IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ems/euriss/97967.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The accidental Trojan horse: Plea bargaining as an anticorruption tool in Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Ribeiro, F.

Abstract

This paper employs the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) as a model to understand the legislative process that led to the implementation of plea bargaining as an anticorruption tool in Brazil. Through the analysis of primary qualitative data, it assesses the political and social forces that formed a coalition and propelled this legislative process forward, thus allowing the posterior emergence of the largest anticorruption judicial action in the history of Brazil. In doing so, it elucidates the reasons that led a systemically corrupt legislative to enact a remarkably effective anticorruption policy, often to the detriment of lawmakers themselves. This paper’s contribution to the literature about the anticorruption framework in Brazil lies in its critical interpretation of the interplay of political forces involved in the early stages of policy formulation. It adds empirical elements to a modern institutional approach to the study of corruption, which derives from classical theories about the formation of Brazilian society. Finally, the paper serves as an illustration of the difficulties inherent to applying the ACF in dysfunctional contexts, such as those marked by systemic corruption.

Suggested Citation

  • Ribeiro, F., 2017. "The accidental Trojan horse: Plea bargaining as an anticorruption tool in Brazil," ISS Working Papers - General Series 627, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
  • Handle: RePEc:ems:euriss:97967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/97967/wp627.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haas, Peter M., 1992. "Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-35, January.
    2. Abhijit V. Banerjee, 1997. "A Theory of Misgovernance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(4), pages 1289-1332.
    3. María José Paz, 2015. "Institutional Change and State-Owned Enterprises: Reflections from the Petrobras case study," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(6), pages 791-811, July.
    4. Mariana Mota Prado & Lindsey Carson, 2014. "Brazilian Anti-Corruption Legislation and its Enforcement: Potential Lessons for Institutional Design," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series iriba_wp09, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    5. Rose-Ackerman,Susan & Palifka,Bonnie J., 2016. "Corruption and Government," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107441095, November.
    6. Lindsey Carson & Mariana Mota Prado, 2014. "Mapping Corruption and its Institutional Determinants in Brazil," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series iriba_wp08, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    7. Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Sabatier, Paul A., 1994. "Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition Framework," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 175-203, April.
    8. Rose-Ackerman,Susan & Palifka,Bonnie J., 2016. "Corruption and Government," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107081208, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Bennett & Matthew D. Rablen, 2021. "Bribery, hold‐up, and bureaucratic structure," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(3), pages 880-903, July.
    2. Arteaga, Fernando & Desierto, Desiree & Koyama, Mark, 2024. "Shipwrecked by rents," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    3. Leonard Hoeft & Wladislaw Mill & Alexander Vostroknutov, 2019. "Normative Perception of Power Abuse," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2019_06, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    4. Nicolas Campos & Eduardo Engel & Ronald D. Fischer & Alexander Galetovic, 2019. "Renegotiations and corruption in infrastructure: The Odebrecht case," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0230, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    5. Miguel-Angel Galindo-Martín & María-Soledad Castaño-Martínez & María-Teresa Méndez-Picazo, 2020. "The Relationship between Green Innovation, Social Entrepreneurship, and Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Cesar Martinelli, 2022. "Accountability and Grand Corruption," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 645-679, November.
    7. Michael A. Sartor & Paul W. Beamish, 2020. "Private Sector Corruption, Public Sector Corruption and the Organizational Structure of Foreign Subsidiaries," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(4), pages 725-744, December.
    8. Dávid-Barrett, Elizabeth & Fazekas, Mihály, 2020. "Anti-corruption in aid-funded procurement: Is corruption reduced or merely displaced?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    9. Susan Rose-Ackerman, 2017. "A Review of Geoffrey M. Hodgson, Conceptualizing Capitalism: Institutions, Evolution, Future," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(1), pages 182-190, March.
    10. Lihua Wang & Xin(Robert) Luo & M. Peter Jurkat, 2022. "Understanding Inconsistent Corruption Control through E-government Participation: Updated Evidence from a Cross-Country Investigation," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 979-1006, September.
    11. Julia M. Puaschunder & Dirk Beerbaum, 2020. "The Future of Healthcare around the World: Four indices integrating Technology, Productivity, Anti-Corruption, Healthcare and Market Financialization," Proceedings of the 18th International RAIS Conference, August 17-18, 2020 021jpmd, Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies.
    12. Sazzadul Arefin, 2019. "Geographic Endowment, Corruption, and Economic Development," Business and Economic Research, Macrothink Institute, vol. 9(1), pages 1-32, March.
    13. Farzan Yahya & Muhammad Rafiq, 2020. "Brownfield, greenfield, and renewable energy consumption: Moderating role of effective governance," Energy & Environment, , vol. 31(3), pages 405-423, May.
    14. Wu, Shuping & Yang, Zan, 2020. "Informal government preferences and asymmetric land allocation in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    15. Follert Florian & Richau Lukas & Emrich Eike & Pierdzioch Christian, 2020. "Collective Decision-making: FIFA from the Perspective of Public Choice," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-15, December.
    16. Polk Andreas, 2020. "What do we Know About Lobbying in Germany?," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 71(1), pages 43-79, April.
    17. Juan Carlos Henao & Carolina Isaza Espinosa, 2018. "Corrupción en Colombia Tomo 1 Corrupción, política y sociedad," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1024, August.
    18. Qianqian Zhou & Yuhui Bao & Yiwei Zhao & Xinyao He & Caiyun Cui & Yong Liu, 2022. "Impacts of Government Credit on Government Performance of Public-Private Partnership Project in China: A WSR System Theory Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-18, June.
    19. Jahnke, Björn & Weisser, Reinhard A., 2019. "How does petty corruption affect tax morale in Sub-Saharan Africa?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    20. Hanyu Xiao & Ting Gong & Chilik Yu & Wen-Jong Juang & Baishun Yuan, 2020. "Citizens’ Confidence in Government Control of Corruption: An Empirical Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 877-897, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    plea bargaining; corruption; Lava Jato; Advocacy Coalition Framework;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ems:euriss:97967. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: RePub (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/issssnl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.