In recent decades, Latin America's democratic regimes have witnessed significant institutional reforms designed to bring power closer to the people and make democracy more responsive to citizens’ needs. From the direct election of mayors for the first time in some countries and increasing decentralisation in most to − more recently − participatory institutions. These reforms brought hopes of improving the quality of democracy in a region that has only recently become accustomed to free and fair elections. Nationally mandated participatory institutions − those that are ‘created and regulated at the national level’ (p. 10) − were created in all but one country, making the region ripe for the study of this type of institutional innovation. The effectiveness of these reforms, however, varies substantively by country. In some countries, like Brazil, these institutions flourished and showed impressive results (particularly in the area of health). In other countries, like Colombia, the results were from mediocre to non-existent. More generally, in countries across the region many of these nationally mandated participatory institutions exist only in the books, but not in practice. What explains this variation? In this wonderful book, Lindsay Mayka seeks to answer this question and, in so doing, puts politics back centre stage. In contrast to existing explanations that emphasise the role of technocrats, political parties or social-movement activism, her explanation for why some of these institutions are successful and some failed is political, multi-causal and dynamic. It is centred in the political interest of the many actors involved − what she calls the reform coalition.
The crucial condition for success, Mayka argues, lies in the combination of sweeping reforms that restructure state institutions, shake interest dynamics and establish new programmes (‘creative destruction’) with effective leadership that can activate broad reform coalitions. To build participatory institutions that give actual access and policy-making capacity to civil society, simply passing laws is not enough. Indeed, a key insight of the book is that participatory institution building is a ‘lengthy and messy’ process. Mayka describes this process through a rich comparison of nationally mandated institutions. These include social assistance and health councils in Brazil (the successful cases) and planning councils and health committees in Colombia (the unsuccessful ones). The result is a robust theoretical framework that provides a thoughtful explanation for why some participatory institutions have succeeded where others have failed.
Mayka's book forms part of a new generation of scholarship that is changing the way we study and think about institutions. The study of institutions is, of course, as old as political science. In Latin America, in particular, institutional studies became almost hegemonic in the 1980s and 1990s, as the third wave of democratisation began to consolidate. Dominant approaches examined the ‘perils of presidentialism’ and then quickly moved from the general institutional structure of presidential systems and its relationship with regime stability to more narrow issues such as the effects of the electoral rules, decree powers and run-off elections. Significant portions of this scholarship assumed that institutions by themselves − by existing on paper, de jure − would shape behaviour and incentives. They were unable then to explain why some institutions simply did not take root − become a de facto reality − and never produced the expected effects. The new generation of institutional studies, with Mayka being a very prominent example, takes politics (and political actors) more seriously and is better equipped to explain why institutions work (or do not work) in practice. In her own words, institution building ‘involves a fragile, protracted, and fundamentally political process that goes far beyond simply implementing a legal framework’ (p. 4). Building institutions that work takes time. And for this lengthy process to be successful, an active and strong reform coalition is necessary. Participatory institutions only take root when sweeping sectoral reforms − not always related to increased civil society policy-making power − are pushed and sustained by a broad coalition of diverse stakeholders who are deeply invested in the new institution, not just with the goal of deepening democracy but for a variety of different reasons related to their specific interests.
The comparison between health and social-assistance councils in Brazil and planning councils and health committees in Colombia provides a clear contrast to illustrate the ‘coalitional approach’ proposed by Mayka. In Brazil, the reform coalition supporting these participatory institutions included local governments and professional organisations as well as unions, service providers and grassroots organisations. This broad and diverse coalition was key in the process of successful institutionalisation. In contrast, in the less successful Colombian case, the reform coalitions were either too narrow (in the case of planning councils) or non-existing (in the case of health committees). Institution building is extremely difficult, and this is particularly the case for participatory institutions that, by definition, have the goal of including new voices and changing power relations in the policy-making process. Without a broad and diverse coalition that supports the new institution, insiders resist change. It is not surprising then, as Mayka reminds us, that many participatory institutions in Latin America have stumbled.
The amount and quality of the fieldwork carried out to produce this book is impressive and the book clearly reflects it − Mayka shows an impeccable knowledge of the origins and development of the four participatory institutions under study (over almost 20 years) as well as their respective sectors. The book combines in-depth interviews with politicians, bureaucrats, party leaders, civil society actors and academics with participatory observation and archival data. The different types of data contribute to the provision of convincing empirical evidence and a book that is a pleasure to read.
In sum, this book is a must-read for scholars interested in institutions (especially institutional change and institutional weakness), representation, civic engagement and democracy more broadly. The book also provides important lessons for policy-makers who are interested in designing participatory institutions that would actually work in practice and deliver on their promises of giving access and voice to civil society in the decision-making process.
