Working Papers

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.

Despite a long history of violent military regimes, Latin Americans’ support for democracy can reach surprisingly low levels, particularly during economic crises. In Brazil, support for authoritarianism remains relatively stable over time; what varies substantially is the share of the population that declares indifference between democracy and authoritarian rule. This article sheds light on the rationale underlying these so-called “reluctant democrats.” Building on Lipset’s argument that ineffective democracies lose legitimacy over time, we examine whether citizens become more willing to entertain authoritarian alternatives when such regimes are presented as efficacious in solving concrete problems. We conduct two survey experiments in Brazil. The first focuses on the costs of authoritarianism by asking treated respondents which rights they would be willing to give up under an efficacious authoritarian regime. We find that prompting respondents to consider the loss of rights reduces indifference toward democracy and increases unconditional support for democracy relative to the control group. The second study follows the same logic but raises the stakes: instead of referring to an authoritarian regime that improves conditions in general, it presents respondents with a regime capable of solving the national problem they themselves identify as most important. In this setting, the treatment no longer increases democratic support. The results suggest that rights-based appeals can strengthen democratic commitment when the benefits of authoritarianism are framed in general terms, but may lose force when authoritarian rule is presented as efficacious in addressing citizens’ most salient problems.

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.