The innovations, opportunities and challenges of the ‘virtual classroom’

In a first for the LSE, Professor Francisco Panizza from the LSE Department of Government and Professor Anthony Spanakos from Montclair State University co-taught an experimental, long-distance, virtual course during Michaelmas Term, with funding from the LSE Learning Technology and Innovation grant scheme. Professor Panizza tells us more about the project and the immense potential of the ‘virtual classroom’ environment

Rousseff: A victim of circumstances or responsible for her own demise?

On 12 May 2016, the Brazilian Senate voted to impeach and suspend Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s first female president, 55 votes to 22. Professor Francisco Panizza discusses the reasons behind her suspension and upcoming trial, and asks whether Rousseff is responsible for her own downfall or is the victim of economic and political circumstances outside of her control

Popularity, political change, economic and social development agenda and potential for South American integration: four key points to consider in the Brazilian elections

Brazilians will go to the polls next Sunday. By touching upon popularity, political change, socioeconomic development and South American integration, Francisco Panizza shows that, regardless of the outcome of the election, it signals some positive changes but also some problems that are still very much part of the Brazilian political system

Latin America: Life after Chavez (and Lula)

Dr Francisco Panizza, Head of the Latin America International Affairs Programme at LSE IDEAS and Reader in the Department of Government at the London School of Economics

Academia has a vital role to play in Colombia’s peace process

Achieving an enduring peace in Colombia will require compromise and engagement from every sector of society, but by remaining authoritative, plural, and independent, academia can play a crucial role, write Francisco Panizza and Gonzalo Vargas

La academia y el futuro de la paz en Colombia

Alcanzar la paz requerirá el compromiso de todos los sectores de la sociedad, pero la academia puede y debe jugar un papel clave, escriben Francisco Panizza y Gonzalo Vargas

Unpacking patronage: the politics of patronage appointments in Argentina and Uruguay’s central administrations

This study makes the following contributions to the study of the politics of patronage appointments in Latin America: Conceptually, it adopts Kopecký et al (2008) distinction between clientelistic and non-clientelistic types of patronage politics as a conceptual lens for the study of patronage practices in Latin America’s presidentialist regimes.. Analytically, it sets up a new taxonomy of patronage appointments based on the roles appointees’ play vis a vis the Executive, the ruling party and the public administration that can be used for the comparative study of the politics of patronage. Empirically, it applies the taxonomy to a pilot study of the politics of patronage in Argentina and Uruguay under two left of centre administrations. Theoretically, it contributes to theory building by relating the findings of our research to differences in party systems and presidential powers in the countries under study and agency factors associated to the respective governments’ political projects. The article concludes that differences in patronage practices are a manifestation of two different forms of exercising governmental power: a hyper-presidentialist, populist one in Argentina and a party-centered, social democratic one in Uruguay

Unpacking Patronage: the Politics of Patronage Appointments in Argentina's and Uruguay's Central Public Administrations

This study makes the following contributions to the study of the politics of patronage appointments in Latin America: Conceptually it adopts Kopecký, Scherlis, and Spirova's (2008) distinction between clientelistic and nonclientelistic types of patronage politics and widens these authors classification of patrons' motivations for making appointments, specifically as a lens for the study of patronage practices within Latin America’s presidentialist regimes. Analytically, it sets up a new taxonomy of patronage appointments based on the roles that appointees' play vis-à-vis the executive, the ruling party, and the public administration - one that can be used for the comparative study of the politics of patronage. Empirically, it applies this taxonomy to a pilot study of the politics of patronage in Argentina and Uruguay under two left-of-center administrations. Theoretically, it contributes to theory-building by relating the findings of our research to the differences in party systems and presidential powers within the two countries under study, and to agency factors associated with the respective governments' own political projects. The article concludes that differences in patronage practices are a manifestation of two variant forms of exercising governmental power: a hyper-presidentialist, populist one in Argentina and a party-centered, social-democratic one in Uruguay.Este articulo hace las siguientes contribuciones al estudio de la política de los nombramientos de patronazgo en América Latina: En lo conceptual adopta la distinción empleada por Kopecký, Scherlis, and Spirova’s (2008) entre formas clientelares y no clientelares de políticas de patronazgo, como un lente para el estudio específico de prácticas de patronazgo en regímenes presidencialistas en América Latina. En lo analítico, construye una nueva taxonomía de nombramientos de patronazgo basada en los roles que los nombrados cumplen en relación al executivo, el partido gobernante y la administración pública, la cual puede ser usada para el estudio comparado de la política del patronazgo. En lo empírico, aplica la taxonomía a un estudio piloto de la política del patronazgo en Argentina y Uruguay bajo dos administraciones de centro-izquierda. En lo teórico, contribuye a la elaboración de teoría al relacionar los hallazgos de investigación a diferencias en los sistemas de partidos y en los poderes presidenciales en los dos países objeto de estudio, así como factores de agencia asociados a los proyectos políticos de los respectivos gobiernos. El articulo concluye que diferencias en las prácticas de patronazgo son una manifestación de dos formas diferentes de ejercicio del poder gubernamental: una de tipo híper-presidencialista, populista, en Argentina y otra de tipo partido-céntrica, social democrática, en Uruguay

Roles, trust and skills: a typology of patronage appointments

This article contributes to the study of the politics of patronage appointments by creating a typology of patronage roles based on the nature of trust between patrons and appointees and on the skills patrons seek in appointees. Our classification brings together the dispersed literature on patronage roles and can be applied to the study of modalities of patronage across and within countries. We offer preliminary evidence from our study of the politics of patronage appointments in Latin America suggesting that variations in patronage roles can be related to variations in party systems institutionalisation and to the nature of the links between political actors and voters. Finally, we explore whether the categories identified in our empirical study can be found in other settings. We conclude that our typology can contribute to the study of the impact of modalities of patronage on the quality of the public administration and on political governability