Who belongs to the inner circle of presidents remains understudied. Preceding research has mostly focused on advisors and ministers separately, and has not integrated other groups who also influence presidents. I argue that families, advisors, and ministers are members of the inner circle of presidents and support the leaders' affective, intellectual, and political needs, respectively. I also propose that the inner circle becomes more functional when its three component groups work with a clear division of labor, are diverse, and combine hierarchical and horizontal relations with presidents. Semi-structured interviews conducted with 24 former Latin American presidents support that inner circles are composed of family, advisors, and ministers, although more evidence is needed to assess what constitutes a functional inner circle.
There is a growing scholarly consensus that overreaching heads of government are subverting democracies across the globe. However, the characteristics of these leaders remain unclear. This article examines a type of overreaching presidential behavior that has been commonplace in Latin America: between 1945 and 2012, 25 presidents from 14 countries tried to change their respective constitutions to increase their powers. Building on personality research and semistructured interviews conducted with former presidents, this article proposes that risk taking and assertive leaders are more likely to try to increase their powers. Using a novel database, I conduct discrete‐time‐duration models to test the hypotheses on the presidents that governed from 1945 to 2012. The results demonstrate that the personalities of presidents are a strong force behind their attempts to consolidate their authority. These findings challenge current approaches in presidential studies and have implications for the study of all types of political elites.
The debate about the relative importance of the personality traits of presidents has a long history. Until the mid‐1970s, scholars of the presidency extensively focused on the uniqueness of the individuals that held office. However, the difficulty in capturing presidential personalities and measuring their impact on executive politics led to a significant quantitative shift that focused more on the institutions within which presidents operate. This change produced a long‐lasting divide between researchers interested in the "institutional" presidency and those focused on the "personal" presidency. I propose to integrate both approaches by incorporating insights from differential psychology to treat the personality traits of presidents as independent variables. In support of the argument, I use data from an expert survey that captured psychometric traits of presidents who governed the Western Hemisphere in 1945–2012 to reassess an influential study about Latin American presidents. The results show that adding openness to experience leads to a deeper understanding of presidential approval. I conclude by arguing that measuring the personality traits of all sorts of leaders is necessary to modernize the study of elites.
The criticism of the reconstruction that followed the cataclysm in Chile in 2010 has centered on contingent factors including the performance of politicians. An examination of the way structural factors conditioned the governmental response to the 8.8 earthquake shows that the constitution created by the military regime shaped the reconstruction through provisions that limited vertical and horizontal accountability in intrastate and state-society relations. The subsidiary state, executive-legislative power relations, the binomial electoral system, and the appointment rather than election of regional authorities favored a recovery effort that has been underinstitutionalized, privatized, characterized by scant participation of victims, and marred by irregularities. An analysis of governmental reports, media outlets, polls, and semistructured interviews conducted with legislators, social leaders, and scholars sheds light on the relation between the constitution and the recovery.La crítica a la reconstrucción que siguió el cataclismo de 2010 en Chile se ha centrado en factores contingentes incluyendo el desempeño de los políticos. Un examen de la manera en la cual los factores estructurales condicionaron la respuesta gubernamental al terremoto de 8.8 puntos demuestra que la Constitución creado por el régimen militar configuró la reconstrucción a través de disposiciones que limitaron la responsabilidad vertical y horizontal en las relaciones intraestatales y de estado-sociedad. El estado subsidiario, las relaciones de poder ejecutivo-legislativo, el sistema electoral binomial, y el nombramiento en lugar de la elección de autoridades regionales favoreció un esfuerzo de recuperación que ha sido subinstitucionalizado, privatizado, caracterizado por escasa participación de las víctimas, y empañado por irregularidades. Un análisis de los informes gubernamentales, medios de comunicación, encuestas, y entrevistas semi-estructuradas con legisladores, líderes sociales, y académicos ilumina la relación entre la Constitución y la recuperación.
Este artículo analiza quiénes y cómo influyen en la toma de decisiones presidenciales al interior del Poder Ejecutivo. En base a entrevistas realizadas a 21 ex presidentes, se argumenta que la tensión entre asesores presidenciales y ministros varía según el tipo de liderazgo presidencial y si los ministros son seleccionados libremente por el mandatario o son impuestos por partidos políticos. La interacción de estas dos variables condiciona las relaciones entre ministros y asesores, la cual puede llevar a que los asesores complementen, sustituyan, acomoden o compitan con las tareas de los ministros. Para sistematizar este argumento, se propone una categorización del grado de conflicto que existe entre ministros y asesores.
This article examines who influences presidential decisions within the Executive and how this occurs. Based on interviews with twenty-one former presidents, this paper argues that the tension between advisors and ministers varies according to the type of presidential leadership and whether the president freely appoints ministers or they are imposed by political parties. The interaction between both variables conditions relations between advisors and ministers, allowing advisors to complement, substitute, accommodate or compete with ministers' duties. To systematize this argument, this paper proposes a categorization of the degree of conflict that exists between ministers and advisors. ; Este artículo analiza quiénes y cómo influyen en la toma de decisiones presidenciales al interior del Poder Ejecutivo. En base a entrevistas realizadas a 21 ex presidentes, se argumenta que la tensión entre asesores presidenciales y ministros varía según el tipo de liderazgo presidencial y si los ministros son seleccionados libremente por el mandatario o son impuestos por partidos políticos. La interacción de estas dos variables condiciona las relaciones entre ministros y asesores, la cual puede llevar a que los asesores complementen, sustituyan, acomoden o compitan con las tareas de los ministros. Para sistematizar este argumento, se propone una categorización del grado de conflicto que existe entre ministros y asesores.
This essay reviews the following works:China y América Latina en una nueva fase: Desafíos en el siglo XXI. Edited by Pamela Aróstica and Walter Sánchez. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria, 2019. Pp. 270. ISBN: 9789561126268.China–Latin America Relations in the 21st Century: The Dual Complexities of Opportunities and Challenges. Edited by Raúl Bernal-Meza and Li Xing. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020. Pp. 289. $79.64 hardcover. ISBN: 9783030356132.Sino–Latin American Economic and Trade Relations. Edited by Chai Yu and Yue Yunxia. Singapore: Springer, 2019. Pp. 193. $64.50 hardcover. ISBN: 9789811334047.China, the United States, and the Future of Latin America. Edited by David B. H. Denoon. New York: New York University Press, 2017. Pp. 432. $39.00 paperback. ISBN: 9781479821648.Globalizing Patient Capital: The Political Economy of Chinese Finance in the Americas. By Stephen B. Kaplan. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2021. Pp. 390. $84.99 hardcover. ISBN: 9781107182318.Dependency in the Twenty-First Century? The Political Economy of China-Latin America Relations. By Barbara Stallings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. Pp. 75. $20.00 paperback. ISBN: 9781108793032.Dragonomics: How Latin America Is Maximizing (or Missing Out on) China's International Development Strategy. By Carol Wise. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2020. Pp. 328. $36.57 hardcover. ISBN: 9780300224092.
First ladies are increasingly acquiring political capital, influencing governments, and becoming candidates. However, the specialized literature has not documented this trend. In this article, we argue that the involvement of this group of women in the Executive Power makes it necessary to consider them as part of the political elite. To have a better understanding of the political influence of the first ladies, we propose a typology that generates four categories in which we then classify the 88 women who held the position between 1990 and 2016. ; Las primeras damas están crecientemente adquiriendo capital político, influyendo en gobiernos y lanzándose como candidatas. Sin embargo, la literatura especializada no ha documentado esta tendencia. En este artículo, argumentamos que el involucramiento de este grupo de mujeres en el Poder Ejecutivo amerita que sean consideradas como parte de la élite política. Para tener un mejor entendimiento de la influencia política de las primeras damas, proponemos una tipología que genera cuatro categorías en las que luego clasificamos a las 88 mujeres que estuvieron en el puesto entre 1990 y 2016.
