23rd World Congress of Political Science July 19-24, 2014 Montréal, Québec - Canada

23rd World Congress of Political Science July 19-24, 2014 Montréal, Québec - Canada Agendas, Preferences and Competition: Party Manifestos in Brazilian Presidential Races. 1 Soraia Marcelino Vieira (Universidade Federal Fluminense) Gabriela da Silva Tarouco (Universidade Federal de Pernambuco) Rafael Machado Madeira (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul) Abstract: Lately, there has been a discussion in the Brazilian political science regarding a possible bipolarization of the party system, caused by the domination of two parties, PT and PSDB, in the competition for presidential elections. The alleged resemblances arising from their common historical origins (opposition to the military regime and left-wing references within the framework of the parties) make their fierce opposition a worthy object of research that may shed important light on the understanding of the terms in which occurs the party competition in Brazilian democracy. Analyzing the programs of government that each one launched for the elections of 2006 and 2010 reveals whether - and to what extent - their platforms move away from or towards each other, whether the proposed public policy agendas set common or specific priorities and to what extent they take into consideration issues from the so-called post-materialist agenda. In order to do so, this article relies on the content analysis of programs of government of Serra, Alckmin, Lula and Dilma. The theoretical reference is the Saliency Theory (Robertson, 1976) and the categories used are adapted from the ones of the Manifesto Research Group. Keywords: manifestos; content analysis; political parties, presidencial campaings, postmaterialism 1 A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the 37 th Meeting of ANPOCS. We thank Paulo Peres, Bruno Comparato and Lara Mesquita for their comments and suggestions.

Agendas, Preferences and Competition: Party Manifestos in Brazilian Presidential Races. Soraia Marcelino Vieira Gabriela da Silva Tarouco Rafael Machado Madeira Introduction Historically the Workers' Party (PT) and the Party of Brazilian Social Democracy (PSDB) originated in the left side of the political spectrum and, although they have shared several common ideas during their origin, some important differences mark the trajectory of these parties. PT emerged earlier, during the 1979 party reform, and is considered by political analysts as the only Brazilian party identified with the masses (KINZO, 1993; SAMUELS, 1997), whereas PSDB emerged in 1987 during the work of the National Constituent Assembly from a split within PMDB and other parties, setting what Duverger (1980) would consider a cadre party. Although they emerged at different times and with different compositions, PT and proto- PSDB 2 behaved similarly during the voting of the National Constituent Assembly (POWER, in TAVARES, 2003). Nevertheless, the positioning of these parties diverges from 1993 onwards, when PSDB joins the governing coalition, and the polarization intensifies as of 1994, at a moment when the party coalition assumes the Federal Executive (POWER and ZUCCO, 2009). PT and PSDB confirmed themselves as the two major parties to compete not only for the Federal Executive, but also in other branches of the federation (state and municipal governments). This wedge has played pivotal role in the Brazilian party system over the last two decades (MELO and CAMARA, 2012; LIMONGI and CORTEZ, 2010). In this study, we analyzed programs of both PT and PSDB in order to seek their preferences on public policy agendas. The focus of this research are the programs of government launched by these parties in 2006 and 2010, whose candidates were Geraldo Alckmin (PSDB) against Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) and José Serra (PSDB) against Dilma Rousseff (PT). The programs presented by the parties, both as partisan manifestos and government platforms, are a very important tool to analyze the positioning and behavior of a political party, for they express the preferences and priorities of the different associations. Thus, from the analysis of these documents, we can estimate the positioning of a party, its evolution over time and its behavior compared to its competitors. Despite the importance of this type of document, there are few analyzes focused in party documents, especially when it comes to Brazilian and Latin American parties. In order to perform this analysis, we adopt the method of content analysis of political texts, whose details are discussed in the first topic of this article. The text is organized into four sections besides this introduction. In section one, we discuss the methodological and theoretical assumptions that guide this research. In the second topic, we analyze the emphases and agendas in programs of government of the two parties 2 Timothy Power analyzed the voting of legislators who founded PSDB, a group he named Proto -PSDB.

concerned (PT and PSDB). The focus of the third part are the dimensions of political competition found in the programs. The article ends with the authors' conclusions. 1. The Approach of Programmatic Emphases and the Technique of Content Analysis For this investigation we use the method of content analysis approach from the Manifesto Research Group - MRG 3. This technique consists in quantifying text units devoted to each subject. The programs were segmented into sentences and each one was classified into one of the categories developed by MRG 4, as described in Annex I. The theoretical assumptions that guide the analysis of the manifestos conducted by MRG- MARPOR 5 are cited in Robertson (1976), which develops them from the questioning some of the assumptions of the Downsian model of electoral competition. The author of "A Theory of Party Competition" claims, for example, that parties and candidates would not have so much freedom to set the election speech to their hearts' content. The formulation of such speech would be pervaded by a number of conditions, two of which are essential to approach the Saliency Theory - a central aspect in the analysis of the manifestos: 1) Parties vying for votes / elections in different arenas. Not infrequently, different constituencies have different socioeconomic and cultural characteristics, which reduces the likelihood of candidates from the same party to use the same election speech. The principal assumption is the total homogeneity of constituencies. This implies that the maximizing position for the country as a whole is also that for each constituency [...] we have therefore, the following possibility: the policy stance that will get the party elected may result in the avoidable defeat of some candidates. The avoidability lies in it being possible for them, by making a different stand in their own constituencies, of achieving a local maximizing position. (Robertson, 1976, p. 34). In constituencies that are not so receptive to the speech of a particular political party, their candidate is urged to adopt a tone that distinguishes them from their competitors, or from the national speech of the party. However, the strategy to differentiate themselves is not to adopt positions contrary to the party in the most difficult questions to be defended on a local basis, but rather to address issues and positions defended by the party in other areas, while avoiding the most sensitive issues in their district. The first factor is that all candidates very largely reiterate the official party manifesto, but they do this selectively, suppressing some aspects and stressing others. It is here that differences 3 MRG is a cooperation project launched in 1979, initially based in the European Consortium for Polit ical Research (ECPR). As of 1989, its headquarters moved to Berlin, under the name of CMP - Comparative Manifestos Project, and from 2009 onwards it was succeeded by MARPOR - Manifesto Research in Political Representation (Volkens, A., P. Lehman, et al. (2013). "The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2013b." from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/.) 4 We added to the MRG list the category 306 - Institutions of Political System - in order to contemplate the references to issues related to this matter, found in the analyzed documents. 5 Manifest Research Group/ Manifesto Research on Political Representation.

between candidates come out. None of them invent or espouse policies different from others. They do attach different relative weights to various problems. (Robertson, 1976, p. 146). 2) Unless a democratic regime is being established, the electoral contest is strongly related to the performance of the parties under previous administrations. The electoral competition necessarily takes place between a party which is the government - and that is striving to remain as such - and the opposition party(ies). The choice of the issues to be addressed by the various candidates to evaluate the performance of the incumbent party will be directly linked to the position of such candidates towards the government completing its term, and to the electorate's appraisal of the government's performance in different areas (opposition candidates will emphasize issues on which the government has no popularity, whereas the candidate of the governing party will seek to focus on the areas where the government has good approval ratings) When political parties fight elections, in the two party systems of Anglo Saxon democracies, one of them is the government, defending its past performance, one is the opposition. They are both faced with an objective social and economic reality consisting of problems and existing government policies. They have to compete against each other in a situation where no policy makers have any very clear idea of how to solve the problems, how to modify the existing policies, or what new ones are available. Both are tied in complex ways to the government s policies, successes and failures, for these represent topics to dwell on or to avoid for the opposition as much as for the incumbents. (Robertson, 1976, p. 127) In this scenario, when the government has high approval ratings, the oppositionist candidates face the tough challenge of identifying their most vulnerable points and then propose solutions compatible with their own trajectory during former mandates (public policy). On the other hand, when the government is poorly rated, it is the government candidate who is charged with the difficult task of identifying and defending government's potential strengths and justify their poor performance in other areas. This analytical approach allows us to analyze the electoral pledges of the parties from the confluence of a myriad of factors, in which synchronous elements are articulated, such as the electoral context (government performance assessment) and the electoral strategy (which topics / issues each candidate will use in order to guide their electoral agenda) as well as the diachronic elements, such as the party's activities (both as government and as opposition) in previous mandates. In Latin America, a study group has been consolidated with teams in Uruguay and Brazil, which have kept constant dialogues in order to adjust the methodology to the context of Latin American programs. The classification scheme used in this research is the same adopted by colleagues from Uruguay, which is an adaptation of the original categories of MRG with additional specific sub-categories for Latin America (Alonso, Volkens et al., 2012). The objective is, from the experience of MRG, to create a method compatible to analyze programs of government in Latin America. This article, therefore, represents the first step of a research schedule that will continue with comparative analysis of programs of government of parties originating from different countries. The methodology used herein for the content analysis of the programs has two moments that are crucial with regard to the data handling : 1) dividing the texts into sentences and quasisentences and 2) assigning to each sentence one of the categories used for classification. The implications related to the achievement of these tasks by trained coders and/or by computer programs with regard to the degree of reliability and validity of the data is a very important matter for the current agenda involving this methodological perspective and is the subject of

extensive bibliography within MRG. Benoit et al. (2008), for example, emphasize the fact that the programs analyzed by the current MARPOR are, as a general rule, classified by an encoder and only once. In order to increase the reliability of the data analyzed, we adopted the following strategies in this paper: 1) Each program was fractionated by one of the three researchers and reviewed (in a second time) by another, being that the doubts that arose were discussed case by case, having the third researcher as the deciding factor; 2) with respect to the classification, the four programs were classified by each of the three researchers and the classification adopted as a parameter is the result of the comparison of these three classifications. The option for manual coding implies the need to test its reliability. The reliability of a measure means its quality of being free from errors of measurement, which can be evaluated by comparing results obtained by different codings. Content analysis underpinning this work was tested for reliability by comparing the codings made by each of the three authors. Although the results were very similar, the mere association between them (measured by chi-squared tests, for example) would not be sufficient to confirm the reliability, because even among variables without any link between them, it is reasonable to expect some random coincidence 6. The test that distinguishes the substantial coincidence between two classifications from what would be expected by randomness between independent classifications is the kappa index or simply K-index, as proposed by Jacob Cohen (1960). This is a coefficient of agreement for nominal scales that removes the effect of random coincidences, in other words, it measures the degree to which two or more classifications substantially agree with each other, in addition to the coincidences that would be produced by chance, in the (null) hypothesis of full independence. 7 The K-index ranges from -1 (when all classifications differ) to 1 (when all classifications are identical) and equals 0 when the agreement proportion is limited to the proportion of random coincidences. As shown in Table 1 below, two of the values found are in the range considered "good" by literature and one of them reached a value considered as excellent (Landis and Koch, 1977; Bonnardel, 2001) 8 which would allow us to adopt any of the three classifications. The analyzes in this article, therefore, are based on the coding of the third researcher. 6 Furthermore, this type of testing considers as association not only the agreements, but also the systematic disagreements between two variables: sentences in which a researcher would systematically use a category and another researcher would use a different one are disagreement cases that indicate a reliability problem, even if they contribute to the calculation of the association between the two measures. 7 The calculation of the K-index occurs as follows: k = (number of observed agreements - number of expected random agreements) / (total number - number of expected random agreements). 8 Excellent:> or = 0.81; Good: 0.80-0.61; Moderate: 0.60-0.41; Average: 0.40-0.21; Low: 0.20-0.0; Very low: <0.0.

Table 1: K-index of agreement between classifications of researchers: Pair of classifications K-index Researcher #3 x Researcher #2 0.669895329 Researcher #3 x Researcher #1 0.889560877 Researcher #1 x Researcher #2 0.640465918 2. Emphases and Agendas in Programs of Government of PT and PSDB This article seeks to answer the following question: what do the programs of government of PT and PSDB tell us about the preferences and public policy agendas of the two major parties that have dominated the presidential race in Brazil over the past almost 20 years? In order to answer this question, the programs of government of PT and PSDB in the last two presidential elections in Brazil will be used as the basis for analysis. It is noteworthy that the programs of government and party programs have some important differences. The former are established in a specific situation and not only reflect the position of the party, but of the electoral coalition that supports the candidate. In general, the objectives presented in these documents are of short duration and are related to the government of the said coalition. On the other hand, the party programs refer exclusively to the party and have a longer duration. The programs used in this work can be found in the web pages of the parties, as described in Table 1 below. Table 2: Documents analyzed Election Document Coalition Source: 2006 Geraldo Alckmin's (45) Por um Brasil Decente http://ww1.psdb.org.br/b Program of Government ("For a Decent Brazil") iblioteca/programa de President (PSDB, PFL). Governo.pdf, accessed 9 December 2012, 16:13 2006 Lula de novo com a força do A Força do Povo http://www.fpabramo.or povo. ("Lula again with the ("The Power of the People") g.br/uploads/programa_ power of the people") (PT, PCdoB, PRB) de_governo_2007- President Lula - Program of 2010.pdf, accessed February 3, 2013, 17:00 Government 2007/2010 2010 José Serra's Program of Government: Uma Agenda para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Brasil ("An Agenda for Sustainable Development in Brazil") O Brasil pode mais ("Brazil can do more") (PSDB, DEM, PPS, PTB, PMN, PTdoB) http://www.psdb.org.br/ programa-de-governodo-candidato-jose-serra/, accessed December 7, 2012, 16:53 2010 Os 13 compromissos Para o Brasil seguir www.fpabramo.org.br, accessed February 3,

programáticos de Dilma Rousseff para debate na sociedade brasileira ("Dilma Rousseff's 13 programmatic commitments to be debated in Brazilian society") mudando ("Brazil must keep on changing") (PT, PMDB, PCdoB, PDT, PRB, PR, PSB, PSC, PTC, PTN) 2013, 17:10 The reading of such documents in an initial analysis reveals some interesting regularities. First, PT's programs are shorter and PSDB's are more extensive. Alckmin's program has 170 pages and Serra's 280, whereas the ones of Lula and Dilma reach only 34 and 11 respectively. PSDB's previous programs of government (FHC I and FHC II) were also quite extensive, with around 300 pages each, having even been published in book format. PT's previous programs of government, on the other hand, were always shorter (234 pages in 1994 and 70 in 1998). Another aspect worth mentioning is the inclusion in PSDB's 2010 program of proposals received from internet users. This procedure is advertised on the party website - which presents the document as a result of the collaboration of the population - and emphasized in the document itself, in which topics from external suggestions are marked with emoticons. It was, at that moment, an innovative campaign strategy that used an alternative to traditional media and incorporated new tools available on the web. A final point worth noting, based on the reading of the programs, regards the relevance of such a document as an indication of the parties' preferences. Often, one of the criticisms that the analysis of manifestos receives, at least in Brazil, refers to the fact that voters do not become aware of the programmatic documents which are, therefore, seen as mere formalities, void of authentic political content (Miguel, 2010). In this regard, other studies have argued that such documents, even if ignored by the vast majority of the citizens, are subject to criticism from opponents and are therefore established with the intention of making public a given set of priorities and emphases (Tarouco, 2007; Vieira, 2012). In the current analysis, we found empirical evidence that our argument is correct: the presence in the PSDB s program of a small excerpt remaining of the revision of the text: (...) The high rates of failure and repetition, especially in the final years of primary school, still exist. And among those who manage to finish high school, only 10% have a performance deemed appropriate at the end of basic education. The best is always to use basic education not to provoke the anger of the unions, that is what says the Constitution. Teaching is considered a neoliberal language with focus on technicist training, which is not linked to learning." (Our emphasis added) (PSDB, 2010, pp.85-86) It is evident in the above excerpt, that the text of the program was revised in order to make it less vulnerable to the already expected criticism and complaints. Probably this comment should have been removed, but the "accident" of editing allows us to insist that the program documents are intentionally made to be read and therefore they have a content that the party (or at least its dome) considers to be published as an indicator of their preferences and priorities. The points raised above can be easily observed by reading the documents and only in this way they could have been identified. Nevertheless, the analysis of the documents for purposes of

measuring and comparing the programmatic emphases requires the use of the technique of content analysis, as described above, and whose results for the programs under consideration in this study are to be discussed from now on. The coding scheme used is a recent adaptation of the original list of 56 categories of MRG (Alonso et al., 2012) and is available in Annex I. The adaptation refers to the addition of subcategories within the previous ones, in order to accommodate specificities of parties of various countries, which are from now on analyzed based on this approach. The classification categories, in which each sentence was coded for each program, are organized into five domains (in addition to category 000, for sentences that do not fit into any category): External Relations, Freedom and Democracy, Political System, Economy, Welfare and Quality of Life, Structure of Society and Social Groups. Table 2 below shows the distribution of the content of programs of government in the domains of classification, with their respective adjusted residuals 9. Table 3: Distribution of sentences between the areas, by program (adjusted residuals in brackets) Domain Document Lula (2006) Dilma (2010) Alkmin (2006) Serra (2010) 0 Not classifiable 7.20% 16.20% 1.00% 2.90% (4.4) (11.0) (-6.0) (-1.8) 1 External relations 4.90% 8.30% 4.30% 1.60% (2.0) (4.5) (3.0) (-6.1) 2 Freedom and Democracy 2.30% 6.10% 0.50% 1.10% (1.9) (6.7) (-3.3) (-1.0) 3 Political system 18.60% 16.70% 11.40% 7.30% (5.7) (3.3) (1.8) (-6.5) 4 Economy 23.30% 17.10% 41.00% 34.00% (-4.9) (-5.7) (6.4) (-0.7) 5 Welfare and Quality of life 34.90% 25.90% 28.40% 40.30% (0.0) (-3.0) (-6.4) (7.4) 6 Fabric of society 4.40% 6.10% 4.20% 5.20% (-0.4) (0.9) (-1.4) (1.2) 7 Social Groups 4.40% 3.50% 9.10% 7.60% (-2.5) (-2,4) (2.7) (0.0) % 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Total (N) (387) (228) (1432) (2216) 9 The residues correspond to the difference in number of standard deviations, between the number of sentences seen in each cell (each combination of document and category) and the number expected in the case of the null hypothesis of independence, that is, on the assumption that the distribution of sentences would be equal between the different programs analyzed, or random. The observed frequencies, which exceeds more than 1.96 the standard deviations from the expected frequency (under the hypothesis of independence) show the probability of less than or equal to 5%, ie, they would probably not be found unless it can be said that there is indeed an association between the emphasized category in the sentence and the programmatic document that contains it. The calculation of residues sorted by categories is available in Annex II..

In Table 2 above, the values in bold indicate those domains where the proportion of text in each program deviated significantly more from the proportion that would be expected if there were no relationship between emphases and manifestos (ie, whether the texts devoted proportions equivalent to categories of all domains, or random proportions). In PT's program of 2006, this category is the 303h (Citizen Participation in Public Administration) and in the one of 2010, it is the 3057 (Competence to Govern), both from 3 rd domain - Political System. PSDB's programs, in turn, emphasize significantly more category 304 (Political Corruption) in 2006 and category 411a (infrastructure, industry, transportation and logistics) in 2010. 10 If we shift the focus of analysis and consider the domains that stand out the most in each program, we will be able to notice that PT's programs revolve around the 2 nd domain (Democracy and Citizenship, in 2010) and the 3 rd domain (Government Efficiency and Criticism of Previous Governments in 2006 and Competence to govern in 2010). PSDB s programs, in turn, mainly emphasize the 4 th domain (incentives, regulation and economic goals in 2006 and infrastructure in 2010), also highlighting the 5 th domain (health in 2010). Graph 1 below illustrates this distribution. Graph 1: Distribution of program content between the domains. 0: Not classifiable sentences; 1: External relations; 2: Freedom and Democracy; 3: Political System; 4: Economics, 5: Welfare and Quality of life; 6: Fabric of society; 7: Social Groups. We can thus state that the emphasis given to each type of question is not random, nor indistinct between the programs. On the contrary, each of the documents analyzed puts more emphasis on a different category: PT prioritizes the discussion of politics and PSDB the economy, even when they emphasize corruption, as in 2006 (the complaint of corruption is 10 Complete data available in Annex II.

almost always based on the loss of resources that it causes). This distinction suggests that candidates from both parties actually choose areas of the public agenda to emphasize on their platforms and establish their own agendas. While PT insists on calling attention to a specific way of conducting politics and government management, PSDB specializes in highlighting economic problems arising from this same management. 3. Programs of Government and Dimensions of Political Competition The coding of sentences in categories allows us to calculate the political position of each program on scales of political positioning, such as left-right scale and post-materialism scale. MRG/CMP/MARPOR devised a scale to measure the position of parties in left-right dimension, which has already been applied to Dilma's and Serra's programs of government (Lopez, Miranda et al., 2013). This scale has also been adapted to better reflect the specific terms of political competition in Brazil (Tarouco and Madeira, 2013). Nevertheless, the measurement of the position of programs of government in the left-right scale is far less promising than its application to party manifestos, given the more pragmatic and campaign-related nature of this type of documents. It is hoped, as indeed other studies have shown, (Budge and McDonald, 2012) that programs of government, due to their temporary nature and their electoral appeal, contain a much higher proportion of text unrelated to preferences in terms of public policies than party manifestos. In the case of Brazilian programs of government presented by broad and often inconsistent coalitions, from an ideological viewpoint (Krause, 2010) the measurement of the position on the left-right scale by content analysis yields results without great significance, given that the texts need to accommodate to some extent ideological preferences of the different coalition parties, in addition to the election campaign speech 11. Another important dimension to be considered in political competition and that can be found in programs of government is the post-materialism dimension. Post-materialist values and preferences would be those that do not fit the distinction between left and right (both relating to issues of survival and material security) but refer rather to values of self-expression and quality of life. Typical causes supported by post-materialism include environment, freedom of expression and defense of diversity. Post-materialist preferences tend to be manifested in economically advanced societies, where citizens would already enjoy economic and physical security. This perspective is derived from Modernization Theory (Lipset, 1959; Przeworski, Alvarez et al., 2000), whereby the levels of economic development would explain the probability of success of democracy. To this argument Inglehart (1990; 1993; 2012) added variables of political culture in order to affirm that through the growth of economic capacity, it is possible to 11 Our measurement of these programs of government using the adapted ideological scale (Tarouco and Madeira, 2013) resulted in relative positions that diverge from the usual expectations regarding parties of candidates, so we preferred not report them here. All documents are located on the left, Serra's program b eing the most left-wing among the four analyzed, due to the greater emphasis on the expansion of the welfare state.lopez et al. (2013), in turn, applying MRG/CMP original scale, found that Dilma's program is on the left of Serra's. This difference is probably due to the different categories that compose the two scales.

observe an increase in cognitive skills, which in turn "make people materially, intellectually, and socially more independent" (Inglehart and Welzel, 2009). According to Inglehart (1990; 2007), the advanced industrial societies would be undergoing a cultural change in which values of survival and security (both material and physical) would be making room for values of self-expression and (not economic) quality of life. In societies where distributional issues and socioeconomic disputes are already minimally alleviated, demands of a new type may arise, such as environmental preservation, respect for minorities and individual freedoms of all kinds. The emergence of these values would determine the implementation of a new political dimension, between materialist and post-materialist poles, along which individuals and parties are positioned. It is reasonable to expect post-materialist values to be present among policy preferences of parties in countries with developed economy, which could therefore be detected in their programmatic documents. In Brazil, the target audience of political speech is very heterogeneous, due to the deep social inequality. Thus it makes sense that the programs contemplate both materialist issues (addressed to the slice of the electorate most affected by problems of social and economic insecurity) and post-materialist issues (addressed to the electorate formed by the generations who grew up in an environment of economic security). In this paper, we seek to identify whether the post-materialist dimension distinguishes programs of government of PT and PSDB in 2006 and 2010. If the inconsistency of coalitions, in ideological terms, brings the content of the programs close together, it is possible that the postmaterialist dimension differentiates them. As far as we know, in the production of MRG / CMP / MARPOR, there is no scale developed to measure this dimension.. The post-materialist content has been already identified in the European party manifestos (Musa, 2006), but using categories developed ad hoc, not those of the MRG / CMP coding scheme. Since our objective is to produce a comparable analysis, we chose to select, among the various categories present in the MRG / CMP coding scheme, those that reflect the postmaterialist values. They are: Freedom and Human Rights (201), Environmental Protection (501), Culture (502), Equalities others than economic and social (Lifecycle, Gender, Ethnic/Racial and Others) (503b, 503c, 503d and 503e) and Underprivileged Minority Groups (705). In order to establish the scale of materialism-post-materialism, we propose as indicators of materialist preferences all categories of the domain Economy (4), except for the Anti-growth category (416), as well as categories of Socio-economic Equality (503a), Expansion of the Welfare State (504) and Law and Order (605) 12. Table 3 below shows us the proportion of text devoted to the categories o f postmaterialism by the four analyzed programs, and their residues. 12 The full list of categories is available in Annex I.

Table 3: Percentage of categories indicative of post-materialist values (adjusted residuals in brackets) Document Lula Dilma Alckmin Serra Categories (2006) (2010) (2006) (2010) Freedom and Human Rights 1.6 0.4 0.1 0.7 (2.7) (-0.3) (-2,6) (1.0) Environmental Protection 3.4 4.4 3.3 5.4 (-1.1) (0.0) (-2,6) (3.1) Culture 2.6 2.6 5.7 4.6 (-2.1) (-1.5) (2.2) (-0.2) Equality (except social) 13 9.6 0.4 0.8 4.3 (7.0) (-2.5) (-6.7) (3.5) Underprivileged Minority Groups 0.3 0.0 0.3 2.3 (-1.9) (-1.8) (-4.3) (6.0) Total 17.3 7.9 10.2 17.4 We can observe the presence of issues of post-materialist agenda for all programs of government analyzed, but with a wide variation of emphases. PT's 2010 program is the one that devotes the least space to these issues, whereas PSDB's program of the same year devotes the most. It is surprising that issues of the post-materialist agenda have had their emphasis halved on PT's program, dropping from 16% to below 8% between 2006 and 2010. The table above allows us to see that this drastic reduction is caused by the virtual disappearance of the non-economic sub-categories within the category "Equality" regarding post-materialism. This is another indication that the agendas of the two parties are very different and vary over time. In each of the two elections, the two candidates differ visibly from each other with respect to the emphasis on the post-materialist issues. In 2006, Lula's program was the one that devoted the most space to this specific agenda, emphasizing especially the rights of ethnic equality, gender and lifecycle, whereas Alckmin was concerned to denounce political corruption. In 2010, the roles were reversed: Serra's program was the one that devoted the most attention to the postmaterialist agenda, particularly advocating policies aimed at specific minority groups, while Dilma's program was once again engaged in socio-economic issues and reiterating their competence to govern. (See Annex II) The post-materialist agenda may have become an asset of PSDB in 2010, after the progress of social programs during the previous governments. And so, PSDB began to draw more attention to issues not resolved by redistributive policies implemented by PT's governments. The interpretation of the proportions of text devoted to post-materialist issues, however, should be weighted by the proportion of text devoted to materialist issues, through the scale proposed above. Just as the MRG / CMP left-right scale, this scale, that we are proposing to 13 Aggregates subcategories 503b (Equal Lifecycle), 503c (Gender Equality), 503d (Ethnic and Racial Equality) and 503e (Equality in other Groups).The complete list of categories can be seen in the appendix.

measure the post-materialist content, subtracts the proportion of text of documents dedicated to categories of materialism from the total proportion of text devoted to the categories of postmaterialism. Negative values represent materialist positions and positive values represent postmaterialist positions. Table 4 below shows us the calculation of the position on the scale for the four analyzed documents: Table 4: Calculation of the position of the programs on the post-materialism scale Document Category Lula Dilma Alckmin Serra 132006 132010 452006 452010 401 Free enterprise 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.20 402 Incentives 2.80 2.20 6.90 1.60 403 Market regulation 0.00 0.00 1.70 0.10 404 Economic planning 0.50 1.30 0.00 0.10 405 Corporatism 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 406 Protectionism: positive 1.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 407 Protectionism: negative 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 408 Economic goals 2.80 0.90 10.90 6.70 409 Keynesian demand management 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.00 410 Productivity 1.80 1.30 2.70 0.50 411 Technology and infrastructure 13.70 11.40 17.20 23.40 412 Controlled economy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 413 Nationalization 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 414 Economic orthodoxy 0.00 0.00 0.80 1.30 415 Marxist analysis 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 503 (a) Socio-economic equality 0.80 2.20 0.00 0.50 504 Expansion of the Welfare State 10.90 7.00 13.50 19.40 605 Law and order 4.40 6.10 4.10 5.10 Sub-total materialism 34.90 26.30 54.50 53.80 201 Freedom and Human Rights 1.6 0.4 0.1 0.7 501 Environmental protection 3.4 4.4 3.3 5.4 502 Culture 2.6 2.6 5.7 4.6 503 (b, c, d, e) Equality (except socio-economic) 9.6 0.4 0.8 4.3

705 Minority groups 0.3 0.0 0.3 2.3 Sub-total post-materialism 17.3 7.9 10.2 17.4 Position on the scale (Post-mat. - Mat.) -17.59-18.41-44.30-36.43 The program that receives the most post-materialist preferences - PSDB's in 2010 - also compensates with almost 54% of text devoted to issues of the materialist agenda. The program that receives the least post-materialist issues - PT's, also in 2010 - is also the one that devotes the least text to materialist issues (just over 26%). The comparison of the results can be observed in Graph 1 below: Graph 1: Position of the programs on the post-materialism scale: There are several possible interpretations of these findings. Firstly, all programs of government analyzed are in the materialist field of the scale, ie, the agendas of both PT and PSDB in the presidential campaigns of 2006 and 2010 favored issues of material security, both socio-economic and physical compared to the post-materialist issues. Secondly, at the same time, it is possible to identify a large variation in the intensity of such preferences, as measured by the relative distance between the texts on the scale. PT's documents are less materialist than PSDB's, ie, they compensate less in their programs for the emphasis on the post-materialist agenda.

4. Final considerations In this study, we sought to start mapping a still largely unexplored field of the Brazilian Political Science: the analysis of programs of government. The answer to the question that guided this work is not simple, but some of the findings of this research can assist us in the studies of the emphases of the two parties and will be featured here. Judging by the programs, it is worth emphasizing the central role that issues related to the economy and the welfare state have in the electoral agenda of both parties (Annex II). The performance and the position of the state as a promoter of both economic development and guarantor of citizen services (health, education, etc.) are the base of all programs examined here. What primarily differentiates the parties is that, among these two domains, PT prioritizes the welfare state, whereas PSDB tends to prioritize the economy. It is possible that the increased emphasis on social welfare by PSDB in 2010 is related to the success of income transfer programs and its conditionalities (mandatory school enrollment for children, medical control, up-to-date vaccination card, etc.). Although PSDB claim social democratic identity in their documents, their thematic approach pushes them away from this political ideology, since, as previously discussed, the emphasis in the categories of the 4 th domain, economy, would approach them to a positioning of a center-right party. Nevertheless, the increased emphasis of the party in matters of welfare in the last election may signal a change in strategy to fulfill the demand for this type of policy. As pointed out earlier, this party seeks to draw more attention to the materialist issues unresolved by PT. On the other hand, PT's platform is most aligned with the center-left parties, with a strong emphasis on issues related to welfare. What can be observed is that although there are some issues that seem poorly defined in relation to preference and strategies of these two parties, the programs are rather a powerful analytical tool to learn about the priorities of these political actors. Such priorities, in turn, help us to understand party competition and government agendas in Brazil. With the current analysis, we can state that the different agendas of both PT and PSDB in the last presidential races, as published in their programs of government, reveal specific preferences that survive time and presumed adjustments of coalitions, distinguishing between two easily identifiable alternatives. The ramifications of this research include challenges such as, for example, comparing these results with those obtained in the analysis of programs of government in Uruguay and perhaps in other Latin American countries. Furthermore, another challenge is to interpret the observed variation in the emphases given to issues of post-materialist agenda. Whether for the purpose of adaptation to electoral needs or for the exhaustion of competitive potential of traditional ideological flags, the non-economic demands of quality of life become, to some extent, present in the programs of government. The attention to new types of rights, for which guarantee the social policies are insufficient, begins to gain some space in the agendas of the parties that polarize the presidential race and may reveal in which way Brazil is part of the process of Latin American leftward shift.

Annex I: Categories of content analysis (Alonso et al., 2012) DOMAIN 1: EXTERNAL RELATIONS 101 - Foreign Special Relationships: positive 1011 - Russia / USSR: positive 1012 - Western States: positive 1013 - East European Countries: positive 1014 - Baltic States: positive 1015 - Nordic Council: positive 1016 - Yugoslavia: positive 102 - Foreign Special Relationships: negative 1021 - Russia / USSR: negative 1022 - Western States: negative 1023 - East European Countries: negative 1024 - Baltic States: negative 1025 - Nordic Council: negative 1026: Yugoslavia: negative 103 - Anti-imperialism 1031 - Russian Army: negative 1032 - Independence: positive 1033 - Rights of Nations: positive 104 - Military: positive 105 - Military: negative 106 - Peace 107 - Internationalism: positive 108 - European Community / Union: positive 1081 - Regional Integration: positive 109 - Internationalism: negative 110 - European Community / Union: negative 1101 - Regional Integration: negative DOMAIN 2: FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY 201 - Freedom and Human Rights: positive 2011 - Human Rights violated by the State; Rehabilitation and Compensation 202 - Democracy 2021 - Transition to Democracy 2022 - Restrictive Citizenship 2023 - Lax Citizenship 203 - Constitutionalism: positive 2031 - Presidential Regime: positive

2032 - Republic: positive 2033 - Checks and Balances (to be codified only for Mexico) 204 - Constitutionalism: negative 2041 - Monarchy: positive DOMAIN 3: POLITICAL SYSTEM 301 - Federalism 3011 - Republican Powers: positive 302 - Centralization 303 - Governmental and Administrative Efficiency 303a - Restructuration of the Civil Service: General efficiency 303b - Reduction of the Civil Service 303c - Improvement of Bureaucratic Procedures 303d - Managerialist Reforms 303e - Creation of Agencies 303f - Coordination 303h- Other 3031 - Accountability 304 - Political Corruption 305 - Political Authority 3051 - Public Status: negative 3052 - Communism: positive 3053 - Communism: negative 3054 - Rehabilitation and Compensation 3055 - Political Coalitions 3056 - Criticism of other parties and governments 3057 - Competence to govern 3058 - Relation with Dictatorship: positive 3059 - Relation with Dictatorship: negative DOMAIN 4: ECONOMY 401 - Free Enterprise 4011 - Privatization: positive 4012 - Control of Economy: negative 4013 - Property Restitution: positive 4014 - Privatization Vouchers: positive 402 - Incentives 403 - Market Regulation 4031 - Demonopolization 4032 - Criticism of Neoliberalism 404 - Economic Planning 405 - Corporatism / Mixed Economy 406 - Protectionism: positive

407 - Protectionism: negative 408 - Economic Goals 409 - Keynesian Demand Management 410 - Productivity: positive 411 - Technology and Infrastructure 411a - Infrastructure, Industry, Transport, Logistics 411b - Development, Research, Science and Technology 411c - Tics 411d - Energy and Fuel 411e - Technology education (e.g. computing, engineering, etc.) 411f - Employment Training 411h - Other 412 - Controlled Economy 4121 - Social Property: positive 4122 - Mixed Economy: positive 4123 - Public Property Industries: positive 4124 - Socialist Property: positive 413 - Nationalization 4131 - Property Restitution: negative 4132 - Privatization: negative 414 - Economic Orthodoxy 415 - Marxist Analysis: positive 416 - Anti-Growth Economy: positive DOMAIN 5: WELFARE STATE AND QUALITY OF LIFE 501 - Environmental Protection: positive 502 - Culture: positive 5021 - Private-Public Mix in Culture 503 - Equality: positive 503a - Socioeconomic Equality (class) 503b - Lifecycle 503c - Gender 503d - Ethnic / Racial 503e - Other 5031 - Private-Public Mix in social justice 504 - Welfare State Expansion: positive 504a - Health 504b - Social Security 504c - Housing 504d - Other 5041 - Private-Public Mix in the Welfare State 5042 - Welfare Efficiency 5042a - Health 5042b - Social Security 5042c - Housing

5042d - Other 505 - Welfare State Limitation 506 - Education Expansion 5061 - Private-Public Mix in Education 5062 - Education Efficiency 507 - Education Limitation DOMAIN 6: FABRIC OF SOCIETY 601 - National Way of Life: positive 6011 - Karabakh Themes 6012 - Reconstruction of the USSR 6013 - National Security 6014 - Cyprus Themes (to be codified only in Cyprus) 602 - National Way of Life: negative 603 - Traditional Morality: positive 604 - Traditional Morality: negative 605 - Law and Order: positive 6051 - Law and Order Management and Efficiency 606 - Social Harmony: positive 6061 - General Crisis 607 - Multiculturalism: positive 6071 - Cultural Autonomy: positive 6072 - Multiculturalism pro Roma 608 - Multiculturalism: negative 6081 - Multiculturalism against Roma DOMAIN 7: SOCIAL GROUPS 701 - Labor Groups: positive 702 - Labor Groups: negative 703 - Agriculture and Farmers 704 - Middle Class and Professional Groups 705 - Underprivileged Minority Groups 7051 - Minorities Inland 7052 - Minorities Abroad 706 - Non-Economic Demographic Groups 7061 -War Participants 7062 - Refugees 000 - Not classifiable Sentences not covered by the other categories; meaningless statements.

Annex II: Adjusted residuals of the distribution of sentences between categories, sorted by program. Document Category Lula (2006) Dilma (2010) Alkmin (2006) Serra (2010) 0- Not classifiable 4.7 11.0-6.0-1.9 1012- Western States: Positive -0.3 4.2-0.7-1.0 1032- Independence: positive 1.5-0.4-1.2 0.5 1033- Rights of Nations: positive 1.5 2.2-1.2-0.6 104- Militarism: positive 0.7-0.5 5.9-5.8 106- Peace 0.6 4.9 0.0-2.6 107- Internationalism: Positive 0.9 3.7 0.7-2.9 1081- Regional Integration: positive 1.2 2.3-1.9 0.1 201-Freedom and Human Rights: Positive 2.1-0.2-2.5 1.3 2011- Human rights violated by State: Rehabilitation 3.2-0.2-0.7-1.0 and Compensation 202- Democracy 0.6 7.9-2.6-1.4 2023- Unrestricted Citizenship -0.5 7.3-1.2-1.8 203- Constitutionalism: positive -0.4-0.3 2.0-1.5 2033- Checks and Balances -0.3-0.2 1.4-1.0 204- Constitutionalism: Negative -0.3-0.2-0.7 1.0 301- Federalism 0.3 1.3-2.2 1.3 302- Centralization -0.9-0.7-1.3 2.0 303- Governmental and Administrative Efficiency -2.4-2.7 2.7 0.0 3031- Accountability -0.9-0.7-2.0 2.7 303a - Restructuration of the Civil Service: General 3.2-0.2-0.7-1.0 efficiency 303d- General reforms 2.0 2.8-1.0-1.5 303h - Other 10.5-0.8-2.4-3.5 304 - Political Corruption 1.0-2.2 9.7-8.7 305 - Political Authority -0.4-0.3 0.5 0.0 3055 - Political Coalitions 1.5 4.7-1.2-1.8 3056- Criticism of other Parties and Governments 6.5 1.7-5.0 0.3 3057- Competence to Govern 2.6 13.0-4.4-3.2 3059 - Relations with the Dictatorship: negative -0.3 4.2-0.7-1.0 306 - Institutions of Political System 3.1 0.8 2.9-4.9 401- Free Enterprise -0.9-0.7 0.7 0.2 402- Incentives -0.8-1.1 8.5-7.0 403 - Market Regulation -1.6-1.2 6.1-4.3 404 - Economic Planning 1.6 4.0-2.0-0.8 405 - Corporatism / Mixed Economy 3.2-0.2-0.7-1.0

406 - Protectionism Positive 3.4-0.8 1.8-3.3 407 - Protectionism Negative -0.3-0.2-0.7 1.0 408 - Economic Goals -3.6-3.9 6.1-1.9 409 - Keynesian demand management 1.1-0.5 0.7-1.1 410 - Economic Growth: Positive 0.8 0.0 5.2-5.3 411- Technology and Infrastructure -1.1-1.3-1.3 2.4 411a - Infrastructure, industry, transport and logistics -2.6-1.2-6.2 7.9 411b - Development, research, science and technology -0.6-1.2 5.1-3.9 411c Tics -2.4-1.2 3.9-1.8 411d - Energy and fuel 1.5-1.7-4.5 4.2 411e - Technological Education -0.9-0.7 2.5-1.5 411f - Work Training -2.0 0.0 4.1-2.7 411h Other -1.6-1.2-3.6 4.8 414 - Economic Orthodoxy -2.0-1.5-0.5 2.3 501 - Protection of the Environment: Positive -1.1 0.0-2.6 3.1 502 - Culture: positive -2.1-1.5 2.2-0.2 503 - Equality: Positive 0.8 4.4-0.8-1.7 503a - Socio-economic Equality 1.0 4.1-3.1 0.5 503b Lifecycle 5.7-0.9-3.5 0.5 503c Gender 2.4-1.5-3.8 2.9 503d - Ethnic / Racial 1.9-1.8-3.9 3.4 503e Other 7.1-0.5-1.6-2.3 504- Expansion of the Welfare State: positive 4.2 2.1-2.1-1.4 5041- Public-private mix in Welfare State 3.2-0.2-0.7-1.0 5042b - Social Security -1.3-1.0 5.6-4.2 504a - Health -1.7-2.2-3.6 5.3 504b - Social Welfare -1.9-2.6-1.2 3.4 504c Housing -1.8-1.8-1.7 3.4 504d Other -2.5-1.6 0.3 1.9 506 - Expansion of Education 1.1-0.3-1.5 0.9 5062 - Efficiency in Education -0.5 7.3-1.2-1.8 605 - Law and Order: positive -0.3 1.0-1.5 1.1 606 - Social Harmony: positive -0.8-0.6 0.0 0.7 701 - Working Groups: positive -0.8 0.9 5.3-5.0 703 - Agriculture and Farmers -2.3-3.1 2.9 0.0 705 - Underprivileged Minority Groups -2.4-1.8-4.2 6.2 7051 - Internal Minorities 3.2-0.2-0.7-1.0 706 Non-economic Demographic Groups 4.0 3.4-1.6-2.3