Suchergebnisse

Why do some parties formed by social movements develop top-down structures while others stay more open and responsive to their social bases? The first rigorous comparative study of movement-based parties, this book shows not only how movements can form parties but also how movements contribute to parties' internal politics and shape organizational party models over the long term. Although the existing literature argues that movement-based parties will succumb to professionalization and specialization, Anria shows that this is not inevitable or preordained through an in-depth examination of the unusual and counterintuitive development of Bolivia's MAS. Anria then compares the evolution of the MAS with that of other parties formed by social movements, including Brazil's PT and Uruguay's FA. In a region where successful new parties of any type have been rare, these three parties are remarkable for their success. Yet, despite their similar origins, they differ sharply in their organizational models.

Abstract
The Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) emerged in Bolivia's Chapare region in the 1990s. Born of a rural social movement of coca growers, it spread to the cities and became the country's dominant political force as its leader, Evo Morales, was elected to the presidency in 2005. This article argues that the MAS is a hybrid organization whose electoral success has been contingent on the construction of a strong rural-urban coalition, built on the basis of different linkages between the MAS and organized popular constituencies in rural and urban areas. Whereas the MAS's rural origins gave rise to grassroots control over the leadership, its expansion to urban areas has fostered the emergence of top-down mobilization strategies. The analysis also reveals how much popular sectors allied with the MAS have pressured the Morales government from below and held it accountable to societal demands.

ABSTRACTBolivia and Brazil have universalized their pension and healthcare systems, respectively. Civil society organizations participated actively in social policy expansion, yet they have done so in starkly different ways, reflecting general patterns in each country. Whereas in Brazil, popular participation in social policies takes place through "inside" formal channels, such as conferences and councils, in Bolivia, bottom-up influence occurs mostly via "outside" channels, by coordinating collective action in the streets. Understanding forms of popular participation matters because policies that allow for popular input are potentially more representative, universal, and nondiscretionary. This article argues that differences in the forms of popular participation in social policy expansion can be explained by the characteristics of the institutional context and differences in the types of movements engaged in the policymaking process. By focusing on patterns of participation, these findings add nuance to the literature on Latin America's welfare states.

This article explores the coalitional success of mass-mobilizing, reformist parties once they achieve power. Why are some of these parties more successful than others at managing the potentially conflicting interests of their diverse social bases? We argue that organizational strategies adopted early on matter greatly. The nature of the party's core constituency, together with the linkage strategies undertaken by party leaders in crafting a coalition of support, shapes a party's ability to maintain that coalition over time. When coalitional partners are intensively rather than extensively integrated, they are more likely to compromise over policy disagreements rather than defect when defection becomes attractive. We develop this theory by comparing the evolution of two Bolivian parties: the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement and the Movement Toward Socialism. Against conventional explanations that are overly dependent upon structural factors, our argument stresses the impact of strategic choices in shaping a party's ability to maintain its coalition.

"Parties and Non-State Actors in Latin America" published on by Oxford University Press.