In modern democracies most elected politicians are devoted exclusively to politics. Professionalism is generally understood as the process by which those who are recruited tend to establish specific standards and routines that tighten control over legislative careers, income, and both legislative and social status (Best and Cotta 2000). This responds to a process in which politics and politicians have become more professionalized, which could lead to the assumption that professional politicians are necessary to raise the quality of legislative output and citizens satisfaction with the political system. Currently, the relevance of the concept (professionalism) in the context of contemporary democracies responds to some points of criticism that have emerged from the political leaders, such the high compensation they receive and the lack of responsiveness to citizens (Borchert 2003: 204). However, there are few studies that can define exactly what we mean by professionalism and how to measure it, as well as what influences it or favors conditions for professionalism to exist, although some studies have confirmed the link between individual professionalism and institutional professionalization (Berry, Berkman and Schneiderman 2000). In this paper, we explore different indicators of legislators´ professionalism and examine whether or legislatures and legislators have become more professional or not and why this is so. To this end, we analyze only the lower house of the bicameral legislative branches, and the legislative assemblies of unicameral legislatures in 13 Latin American Countries.
