Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:29:58.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jumping Ship or Jumping on the Bandwagon: When Do Local Politicians Support National Candidates?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2019

Guillermo Rosas Open the ORCID record for Guillermo Rosas [Opens in a new window]  and
Adrián Lucardi
Guillermo Rosas*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Dr., St. Louis, MO 63105, USA
Adrián Lucardi
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, ITAM, Río Hondo 1, CDMX, Mexico
*
*Corresponding author. Email: grosas@wustl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Local politicians are often expected to mobilize voters on behalf of copartisan candidates for national office. Yet this requirement is difficult to enforce because the effort of local politicians cannot be easily monitored and the promise of rewards in exchange for help is not fully credible. Using a formal model, we show that the incentives of local politicians to mobilize voters on behalf of their party depend on the proportion of copartisan officials in a district. Having many copartisan officials means that the party is more likely to capture the district, but the effort of each local politician is less likely either to be noticed by higher-level officials or to make a difference on the election outcome, thus discouraging lower-level officials from exerting effort. We validate these claims with data from federal elections in Mexico between 2000 and 2012. In line with the argument, the results show that political parties fail to draw great mobilization advantages from simultaneously controlling multiple offices.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 60 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2019 

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.)

References

Albertus, M (2013) Vote Buying with Multiple Distributive Goods. Comparative Political Studies 46(9), 1082–1111.Google Scholar
Ames, B (1994) The Reverse Coattails Effect: Local Party Organization in the 1989 Brazilian Presidential Election. American Political Science Review 88(1), 95–111.Google Scholar
Besley, T (2007) Principled Agents? The Political Economy of Good Government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benton, AL (2007) The Strategic Struggle for Patronage: Political Careers, State Largesse, and Factionalism in Latin American Parties. Journal of Theoretical Politics 19(1), 55–82.Google Scholar
Caldeira, GA, Clausen, AR Patterson, SC (1990) Partisan Mobilization and Electoral Participation. Electoral Studies 9(3), 191–204.Google Scholar
Caramani, D (2004) The Nationalization of Politics. The Formation of National Electorates and Party Systems in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, JM (2003) Presidentialism and Representative Institutions. In J. I. Domínguez (Ed.), Constructing Democratic Governance in Latin America, pp 11–42. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, J (1986) Incumbent Performance and Electoral Control. Public Choice 50(1-3), 5–25.Google Scholar
Folke, O (2014) Shades of Brown and Green: Party Effects in Proportional Election Systems. Journal of the European Economic Association 12(5), 1361–1395.Google Scholar
Folke, O Snyder, JM (2012) Gubernatorial Midterm Slumps. American Journal of Political Science 56(4), 931–948.Google Scholar
Holbrook, TM McClurg, SD (2005) The Mobilization of Core Supporters: Campaigns, Turnout, and Electoral Composition in United States Presidential Elections. American Journal of Political Science 49(4), 689–703.Google Scholar
Gibson, EL (2012) Boundary Control. Subnational Authoritarianism in Federal Democracies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gosnell, HF (1937) Machine Politics: Chicago Model. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Green, DP Gerber, AS (2004) Get Out the Vote! How to Increase Voter Turnout. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Kemahlıoğlu, O (2012) Agents or Bosses? Patronage and Intra-Party Politics in Argentina and Turkey. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Kerevel, Y (2015) (Sub)national Principals, Legislative Agents. Patronage and Political Careers in Mexico. Comparative Political Studies 48(8), 1020–1050.Google Scholar
Klašnja, M Titiunik, R (2017) The Incumbency Curse: Weak Parties, Term Limits, and Unfulfilled Accountability. American Political Science Review 111(1), 129–148.Google Scholar
Koelble, TA (1996) Economic Theories of Organization and the Politics of Institutional Design in Political Parties. Party Politics 2(2), 251–263.Google Scholar
Magar, E (2012) Gubernatorial Coattails in Mexican Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 74(2), 383–399.Google Scholar
Merriam, CE Gosnell, HF (1924) Non-Voting: Causes and Methods of Control. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, S Swindle, SM (2005) Are Politics Local? An Analysis of Voting Patterns in 23 Democracies. Comparative Political Studies 38(2), 143–170.Google Scholar
Novaes, LM (2018) Disloyal Brokers and Weak Parties. American Journal of Political Science 62(1), 84–98.Google Scholar
Palfrey, TR Rosenthal, H (1985) Voter Participation and Strategic Uncertainty. American Political Science Review 79(1), 62–78.Google Scholar
Patterson, SC Caldeira, GA (1983) Getting Out the Vote: Participation in Gubernatorial Elections. American Political Science Review 77(3), 675–689.Google Scholar
Persico, N, Rodríguez Pueblita, JC Silverman, D (2011) Factions and Political Competition. Journal of Political Economy 119(2), 242–288.Google Scholar
Rundlett, A Svolik, MW (2016) Deliver the Vote! Micromotives and Macrobehavior in Electoral Fraud. American Political Science Review 110(1), 180–197.Google Scholar
Samuels, DJ (2000) The Gubernatorial Coattails Effect: Federalism and Congressional Elections in Brazil. Journal of Politics 62(1), 240–253.Google Scholar
Shachar, R Nalebuff, B (1999) Follow the Leader: Theory and Evidence on Political Participation. American Economic Review 89(2), 525–547.Google Scholar
Stokes, SC, Dunning, T, Nazareno, M Brusco, V (2013) Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism. The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Houten, P (2009) Multi-Level Relations in Political Parties. A Delegation Approach. Party Politics 15(2), 137–156.Google Scholar
Weitz-Shapiro, R (2012) What Wins Votes: Why Some Politicians Opt Out of Clientelism. American Journal of Political Science 56(3), 568–583.Google Scholar
Zudenkova, G (2011) A Political Agency Model of Coattail Voting. Journal of Public Economics 95(11-12), 1652–1660.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Rosas and Lucardi et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Rosas and Lucardi et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 896.9 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Rosas and Lucardi et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/SDGTMU
Link