🔎 What Was Studied

Lijphart's consensus–majoritarian typology is widely used but has rarely been applied to Latin America. This study adapts that framework for the region by treating the type of democracy as an independent variable and adding informal factors—such as clientelism and informal employment—into the assessment of democratic patterns.

📅 Questions and Time Frame

• How did patterns of democracy evolve across Latin America between 1990 and 2010?
• What institutional factors explain the observed changes?
• Particular attention is paid to the emergence of new parties because of their strong impact on the first dimension of Lijphart's typology.

🔧 How the Typology Was Adapted for Latin America

• The study modifies Lijphart’s framework to account for regional specificities rather than applying the typology unchanged.
• The approach treats regime type as an explanatory variable and explicitly incorporates informal political and economic practices into the classification of democratic patterns.
• Analysis compares changes across the region during the two-decade period 1990–2010, linking party-system dynamics to shifts along Lijphart’s dimensions.

📊 Key Findings

• Strong new parties that entered the party system but failed to capture the presidency tended to push systems toward more consensual characteristics.
• New parties that succeeded in winning the presidency were associated with increased majoritarian traits.
• These patterns highlight the central role of presidential control in converting party-system change into shifts along Lijphart’s first dimension.
• Including informal factors such as clientelism and informal employment changes the assessment of regime patterns compared with prior, more formal-only applications of the typology.

✅ Why It Matters

The study reframes Lijphart’s typology as an independent variable and shows that party emergence—and crucially, whether new parties win the presidency—can steer democracies toward consensual or majoritarian configurations. The conclusions are presented as tentative but point to the combined importance of formal institutions and informal political practices for understanding democratic change in Latin America between 1990 and 2010.