This article analyzes and compares the historical developments of the American and Latin-American vice-presidencies to explain why the former has survived and evolved while the latter have failed to institutionalize. We argue that inherent to the office of the vice-presidency are both a substantive and a legitimacy dilemma related to each of the following dimensions: 1) the duties of the vice-presidency; 2) the selection procedures of the vice-presidency; and 3) the rules of succession in case of the permanent or temporal absence of the president. The effective resolution of each dilemma, irrespective of when it occurs, is required in order for the office to endure, and this is where a number of challenges remain for the institutionalization of Latin-American vice-presidencies.
(Note to panel host: we will pick one or more cases from ; we are in the process of picking them)
