14. Inglehart, Ronald. 1984. “The Changing Structure of Political Cleveages in Western Society.” In Electoral Change in Advenced Industrial Democra -cies: Realigment or Dealigment?, edited by R. Dalton, S. Flanagan, and P. A. Beck, 24-69. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
15. Inglehart, Ronald. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
16. International Telecommunitations Union, ITU. 2002. “Statistics.” http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/.
17. Katz, Richard S. 1980. A Theory of Parties and Electoral Systems. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
18. La Porte Todd, Chris Demchak and Martin De Jong. 2002. “Democracy and Bureacracy in the Age of the Web: Empirical Findings and Theoretical Speculations.” Administration and Society 34: 411-446.
19. Lagos, Marta. 2001. “Between Stability and Crisis in Latin America.” Journal of Democracy 12: 137-145.
20. Latinobarómetro. 2002. “Latinobarómetro: Opinión Publica Latinoamericana.” http://www.latino-barometro.org.
21. Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “The Effect of Information on Voting Behavior and Electoral Outcomes: An Experimental Study of Direct Legislation.” Public Choice 78: 65-86.
22. Lupia, Arthur and Mathew McCubbins. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn what they Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Mainwaring, Scott. 1999. “Democratic Survivability in Latin America.” Kellogg Institute for International Studies, Working Paper #267.
24. Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
25. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1994. “Delegative Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 5(1): 55-69.
26. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 2001a. “Democracy, Law, and Comparative Politics.” Studies in Comparative International Development 36: 7-36.
27. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 2001b. “Reflections on Contemporary South American Democracies.” Journal of Latin American Studies 35: 599-609.
28. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 2002. “Acerca de varias Accountabilities y sus Interrelaciones.” In Controlando la Política: Ciu -dadanos y Medios en las Nuevas Democracias Latinoamericanas, edited by E. Peruzzotti and C. Smulovitz, 87-102. Buenos Aires: Temas.
29. Osorio, Carlos A. 2002. “Public Ends by Digital Means: Some Thoughts on E-Government and the Creation of Public Value.” NSFDigital Government Work -shop: White Paper.
30. Panzer, John and Ricardo Paredes. 1991. “The Role of Economic Issues in Elections: The Case of the 1988 Chilean Presidential Referendum.” Public Choice 71: 51-59.
31. Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Payne, Mark, Daniel Zovatto, Fernando Carrillo and Andres Allamand. 2002. Democracies in Development: Politics and Reform in Latin America. Washington D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
33. Peruzzotti, Enrique and Catalina Smulovitz. 2002. “Accountability Social: La Otra Cara del Control.” In Controlando la Política: Ciudadanos y Medios en las Nuevas Democracias Latinoamericanas, edited by E. Peruzzotti and C. Smulovitz, 23-52. Buenos Aires: Temas.
34. Przeworski, Adam. 2002. “Accountability Social en América Latina y Más Allá.” In Controlando la Politica: Ciudadanos y Medios en las Nuevas Democracias Latinoamericanas, edited by E. Peruzzotti and C. Smulovitz, 73-85. Buenos Aires: Temas.
35. Przeworski, Adam, Susan Stokes, and Bernard Manin. 1999. Democracy, Accountability and Representation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Qvortrup, Mads. 2000. “Are Referendums Controlled and Pro-hegemonic?” Political Studies 48: 821-826.
37. Rial, Juan. 2000. “Instituciones de Democracia Directa en America Latina.” National Democratic Institute: www.ndipartidos.org/pdf/gobernando/ democraciadirecta.pdf.
38. Schlesinger, Joseph A. 1991. Political Parties and the Winning of Office. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
39. Tsebelis, George. 1995. “Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism.” British Journal of Political Science 25: 289-325.
40. Tsebelis, George. Forthcoming. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton University Press.
41. Uleri, Pier Vincenzo. 1996. “Italy: Referendums and Initiatives from the Origins to the Crisis of a Democratic Regime.” In The Referendum Experience in Europe, edited by M. Gallagher and P.V. Uleri, 106-125. London: Macmillan.
42. United Nations Development Programme, UNDP. 2002. Human Development Report: Deepening Democ -racy in a Fragmented World. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. West, Darell M. 2002. “Global E-Government, 2002.” in http://www.insidepolitics.org/. Providence: Center for Public Policy, Brown University.
44. Working Group on E-Government in the Developing World, The. 2002. Roadmap for E-Government in the Developing World: 10 Questions E-Government Leaders Should Ask Themselves: Pacific Council on International Policy, The Western Partner of the Council on Foreign Relations.