Parliamentarians in Coalition Presidentialism: decision-making power in the tax benefits policy

ABSTRACT

Introduction:

This article analyzes tax benefits policy during the Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995-2002) and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-2010) governments. Considering that there are strong incentives for politicians to approve this kind of policy, we ask ourselves: given the division of power characteristic of the Brazilian Coalition Presidentialism system, where does the decision-making power regarding this policy lie?

Materials and Methods:

The legal provisions that grant and limit access to tax benefits related to PIS, COFINS and CSLL were adopted as the main unit of analyses of the legislative content. Their accounting was used to identify where the legal content subsequently approved was produced.

Results:

The formulation of the policy for granting tax benefits related to PIS, COFINS and CSLL is subject to the agenda of the governing coalition, which cancels the individual wishes of parliamentarians through the strategic use of the rules of the decision-making process. Furthermore, the suppression of the individual influence of parliamentarians does not cancel their participation in the formulation of this public policy. Through party leaders, the legislature acts purposefully on its content and, not infrequently, overcomes the executive power in its creation.

Discussion:

There are two main contributions to the literature on the topic. First, the analysis of the formulation of public policy brings to light the purposeful and assiduous participation of the Legislative Power in the approved content. It is precisely in the window of opportunity opened by the legislative dominance of the federal Executive branch that Brazilian parliamentarians have the opportunity to collaborate in the elaboration of the content of public policies. Second, the empirical conclusions leave aside the hypothesis that the formulation of the tax benefits policy is a foundation of the possible quid pro quo that exists between politicians and interest groups. If the analysis can point to a pattern of how the relationship between the State and interest groups in Brazil materializes, instead of being individually carried out, the research indicates that this relationship is built partisanly. Therefore, if there is any kind of electoral connection or quid pro quo, our bet is that it should be thought of in partisan terms and not in strictly personal ones.

KEYWORDS:
legislative studies; tax benefits; public policies; Executive-Legislative relations; content analysis