1932

Abstract

In elections around the world, large numbers of voters are influenced by promises or threats that are contingent on how they vote. Recently, the political science literature has made considerable progress in disaggregating clientelism along two dimensions: first, in recognizing the diversity of actors working as brokers, and second, in conceptualizing and disaggregating types of clientelism based on positive and negative inducements of different forms. In this review, we discuss recent findings explaining variation in the mix of clientelistic strategies across countries, regions, and individuals and identify a few areas for future progress, particularly in explaining variation in targeting of inducements by politicians on different types of voters.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060514-120923
2016-05-11
2024-06-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/19/1/annurev-polisci-060514-120923.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060514-120923&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Acemoglu D, Robinson JA, Santos RJ. 2013. The monopoly of violence: evidence from Colombia. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 11:s15–44 [Google Scholar]
  2. Albertus M. 2015. The role of subnational politicians in distributive politics: political bias in Venezuela's land reform under Chávez. Comp. Polit. Stud. 48:91667–710 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson DM. 2002. Vigilantes, violence and the politics of public order in Kenya. Afr. Aff. 101:531–55 [Google Scholar]
  4. Ardanaz M, Mares I. 2014. Labor shortages, rural inequality and democratization. Comp. Polit. Stud. 47:121639–69 [Google Scholar]
  5. Asunka J, Sarah B, Miriam G, Eric K, George O. 2014. Protecting the polls: the effect of observers on election fraud. Unpublished manuscript, Dep. Polit Sci, Univ. Calif. Los Angeles [Google Scholar]
  6. Baland J-M, Robinson J. 2008. Land and power: theory and evidence from Chile. Am. Econ. Rev. 98:51737–65 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baland J-M, Robinson J. 2012. The political value of land: political reform and land prices in Chile. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 56:3601–19 [Google Scholar]
  8. Baldwin K. 2013. Why vote with the chief? Political connections and public goods provision in Zambia. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 57:4794–809 [Google Scholar]
  9. Baldwin K. 2014. When politicians cede control of resources: land, chiefs, and coalition-building in Africa. Comp. Polit. 46:3253–71 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bauer AJ. 1995. Landlord and campesino in the Chilean road to democracy. Agrarian Structure and Political Power: Landlord and Peasant in the Making of Latin America E Huber, F Safford 21–38 Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. Pittsburgh Press [Google Scholar]
  11. Birch S. 2007. Electoral systems and electoral misconduct. Comp. Polit. Stud. 40:121533–56 [Google Scholar]
  12. Boone C. 2011. Politically allocated land rights and the geography of electoral violence: the case of Kenya in the 1990s. Comp. Polit. Stud. 44:101311–42 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bratton M. 2008. Vote buying and violence in Nigerian election campaigns. Elect. Stud. 27:4621–32 [Google Scholar]
  14. Callen M, Long J. 2015. Institutional corruption and election fraud: evidence from a field experiment in Afghanistan. Am. Econ. Rev. 105:1354–81 [Google Scholar]
  15. Calvo E, Murillo MV. 2004. Who delivers? Partisan clients in the Argentine electoral market. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 48:4742–57 [Google Scholar]
  16. Calvo E, Murillo MV. 2013. When parties meet voters: assessing political linkages through partisan networks and distributive expectations in Argentina and Chile. Comp. Polit. Stud. 46:7851–82 [Google Scholar]
  17. Carey JM, Shugart MS. 1995. Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Elect. Stud. 14:4417–39 [Google Scholar]
  18. Chang ECC, Golden MA. 2007. Electoral systems, district magnitude and corruption. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 37:1115–37 [Google Scholar]
  19. Collier P, Vicente P. 2014. Votes and violence: evidence from a field experiment in Nigeria. Econ. J. 124:574327–55 [Google Scholar]
  20. Corstange D. 2011. Ethnic clientelism in the Middle East Unpublished manuscript, Dep. Polit. Sci., Columbia Univ., New York, NY [Google Scholar]
  21. Cox G, Kousser M. 1981. Turnout and rural corruption: New York as a test case. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 25:4:646–63 [Google Scholar]
  22. Cox GW, McCubbins MD. 1986. Electoral politics as a redistributive game. J. Polit. 48:2370–89 [Google Scholar]
  23. de Kadt D, Larreguy H. 2015. Agents of the regime? Traditional leaders and electoral clientelism in South Africa Work. pap., Dep. Polit. Sci., Mass. Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA [Google Scholar]
  24. Dixit A, Londregan J. 1996. The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. J. Polit. 58:41132–55 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fafchamps M, Vicente P. 2013. Political violence and social networks: experimental evidence from a Nigerian election. J. Dev. Econ. 101:27–48 [Google Scholar]
  26. Finan F, Schechter L. 2012. Vote-buying and reciprocity. Econometrica 80:2863–81 [Google Scholar]
  27. Frye T, Reuter OJ, Szakonyi D. 2014. Political machines at work: voter mobilization and electoral subversion in the workplace. World Polit. 66:2195–228 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gans-Morse J, Mazzuca S, Nichter S. 2014. Varieties of clientelism: machine politics during elections. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58:2415–32 [Google Scholar]
  29. Garcia-Ponce O, Pasquale B. 2014. How political violence shapes trust in the state Work. pap., Cent. Glob. Dev. [Google Scholar]
  30. Garcia-Sanchez M, Mares I, Saffon M, Torres F. 2015. Vote-buying and intimidation in post-conflict settings: evidence from Colombia Unpublished manuscript, Univ. Andes, Bogata, Colombia and Columbia Univ., New York, NY [Google Scholar]
  31. Gingerich DW. 2013. Can Institutions Cure Clientelism? Assessing the impact of the Australian ballot in Brazil. Inter-Am. Dev. Bank Work. Pap. No. IDP-WP-428 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gingerich DW, Medina LF. 2013. The endurance and eclipse of the controlled vote: a formal model of vote brokerage under the secret ballot. Econ. Polit. 25:3453–80 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gonzalez-Ocantos E, Kiewiet de Jonge C, Meléndez C, Osorio J, Nickerson DW. 2012. Vote buying and social desirability bias: experimental evidence from Nicaragua. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 56:1202–17 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gutierrez-Romero R. 2014. An inquiry into the use of illegal electoral practices and effects of political violence and vote-buying. J. Confl. Resolut. 58:81500–27 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hafner-Burton EM, Hyde SD, Jablonski RS. 2014. When do governments resort to election violence?. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 44:1149–79 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hertel-Fernandez A. 2015. When do firms engage their workers in politics? Presented at Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc. Conf., 73rd, Apr. 16–19 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hicken A. 2011. Clientelism. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 14:1289–310 [Google Scholar]
  38. Holland A, Palmer-Rubin B. 2015. Beyond the machine: clientelist brokers and interest organizations in Latin America. Comp. Polit. Stud. 48:91186–223 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hyde SD. 2007. The observer effect in international politics: evidence from a natural experiment. World Polit. 60:137–63 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hyde SD. 2010. Experimenting in democracy promotion: international observers and the 2004 presidential elections in Indonesia. Perspect. Polit. 8:2511–27 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ichino N, Schundeln M. 2012. Deterring or displacing electoral irregularities? Spillover effects of observers in a randomized field experiment in Ghana. J. Polit. 74:1292–307 [Google Scholar]
  42. Jensen PS, Justesen MK. 2014. Poverty and vote buying: survey-based evidence from Africa. Elect. Stud. 33:220–32 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:2263–91 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kasara K. 2014. Electoral geography and conflict: examining the redistricting through violence in Kenya Work. pap., Dep. Polit. Sci., Columbia Univ., New York, NY [Google Scholar]
  45. Kelley J. 2011. Do international election monitors increase or decrease opposition boycotts?. Comp. Polit. Stud. 44:111527–56 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kitschelt H, Wilkinson S. 2007. Patrons, Clients and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  47. Klein T. 2003. Gültig—Ungültig: Die Wahlprüfungsverfahren des Deutschen Reichstages 1867–1918 Marburg: Elwert [Google Scholar]
  48. Klopp JM. 2001. “Ethnic clashes” and winning elections: the case of Kenya's electoral despotism. Can. J. Afr. Stud. 35:3473–518 [Google Scholar]
  49. Koter D. 2013. King makers: local leaders and ethnic politics in Africa. World Polit. 65:2187–232 [Google Scholar]
  50. Krishna A. 2007. Politics in the middle: mediating relationships between the citizens and the state in rural North India. See Kitschelt & Wilkinson 2007 141–58
  51. Kunicova J, Rose-Ackerman S. 2005. Electoral rules and constitutional structures as constraints on corruption. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 35:4573–606 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kuo D, Teorell J. 2013. Election fraud, ballot reform and contested congressional elections: an analysis of the United States 1860–1930 Work. pap., Dep. Polit. Sci., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA [Google Scholar]
  53. Larreguy HA. 2012. Monitoring political brokers: evidence from clientelistic networks in Mexico EPSA 2013 Annu. Gen. Conf. Pap. No. 655 [Google Scholar]
  54. Larreguy H, Montiel Olea CE, Querubin P. 2014. The role of labor unions as political machines: evidence from the case of the Mexican teachers' union Work. pap., Dep. Gov., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA [Google Scholar]
  55. Lawson C, Greene KF. 2014. Making clientelism work: how norms of reciprocity increase voter compliance. Comp. Polit. 47:161–85 [Google Scholar]
  56. LeBas A. 2013. Violence and urban order in Nairobi, Kenya and Lagos, Nigeria. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 48:240–62 [Google Scholar]
  57. Lehoucq F, Molina I. 2002. Stuffing the Ballot Box: Fraud, Electoral Reform, and Democratization in Costa Rica New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  58. Lemarchand R. 1972. Political clientelism and ethnicity in tropical Africa: competing solidarities in nation-building. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 66:168–90 [Google Scholar]
  59. Lindbeck A, Weibull JW. 1987. Balanced-budget redistribution and the outcome of political competition. Public Choice 52:273–97 [Google Scholar]
  60. Lindberg S, van Ham C. 2015. From sticks to carrots: electoral manipulation in Africa, 1986–2012. Gov. Opposition 50:3521–48 [Google Scholar]
  61. Magaloni B, Diaz-Cayeros A, Estevez F. 2007. Clientelism and portfolio diversification: a model of electoral investment with applications to Mexico. See Kitschelt & Wilkinson 2007 182–205
  62. Mares I. 2015. From Open Voting to Secret Ballots. Voter Intimidation and Electoral Reforms. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  63. Mares I, Muntean A. 2015. Mayors, ethnic intermediaries and party brokers: examining variation in clientelistic strategies in rural settings Presented at Annu. Conf. Counc. Eur. Stud., Paris, France, June 16–18 [Google Scholar]
  64. Mares I, Muntean A, Petrova T. 2014a. Economic intimidation in contemporary elections: experimental evidence from Bulgaria and Romania Presented at Eur. Polit. Sci. Assoc. Conf., Vienna, Austria, June 25 [Google Scholar]
  65. Mares I, Muntean A, Petrova T. 2014b. Patronage and intimidation: the use of the state in elections in contemporary Eastern European elections Unpublished manuscript, Dep. Polit. Sci., Columbia Univ., New York, NY [Google Scholar]
  66. Mares I, Petrova T. 2014. Disaggregating clientelism: examining the mix between vote buying, patronage and electoral intimidation Unpublished manuscript, Dep. Polit. Sci., Columbia Univ., New York, NY [Google Scholar]
  67. Mares I, Young L. 2015. Patronage and coercion: strategies of electoral mobilization in rural Hungary Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc., San Francisco, CA, Sep. 4 [Google Scholar]
  68. Mares I, Zhu B. 2015. Electoral irregularities at times of elections: evidence from Imperial Germany. Comp. Polit. 48:123–41 [Google Scholar]
  69. Martin L. 2014. Taxation, loss aversion, and accountability: theory and experimental evidence for taxation's effect on citizen behavior Work. pap., Dep. Polit. Sci., Yale Univ., New Haven, CT [Google Scholar]
  70. Nichter S. 2008. Vote buying or turnout buying? Machine politics and the secret ballot. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 102:119–31 [Google Scholar]
  71. O'Brien DBC. 1975. Saints and Politicians: Essays in the Organisation of a Senegalese Peasant Society Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  72. Oliveros V. 2013. A working machine: patronage jobs and political services in Argentina PhD diss., Dep. Polit. Sci., Columbia Univ., New York, NY [Google Scholar]
  73. Pellicer M, Wegner E. 2013. Electoral rules and clientelistic parties: a regression discontinuity approach. Q. J. Polit. Sci. 8:4339–71 [Google Scholar]
  74. Persson T, Tabellini G. 2003. Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  75. Reynolds JF, McCormick RL. 1986. Outlawing “treachery”: split tickets and ballot laws in New York and New Jersey, 1880–1910. J. Am. Hist. 72:4835–58 [Google Scholar]
  76. Robinson JA, Torvik R. 2009. The real swing voters' curse. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. 99:2310–15 [Google Scholar]
  77. Robinson JA, Verdier T. 2013. The political economy of clientelism. Scand. J. Econ. 115:2260–91 [Google Scholar]
  78. Rosenzweig SC. 2015. Dangerous disconnect: how politicans' misperceptions about voters lead to violence in Kenya Presented at Annu. Bank Conf. Africa, Berkeley, CA, June 9 [Google Scholar]
  79. Simpser A, Donno D. 2012. Can international election monitoring harm governance?. J. Polit. 74:2501–13 [Google Scholar]
  80. Sjoberg FM. 2014. Autocratic adaptation: the strategic use of transparency and the persistence of election fraud. Electoral Stud. 33:233–45 [Google Scholar]
  81. Sperber E. 2014. Patron saints? Why political parties promote or constrain new religious movements in weak, democratizing states Presented at Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc. Conf., Chicago, IL, Apr. 3 [Google Scholar]
  82. Stokes SC. 2005. Perverse accountability: a formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 99:315–26 [Google Scholar]
  83. Stokes S, Dunning T, Nazareno M, Brusco V. 2013. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  84. Szwarcberg M. 2012a. Political parties and rallies in Latin America. Party Polit. 20:3456–66 [Google Scholar]
  85. Szwarcberg M. 2012b. Uncertainty, political clientelism, and voter turnout in Latin America. Comp. Polit. 45:188–106 [Google Scholar]
  86. Van de Walle N. 2007. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? The evolution of political clientelism in Africa. See Kitschelt & Wilkinson 2007 50–67
  87. Vicente P. 2014. Is vote buying effective? Evidence from a field experiment in West Africa. Econ. J. 124:574356–87 [Google Scholar]
  88. Weitz-Shapiro R. 2012. What wins votes: why some politicians opt out of clientelism. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 56:3568–83 [Google Scholar]
  89. Wertheimer A. 1987. Coercion New York: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  90. Young L. 2015a. Preying on the poor: the impact of repression on citizen behavior. Presented at Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc. Conf., Chicago, IL, Apr. 16 [Google Scholar]
  91. Young L. 2015b. Mobilization under threat: an experimental test of opposition party strategies in a repressive regime. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc., San Francisco, CA, Sep. 5 [Google Scholar]
  92. Young L. 2015c. The psychology of political risk: fear of repression and participation in collective dissent Presented at Yale Univ. Inst. Soc. Policy Stud., New Haven, CT, Oct. 15 [Google Scholar]
  93. Zarazaga R. 2014a. Vote buying and asymmetric information: a model with applications to Argentina Work. Pap. 398. Kellogg Inst., Univ. Notre Dame [Google Scholar]
  94. Zarazaga R. 2014b. Brokers beyond clientelism: a new perspective through the Argentine case. Latin Am. Polit. Soc. 56:323–45 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060514-120923
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060514-120923
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error