Working Papers

Recent scholarship reveals notable divisions within Brazilian agribusiness regarding environmental protection, ranging from fervent deniers to advocates of decarbonization. This article argues that these divergent positions are shaped by the degree to which businesses are exposed to international consumer and foreign government pressures. Agro-industries engaged in global markets often adopt a rhetoric of decarbonization, while producers who sell primarily to trading companies are more likely to downplay or dismiss climate concerns. We then investigate whether this divide is reflected in the voting patterns of legislators affiliated with the Agribusiness Caucus (Frente Parlamentar da Agropecuária, FPA), distinguishing between those funded predominantly by producers and those backed by agro-exporting industries. Surprisingly, we find that FPA-affiliated legislators vote uniformly in favor of policies aligned with denier positions, even when the majority of their funding comes from agro-industrial exporters. If a progressive, green agribusiness sector exists in Brazil, its interests remain underrepresented in Congress.

According to several studies, international economic factors influence major political outcomes in resource-rich developing democracies. Voters seem to ignore the impact of exogenous conditions and fully attribute economic performance to incumbent competence. In this article, we test informational, cognitive and affective explanations for this behavior in a nationally representative survey and a survey experiment, both conducted in Brazil. Our results indicate that misattribution is more than just an informational problem; we find that few respondents can apply the rules of inference deemed necessary to discount exogenous conditions, and that even individuals that can are unlikely to do so when it involves confronting prior affect for political leaders. We conclude that the prospects for correcting misattribution for economic performance in resource-rich developing democracies are minimal.

Most research treats populist rhetoric as a stable trait of political leaders. We challenge this view by asking whether a leader’s populist tone can undergo marked shifts across different stages of their career. To address this question, we analyze the case of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—a politician who was a leading candidate in multiple presidential elections spanning more than three decades. Drawing on 189 televised campaign speeches, we apply Hawkins’ (2009) holistic grading method to classify discourse as populist, mixed, or non-populist. The results reveal striking variation: populist narratives emerged powerfully in some campaigns, gave way to pluralist and technocratic discourse in others, and later resurfaced in a more moderate tone.  By holding leader identity constant, this approach isolates the strategic and situational drivers of rhetorical change, showing that populism operates as a contingent resource rather than a fixed attribute. The findings contribute to comparative research on discursive populism and underscore the importance of examining long political trajectories to understand when and why populist rhetoric intensifies or recedes.

Research on the impact of exogenous conditions on political success reveals that Latin American voters often over-attribute economic performance to government decision, punishing and rewarding incumbents for outcomes they do not influence. One shortcoming of this research, however, is that a focus on presidential popularity and elections restricts findings to periods of democratic government. Our paper advances this agenda by investigating how exogenous economic conditions influence “irregular handovers of power,” defined as unscheduled terminations of governments. In contrast with elections and presidential popularity, regular and irregular handovers of power can be observed in both democratic and non-democratic regimes alike, allowing us to examine a much longer time period than previous studies. We find that, at least since the early 1960s, irregular handovers of power in Latin America are far more common under unfavorable international conditions, defined as periods in which international commodity prices are low and/or falling and international interest rates are high and/or rising. We conclude that these variables are strong systemic predictors of political stability in the region, regardless of regime type.

Most research treats populist rhetoric as a fixed attribute of political leaders. We challenge this view by examining whether a leader’s populist tone can shift over time. Using 189 televised campaign speeches by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva across six presidential elections (1989–2022), we apply Hawkins’ (2009) holistic grading method to classify each speech as populist, mixed, or non-populist. Our results show marked variation: Lula’s 1989 campaign featured a stark “people versus elite” narrative, absent from his pluralist, technocratic 2002 discourse, but revived to some extent in 2022 against right-wing populist Jair Bolsonaro. By holding leader identity constant, this study isolates contextual and strategic drivers of rhetorical change, demonstrating that populism can be a contingent resource rather than a permanent trait. The findings contribute to comparative research on discursive populism and suggest new approaches to studying leaders who compete repeatedly over extended political careers.

It is well-established that partisan beliefs can significantly shape one’s interpretation of reality. However, this research takes a unique perspective by investigating whether objective facts, particularly those highly publicized, such as COVID-19 deaths, can themselves be colored by preexisting political preferences. Drawing on data from three rounds of nationally representative surveys conducted in Brazil, we explore how supporters of the incumbent President updated their factual beliefs, the interpretations of those beliefs, and their opinions regarding the management of the pandemic as real-world conditions evolved. Our findings reveal a compelling narrative, indicating that not only do opinions and interpretations differ among partisan groups, but individuals’ knowledge about widely publicized facts also varies in predictable ways. Furthermore, this effect is amplified among those primarily informed by social media channels. This article suggests a mechanism between political affiliations, objective facts, and media consumption habits in shaping perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.

The global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has provided vaccine-producing countries with opportunities to exhibit their technological capabilities and generosity by distributing vaccines and medical supplies. China, which is widely known as the origin site of the COVID-19 virus, has become a prominent producer of vaccines and protective equipment as part of its efforts to restore its international reputation. This study utilizes original panel data from six Latin American countries and a survey experiment conducted in Brazil and Chile to investigate the impact of receiving a Chinese vaccine on public opinion towards China in the context of belief in fake news about a “Chinese virus.” Our findings demonstrate that the receipt of a Chinese vaccine can moderate the effect of believing in this false information on sentiment towards China. Furthermore, we highlight the critical role played by political leaders in shaping these beliefs. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed a complex interplay between public health, politics, and diplomacy that has significant implications for soft power, particularly in contexts where politically-motivated misinformation is prevalent.