Do Participatory Governance Institutions Matter?

Municipal Councils and Social Housing

Programs in Brazil
Author(s): Maureen M. Donaghy
Source: Comparative Politics, Vol. 44, No. 1 (October 2011), pp. 83-102
Published by: Ph.D. Program in Political Science of the City University of New York
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23040659
Accessed: 12-06-2015 13:31 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23040659?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Ph.D. Program in Political Science of the City University of New York is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Comparative Politics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Institutions Matter?

Do Participatory Governance
and

Councils

Municipal

Social

Housing

M. Donaghy

Maureen

scholars

development

Many

will

politicians
to reason

distribute
in developing

that

participatory

population,

their

incorporating
donors

when

more

the creation

that

citizens

equitably

end,

poor

of decentralized

formal

ticipation.2 In Brazil civil society organizations (CSOs)

decentralization
CSOs,

and

including

participatory

nongovernmental

and

organizations

of the

majority
and

programs
and

practitioners,
to increase

institutions

par

lobbied for the inclusion of

institutions

governance

the

development

and

It stands

population.1

to policies

lead

in politics,

involved

represent

should

scholars,

are
the

among

the

institutions

governance
To

more

where

countries,

interests.

recommend

that

argue
resources

in Brazil

Programs

in the

social

Constitution

movements,

of

1988.

continue

now

to demand the implementation of participatory governance institutions and the release

of resources

from

the federal

to the municipal

level.

Though participatory budgeting initiatives, particularly those in Porto Alegre, have

received

the most

potential

benefits

international

of municipal-level

types

programmatic
government
studies

attention

of collaboration
councils

and

these

suggest

exist

citizens

councils

and

and

tasked

generally
of civil
other

numerous

types

with

allocate

society.

the

demonstrating

government,

Brazil,

councils

half for representatives

municipal

of institutions

examples

throughout

These

responsibilities.
officials

as

between

both

half

While

other

policy

the

informative

of participatory

and

seats

for
case

governance

institutions provide a voice for previously marginalized citizens, questions remain

the

regarding
institutions
This

extent

have
article

of resulting

the greatest
focuses

on

benefits

for the

poor

and

the

context

in which

these

impact.3
the

effect

of participatory

governance

institutions

on

pro

poor policy outcomes, examining two questions: (1) Does incorporation of civil society
through

participatory

governance

institutions

have

an impact

on the provision

of social

programs? (2) If so, is the effectiveness of participatory governance institutions in bring

ing about program adoption contingent on a highly organized civil society? Past research
suggests that civil society must be highly organized to influence policy and program
83

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Politics

Comparative

and

decisions,
ernance

that

a strong

institutions.

governance

2011

October

institutions

civil

Few

across

contexts

of effectiveness.

In response

institutions

an independent

have

for communication

and

the

effectiveness

have

compared

or concretely

to question

defined

on increasing

should

encourage

of participatory
participatory

outcomes

policy

I hypothesize

one,

effect

debate

increases
however,

society

researchers,

that participatory

program

governance

A public

adoption.
and

responsiveness

gov

as a measure

forum
of

accountability

government officials. Officials are presented directly with information regarding the
needs

of the community
if they

particularly

and

are

are

more

concerned

to act

likely

with

on

reelection.

demands

CSO

made

the

Regarding

in public,

second

question,

hypothesize that a highly organized civil society increases the effectiveness of partici
patory

governance

posals

while

officials

scarce

test these

access

to housing,

ture.4

Housing

mitted

from

while

the

In

increasingly

federal

level.

resources

Under

seven

in housing

in Brazil

programs

though

live

a new

an area

as

policy

approximately

more

to make

proactive

the reticence

pro

of government

programs.

housing

Brazil

ten million

the capacity

to counteract

social

poor.

and

policies

level,

municipal

front

on social

resources

for the

needs

society

I examine

claims,

consequences

Civil
a united

presenting

to expend

To
tant

institutions.

also

without

are

administered

and

programmatic

federal

that holds

million

almost

lack

infrastruc

adequate

at the

entirely
are

guidelines

for housing,

system

impor

families

trans

by the end

of

2009 all Brazilian municipalities receiving federal funds had to have a municipal housing
with

council,

members

from

civil

and

society

the

Even

government.

before

this

man

date, many municipalities had already created participatory municipal councils to direct
housing policy and program decisions. As an increasing number of municipalities adopt
housing councils, it is critical to assess whether the formal incorporation of civil society
into local

Brazilian

lead

poration

of civil

to the second
a consistent

any

civil

more

suggests

to more

supported

councils

housing
resources
does

society

appear

impact

on the adoption

society

does

CSOs

in a weaker

that the effectiveness

civil

on social

society

programs

influence

civil

society

of participatory

society

where

government
environment.
governance

does

not appear
councils

municipal
officials
This

to expend

is good

institutions

housing

Formal

of resources.

news

the

Across

that municipal

for redistribution
civil

outcomes.
to assess

programs.

for the poor.

provision

organized

of housing

housing

the first hypothesis

to be important

not necessarily

and program

from the field, are used

to housing

a highly

on policy

by evidence

affirms

dedicated

however,

hypothesis,

than

and

the evidence

municipalities,

councils

has had an impact

making

data,

government

of municipal

impact

strong

decision

government

Brazilian

incor

Contrary
to have
exist.

resources
in that it

is not contingent

on a highly organized civil society. Across contexts, incorporation of civil society in par
ticipatory governance institutionsmay still lead to pro-poor policy change.

Municipal

Councils

and

Housing

Policy

Municipal councils in Brazil, which deliberate on policy direction, program implemen

tation, and the allocation of resources, are one type of participatory institution.5Brazil's
84

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Maureen

1988

Constitution
and

assistance,
housing,
driven

established

officials.6

municipal
involved

directly

such

councils,

in

For

Municipal
are

health

example,

more

Different
councils

of civil

toward

councils
have

as

developing

are

the

given

those

for health,

programs
of respon

degrees

the

are

municipal

government

varying

to veto

power

for

or by ideologically

Programmatic

legislation.

social
those

including

society

such

Donaghy

education,

of councils,

councils,

policy
of national

directed

population.7

for healthcare,

types

the demands

through

formation

as housing,

for a well-defined
sibility.

the

other

Many

rights.

either

later,

emerged

councils

municipal-level

child/adolescent

M.

of the

plans

Health

Secretariat, which leads to funding being withheld from the Health Ministry.8 Where
municipalities have established a specific fund for housing, municipal housing councils
are

generally

to the Brazilian

for implementing
well

for allocating

responsible

According

housing

to make

placed

As

policy.10

a large

those

funds.''
the municipality

Constitution,
such,

municipal
and

on policy

impact

is the entity

would

In 2005

decisions.

program

responsible

councils

housing

seem

municipal

housing councils existed in 18 percent of Brazilian municipalities, while by 2008 the

had

percentage
establish
and

mandate

for the

across

state

and

and

proactive
Since

the

council's

new

roles
until

democratization

Cymbalista

argues,

mechanisms

council,

how

often

with

various

on current

the new

federal

law

generally
will

meet,

of councils
with

society,

in

In interviews

told

me

to respond

their role

on

to government

civil

society

plays

policy.

created

the National

housing

resources

system

civil

half.12

housing

had not had a national

federal

from

and

legislation

council

In this way,

social

by

majority

of CSOs

policies

programs.

when

great

come

types

and

the

the other

up

making

in establishing
2005

The

membership

from

Brazil

Interest,

even

Both

programs

provided

reactive

are

authority.

officials

members

to propose

in the Social

either

mayor.

decision-making

half

for Housing

created

the

from

of the

government

information

councils

years,

decree

composition

council

Brazil,
is both

the councils

both

at least

and

proposals

Across
or by

of the council's

that

municipal

to 31."

council

city

rules

the scope

cities

risen

the

by

passed

policy.13

have

been

System
As Renato

slow

in reach

ing municipalities. Municipal housing policies include providing new units, upgrading
favelas,
disputes.

to some
diverse

especially
policymaking

However,

and
more

or ownership

types

extent
array

of housing
The

programs

for Housing

of CSOs

policies

working

and

in Brazil
through

to construct

are still the most

has

been

technical,

common

toward
social,

has

an

of the decentralized
recognizing

and

units for the poor,

types

the developing

that Brazil

argue

as a result

in slum

intervening

throughout

scholars

programs

new

and

materials,

are common

countries,

policies

tendency
settlements

improving
traditional

construction

allocating

of housing
in industrialized

mechanisms,

Society

goals

titles,

process.14

settlements

The

these

Though
and

world,

Civil

land

distributing

legal

informal

intervention.

either through

of programs

across

rental

Brazil.

Issues

on housing

issues

in Brazil

and

other

developing

countnes

revolve primarily around government provision of resources and land claims. CSOs
85

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Politics

Comparative

related

to housing

numerous

councils

on

elected
Both

the same

time,

around

neighborhood

associations

organizations

representing

associations.

on policies

In identifying

in the

acting

for the poor,

and

for strong

for policy

and

small

umbrella

directed

which

interests
toward

coincides

CSOs

the primary

to

Municipal

slums

improving

with

related

of the poor.

and

pro

of most

goals

to the councils.

the need

(MTST,

their efforts

from

range

or regional

organizations

housing

nationally

locally,

CSOs

many

institutions

and

continue

increasing

with housing

in urban

or the Roofless

Workers'

the country,

out

carry

m Brazil

organizations

participatory

change

concerned

programs

to national

movements,

those

concentrate
low-cost

ducing
CSOs

interests
social

NGOs,
I focus

housing,

and

policies

narrow

representing

2011

October

to undertake

such

been
can

they

a number

assistance.

housing
areas,

have

to which

For

which

Movement),

of city buildings.

occupations

Paulo

CSOs

also

At

calling

movements

Trabalhadores

in Sao

began

strategies

social

instance,
dos

about

their demands.15

of different

as the Movimento

vocal

particularly

direct

Sem-Teto

and now

operates

engage

in direct

lobbying, arranging personal meetings with municipal housing officials, or, if they cannot
secure

a meeting,

tiation

are

the Movimento
ment),
urban

dos

are

new

structing

materials,

CSOs

on

in the

waned

housing

the centers
networks

have

consolidated
and

as the Instituto

Polis,

organizations,

and

Theoretical

priorities
level.

are engaged
often

flexible

participate

Since
four

levels.17

major

leaders,

reemerged
social

Sao

lead

and

demands

to municipal-level
social

Rio

can

and

con

to provide

movements,
and

under

movements
policy

and

professional

1990s

focused

demands

de Janeiro

be traced

capacity

democ

in the late

movements

councils

housing

advocacy,

in the councils

Paulo

of the four main

Their

in research,

which

groups,

each

the country.

Alongside

in the 1980s

and

democratization,

Though

While

governments.

for programs

as

Move

options.

strength

reforms,

such

Workers'

city centers,

to petition

financing

developed

structural

under

throughout

at the local

programs

under

for movement

spending

and

federal

rehabilitating

likely

for nego

movements,

or Landless

and

state,

are more

social

(MST,

favelas,

in housing

municipal

of activity
and

CSOs

and

Terra

the municipal,

conditions.16

state,

of members

legislation
diverse

1990s

economic

worsening

the federal,

involved

Sem

improving

of land,

plots

of all kinds

ratization,

from
with

until their demands

secretariat

organizations

Rurais

in rural areas

units,

construction

under

Trabalhadores

concerned

the housing

workers'

areas,

for benefits

struggle
CSOs

outside

protesting
In rural

met.

has
from

at

remain
strong
federal

increasingly
NGOs,

such

for smaller

building

themselves.

Background

When and how CSOs affectpolicy outcomes remain enduring questions in political science.
Previous studies suggest that CSOs on theirown and working throughparticipatorygover
nance institutionsinfluence policy outcomes based on the dynamics of responsiveness and
accountability.18CSOs present informationto government officials regarding the depth and
intricacies

of the problem

in an effort to provoke

satisfactory

responses.

Once

government

officials make promises to act on this information,councils then offertransparency and a

86

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

M.

Maureen

to encourage

forum

public

institutions

and

officials

government

their members.20
an

erating
Contrary
cils

will

formal

claims,
social

housing

for airing

demands

produce

In addition,

where

should

laboratively
allocate

scarce

civil

help
the

within

responses

to government

is likely

ment

to dilute

officials,

and

respond
specific

nature

is given

making
ment

process.
officials,

When

the

of self-interest

services,
the

including

increasing

at large,

public

and

access

within

and

their

budgeting

govern

offi

deliberating

sit face-to-face

with

Officials

then

can

Given

councils

the locally
that attention

ensure

Porto

pressure

that

For

in Porto

Alegre

several
has

Alegre

began

to

public

scrutiny.23

persuaded
studies

resulted

Goldfrank
invest

participatory

govern

governments

communicate
are

officials

example,

Benjamin

through

CSOs

CSOs,

hold

by generating

and

officials'

of the policy

between

CSOs

issues

to

to act

out

find

in greater

claims
more

budgeting

is

society

by exposing

and

among

elected

that civil

to the transparency

argue

information

directly

maintain

discussions

the municipality

sanitation.24
in

sharing

positions.

process

and

of public

and

of citizens.

often

adds

scholars

to greater

appointed

government

as a result

the coun

and

government

in the community.22

these

through

the

water

CSOs

problems
officials

municipal

of the forums

information

to maintain

municipal

projects

both

participatory

nature

the forum
has

public

members,

public

By

to prepare

within

councils,

discussing

institutions

governance

public

and

within

accountable

their

The

to

of programs.

range

preferences

programs,

col

to express

alliances

networks
between

process,

needs

to work

of the community.

accountable

governments

positions.

of the

and

policy

needs

of participatory

to hold

policy

aware

to heterogeneous

of housing

to the precise

this

Through

made

effectively

Studies
able

solutions.21

of a

reluctance

the capacity

form

and

municipal

with

coun

existence

government

needs

relationships

tasked

to the

its capacity

and

society

of a broad

Within

are

due

in coordinated

Working

broadly.

is that municipal

organized,

proactive

of bilateral

members

are

Civil

more

for
gen

of deliberation.

interests

to be

in the adoption

the poor

members
benefits

without

the population

nature

highly

business

programs.

proposals.

society
and

more

is more

Accountability

to generate

members

CSO

to the public

in order

the strength

and

civil

together

to social

resulting

Responsiveness
cials

and

CSO

securing

of CSOs

in this article

to benefit

programs

society

council

to benefit

programs

with

the needs

serve

the contention

to counteract

resources

demands

cils

housing

however,

between

concerned

would

then,

find that participa

however,

relationships

are primarily

CSOs

councils,

in social

increase

space

where

scholars,

clientelistic

perpetuate

Municipal

to these

Some

accountability.19

tory governance

Donaghy

that

to
that

specifically
in

the

access

public

works

councils.25

With

out the councils there is no formal space for civil society to air grievances and for
the government
information
licize

to transmit

about

shortfalls

government

information
actions,

in the government's

about
civil
response

its activities
society

should

to housing

to civil

society.

be better
needs,

Armed

equipped

including

with

to pub

to residents

within favelas for whom housing weighs heavily in voting decisions.

Accountability has also been defined in terms of reduction in corruption and
clientelism. John Ackerman claims that participatory governance institutions reduce
87

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Politics

Comparative

and

possibilities
state

incentives

institutions

in

ernance
tive

institutions

the political

Grindle,

were

or willing

able

behavior.27

In

to be

bases,

along

these

the

cases

lines

able

more

members

resources

for
for

of participatory

self-interest
Mancur

by

of

partici

accountable

governments

rational

the capture

in municipal

that

to extract

CSO

suggested

and

of funds,

finds

to hold

in their

acting

use

however,

organizations
less

appear

to their

benefits

Merilee

were

or clientelistic

corrupt

for corruption,

Mexico,

but

constituents,

2011

elites.26

by

institutions

patory
their

October

gov

to provide

selec

in his

classic,

Olson

The Logic of Collective Action

In Brazilian municipal housing councils, the opportunity to promote self-interests
but there

exists,

certainly

an opportunity
ticipatory
leads

to

are several

for promoting

benefits.

institutions

governance
a breakdown

to expect

reasons

broad

offer

in bilateral

that municipal

councils

other

have

as

First,

scholars

for negotiating

spaces

between

ties.29

CSO-government

As

an

still offer
argued,

par
which

groups,

activist

in Recife,

Brazil suggests, municipal councils level the playing field in terms of CSO
to government
local

officials,
officials

government

Second,

not

ciations

responsible

also

all

CSOs

selectively

pro-poor

members.

councils

groups

for benefits

which

groups

should

are

movements

social

Professional
are

and
since

Third,

agenda.

among

choosing

to councils

elected
to their

in the

participate

broader

to negotiation

leading

NGOs
to

likely

steer

receive

decisions

for

asso
bases

membership

program

toward
in

housing

than

access.30

or neighborhood

without

councils

municipal

access

rather

Brazil

a
are

increasingly adopted in response to the new federal system instead of by ideologically

driven

mayors,

strong

party

tiation

between

But

does

This
sides

institutions,

levels

of social

capital

significant

impact.31

Leonardo

necessary

to create

zation
and

no effect
scholars

society,
than

rubber

that

effective

on

are

Robert

that

participatory

governance

argued,

councils

are

an

participatory

and

and

parties
spaces

lack

for nego

on

effect

others,

argue

on the outcomes

participatory
specifically

gover
that high

institutions

governance

to have

study

of participatory

budgeting

existing

community

of organizations

institutions
or policy

Without
may

CSOs'

technical

coopted

Without

institutions

In addition,

councils
was

considerable

be easily

outcomes.33

governance

proposals.34

dependent

as

studying

for deliberation.32

deepening

for government

stamps

a different

for participatory

forum

on democratic

different

relevant

scholars

Putnam

necessary

from

more

have

Most

In a cross-municipal
found

often

even

society

the intended

have

are

to cooperate.

apt

institutions?

Avritzer

of demands,

have

CSOs

civil

strong

building

in Brazil,

not

otherwise

governance

nance

and

the councils

make

may

a particularly

of participatory

any

officials

municipal

ties.

may

Brazilian

mobili
by elites

a strong
be

little

researchers
to formulate

capacity

civil
more
find
and

analyze public policy and on their ability to make strategic alliances.35

The

counterargument

established

CSOs

accustomed

is that

a stronger

to competition

civil

society

for scarce

environment
resources

could

also

lead

to fight for selective

benefits within the councils, thereby limiting the broad effectiveness of the councils
for generating pro-poor benefits. In fieldwork I witnessed professional CSOs, including
NGOs

and

social

movements

dedicated

to housing,

using

strategies

developed

over

time

to gain access to government officials in private or public meetings. In these meetings,

88

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Maureen

of the

most

broader

Where

CSOs

to continue

to

ments

to

CSO

appease

diverse

by

to
based

However,

strong.

on

the
and

members,

their

in

demands

my

be
than

of participa

for these

established,

for their

benefits

introduction

well

will

levelsrather

the need

mitigate

responding

federal

The

programs.
should

particularistic

and

Donaghy

families

projectswhich
state,

is particularly

society

members
remain

may

loyalty,

housing

decisions

civil

seek

specific

across

programmatic

strategies.

political

on

from the municipal,

of resources

to debate

bilateral

center

the contributions

allocation

fora

tory

discussions

and

included,

M.

of

types
desire

for

for govern
for

exchange

observations,

particularly

in the cities of Sao Paulo and Salvador, CSOs have learned the value of working in a
network

coordinated
society

to

confront
are

representatives

still

government

to their

business

and

proposals

accountable

interests.
but

bases,

membership

Civil

they

also

recognize there is strength in numbers. An organized civil society working through

councils

municipal
siveness

and

As

should

countries

developing
it is

democracy,
a strong

increase

therefore

rather

than

decrease

governmental

respon

accountability.

civil

society

move

to

crucial

assess
lead

actually

forward
when

with

to policies

and

decentralization

participatory
and

participatory

institutions

governance

to reduce

programs

poverty

and
and

inequality. Municipal councils for housing in Brazil offer an opportunity for systematic
of the

comparison

of participatory

outputs

and

institutions

governance

the

of

impact

civil society on policies benefiting the poor in developing countries.

Data

data

Survey

for this

were

analysis

collected

Brazilian

by

Cur

agencies.

government

rently in Brazil there are 5,564 municipalities, providing a high degree of variation.
An
on

annual
the

The
most

years

2008

and

used

Housing

officials
it began

programs.

indicates

programs

For

the

agency

thematic
and

annually

in 1999,

the reliability

as Dependent

Programs

housing

since

to increase

statistical
with

governments,

to municipal

of the survey

institutions,
are

by the national

of municipal

is sent

survey

needs,

conducted

survey

structure

there

present

questions

varying

is mandatory

In

to housing

relating

data

by year.36

to complete.

are questions

analysis,

data

considerable

yields

from

both

2005

and

of the findings.

Variables

The

the commitment

existence

of various

of the municipality

types

to addressing

of social
housing

needs. In the survey, municipal government officials check "yes" or "no" to indicate
whether

each

of new

units,

awarding

of housing

type

provision

of plots

of land

exists

program

in their

of construction

materials,

are all programs

that address

municipality.

regularization
the demands

The

construction

of land

titles,

of CSOs

and

represent

ing the needs of the poor. These needs include affordable, safe housing on land they can
occupy without the threat of seizure by the state or private entities. In 2008 the survey
included three additional types of programsfor acquiring housing units, improving
units,

and

urbanizing

neighborhoods.

These

programs

represent

the

shifting

priorities

89

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Politics

Comparative

in housing
federal

have

units

have

improve

favelas

acquiring

units

that

areas

peripheral

often

been

for programs

fought

to distant

by national

level,

municipal

new

constructing

2011

influenced

policy,

to the

October

the most

street

paving,

for renovation

often

supplying

in urban

Though

residents
job

residents

for
also
them

relocating
Programs

to

houses,

or

rehabilitating

allow

the

CSOs

opportunities.

electricity,

centers

and

from

programs

of intervention,37

type
and

down

trickling

funding.

of removing

infrastructure

lacking

through

federal

common

short

stop

movements,

housing

through

to remain

in their

communities, and provide alternatives for reducing the housing deficit. For this analysis,
I assess

the

determinants

of individual

of programs

types

as

well

as

the

number

of

programs in a municipality using a housing program index. Adopting multiple housing

programs
and

Housing Councils

sis is the existence

housing

should

lead

to a search

2008,

council

for more

that these

from

resources

of councils

but the data show

for housing.

Participation

on the municipality

put pressure

in the existence

variation

diverse

needs

of citizens

The key independent variable of interestfor this analy

of a municipal

council

also

to address

willingness

of CSOs.

Municipal

may

the government's

represents

demands

the federal

and

by region

institutions

through

to enact

level.

a municipal
is significant

in both

to one region

and

programs

There

levels

population

are not limited

housing

2005

or to urban

and

areas.38

HI: Municipalities with housing councils are significantly more likely to adopt
individual

Civil Society
of businesses

from

the number
tions

do

To

It is important

CSOs,

which

may

associations.

The

a municipality
civil

society

include

average
with

housing

per

of civil

as measured

less

by a housing

may

deviation
have

programs,

are

they

measure

and

the

important

founda

part

of the

accounts

only

for registered

movements

and

neighborhood

and

an independent
though

and
I use

and

nonprofits
an

foundations

of 2.4

on nonprofits

in the municipality,

Though

housing

of nonprofits

of data

society

capita.40

society,

formalized

a section

of civil

that this

however,

a standard

environment

adopting

foundations

number

offers

the depth

entirety

to note,

not

is 2.6,

municipalities

of programs

array

by IBGE

measure

and
the

comprise

whole.

strong

coordinated

2005.39

of nonprofits

not

a diverse

While broad data on CSOs at the municipal level are limited, the registry
in Brazil

foundations

and

programs
index.

program

per

a range

from

residents
.043

in

to 32.

on the probability

impact
key

1,000

question

here

A
of

is whether

strong civil society makes a difference in the outcomes of municipal housing councils.
A

strong

housing
laboration

civil

society

programs,
among

should

particularly

increase
where

the
there

government's
is also

willingness

a municipal

council

to adopt
to enable

social
col

CSOs.

H2: Where municipal councils exist, a higher number of CSOs per capita is
associated with an increase in the probability of municipalities adopting all
types

of housing

programs.

90

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Maureen

Additional

Factors
choose

ernments

Influencing
to adopt

Housing

social

Program

on

based

type

Donaghy

In general,

Adoption

of any

programs

M.

local

gov

access

need,

to re

sources, and political will. Though housing councils and civil society theoretically are
to determining

important

effects

pendent

program

of other

I also

here

adoption,

control

for and

assess

the inde

variables.

Ideology of the administration. For both 2005 and 2008, the ideology of the admin
istration

is measured

that the PT

cates

a greater

number

have

the

more

in social

commitment

effect

of

the

research
programs,41

on housing
are

resources
An

programs.

Previous

mayor.

an increase
a positive

Where

of housing

illustrates

programs

also

may

of resources.

Availability
be

with

associated

that the PT

expectation

of a PT

by the existence

is often

established

to

municipality

indi

leading

to the

programs.
there

available,
fund

in Brazil

will

likely

to housing

dedicated

on

resources

expend

low-income housing programs.42 Municipalities with housing funds should be more

to adopt

likely
of the

multiple

municipal

housing

budget

per

capita.

for both

Also,

programs.

with

Municipalities

years

I include

a measure

higher

budgetary

resources

should be more willing and able to allocate funding for housing programs. Finally,
I use

state

housing

to

variables

dummy

control

for

variation

in

state

resource

for

transfers

programs.
Within

Inequality.

any

setting,

inequality

reduce

may

accountability

governmental

by limiting participation of the poor.43 I use a municipal-level Gini coefficient from

2000 to measure inequality. Where inequality is highest, elites may be less inclined
to implement social programs for housing. The Gini coefficient among Brazilian munici
palities

from a low

ranges

Urbanization

and

of .358

to a high

of .819,

size.

population

with

.56

to

According

as the average.

the

as

data,

the

population

increases, municipalities are significantly more likely to adopt all types of housing
with

programs,
the marginal

the

is small.

areas,44

as

the

of the municipality

size

well

administrative
are

urbanization
the federal

Need.

as

population

center

correlated

only
as

of the
at .165.

criteria

impact

of programs

exception

difference

on

In wealthier

I use

whereas

construction

percentage

of the population

theoretically

the percentage

municipality.
Since

the

materials

to provide

since

size,45

for program
program

both

Perhaps
federal

both

eligibility,

represents

these

often

uses

measures

represents

clustering

these

surprisingly,

government

in urban

living
size

population

urban

for which

two

in the

measures

population

should

control

and
for

adoption.

municipalities,

there

should

be

less

need

for housing

programs.

Therefore, income per capita is expected to have a negative relationship with housing
programs. Income per capita varies widely among Brazilian municipalitiesfrom a low
of R$28 to a high of RS955, with R$ 171 as the average.46 In addition, a variable indi
cating

the presence

of favelas

is available

from

the MUNIC

survey.

Clearly,

where

there

91

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Politics

Comparative

are

favelas

housing

registered

the municipal

by

to address

program

Addressing

2011

October

Before

Endogeneity

to clarify

the role

that housing

endogeneity

councils

were

with

in biasing

play

the statistical

the estimates.

in municipalities

created

is a need

for some

of

type

deficit.

proceeding

may

there

government,

the housing

in which

it is useful

analysis,
one

First,

might

expect

officials

government

were

already interested in addressing housing needs. These municipalities would then be

more

to have

likely

between

previously
councils

housing

adopted

and

multiple

housing

housing
To

programs.

programs,
address

creating

this

endogeneity
I evaluated

concern,

whether municipalities with each type of housing program in 2005 were more likely than
to create

average

a housing

council

by 2008.

About

21

of municipalities

percent

across

Brazil adopted a housing council between 2005 and 2008. Municipalities with existing
in 2005

programs

were

only

more

slightly

to adopt

likely

councils.

housing

The

excep

tion are municipalities with regularization programs, which were about 16 percent more
likely than average to adopt housing councils. This is probably because both regulariza
tion programs

and

councils

housing

In the full model,

areas.

are significantly

in which

I include

more

there

Second,

Particularly

is a question

of endogeneity

to 2005,

prior

when

the

between

federal

civil

and

society
created

government

in urban

of population

percentage

urban areas, this relationship should be mitigated.

cils.

to be adopted

likely

and

population

coun

housing

the

new

in

system

requiring municipalities receiving federal funds to create municipal housing councils

by the end

of 2009,

of CSOs.

Therefore,

the creation

councils

housing
it might

of municipal

were
that

appear

councils

created
the

for housing.

in response

largely
of civil

depth

the data

However,

to the demands
is endogenous

society

show

to

that the aver

age number of nonprofits and foundations per capita across municipalities (.0026) is
not significantly different than the average in municipalities with housing councils
in 2005

(.0033
of civil

were
years.

i council

Model

PI

has

a PT

been

the

3.5

this

shows

mayor,

several

this

most

to the data,
percent
the

odds

the difference

I do

reason,

existence

party

According

to the existence

1 estimate

For

to the

approximately
Though

has

endogenous

in 2008).

institutions.47

governance
councils

.0031

is endogenous
the

rurther,

across

and

society

more
are
does

not believe

of housing

associated

strongly
however,

slightly

higher

lead

with

measure

me

a PT
that

participatory
with

municipalities

to have

likely
not

that this

councils.

mayor

housing
in charge

a municipality

to conclude

that

with

the PT

is

of a council.

models

probit

to assess

the

between

relationships

these

independent variables and the adoption of housing programs. Probit is an appropriate

regression model for dichotomous dependent variables and provides intuitive results
regarding the probability of program adoption. I also use negative binomial regression
models

to measure

the

effects

on

the

adoption

of multiple

housing

using

the effect

of

programs

lousing program index.481 begin with the firsthypothesis that municipal councils lead
to housing

program

adoption,

before

using

interactive

models

to analyze

:ivil society within and outside of municipalities with housing councils.

11

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Maureen

Municipal
The

existence

municipal

evidence

provides

Table

of

of all types

tutions

lead

of social

to confirm

to programs
Probit

housing

councils

housing

programs

the primary

Results

for the Impact

Municipal

Housing

Population

Council
Fund

(log)

Percent Urban Population

(log)

years

with

an

increase

in

1 and

2).49 This

Tables

(see

the

insti

governance

Housing

2005*

Programs,

Offer

Other

Materials

Offer Land

0.26***

0.10

0 24***

(0.07)

(0.07)

(0.08)

(0.09)

(0.07)

0.39***

0.31***

0.34***

0.25***

q19***

Regularization
0.39***

Programs
0 34***

(0.07)

(0.07)

(0.08)

(0.09)

(0.07)

0.27***

0.13***

0]9***

0.44***

0 27***

(0.03)

(0.03)

0.16***

0.12**

(0.04)
019***

(0.05)
0.08

(0.04)
0.12*

(0.07)
q 43***

(0.10)

(0.07)

0.46***

0.36***

0.40***

(0.08)
0 27***

(0.08)
-0.02

(0.10)
-0.11

0.20**

(0.08)

(0.08)

(0.09)

(0.12)

(0.09)

0.51

0.85**

0.08

0.87

0.77*

(0.49)

(0.63)

-0.19**

(0.43)
-0.306***

-0.12

0.23*

(0.46)
-0.12

(0.09)

(0.09)

(0.10)

(0.13)

(0.10)

0.07*

0.00

0.03

-0.01

q12***

(0.04)
0.07

(0.04)

(0.04)
-0.20***

(0.06)

(0.04)

-0.02

(0.06)
-5.66***

(0.06)
-4.06***

(0.07)
-5.20***

(0.08)
_9 99***

(0.06)
-5.11***

(0.81)
3869

(0.80)
3864

(0.88)
3878

(1.10)
3869

(0.84)
3878

(0.06)
Municipal

associated

that participatory

hypothesis

on

Constr.
Housing

is

across

the poor.

benefitting

of Units
Municipal

Donaghy

Councils

Housing

adoption

M.

(0.06)

0.61***

Budget per

capita (log)
(0.08)
0.05

PT Mayor
Gini Coefficient

(0.42)
Income per capita (log)
Non-profits and Foundations

(0.08)

per capita (log)

Existence

of Favelas

Constant
Observations

* State dummies included in model. Standard errors in

parentheses:

***

-0.01

p<0.01,

**

0.08

p<0.05,

p<0.1.

Table 3 illustrates the substantive effect of the municipal councils. Using the full
probit

model,

the percentages

reported

represent

the marginal

effect

of the existence

of

a municipal council on adoption of each type of housing program, holding all other
variables

at their

means.

In

other

words,

the

indicate

percentages

the

change

in the

probability of each housing program (coded as 0-1), given a one-unit change in the
variable

dependent
the

presence

adopted,

of

holding

(the
a

council

all

else

existence
makes

of a housing
a

substantial

council

coded

difference

in

as

0-1).

whether

In

both

programs

years
are

constant.

93

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Politics

Comparative

Table

Probit

October

2011

for the Impact

Results

Offer

on

Housing

Const, of
Units

Material

Offer
Land

0.29***

0.14**

0.16**

Regularization
0.24***

Municipal Housing Fund

(0.07)
0.25***

(0.06)
0.09

(0.07)
Q |9***

Population (log)

(0.06)
0.20***

(0.06)
0.08**

Percent Urban Pop. (log)

(0.04)
0.14**

Municipal Housing
Council

Municipal Budget per

capita (log)
PT Mayor
Gini
Income per capita (log)
Non-profits& foundations
per capita (log)
Existence of Favelas
Constant
Obs.
* State dummies included.

2008*

Programs,

Acquire
Units

Improve
Units

Urban

0.16**

0.28***

0.18**

(0.07)
0.14**

(0.07)
0.09

(0.06)
0.03

(0.08)
0.16**

(0.07)
0.10***

(0.07)
0.35***

(0.07)
0.13***

(0.06)
0.06*

(0.08)
0.43***

(0.03)
0.20***

(0.03)
0.26***

(0.04)
0.03

(0.04)
0.03

(0.03)
0.18***

(0.04)
0.03

(0.06)
0.49***

(0.06)
q27***

(0.06)
0.27***

(0.07)
034***

(0.07)
0.18**

(0.06)
0.19**

(0.08)
0.46***

(0.08)
0.05

(0.07)
0.10

(0.08)
-0.10

(0.08)
0.25***

(0.08)
0.07

(0.07)
0.12

(0.09)
0.06

(0.08)
1.25***

(0.08)
1.28***

(0.09)
0.01

(0.09)
-0.03

(0.09)
0.24

(0.08)
1.98***

(0.10)
0.98*

(0.42)
0.07

(0.42)
-0.17*

(0.45)
0.03

(0.48)
0.17*

(0.49)
0.10

(0.41)
-0.11

(0.53)
0.04

(0.09)
-0.04

(0.08)
-0.07*

(0.09)
0.03

(0.10)
-0.09**

(0.10)
-0.01

(0.08)
0.13***

(0.11)
-0.11**

(0.04)
-0.00

(0.04)
-0.06

(0.04)
-0.00

(0.04)
0.30***

(0.04)
0.06

(0.04)
-0.04

(0.05)
0.38***

(0.05)
-6.43***

(0.05)
-4.36***

(0.05)
-4.10***

(0.06)
-8.27***

(0.06)
-4.33***

(0.05)
-2.06***

(0.06)
-10.4***

(0.83)
4093

(0.77)
4080

(0.82)
4093

(0.88)
4093

(0.87)
4093

(0.76)
4083

(0.98)
4083

Standard errors in parentheses:

***

p<0.01,

**

p<0.05,

p<0.1.

Percentage Change in Probability that a Municipality Has Each Type of

Program,

Given

Variables

Constant

the Presence

of Program

of a Municipal

Council,

Holding

2005

2008

Construction

of Units

10%

11%

Construction

Materials

4%

5%

7%

5%

6%

6%

Type

Offering

Regularizing
Other

of Land

Plots

Land

Titles

11%

Programs

Acquisition

of New

All

Units

Improvement

of Units

Urbanization

of Settlements

4%
11%
3%

94

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Other

Maureen

To

assess

grams

the impact

binomial

negative
nificantly

higher

In 2005,

on

gram,

model.

number

predicted

In both

years
with

with

created
the mean

of programs

where

of pro

for analysis

number

of predicted

programs

than

in those

councils

only

two

adopted
councils

housing

on the diversity

of programs

housing

councils

housing

councils

Donaghy

an index

councils

housing

without

municipalities

municipalities

of municipal

I also

in municipalities

average,

while

of the presence

by a municipality,

adopted

M.

did

without

not

councils.
one

adopted

programs.
exist

was

in a
is sig

pro

In 2008

the

around

1.8,

while the predicted number of programs for municipalities with housing councils was
around

2.8.

All

other

of a municipal
as

well

Table

as

an

is strongly

increase

Variables

variables

independent

council

in the number

Associated

Interaction

Effect

with
for Civil

Housing

Council

Municipal

Housing

Fund

Housing
Society

0.64

1.13***

(log)

Percent Urban Population

Municipal

(log)

Budget per

the adoption

of each

the presence
of program

type

in a municipality.

Adoption,

an

Including
2005

Councils,

Housing

Offer
Material

In sum,

set to their means.

Program
and

Units
-0.44

Population

with

of programs

Constr. of
Municipal

were

associated

Offer
Land

Other Progs.
0.71

Regularization

0.99**

0.04

-0.43

-0.49

-0.64

-0.45

q 3i***

0 34***

0.25***

0 19***

-0.07

-0.07

0.27***

Q J4***

-0.08
0i^***

-0.09

-0.07

0 44***

0.27***
-0.04

-0.03

-0.03

-0.04

-0.05

0.16***

0.12*

019***

0.08

0.12*

-0.06

-0.06

-0.07

-0.1

-0.07

0.61***

0.46***

0 43***

0.36***

-0.08

-0.08

-0.08

-0.1

0.08

0.05

-0.26***

-0.02

-0.12

0.20**

-0.08

-0.08

-0.09

-0.12

-0.09

0.5

0.83*

0.06

0.87

0.76*

-0.42

-0.43

-0.49

-0.63

-0.46

-0.19**

-0.31***

-0.12

0.23*

-0.12

-0.09

-0.09

-0.1

-0.13

-0.1

0.05

-0.03

0.00

0.01

0.11**
-0.04

0 40* * *

capita (log)
PT Mayor
Gini Coefficient
Income per capita (log)
Non-profits and Foundations

per

capita (log)
Existence
Council

of Favelas
x Non-profs

Foundations

and

-0.04

-0.05

-0.07

0.07

-0.02

0 21***

-0.01

0.08

-0.06

-0.06

-0.07

-0.08

-0.06

0.06

0.17**

0.12

-0.06

0.06

(log)

Constant
Observations
* Model

-0.04

includes state dummies.

-0.07

-0.07

-0.08

-0.1

-0.07

-5.76***

_4 35***

-5.41***

_9 g^***

-5.22***

-0.82

-0.81

-0.89

-1.12

-0.85

3869

3864

3878

3869

Standard errors in parentheses:

***

p<0.01,

**

p<0.05,

3878
*

p<0.1.

95

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Comparative

Politics

Civil

Impact

Society

number

civil

As

of nonprofits

on the adoption

and

I add

across

an interaction

2, civil

does

per capita,

programs

in the form

1 and

in Tables

the probability

incorporation,

this question,

shown

foundations

of housing

increase

society

formal

2011

October

a strong,

or across

programs

as measured

society,

not have

years.

of social

program

adoption

where

of municipal

housing

councils,

exist?

variable

for civil

and

society

by the

consistent
But

effect

does

a strong

mechanisms
To

shed

councils

housing

for

light

on

to the

original probit models (see Tables 4 and 5).

Table

Variables

with

Associated

Housing

Program

Adoption,

an

Including

Interaction Effect for Civil Society and Housing Councils, 2008*

Municipal Housing
Council

Const, of

Offer

Offer

Units

Mat.

Land

0.16

0.17

0.58

Reg.
-0.07

Acquire
Units

Impr.
Units

Urban.

-0.38

0.92**

0.2

-0.38

-0.37

-0.4

-0.43

-0.43

-0.37

-0.51

Municipal Housing Fund

0.25***

0.09

0.19***

0.14**

0.09

0.03

0.16**

-0.06

-0.06

-0.07

-0.07

-0.07

-0.06

-0.08

Population (log)

0.20***

0.08**

0.10***

0.35***

0.12***

0.07**

0.43***

-0.04

-0.03

-0.03

-0.04

-0.04

-0.03

-0.04

Percent Urban Pop. (log)

0.14**

0.20***

0.26***

0.03

0.03

0.18***

0.03

-0.06

-0.06

-0.06

-0.07

-0.07

-0.06

-0.08

0,49***

0 37***

0.28***

0.34***

0.18**

0.19***

0.46***

-0.08

-0.07

-0.08

-0.08

-0.08

-0.07

-0.09

0.05

0.11

-0.1

0.24***

0.06

0.12

0.06

-0.08

-0.08

-0.09

-0.09

-0.09

-0.08

-0.1

1.25***

1.28***

-0.02

-0.02

0.28

-0.42

-0.41

-0.45

-0.48

-0.49

-0.41

-0.53

Municipal Budget per

capita (log)
PT Mayor
Gini
Income per capita (log)
Non-profs & founds

0.98*

0.07

-0.17*

0.03

0.17*

0.1

-0.11

0.04

-0.09

-0.08

-0.09

-0.1

-0.1

-0.08

-0.11

-0.03

-0.07*

0.00

-0.07

0.02

0.09**

-0.11*

-0.04

-0.04

-0.04

-0.05

-0.05

-0.04

-0.06

-0.06

0.30***

0.06

-0.04

0.38***

-0.05

-0.05

-0.05

-0.06

-0.06

-0.05

-0.06

-0.02

0.00

0.07

-0.05

-0.09

0.11*

0.00

per capita
Existence of Favelas
Council x Non-profs &
foundations (log)
Constant
Observations
* Model

The

-0.06

-0.06

-0.07

-0.07

-0.06

-0.08

-4.38***

-4.28***

-8.13***

-4.10***

-2.32***

-10.4***

-0.84

-0.79

-0.84

-0.9

-0.89

-0.78

-0.99

4093

4080

4093

4093

4093

4083

4083

includes state dummies.

results

the adoption
do

-0.06
-6.38***

not exist.

show

of housing
However,

Standard errors in parentheses:

that the density

programs
there

are

of civil

across
several

years,

society
either

exceptions

***

p<0.01,

**

p<0.05,

is not consistently
where
depending

municipal

p<0.1.

associated
councils

on the type

with
exist

or

of program.

In 2005, where municipal councils for housing exist, a strong civil society is positively
96

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Maureen

associated
that

with

to offer

programs

who

CSOs,

often

receive

government

cessful

when

2008,

however,

offer

construction

construction

able

to make
civil

stronger

and

materials,

to build

these

the

This

own

with

is unchanged

relationship

indicate

more

suc

councils.

By

programs

that

presence

of a

the

by

families

are

municipal

associated

negatively

could

homes,

within

Donaghy

in which

projects

their

demands

is

society

materials.

(auto-gestao)

for materials

funding
are

they

families

for self-build

lobby

M.

municipal council.
In
the

2008

associations

interesting

catchall

category

of "other

for two

emerge

in the

programs"

that

programs

2005

fall

likely

under

to improve

surveyprograms

units and urbanization programs. A strong civil society increases the probability of
municipalities adopting programs to improve units, and the presence of a municipal
council amplifies this effect. This may mean that housing associations, particularly
those working with more professional NGOs, which are more likely to be included
in this

measure

units,

of civil

demands.

The

is negatively

associated
has

officials

government

their

communities.

to improve
the

Again,

may provide the forum for CSOs

urbanization

for programs

with
no

reaching

within

between

the result

council

housing

stay

relationship

contradicts

ever,

to

housing council

municipal

are

society,

residents

allowing

urbanization

effect.

Though

units.
and

programs,

this

speculative,

the

civil

civil

society

of a municipal

presence

could

relationship

how

society,

a strong

Here,

of a

to negotiate these

and

programs

to improve

housing

presence

be

a result

of strong CSOs focusing on gaining selective benefits for their members in the form
of improving individual units rather than demanding improvements in whole com
munities

down

urbanization

through

outside

of

Sao

public

urbanization
The
councils

may

focus

rather
on

For

than

small

for

victories

in Santo

instance,

for

fought

the

infrastructural
rather

than

a large

Andre,

of individual,

improvement

Given

projects.
more

expensive,

city
run

limited

large-scale

projects.

statistical

results

are

likely

regarding

have

units,

housing

CSOs

resources,

programs.

CSOs

Paulo,

more

civil

society

confirm
to adopt

do

the main

hypothesis

that municipalities

all

of housing

programs.

not provide

types

consistent

evidence

with

to support

housing

the results

However,

that a strong

H2,

civil society working through municipal housing councils increases the adoption of
social

housing

programs.

Discussion

According

to the results,

overall

municipal

councils

are effective

mechanisms

for incor

porating civil society into decision making to bring about greater numbers of social
programs
institutions

and

pro-poor

for promoting

policies.

Municipal

councils
and

accountability

for housing

responsiveness

seem

among

to be

credible

governments

at

the municipal level. Municipal councils are associated with a greater probability of
municipalities adopting each type of program and a broad range of programs, which
may

reflect

the

negotiation

of CSOs

and

government

officials

to respond

to calls

for

97

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Politics

Comparative

new

units

as

well

claims

previous

that

of civil
tive

is

level

participatory

not

research

and

and

own

in

true

This

renewal

the

present

that

to access

is not

capacity,

But
coun

that

defines
hous

municipal

officials.

government

the results

hypothesis,

centers.

for effective
analysis

suggests

society

increased

of city

condition

analysis

for civil

my

indicate

may

hold

field

playing

show

that the density

a prerequisite

for effec

institutions.

governance

aside

Leaving

do

outcomes.

favelas

is a necessary

society

defined,

which

society,

of existing
civil

program
the

to previous

Contrary

renovation
a strong

through

councils

ing

as

that

however

cils,

effectiveness

2011

October

the interaction

of a strong

civil

society,

councils

municipal

to

appear

alter the policy environment toward heterogeneous needs by increasing the probability
of municipalities

each

adopting

of program.

type

In large

social

cities,

movements

have

often criticized municipal governments for marginalizing the poor by building large
public
and

housing

in the periphery

complexes
For

employment.50

in Sao

example,

of the

cut

city,

the

Paulo,

Uniao

off from

dos

essential

Movimentos

services

da

Moradia

has fought against the continued construction of large public housing blocks on the
periphery, instead calling for communally built projects and affordable housing in the
center.

city
and

to Raquel

According

the

rently

Special

1980s

urban

interested

in Brazil

expert

policy

Issues

Housing

were

officials

government

an

Rolnik,
on

Rapporteur

to the

United

in removing

Nations,

residents

who

is cur

in the

1970s

from

favelas

and

illegal occupations of land and placing them in public housing units. The participatory
movement,
and

and

integrated,

administrative
have

also

laborers
more
on

that

to construct

flexible

for government
call

houses

support,

The

for acknowledging

scored

by the increase

which

is

instance,

programs

dwelling

of favela

MST

to regularize
or rural

the

and

materials

and

of programs

titles,

in essence

to provide

them

and

prefer

back

their

loans

demands

subsidies.

rural

council

land

of seasonal
areas

to pay

mortgage

to legalize
with

movements

in rural

to voice

the

changed

the needs

between

of a municipal

presence

that

to be able

in urban

be urbanized

Rural-based

living

members

of needs

of an array

land

residents

People

to housing

must

something

not addressed

encourages

the diversity

by

is

their needs

construction

in the adoption

affected

strongly

has

solutions

that favelas

country."51

in the country.
that meet

including

to stay,

in this

in Brazil

policy

schedule.52

rights

view

people

of the idea

policies

variation

geographical

freedom

have

housing

how

changed

dissemination

[residents]

and

that housing

argued

a more

"the

says

culture

and

The

she

Today,

has

the councils,

including

problems.

areas
2005

is under
and

2008,

for housing.

For

the

occupation

and

security,

increased

from

9 percent of municipalities in 2005 to 20 percent in 2008. Holding all other variables

constant, Table 3 shows that the probability of a municipality adopting a regularization
program is 6 percent higher where municipal housing councils exist. Municipalities with
housing councils are also significantly more likely than municipalities without councils
to adopt differenttypes of housing programs in both years, indicating that councils ap
pear

to have
In the

an
end,

effect

on

the government's

participatory

governance

to a diversity

responsiveness
institutions,

as

demonstrated

of demands.
by

the

case

of

municipal housing councils in Brazil, are able to positively affect policy outcomes
for the poor

by increasing

the transfer

of information

between

citizens

and

government

98

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Maureen

officials

needs

regarding

eastern

and

accountable

government

city of Salvador
but

resources;

and

sponses,

more

the councils

are

up

to make

not perfect
and

to government

use

they

sure

the

as

a social

movement

are

for accountability,

a place

for discussion

the

north

to direct
re

demand
it will.

Though
access

greater

provide
existed

never

the

for them

it says

they

that

to hold

information,

what

Donaghy

from

forums

to solicit
does

CSOs

leader

important

councils

the government

mechanisms

serve

to allow

transparency

As

the councils

explained,
broadly

follow

improving

by

for its actions.

M.

before.

Across

Brazilian municipalities, incorporating civil society into decision making appears to

induce

local

to invest

governments

in social

housing

while

programs,

perhaps

breaking

some of the clientelistic relationships of the past.

Civil

The

Society

is necessary
measure

used

for the

density

of civil

from

institutions

are

and

to collaborate

government

organizations.

Municipal

results

different

two

with

ships

that

officials

government

reflected

in the

improve

individual

housing

Alternatively,

the

grams.
higher

in cities

where

clean

up the slums

strong

society

selective

rather

than

interests

it may
any

civil

be

financial

powerful

gain

enough

be

of existing

an

in the

to bring

bilateral

about

to be strong.

likely

to convince

for construction

to overcome

business

relation

to

programs

pro

tends

In urban

interests,

to be
the

areas,
leaders

municipal

companies.

be

may

urbanization
foundations

and

for

adoption

members

community-enhancing

difficult

effect

opposing

for their

in

programs

place

traditional

nonprofits

com

against

urbanization

taking

tends

society

proposals

number

demands.

have

benefits

are also
more

may

may

One

governance

for cooperation
and

the

a proxy

proactive

of the

to pursue

of registered

estate

and

without

not be mechanisms
civil

units

society

continuing

a stronger

participatory

common

units

process

to gain

number

real

is higher,

of land

may

that

finding

value

different
CSOs

to make

society

Though

organizations.

to make

regardless

improve
civil

society,

through

offer the space

civil

it provides

of registered

alliances

types

to

a strong

of programs.

types

of all

of programs.

working
form

interests,

councils

CSOs
programs

insinuate

types

of these

unite

regarding

however,

2008,

business

housing

which

"threats,"
The

and

and

number

a strong

institutions.

of all civil

the

CSOs

that

governance

representation
on

claims

previous

participatory

is that

result

able

confirm

based

society

this

counter

mon

not

effective

is an imperfect

here

conclusion

do

results

for creating

to

The

councils

even

where

exists.

Conclusion

The findings in this article contribute to the debate about whether and when participa
tory

governance

institutions

bring

about

pro-poor

policy

outcomes.

to this

According

analysis, incorporation of civil society through participatory governance institutions

leads

local

governments

to adopt

social

programs

to benefit

the poor.

These

types

of

institutions may then be innovative mechanisms for welfare provision, particularly in

developing

countries

without

a strong

history

of broad

participation.

The

findings

also

99

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Politics

Comparative

that

suggest

of CSOs

depth

2011

of civil

society

is less

the

than

important

formal

incorporation

in decision-making institutions. Though past research finds that a strong civil

within

society

and

posals

the

October

participatory

to avoid

is possible

the present

of the depth

regardless

Answers

regarding

institutions

governance

cooptation,

of formal

the effectiveness

is necessary

analysis

to counter

collaboration

implies

elite

among

pro
CSOs

organization.

of civil

and

society

participatory

governance

institutions hold important implications for developing countries seeking to address

social

mounting
to overcome
produced

needs,

political,

additional

within

participatory

ability.

Research

process
governance

and

in urban
and

results

significant

comes,

particularly
geographic,

research

the effect

to demonstrate

of the
make

institutions
of institutional
councils

will

a difference

and

the poor

seek

marginalization.

regarding

on the effects

institutions

where

is needed

governance

outcomes

areas

economic

of municipal

councils

the

internal

to provide

direct

rules
further

and

how

the analysis

on pro-poor
that

struggles
evidence

the political

clarify

solutions

housing

Though

and

on

of account

environment
when

out
go

on the

participatory

for the poor.

NOTES
1. See, for example, The World Bank, The World Bank Participation Sourcebook (Washington, DC: World
Bank, 2006).
2. See, for example, The World Bank, World Development Report: Making Services Workfor Poor People
(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2004); and Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright, Deepening Democracy:
Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance (New York: Verso Publishing, 2003).
3. Though, see Brian Wampler, Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation,
and
Accountability (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007); and Krister Andersson
and Frank van Laerhoven, "From Local Strongman to Facilitator: Institutional Incentives for Participatory
Municipal Governance in Latin America," Comparative Political Studies, 40 (September 2007): 1085-1111.
4. Ministeno
das Cidades,
"Politica
Nacional
de Habitagao,"
2004, http://www.cidades.gov.br/

secretarias-nacionais/secretaria-de-habitacao/politica-nacional-de-habitacao.
5. The number of council members and mix of civil society and government membership vary by council
and by rules established by the municipal government. Civil society members may come from professional
NGOs, local social movements, and neighborhood associations. They are elected either in an open public
forum or by a formal public election. The majority of government members are appointed by the relevant
municipal agency, though seats are also reserved for state and federal government representatives.
6. Jose Roberto R. Afonso and Luiz de Mello, "Brazil: An Evolving Federation," Prepared for the IMF/FAD
Seminar on Decentralization, ^shington,
DC, November 20-21, 2000.
7. Lavinia Pessanha, Vanessa Campagnac, and Denise Ferreira Matos, "Panorama Brasileiro dos Conselhos
Municipals de Politicas Setoriais," Presented at the 30th Encontro Nacional da ANPOCS, Caxambu, Brazil, 2006.

8. Vera E Schatten Coelho, Barbara Pozzoni, and Mariana Cifuentes, "Participation and Public Policies in
Brazil," in John Gastil and Peter Levine, eds., The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective
Citizen Engagement in the Twenty-First Century (New "fork: Jossey-Bass, Inc, 2005).
9. Patricia Gomes, "Conselho
Municipal de Habitapao: Uma Experiencia de Participafao Popular na
Cidade de Goiania Macedo," Conference Paper delivered to the Conference on Social Movements, Participation,
and Democracy, UFSC, Florianopolis, Brazil, 2007.
10. Renato Cymbalista,
Paula Freire Santoro, Luciana Tatagiba, and Ana Claudia Chaves Teixeira,

controle social e politico, publico (Sao Paulo: Institute Polis, 2007).

Habitagao:
11. Institute) Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (IBGE), "Pesquisa de Informa9oes Basicas Municipais:
Perfil dos Municipios Brasileiros, Gestao Publica (MUNIC),"
2005 and 2008, http://www.ibge.gov.br/.
12. IBGE, MUNIC 2008.
100

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Maureen

M.

Donaghy

13. Cymbalista et al; Soma M. Draibe, "The Brazilian Developmental

Welfare State: Rise, Decline,
Perspectives," UNRISD
Project, "Social Policy in a Development Context," 2005, http://cep.cl/UNRISD/
Papers/B rasil/Brazi LPaper. doc.
14. Mane Huchzermeyer, Unlawful Occupation: Informal Settlements and Urban Policy in South Africa
and Brazil (Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 2004).
15. For example, the Uniao National dos Movimentos da Moradia Popular, and Rede Jubileu Sul Brasil,
"Assembleia Popular: Mutirao por um novo Brasil" (Sao Paulo: Expressao Popular, 2006).
16. Michel Duquette, Maurilio Galdino, Charmain Levy, Berengere Marques-Pereira, and Florence Raes,

Collective Action and Radicalism in Brazil: Women, Urban Housing, and Rural Movements (Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 2005).
17. These four movements are Unido Nacional dos Movimentos da Moradia Popular, Confederagao das
Movimento Nacional pela Luta da Moradia (MNLM),
and the Central
Associagdes da Moradia (CONAM),
dos Movimentos Populares (CMP).
18. This argument draws on decentralization

literature, in which scholars find that decentralization of

responsibilities and resources to local officials often leads to improved responsiveness and accountability of
local governments to citizens' concerns. See, for example, The World Bank, The World Bank Participation
Sourcebook (Washington, DC: World Bank, 1996); Ariel Fiszbein, "The Emeigence of Local Capacity: Lessons
from Colombia," World Development, 25 (June 1998): 1029-43; andH. Blair, "Participation and Accountability at
the Periphery: Democratic Local Governance in Six Countries," World Development, 28 (January 2000): 21-39.
Participatory governance institutions formally involve civil society in the process of decentralization.
19. See, for example, Hartmut Schneider, "Participatory Governance for Poverty Reduction," Journal of Inter
national Development, 11 (1999): 521-34; John Ackerman, "Co-Governance for Accountability: Beyond 'Exit' and
'Voice,'" World Development, 32 (January 2004): 447-63; and Brian Wfompler,Participatory Budgeting in Brazil.
20. Menlee Gnndle, Going Local: Decentralization, Democratization and the Promise of Good Government
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).

21. Leonardo Avritzer, Democracy and the Public Space in Latin America (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2002); Fung and Wright.
22. Pranab Bardhan and Dilip Mookherjee, eds., Decentralization
to Local Governments in Developing
Countries: A Comparative Perspective (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006).
23. John Gaventa, "Triumph, Deficit or Contestation? Deepening the 'Deepening Democracy' Debate," IDS
Working Paper 264, Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, 2006, http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids;
Benjamin Goldfrank, "The Politics of Deepening Local Democracy: Decentralization, Party Institutionalization,
and Participation," Comparative Politics, 39 (January 2007): 147-68.
24. United Nations Development Program, Human Development Report 2002 (New York: Oxford University

Press, 2002); Gianpaolo Baiocchi, "Participation, Activism, and Politics: The Porto Alegre Experiment," in
Fung and Wright.
25. Goldfrank.
26. Ackerman.
27. Gnndle.
28. Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1965).

29. Victor Nunes, Comnelismo, Enxada e Voto: o Municipio e o Regime Representative) no Brasil (Sao Paulo:
Editora Nova Fronteira. 1997); Frances Hagopian, Traditional Politics and Regime Change in Brazil (New
York: Cambridge
Alberto J. Olvera, and Aldo Panfichi, A
University Press, 1996); Evelina Dagnino,
na America Latina (Sao Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2006); Brian Wampler,
Disputa Pela Construgao Democratica
"Can Participatory Governance Institutions Promote Pluralism? Mobilizing Low-Income Citizens in Brazil,"

Studies in Comparative International Development, 41 (December 2007): 57-78.

30. Interview, Recife, Brazil, November 2008.
31. Robert D. Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1993); Peter Houtzager and Mick Moore, eds., Changing Paths: International Development
and the New Politics of Inclusion (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003); Leonardo Avritzer, "New
Public Spheres in Brazil: Local Democracy and Deliberative Politics," International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 30 (September 2006): 623-37.
32. Avritzer, "New Public Spheres in Brazil."
33. Bill Cooke and Uma Kothari, eds., Participation:
Leonardo Avritzer, Participatory
Wilson Center Press, 2009).

Governance

The New Tyranny? (London: Zed Books, 2002);

Institutions in Democratic Brazil (Washington, DC: Woodrow

101

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Comparative

Politics

October

2011

34. Zander Navarro, "O Orcamento Participativo de Porto Alegre (1.989-2002): Um conciso comentario critico,"
in Leonardo Avritzer and Zander Navarro, eds., A Inovagao Democratica no Brasil (Sao Paulo: Cortez, 2003).
35. Orlando Alves dos Santos, L.C. Ribeiro, and S. De Azevedo, Governanga democratica e poder local: a
experiencia dos conselhos municipals (Rio de Janeiro: Fase, 2007); Carvalho, Maria do Carmen Albuquerque,
"Participa?ao Social no Brasil Hoje," Polis Integras, 2 (2002), http://www.polis.org.br/publicacoes_lista.asp?
cd_serie= 18; Carneiro, C.B.L., "Conselho de politicas publicas: institucionalizafao," RAP. 36 (March/April 2002):

277-92.
36. IBGE, MUNIC, 2005 and 2008.
37. In 2005 48 percent of municipalities
the percentage increased to 61 in 2008.

reported the presence of programs to construct new units, while

38. The number of municipal housing councils increased in all regions of Brazil between 2005 and 2008.
In 2008 the South had the largest concentration with 51 percent of municipalities adopting housing councils,
and the North and Northeast had the fewest with 18 percent and 19 percent, respectively. The percentage of
municipalities with housing councils also increases with population. In 2008 25 percent of municipalities
with populations less than 20,000 had housing councils, while 74 percent of municipalities with populations
greater than 500,000 had housing councils.
39. Institute) Brasileiro de Geograha e Estatistica (IBGE), "Fundcagdes Pnvadas e AssociaQoes sem Fins
Cadastro Central de Empresas (CEMPRE),
Lucrativos no Brasil (FASFIL),"
2002, http://www.ibge.gov.br/.
40. The data follow the internationally recognized classifications of the Handbook on Nonprofit Institutions
in the System of National Accounts distributed by the United Nations in collaboration with Johns Hopkins

University. The nonprofit sector is characterized by Johns Hopkins University collaborator Anheier as "the
social infrastructure of civil society, creating as well as facilitating a sense of trust and social inclusion that is
seen as essential for the functioning of modern societies." Helmut K. Anheier, Civil Society: Measurement,
Evaluation, Policy (London: Earthscan Publishing, 2004). p. 5.
41. See, for example, Gianpaolo Baiocchi, Radicals in Power: The Workers' Party (PT) and Experiments in
Urban Democracy in Brazil (London: Zed Books, 2003); and Rebecca Abers, Inventing Local Democracy:
Grassroots Politics in Brazil (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2000).
42. The existence of municipal housing councils and funds are correlated at .53 in 2005 and .69 in 2008. In
2005 456 municipalities of 979 had a housing council but no fund. In 2008 there were 374 municipalities
of 1,709 which had housing councils but no fund.
43. Bardhan and Mookherjee.
44. Institute) de Pesquisa Economica Aplicada (IPEA), http://www.ipeadata.gov.br/.
45. IBGE.
46. IPEA.

47. Pedro Jacobi, "Challenging Traditional Participation in Brazil: The Goals of Participatory Budgeting,"
Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, 32 (1999).
48. Though an ordered probit model would also seem appropriate to assess the probability of a municipality
adopting multiple programs, after performing a Brant test of the parallel regression assumption, I discovered
that the ordered probit model violated the assumption of equal proportional odds between categories. A
data. Rather than
negative binomial regression model is appropriate to use instead for extradispersed
predicting probabilities, the negative binomial model predicts expected counts.
49. The one exception is programs offering construction materials in 2005, for which municipal housing
councils are not statistically significant in the model.
50. Scholars have long documented the effects of locating poor residents on the peripheries of cities. For
example, see Janice Perlman, The Myth of Marginality: Urban Poverty and Politics in Rio de Janeiro (Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press, 1976); and Ananya Roy and Nezar A1 Sayyad, eds., Urban Informality:
Transnational

Perspectives from the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia (New York: Lexington
Books, 2004).
51. Interview with Raquel Rolnik, Sao Paulo, Brazil, December 2008.
52. Interview with leader from the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), Sao Paulo,
Brazil, June 2008.

102

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.127 on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions