This paper provides a unique empirical analysis of the effects of political factors on the adoption of PPP contracts in Brazil. As such, it innovates along two different lines: first, political factors behind the adoption of PPPs have been largely ignored in the vast body of empirical literature, and second, there is scant work done on the motives of any kind behind the adoption of PPPs in Brazil. Various economic and financial reasons have been evoked to justify the use of PPPs in general. These include the goal of promoting socio-economic development in a tight public budgetary framework or of improving the quality of public services through the use of economically efficient and cost-effective mechanisms. Any possible underlying political motives, however, have been overlooked in the PPP research. And yet, there is abundant literature suggesting a link between the adoption of PPPs and the ideology of the governing body or the political cycles associated with elections. This study examines the impact of ideological commitment and opportunistic political behavior on the process of PPP contracting in Brazil, including the stages of public consultation, the publication of tender, and the signature of the contract, using federative-level data for the period between 2005 and 2022. Consistent with the outstanding literature, the two hypotheses are tested: first, conservative parties tend to celebrate more PPP contracts than left-leaning parties, and second, the electoral calendar has a significant effect in the process, allowing for opportunistic behaviors. Empirical results suggest that there is little evidence for the relevance of ideological leanings in the process of adopting PPPs in Brazil. Additionally, regardless of ideology, parties significantly choose to enter PPPs at specific points in the electoral cycle, suggesting decisions are influenced by political considerations and electoral strategy rather than by purely financial or ideological considerations. This may pose severe constraints on the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the contracts, negatively impacting public governance and leading to protracted costs for taxpayers.

1. Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for Realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400882731
2. Azevedo, S. (2014). PPP and the cost of a weak state: The whole truth about public-private partnerships. Alétheia Editores.
3. Bel, G., & Fageda, X. (2008). Factors explaining local privatization: A meta-regression analysis. Public Choice, 139(1–2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-008-9381-z
4. Benoit, K., Bräuninger, T., & Debus, M. (2009). Challenges for Estimating Policy Preferences: Announcing an Open Access Archive of Political Documents. German Politics, 18(3), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644000903055856
5. Benoit, K., & Laver, M. (2006). Party Policy in Modern Democracies. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203028179
6. Boardman, A., & Hellowell, M. (2016). A Comparative Analysis and Evaluation of Specialist PPP Units’ Methodologies for Conducting Value for Money Appraisals. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 19(3), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2016.1190083
7. Brazilian Legislative Survey. (2021). Available online: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/bls (accessed on18 Jan 2021).
8. Brender, A., & Drazen, A. (2005). Political budget cycles in new versus established democracies. Journal of Monetary Economics, 52(7), 1271–1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2005.04.004
9. Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2011). Public-private partnerships: Perspectives on purposes, publicness, and good governance. Public Administration and Development, 31(1), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.584
10. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multi-model inference: A practical information-theoretical approach, 2nd. Springer-Verlag.
11. Cabral, N. da Costa. (2018). Public-private partnerships. Cadernos IDEFF, 9.
12. Canton, H. (2021). The Europa Directory of International Organizations 2021. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003179900
13. Carvalho, N. R. (2020). Does politics still mater? Neoliberalization processes, party government and new patterns of urban politics in Brazilian local governments. Revista Teoria and Pesquisa, 29(1), 1–27.
14. Coghill, K., & Woodward, D. (2005). Political issues of public-private partnerships. In: Hodge, G., Greve, C. (editors). The challenge of public-private partnerships: Learning from international experience. Edward Elgar. pp. 81–94 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781845428082.00010
15. Cruz, C. O. & Marques, R. C. (2012). The state and public-private partnerships. Edições Sílabo.
16. Cruz, C. O. & Sarmento, J. M. (2019). Public-private partnerships and concessions manual. Edições Sílabo.
17. Di Pietro, M. S. Z. (2017). Partnerships in public administration: Concession, permission, franchise, outsourcing and public-private partnership. Forense.
18. Dias, O. C. (2014). Public-private partnerships as an instrument for implementing public policies. Available online: https://repositorio.unb.br/handle/10482/16328 (accessed on 7 Jan 2021).
19. Dobson, A. J. & Barnett, A. (2018). An Introduction to Generalized Linear Models, Fourth Edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315182780
20. EPEC. (2015). PPP Motivations and challenges for the public sector: Why (not) and how. European PPP Expertise Centre—EPEC. Available online: https://www.eib.org/attachments/epec/epec_ppp_motivations_and_challenges_en.pdf (accessed on 7 Jan 2021).
21. Fialho, T. M. M. (1999). Political cycles: a review. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 19(2), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-31571999-1016
22. Firmino, S. I. R. (2010). Public-private partnerships in the context of the new public governance: political reasons. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/298113/As_Parcerias_P%C3%BAblico-Privadas_no_Contexto_da_Nova_Governan%C3%A7a_P%C3%BAblica_as_raz%C3%B5es_de_ordem_pol%C3%ADtica (accessed on 8 January 2021).
23. Flinders, M. (2005). The Politics of Public–Private Partnerships. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7(2), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856x.2004.00161.x
24. Flinders, M. & Huggins C. (2021). Public Value Management, Governance and Reform in Britain. In: Connolly, J., van der Zwet, A. (editors). International Series on Public Policy. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55586-3
25. Giddens, A. (1999). Towards a third way: the renewal of social democracy. Editorial Presença.
26. Gonçalves, L. G., Funchal, B., & Bezerra Filho, J. E. (2017). The influence of political cycles on public investment in infrastructure: a study of Brazilian states from 2003 to 2014. Revista de Administração Pública, 51(4), 462–481. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612156337
27. Harvey, D. (2005). Neoliberalism: History and implications. Edições Loyola Jesuítas.
28. Heck, R. H., Thomas, S., & Tabata, L. (2013). Multilevel Modeling of Categorical Outcomes Using IBM SPSS. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203808986
29. Hellowell, M. (2010). The UK’s Private Finance Initiative: History, Evaluation, Prospects. International Handbook on Public-Private Partnerships. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849804691.00023
30. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511610356
31. Hibbs, Jr., D. A. (1987). The Political Economy of Industrial Democracies. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674494046
32. HM Treasury. (2020). National infrastructure strategy: Fairer, faster, greener. CP 329. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/938539/NIS_Report_Web_Accessible.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2021).
33. Hodge, G., Greve, C., & Biygautane, M. (2018). Do PPP’s work? What and how have we been learning so far? Public Management Review, 20(8), 1105–1121. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1428410
34. Hodge, G. A., & Greve, C. (2005). The Challenge of Public-Private Partnerships: Learning from international experience. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781845428082
35. Hodge, G. A., & Greve, C. (2019). The Logic of Public-Private Partnerships: The enduring interdependency of politics and markets. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784716691
36. Huber, J., & Inglehart, R. (1995). Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locations in 42 Societies. Party Politics, 1(1), 73–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068895001001004
37. IADB. (2022). The 2021/2022 Infrascope: Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Latin America and the Caribbean. Available online: https://infrascope.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/EIU_INFRASCOPE_2021_12.pdf (accessed on 25 Jan 2023).
38. IBGE. (2020). Statistical Yearbook of Brazil 2020. Periódico do Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 80, 8–49.
39. IBRD. (1992). Governance and development. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The World Bank.
40. Jorge, V. L., Faria, A. M. T., & Silva, M. G. S. (2020). Positioning Brazilian political parties on the left-right scale: methodological dilemmas and literature review. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política, 33. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-3352.2020.33.227686
41. Kaufmann, D. (2005). Myths and Realities of Governance and Corruption. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.829244
42. Le Galès, P. (1995). Ideological and political aspects of public-private partnerships. Revue d’économie Financière, 5(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.3406/ecofi.1995.2556
43. Linder, S. H. (1999). Coming to Terms with the Public-Private Partnership: A grammar of multiple meanings. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955146
44. Lipset, S. M. (2007). The ideological conflict in the 20th century. In: Espada, J. C., Plattner, M. F., Wolfson, A. (editors). Right and left? Ideological divisions in the 21st century. Collection: Ideas and Political Studies, Catholic University, Lisbon. pp. 12–18.
45. Lopes, J. M. (2011). The spectre of corruption. Almedina Ed.
46. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., Swait, J. D., et al. (2000). Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511753831
47. Maciel, A. P. B., Alarcon, A. D. O., & Gimenes, É. R. (2018). Political parties and the ideological spectrum: Parliamentarians, experts, left and right in Brazil. Revista Eletrônica de Ciência Política, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.5380/recp.v8i3.54834
48. Maskin, E., & Tirole, J. (2008). Public-private partnerships and government spending limits. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 26(2), 412–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2007.05.004
49. Mayhew, D. R (2004). Congress: The electoral connection, 2nd. Yak University Press.
50. McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989). Generalized Linear Models. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6
51. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In: Zarembka, P. (editor). Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press. pp. 105–142.
52. Medeiros, N. P. (2018). The influence of party ideology on the formalization of participatory budgets in Brazil [PhD thesis]. Iscte-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa.
53. Menard, S. (2000). Coefficients of Determination for Multiple Logistic Regression Analysis. The American Statistician, 54(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2000.10474502
54. Moura, F. P. (1981). Political cycles and political-econometric models. Economics Studies, I(3), 263–288.
55. Nordhaus, W. D. (1975). The Political Business Cycle. The Review of Economic Studies, 42(2), 169. https://doi.org/10.2307/2296528
56. Nwangwu, G. (2021). Addressing the Impacts of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Contracts. Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy, 12(2), 368–397. https://doi.org/10.4314/jsdlp.v12i2.9
57. Pereira, P. T. (2012). Portugal: Public debt and democratic deficit. Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos.
58. Radar PPP. (n.d.). Available online: https://radarppp.com/informacao/radar-de-projetos/ (accessed on 17 Jan 2022).
59. Radar PPP. (n.d.). Available online: https://radarppp.com/informacao/radar-de-projetos/duvidas/ (accessed on 17 Jan 2022).
60. Roback, P., & Legler, J. (2021). Beyond Multiple Linear Regression: Applied generalized linear models and multilevel models in R. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429066665
61. Rogoff, K., & Sibert, A. (1988). Elections and Macroeconomic Policy Cycles. The Review of Economic Studies, 55(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297526
62. Sakurai, S. N. (2009). Political cycles in the budgetary functions of Brazilian municipalities: an analysis for the period 1990–2005 via panel data. Estudos Econômicos (São Paulo), 39(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0101-41612009000100002
63. Sarmento, J. M. (2013). Public-private partnerships. Francisco Manuel dos Santos Foundation—FFMS. Ensaios da Fundação.
64. Sarmento, J. M., & Renneboog, L. (2021). Renegotiating public-private partnerships. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 59, 100661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mulfin.2020.100661
65. Sartori, G. (1982). Parties and party systems. Zahar.
66. Senaviratna, N. A. M. R., & Cooray, T. M. J. A. (2019). Diagnosing Multicollinearity of Logistic Regression Model. Asian Journal of Probability and Statistics, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajpas/2019/v5i230132
67. Shaw, E. (2004). What matters is what works: The third way and Private Finance Initiative. In: The third way and beyond: Criticisms, futures, alternatives. Manchester University Press. pp. 64–82.
68. Siqueira Moraes, M., & Reyes-Tagle, G. (2017). The fiscal impacts of public-private partnership contracts: A case study of the institutional environment and practice in Brazil. Inter-American Development Bank. https://doi.org/10.18235/0000612
69. Szklarowsky, L. F. (2001). Federal District: Municipality or state and the fiscal responsibility law. Revista do Tribunal de Contas da União, 38(150), 205–209.
70. Tarouco, G. da S., & Madeira, R. M. (2013). Parties, programs and the debate on left and right in Brazil. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 21(45), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-44782013000100011
71. Thamer, R., & Lazzarini, S. G. (2015). Public-private partnership projects: factors influencing the progress of these initiatives. Revista de Administração Pública, 49(4), 819–846. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612119746
72. Torfing, J., Peters, B., Guy, P. J., & Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199596751.001.0001
73. Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press.
74. Tribunal Superior Eleitoral. (2021). Available online: https ://www.tse.jus.br/eleicoes/eleicoes-plebiscitos-e-referendos (accessed on 23 January 2021).
75. Veiga, F. J., Veiga, L. G., & Morozumi, A. (2017). Political budget cycles and media freedom. Electoral Studies, 45, 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.11.008
76. Veiga, L. G., Efthyvoulou, G. and Morozumi, A. (2018). Political budget cycles: Conditioning factors and new evidence. NIPE Working Paper.
77. Verweij, S., van Meerkerk, I., & Casady, C. B. (2022). Assessing the Performance Advantage of Public-Private Partnerships: A comparative perspective. Edward Elgar.
78. Winch, G. M., Onishi, M., Schmidt, S. (2012). Taking stock of PPP and PFI around the world. Certified Accountants Educational Trust, 2–125.