Ames advances a sophisticated analysis that usefully and convincingly systematizes the opportunities and constraints facing Brazilian politicians, and measures with precision the extent to which the incentives of the system bear upon politicians’ behavior. The book simultaneously sheds light on how deleterious the present system is for good governance and suggests how resistant it will be to reform, even by the best-intended and capable public servants. Few analyses map out with such clarity how political institutions influence the kinds of candidates who enter politics, their campaign strategies, and behavior in office.

The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil is a work of rare accomplishment. Ames's unique contribution rests in the singularly ambitious empirical investigation he conducts of political behavior across different Brazilian states and time periods in order to test expectations derived from theory. The sheer wealth of data collected and analyzed is remarkable. Few analysts of Ames's stature and seniority have done fieldwork as thorough and comprehensive as that conducted for this volume. While many of the findings accord with existing, almost stereotypic notions of political behavior in Brazil, others are counterintuitive. One such example is the striking presence of pork barrel politics found in the most developed areas of the country, such as southern Brazil, where concentrations of educated and affluent voters reside.

The empirical findings presented in the book do not always fit what general theories about strategic behavior would predict. Ames invokes demographic variables, chance historical events, and even the particular political cultures of different Brazilian states to explain these gaps, admitting that “in Latin America rational choice models will need broadening before they can explain real political outcomes” (p. 108). Although one is sometimes left to wonder whether general principles about strategic behavior rightfully remain the essential framework of analysis, Ames's honesty is to be applauded. So is his profound knowledge of Brazil, which positions him well to deal with deviations from the norm and even leads him to question whether reelection—the very premise of most studies that take the strategic calculations of politicians as a point of departure—is the primary motive of most Brazilian politicians. Ames's almost anthropological grasp of his subject matter, formed over a career of conversations with bureaucrats and politicians and reflected in the many anecdotes sprinkled throughout the book, forms a vital complement to the quantitative dimension of the analysis. Chapter 4, entitled “History Matters: The Interaction of Social Structure and Political Events,” best showcases the full range of Ames's knowledge about Brazil and his impressive ability to integrate quantitative and qualitative analysis. In this respect, The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil should stand as a model of integration in current debates over the merits of uncovering universal laws versus probing the unique characteristics of individual countries and their political systems.

Those who analyze electoral rules and political institutions from a comparative perspective may be particularly interested in reading the conclusion, in which Ames points to arrangements in other countries as possible examples for Brazil to emulate or avoid. Unfortunately, however, this search for ways out of Brazil's deadlock offers no easy remedies.

The book is not light reading. While much of what makes it difficult is precisely the source of the book's strength—Ames's insistence on a comprehensive explanation of Brazil's dysfunctional political system that is theoretically informed, subject to empirical testing, and able to capture complexities—some of the difficulty is not intrinsic to the ambitious nature of the enterprise. More could be done to keep the readers’ attention focused on the specific outcome to be explained in each chapter, as well as to unify the broader argument across the individual chapters.

The narrowness of certain indicators as proxies for given concepts is a source of some question. For example, Ames relies on some of the standard indexes of party competitiveness (e.g., number of effective parties, number of candidates per seat) to judge how oligarchic a state's politics are. Because the state of Ceara's low degree of competitiveness (as measured by such indicators) did not change with the much-celebrated administrations of Governors Tasso Jereissati and Ciro Gomes, he concludes that in a sense, a “more progressive oligarchy” replaced the prior colonels (p. 129). Indeed, it is valuable and interesting to know that these indexes have not changed, yet whether such a far-reaching interpretation is warranted on these grounds alone is less clear. It is certainly plausible that opposition politicians are daunted at the prospect of running against a political group so widely credited with successful governance, or that a more open and pluralistic mode of governing now exists despite the dominance of the PSDB (Brazilian Social Democratic Party).

These quibbles are minor, however, and pale in comparison to the book's great merits. The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil is a major contribution by a very talented scholar. It is essential reading for any student of Brazilian politics and highly recommended for analysts of comparative political institutions as well.