Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-p6h7k Total loading time: 0.453 Render date: 2022-05-20T23:29:12.406Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Social Capital and Voter Turnout: Evidence from Saint's Day Fiestas in Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2012

Abstract

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.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles; and Department of Government, Harvard University, respectively (email: fowler@fas.harvard.edu). 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.

References

1 Olson, Jr Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965)Google Scholar

2 Lijphart, Arend, ‘Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma’, American Political Science Review, 91 (1997), 114CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bartels, Larry, ‘Economic Inequality and Political Representation’, The Unsustainable American State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)Google Scholar

3 Downs, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1957)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), 664683Google Scholar

Putnam, Robert, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000)CrossRefGoogle 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.

6 Stolle, Dietlind, ‘Bowling Together, Bowling Alone: The Development of Generalized Trust in Voluntary Associations’, Political Psychology, 19 (1998), 497525CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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), 3348CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nickerson, David, ‘Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments’, American Political Science Review, 102 (2008), 4957CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Fiorina, Morris, ‘Information and Rationality in Elections’, Information and Democratic Processes (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1990)Google Scholar

Berinsky, Adam, ‘The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United States’, American Politics Research, 33 (2005), 471491CrossRefGoogle 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), 437452CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fowler, James, ‘Altruism and Turnout’, Journal of Politics, 68 (2006), 674683CrossRefGoogle 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), 293314CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rotemberg, Julio, ‘Attitude-Dependent Altrusism, Turnout, and Voting’, Public Choice, 140 (2009), 223244CrossRefGoogle 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

11 Rupasingha, Anil, Goetz, Stephan and Freshwater, David, ‘The Production of Social Capital in US Counties’, Journal of Socio-Economics, 35 (2006), 83101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Mutz, Diana, ‘The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation’, American Journal of Political Science, 46 (2002), 838855CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Riker, William and Ordeshook, Peter, ‘A Theory of the Calculus of Voting’, American Political Science Review, 68 (1968), 2542CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Nelson, Paul, The World Bank and Nongovernmental Organizations: The Limits of Apolitical Development (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paxton, Pamela, ‘Social Capital and Democracy: An Interdependent Relationship’, American Sociological Review, 67 (2002), 254277CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krishna, Anirudh, ‘How Does Social Capital Grow? A Seven-Year Study of Villages in India’, Journal of Politics, 69 (2007), 941956CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Knack, Stephen and Keefer, Phillip, ‘Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (1997), 12511288CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Skocpol, Theda, ‘The Tocqueville Problem: Civic Engagement and American Democracy’, Social Science History, 21 (1997), 455479CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Putnam, Bowling Alone.

18 Knack, Stephen, ‘Civil Norms, Social Sanctions, and Voter Turnout’, Rationality and Society, 4 (1992), 133156CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lake, Ronald La Due and Huckfeldt, Robert, ‘Social Capital, Social Networks, and Political Participation’, Political Psychology, 19 (1998), 567584CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.

21 Booth, John and Richard, Patricia Bayer, ‘Civil Society, Political Capital, and Democratization in Central America’, Journal of Politics, 60 (1998), 780800CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Letki, Natalia and Evans, Geoffrey, ‘Endogenizing Social Trust: Democratization in East-Central Europe’, British Journal of Political Science, 35 (2005), 515529CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Scheufele, Dietram and Shah, Dhavan, ‘Personality Strength and Social Capital: The Role of Dispositional and Informational Variables in the Production of Civic Participation’, Communication Research, 27 (2000), 107131CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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), 291310CrossRefGoogle 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), 692706CrossRefGoogle 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.

34 Becker, Gary, ‘A Theory of the Allocation of Time’, Economic Journal, 75 (1965), 493517CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Hausman, Jerry, ‘Specification Tests in Econometrics’, Econometrica, 46 (1978), 12511271CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Plutzer, Eric, ‘Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood’, American Political Science Review, 96 (2002), 4156CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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), 540550CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meredith, Marc, ‘Persistence of Political Participation’, Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 4 (2009), 186208CrossRefGoogle 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), 423430CrossRefGoogle 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

41 Lipset, Seymour Martin, ‘Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy’, American Political Science Review, 53 (1959), 69105CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Tavits, Margit, ‘Making Democracy Work More? Exploring the Linkage between Social Capital and Government Performance’, Political Research Quarterly, 59 (2006), 211225CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Condon, ‘The Effect of Social Capital on Voter Turnout’.

44 Stoker, Laura and Jennings, M. Kent, ‘Life-Cycle Transitions and Political Participation: The Case of Marriage’, American Political Science Review, 89 (1995), 421433CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Addonizio, Elizabeth, Green, Donald and Glaser, James, ‘Putting the Party Back into Politics’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 40 (2007), 721727Google Scholar

46 Verba, Schlozman and Brady, Voice and Equality.

47 Becker, ‘A Theory of the Allocation of Time’, Economic Journal, 75 (1965), 493517CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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’.

51 Lastra, Sherzer and Sherzer, Adoring the Saints, p. 116Google Scholar

52 Verba, Schlozman and Brady, Voice and Equality.

Supplementary material: File

Atkinson Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Atkinson Supplementary Material(File)
File 49 KB
22
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Social Capital and Voter Turnout: Evidence from Saint's Day Fiestas in Mexico
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Social Capital and Voter Turnout: Evidence from Saint's Day Fiestas in Mexico
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Social Capital and Voter Turnout: Evidence from Saint's Day Fiestas in Mexico
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *