Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T23:15:41.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Electoral Behavior of the Poor in Brazil: A Research Agenda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2022

Simone Bohn
Simone Bohn*
Affiliation:
York University, Toronto
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Some deem the Bolsa Família program (BF) in Brazil to be a quintessentially clientelistic tool, thought to have produced colossal sociodemographic transformations in the base of support of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, particularly in the 2006 election. An earlier article (Bohn 2011) maintained that significant changes in Lula's electoral base took place prior to his reelection; other social policies, such as the Benefício de Prestação Continuada, contributed significantly to the changes in Lula's camp; and, most important, that the link between the receipt of social benefits and vote is less straightforward than those who view Bolsa Família as a clientelistic program assume it to be. This work addresses some of the criticisms that the article received and reinforces the need for further research that uses individual-based data to disentangle the complexity of the electoral behavior of the poor in highly unequal societies.

Resumo

Resumo

Alguns consideram que o programa Bolsa Família no Brasil é uma ferramenta essencialmente clientelística, tida como responsável por uma transformação socio-demográfica de grandes proporções na base de Lula, sobretudo na eleição de 2006. Um trabalho anterior (“Social Policy and Vote in Brazil: Bolsa Família and the Shifts in Lula's Electoral Base,” Latin American Research Review 46 [1]: 54–79) sustentou (a) que mudanças significativas na base eleitoral de Lula antecederam sua reeleição; que (b) outras políticas sociais, tais como o Benefício de Prestação Continuada, contribuíram significativamente para as referidas modificações no apoio eleitoral a Lula; e, mais importante, que (c) os elos entre o recebimento de benefícios sociais e voto são mais mediatos que os proponentes da visão BF-como-clientelismo nos levam a crer. Este trabalho apresenta evidências adicionais em relação a este último ponto. O padrão de votação dos beneficiários do Bolsa Família apresenta diferenças estatisticamente significantes entre as diversas regiões brasileiras e também nas áreas urbanas quando comparadas à zona rural. Esses resultados reforçam a importância da realização de estudos adicionais que, usando dados de survey, possam deslindar a complexidade do comportamento eleitoral das camadas sociais menos afluentes em sociedades marcadamente desiguais.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , 2013 , pp. 25 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by the Latin American Studies Association

References

Bohn, Simone 2011 “Social Policy and Vote in Brazil: Bolsa Família and the Shifts in Lula's Electoral Base.” Latin American Research Review 46 (1): 54–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cove, Walter, and Hughes, Michael 1980 “Reexamining the Ecological Fallacy: A Study in Which Aggregate Data Are Critical in Investigating the Pathological Effects of Living Alone.” Social Forces 58 (4): 1157–1177.Google Scholar
Dutton, Donald G. 1994 “Patriarchy and Wife Assault: The Ecological Fallacy.” Violence and Victims 9 (2): 167–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, Wendy 2007 “The Normalization of an Anomaly: The Workers' Party in Brazil.” World Politics 59 (3): 440–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, Wendy 2010 The Transformation of the Workers' Party in Brazil, 1989–2009. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, Wendy, and Power, Timothy J. 2007 “Rewarding Lula: Executive Power, Social Policy, and the Brazilian Elections of 2006.” Latin American Politics and Society 49 (1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G., and Palda, Filip 1993 “The Downsian Voter Meets the Ecological Fallacy.” Public Choice (77): 855–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piantadosi, Steven, Byar, David P., and Green, Sylvan B. 1988 “The Ecological Fallacy.” America Journal of Epidemiology 127 (5): 893–904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, William S. 1950 “Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals.” American Sociological Review 15 (3): 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, David 2004 “From Socialism to Social Democracy: Party Organization and the Transformation of the Workers' Party in Brazil.” Comparative Political Studies 37 (9): 999–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucco, Cesar 2008 “The President's ‘New’ Constituency: Lula and the Pragmatic Vote in Brazil's 2006 Elections.” Journal of Latin American Studies 40 (1): 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucco, Cesar, and Power, Timothy J. 2013 “Bolsa Família and the Shift in Lula's Electoral Base, 2002–2006: A Reply to Bohn.” Latin American Research Review 48 (2): 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar