Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2012
Social capital and community activity are thought to increase voter turnout, but reverse causation and omitted variables may bias the results of previous studies. This article exploits saint's day fiestas in Mexico as a natural experiment to test this causal relationship. Saint's day fiestas provide temporary but large shocks to the connectedness and trust within a community, and the timing of these fiestas is quasi-random. For both cross-municipality and within-municipality estimates, saint's day fiestas occurring near an election decrease turnout by 2.5 to 3.5 percentage points. So community activities that generate social capital can inhibit political participation. These findings may give pause to scholars and policy makers who assume that such community activity and social capital will improve the performance of democracy.
Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles; and Department of Government, Harvard University, respectively (email: firstname.lastname@example.org). Both authors contributed equally, and they wish to thank Alberto Alesina, Steve Ansolabehere, David Broockman, Gloria Chao, Stephen Coate, Ana De La O, Ryan Enos, Jonathan Gruber, Andy Hall, Jens Hainmueller, Eitan Hersh, Christopher Karpowitz, Stephen Knack, Gabe Lenz, Jeff Lewis, Krista Loose, Michele Margolis, Nathan Nunn, Kay Schlozman, Dhavan Shah, Dina Sherzer, Joel Sherzer, Jim Snyder, Michael Tesler, Gelin Valencia and seminar participants at MIT for their comments and support. Supplementary material for data replication and an online appendix are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123412000713.
1 Olson, Jr Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965)Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry, ‘Economic Inequality and Political Representation’, The Unsustainable American State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)Google Scholar
4 Putnam, Robert, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993)Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert, ‘Tuning In, Tuning Out; The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 28 (1995), 664–683Google Scholar
5 While numerous and conflicting definitions of social capital exist in the literature, we restrict ourselves to this specific definition. Previous scholars make distinctions between bridging vs. bonding social capital as well as the relative importance of connectedness v. trust. We are agnostic in regard to these debates, and our identification strategy exploits variation in both connectedness and trust along with both bridging and bonding social capital.
7 Gerber, Alan, Green, Donald and Larimer, Christopher, ‘Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-scale Field Experiment’, American Political Science Review, 102 (2008), 33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Fiorina, Morris, ‘Information and Rationality in Elections’, Information and Democratic Processes (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1990)Google Scholar
9 Duch, Raymond and Palmer, Harvey, ‘It's Not Whether You Win or Lose, but How You Play the Game: Self-Interest, Social Justice, and Mass Attitudes toward Market Transition’, American Political Science Review, 98 (2004), 437–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edlin, Aaron, Gelman, Andrew and Kaplan, Noah, ‘Voting as Rational Choice: Why and How People Vote to Improve the Well-Being of Others’, Rationality and Society, 19 (2007), 293–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay and Brady, Henry, Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995)Google Scholar
17 Putnam, Bowling Alone.
Fowler, James, ‘Turnout in a Small World’, Social Logic of Politics (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2005)Google Scholar
19 Verba, Schlozman and Brady, Voice and Equality.
20 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1840), Volume 2, Part 2, Chapter 7.
23 Denny, Kevin and Doyle, Orla, ‘Political Interest, Cognitive Ability and Personality: Determinants of Voter Turnout in Britain’, British Journal of Political Science, 38 (2008), 291–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan, Huber, Gregory, Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor, Raso, Connor and Ha, Shang, ‘Personality Traits and Participation in the Political Process’, Journal of Politics, 73 (2011), 692–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Condon, Meghan, ‘The Effect of Social Capital on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment in Two Southwestern Cities’ (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, 2011)Google Scholar
25 Robert Putnam and Lewis Feldstein, with Don Cohen, Better Together: Restoring the American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003)Google Scholar
26 Later in the article, we present an estimate which is not sensitive to this assumption. By exploiting an exogenous change in the election date, we test for the effects of increased social capital within municipalities.
27 E-mail addresses were obtained from online directories of the 68 dioceses and 18 archdioceses in Mexico. Links to each diocesan website are located at http://www.cem.org.mx/diocesis/.
28 All responses have been translated from Spanish.
29 Lastra, Yolanda, Sherzer, Dina and Sherzer, Joel, Adoring the Saints: Fiestas in Central Mexico (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2009)Google Scholar
30 Putnam, Robert, ‘Foreword’, in Christiaan Grootaert and Thierry van Bastelaer, eds, The Role of Social Capital in Development: An Empirical Assessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar
31 Census data were downloaded from the web site of the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, the Mexican government agency which administers the census. Electoral data were downloaded from the web site of the Instituto Federal Electoral, the Mexican government agency charged with administering elections and certifying the results.
32 We identified single parish municipalities by collecting online diocese directories and determining which municipalities are served by only a single church.
33 The total number of observations is less than 325 × 7 = 2,275 because turnout data is missing in one case, and nineteen cases were dropped because the reported turnout was greater than the voting age population. Subsequent results are robust to the inclusion of these municipalities.
Gerber, Alan, Green, Donald and Shachar, Ron, ‘Voting May Be Habit-Forming: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment’, America Journal of Political Science, 47 (2003), 540–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, Tiffany, Gerber, Alan, Green, Donald, Larimer, Chrisopher, Mann, Christopher and Panagopoulos, Costas, ‘The Enduring Effects of Social Pressure: Tracking Campaign Experiments over a Series of Elections’, Political Behavior, 3 (2010), 423–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 These numbers are approximate, because the election date does move slightly from year to year. However, the only big change occurred between 1994 and 1997, so we simplify our analysis here to designate three groups of municipalities.
38 Normally, it is tricky to interpret the coefficients in interactive models directly. However, since we have coded the fiesta treatment and log population to range from 0 to 1, we can interpret the coefficient on Fiesta in column 2 as the effect of the fiesta treatment for the smallest communities in our dataset.
39 Putnam, Bowling Alone; Robert Putnam and David Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010).
40 Gerber, Alan, Gruber, Jonathan and Hungerman, Daniel, ‘Does Church Attendance Cause People to Vote? Using Blue Laws’ Repeal to Estimate the Effect of Religiosity on Voter Turnout’ (Cambridge, Mass.: NBER Working Paper No. 14303, 2008)Google Scholar
43 Condon, ‘The Effect of Social Capital on Voter Turnout’.
45 Addonizio, Elizabeth, Green, Donald and Glaser, James, ‘Putting the Party Back into Politics’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 40 (2007), 721–727Google Scholar
46 Verba, Schlozman and Brady, Voice and Equality.
48 Mutz, ‘The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation’.
49 This quote was taken from email correspondence with Joel and Dina Sherzer.
50 Riker and Ordeshook, ‘A Theory of the Calculus of Voting’.
52 Verba, Schlozman and Brady, Voice and Equality.