An emerging literature finds that legislators frequently suffer a negative incumbency advantage in developing countries but disagrees as to the sources of this anti-incumbent bias. We contribute to this literature by examining the case of Brazil, where the extant literature predicts a large incumbency disadvantage. Building a new methodology for OLPR which leverages both inter- and intraparty thresholds, we find, contrary to expectations, a large ‘positive’ incumbency advantage. We further exploit within-country variation and show that this advantage appears to be largest in the least developed areas. Our results suggest that previous work may be confounding country-specific factors with development levels.

RESUMO Este é o primeiro exercício de replicação de pesquisas em ciência política publicado no Brasil. O objetivo foi replicar todos os artigos quantitativos publicados em cinco grandes revistas brasileiras entre 2012 e 2016. Também foram testadas as diferenças potenciais nas taxas de replicação entre campos de pesquisa estabelecidos, mais tradicionais e onde o uso de dados quantitativos é mais frequente, e emergentes. Solicitamos os dados para 197 artigos quantitativos. Desses 197, somente 28% dos autores concordaram em compartilhar os dados e os códigos. Foi possível tentar replicar apenas 14%, com 5% de sucesso. A conclusão sugere a adoção de procedimentos de transparência e replicabilidade já introduzidos em outras comunidades científicas.

ABSTRACT We provide the first replication study of political science research published in Brazil by attempting to replicate every quantitative article published in five major Brazilian journals between 2012 and 2016. We also tested whether replication rates varied between established fields, more traditional and where the use of quantitative data is more common, and emerging fields. Our results show that transparency and reproduction are still in a development stage in Brazilian Political Science. Of the 650 articles reviewed, we asked for data to 197 quantitative articles. From those, only 28% agreed to share datasets and computed codes. We were able to attempt a replication for only 14%, and successfully reproduce the results of less than 5%. We conclude by suggesting the adoption of transparency and replicability procedures that are standard in other scientific communities.

RESUMEN Este es el primer ejercicio de replicación de la investigación en ciencia política publicado en Brasil. El objetivo fue replicar todos los artículos cuantitativos publicados en cinco importantes revistas brasileñas entre 2012 y 2016. También se probaron las posibles diferencias en las tasas de replicación entre los campos de investigación establecidos, más tradicionales y donde el uso de datos cuantitativos es más frecuente, y los emergentes. Solicitamos datos para 197 artículos cuantitativos. De estos 197, solo el 28% de los autores acordó compartir datos y códigos. Fue posible intentar replicar solo el 14%, con un 5% de éxito. La conclusión sugiere la adopción de procedimientos de transparencia y replicabilidad ya introducidos en otras comunidades científicas.

RÉSUMÉ Il s’agit du premier exercice de réplication de la recherche en science politique publiée au Brésil. L’objectif était de reproduire tous les articles quantitatifs publiés dans cinq grandes revues brésiliennes entre 2012 et 2016. Les différences potentielles de taux de réplication entre les domaines de recherche établis et plus traditionnels et où l’utilisation de données quantitatives est plus fréquente et les domaines émergents ont également été testés. Nous avons demandé des données pour 197 articles quantitatifs. Sur ces 197, seuls 28% des auteurs ont accepté de partager des données et des codes. Il était possible d’essayer de reproduire seulement 14%, avec 5% de succès. La conclusion suggère l’adoption de procédures de transparence et de reproductibilité déjà introduites dans d’autres communautés scientifiques.

Recent research has shown that British and American respondents are less willing to advocate the use of force against fellow democracies than against non-democracies (TOMZ and WEEKS, 2013). These findings may contribute to understandings of the 'democratic bias'—unwillingness to attack democracies. A critical next step is assessing whether publics beyond the US and the UK have similar attitudes. To address the scope of popular preferences for peace with democracies, we conduct survey experiments using online panels in two emerging powers, one a democracy (Brazil) and one a non-democracy (China). Our survey randomly varies the hypothetical target's regime type and authorization by the United Nations for military action. We find that Brazilian respondents are significantly less likely to support the use of force against a democracy than a non-democracy. However, after controlling for UN approval, Chinese respondents do not appear to distinguish between democracies and non-democracies when considering whether force is justified. In addition, for both countries, UN approval has a larger effect than democracy on public support for the use of force.

This paper examines the nature of the data available for studying legislative behavior in Mexico. In particular, we evaluate a potentially serious problem: only a subset of roll-call votes have been released for the critical transition period of 1998-2006. We test whether this subset is a representative sample of all votes, and thus suitable for study, or whether it is biased in a way that misleads scholarship. Our research strategy takes advantage of a partial overlap between two roll call vote reporting sources by the Chamber of Deputies: the site with partial vote disclosure, created in 1998 and still in place today; and the site with universal vote disclosure since 2006 only. An examination of the data generation and publication mechanisms, comparing different estimations of legislative behavior, reveals that omitted votes reduce the precision of estimates but do not introduce bias. Scholarship of the lower chamber can therefore proceed with data that we make public with the publication of the paper.

El estudio de la conducta legislativa en la Cámara de Diputados durante el periodo de 1998 a 2006 presenta un problema potencialmente serio: no todos los votos han sido publicados en la Gaceta Parlamentaria. Analizamos la naturaleza de estos datos en aras de explorar la representatividad de la muestra de votos disponibles y las posibles repercusiones de este problema en los análisis legislativos existentes. Para esto, aprovechamos la aparición de una página de Internet que registra la totalidad de los votos de la Cámara de Diputados desde el año 2006 en paralelo con el sistema existente desde 1998. Mediante la exploración de los mecanismos que generan la omisión de votos y la comparación de distintas estimaciones del comportamiento legislativo, concluimos que los votos no publicados merman la precisión de estimadores de uso común pero no introducen ningún tipo de sesgo. A la par, hacemos pública una base de datos para el estudio del Congreso mexicano.