Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-7bjf6 Total loading time: 0.218 Render date: 2021-08-01T10:08:48.229Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Vote Brokers, Clientelist Appeals, and Voter Turnout: Evidence from Russia and Venezuela

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2019

Timothy Frye
Affiliation:
Department of political science at Columbia University and research director of the International Center for the Study of Institutions and Development at the Higher School of Economics in Moscowtmf2@columbia.edu
Ora John Reuter
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and a senior research fellow at the Higher School of Economics in Moscowreutero@uwm.edu
David Szakonyi
Affiliation:
George Washington University, an academy scholar at Harvard University, and a research fellow at the Higher School of Economics in Moscowdszakonyi@email.gwu.edu
Corresponding

Abstract

Modern clientelist exchange is typically carried out by intermediaries—party activists, employers, local strongmen, traditional leaders, and the like. Politicians use such brokers to mobilize voters, yet little about their relative effectiveness is known. The authors argue that broker effectiveness depends on their leverage over clients and their ability to monitor voters. They apply their theoretical framework to compare two of the most common brokers worldwide, party activists and employers, arguing the latter enjoy numerous advantages along both dimensions. Using survey-based framing experiments in Venezuela and Russia, the authors find voters respond more strongly to turnout appeals from employers than from party activists. To demonstrate mechanisms, the article shows that vulnerability to job loss and embeddedness in workplace social networks make voters more responsive to clientelist mobilization by their bosses. The results shed light on the conditions most conducive to effective clientelism and highlight broker type as important for understanding why clientelism is prevalent in some countries but not others.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 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

Acemoglu, Daron, Robinson, James A., and Santos, Rafael J.. 2013. “The Monopoly of Violence: Evidence from Colombia.Journal of the European Economic Association 11, no. 1: 544. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-4774.2012.01099.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albertus, Michael. 2015. “The Role of Subnational Politicians in Distributive Politics: Political Bias in Venezuela’s Land Reform Under Chávez.Comparative Political Studies 48, no. 13: 1667–710. doi: 10.1177/0010414015600457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allina-Pisano, Jessica. 2010. “Social Contracts and Authoritarian Projects in Post-Soviet Space: The Use of Administrative Resource.Communist and Post-Communist Studies 43, no. 4: 373–82. doi: 10.1016/j.postcomstud.2010.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, David M. 2002. “Vigilantes, Violence, and the Politics of Public Order in Kenya.African Affairs 101, no. 405: 531–55. doi: 10.1093/afraf/101.405.531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argersinger, Peter H. 1985. “New Perspectives on Election Fraud in the Gilded Age.Political Science Quarterly 100, no. 4: 669–87. doi: 10.2307/2151546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baland, Jean-Marie, and Robinson, James A.. 2008. “Land and Power: Theory and Evidence from Chile.American Economic Review 98, no. 5: 1737–65. doi: 10.1257/aer.98.5.1737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Henry E., Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Verba, Sidney. 1999. “Prospecting for Participants: Rational Expectations and the Recruitment of Political Activists.American Political Science Review 93, no. 1: 153–68. doi: 10.2307/2585767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, and Murillo, Maria Victoria. 2013. “When Parties Meet Voters: Assessing Political Linkages through Partisan Networks and Distributive Expectations in Argentina and Chile.Comparative Political Studies 46, no. 7: 851–82. doi: 10.1177/0010414012463882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantú, Francisco. 2019. “Groceries for Votes: The Electoral Returns of Vote Buying.” Journal of Politics 81, no. 3. doi: 10.1086/702945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, Paul, and Vicente, Pedro C.. 2012. “Violence, Bribery, and Fraud: The Political Economy of Elections in Sub-Saharan Africa.Public Choice 153, no. 1–2: 117–47. doi: 10.1007/s11127-011-9777-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrales, Javier, and Penfold-Becerra, Michael. 2007. “Venezuela: Crowding Out the Opposition.Journal of Democracy 18, no. 2: 99–113. doi: 10.1353/jod.2007.0020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corstange, Daniel. 2018. “Clientelism in Competitive and Uncompetitive Elections.Comparative Political Studies 51, no. 1: 76104. doi: 10.1177/0010414017695332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz, Cesi, Keefer, Philip, and Labonne, Julien. 2016. Incumbent Advantage, Voter Information and Vote Buying. IDB Working Paper Series, no. IDB-WP-711. Inter-American Development Bank. At https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Incumbent-Advantage-Voter-Information-and-Vote-Buying.pdf, accessed June 25, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz, Cesi, Labonne, Julien, and Querubin, Pablo. 2017. “Politician Family Networks and Electoral Outcomes: Evidence from the Philippines.American Economic Review 107, no. 10: 3006–37. doi: 10.1257/aer.20150343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finan, Frederico, and Schechter, Laura. 2012. “Vote-Buying and Reciprocity.Econometrica 80, no. 2: 863–81. doi: 10.3982/ECTA9035.Google Scholar
Forrat, Natalia. 2018. “Shock-Resistant Authoritarianism: Schoolteachers and Infrastructural State Capacity in Putin’s Russia.Comparative Politics 50, no. 3: 417–49. doi: 10.5129/001041518822704908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedgut, Theodore H. 1979. Political Participation in the USSR. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Frye, Timothy, Gehlbach, Scott, Marquardt, Kyle L., and Reuter, Ora John. 2017. “Is Putin’s Popularity Real?Post-Soviet Affairs 33, no. 1: 115. doi:10.1080/1060586X.2016.1144334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frye, Timothy, Reuter, Ora John, and Szakonyi, David. 2014. “Political Machines at Work: Voter Mobilization and Electoral Subversion in the Workplace.World Politics 66, no. 2 (April): 195228. doi: 10.1017/S004388711400001X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frye, Timothy, Reuter, Ora John, and Szakonyi, David. 2018. “Hitting Them with Carrots: Voter Intimidation and Vote Buying in Russia.British Journal of Political Science 49, no. 3: 857–81. doi: 10.1017/S000712341000752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frye, Timothy, Reuter, Ora John, and Szakonyi, David. 2019a. “Replication files for: Vote Brokers, Clientelist Appeals, and Voter Turnout: Evidence from Russia and Venezuela.” Harvard Dataverse, V1. doi: 10.7910/DVN/YSVMS2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frye, Timothy, Reuter, Ora John, and Szakonyi, David. 2019b. “Supplementary material for: Vote Brokers, Clientelist Appeals, and Voter Turnout: Evidence from Russia and Venezuela.” doi: 10.1017/S0043887119000078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gans-Morse, Jordan, Mazzuca, Sebastián, and Nichter, Simeon. 2014. “Varieties of Clientelism: Machine Politics During Elections.American Journal of Political Science 58, no. 2: 415–32. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingerich, Daniel W., and Medina, Luis Fernando. 2013. “The Endurance and Eclipse of the Controlled Vote: A Formal Model of Vote Brokerage under the Secret Ballot.Economics & Politics 25, no. 3: 453–80. doi: 10.1111/ecpo.12020.Google Scholar
GOLOS Election Observer Report. 2012. Vybory Prezidenta Rossii, 4 Marta 2012, Analiticheskii Doklad. Moscow, Russia: Golos.Google Scholar
Golosov, Grigorii V. 2013. “Machine Politics: The Concept and Its Implications for Post-Soviet Studies.Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization 21, no. 4: 459–80. At http://demokratizatsiya.pub/archives/21_4_142R38863L666177.pdf, accessed June 15, 2019.Google Scholar
Ocantos, Gonzalez, Ezequiel, Chad Kiewiet de Jonge, and Nickerson, David W.. 2014. “The Conditionality of Vote-Buying Norms: Experimental Evidence from Latin America.American Journal of Political Science 58, no. 1: 197211. doi: 10.1111ajps.12047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Gerber, Alan S.. 2015. Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Guardado, Jenny, and Wantchékon, Leonard. 2018. “Do Electoral Handouts Affect Voting Behavior?Electoral Studies 53, June: 139–49. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2017.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, and Hopkins, Daniel J.. 2015. “The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants.American Journal of Political Science 59, no. 3: 529–48. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Henry E. 2003. “Explaining Machine Politics in Russia’s Regions: Economy, Ethnicity, and Legacy.Post-Soviet Affairs 19, no. 3: 228–63. doi: 10.2747/1060-586X.19.3.228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Henry E. 2006. Why Not Parties in Russia?: Democracy, Federalism, and the State. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Handlin, Samuel. 2016. “Mass Organization and the Durability of Competitive Authoritarian Regimes: Evidence from Venezuela.Comparative Political Studies 49, no. 9: 1238–69. doi: 10.1177/0010414016628186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handlin, Samuel. 2017. State Crisis in Fragile Democracies: Polarization and Political Regimes in South America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander. 2016. “How Employers Recruit Their Workers into Politics—And Why Political Scientists Should Care.Perspectives on Politics 14, no. 2: 410–21. doi: 10.1017/S1537592716000098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicken, Allen. 2011. “Clientelism.Annual Review of Political Science 14, no. 1: 289310. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.031908.220508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Alisha C., and Palmer-Rubin, Brian. 2015. “Beyond the Machine: Clientelist Brokers and Interest Organizations in Latin America.Comparative Political Studies 48, no. 9: 1186–223. doi: 10.1177/0010414015574883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, Chang-Tai, Miguel, Edward, Ortega, Daniel, and Rodriguez, Francisco. 2011. “The Price of Political Opposition: Evidence from Venezuela’s Maisanta.American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3, no. 2: 196214. doi: 10.1257/app.3.2.196.Google Scholar
Karp, Jeffrey A., and Brockington, David. 2005. “Social Desirability and Response Validity: A Comparative Analysis of Overreporting Voter Turnout in Five Countries.Journal of Politics 67, no. 3: 825–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00341.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keefer, Philip, and Vlaicu, Razvan. 2007. “Democracy, Credibility, and Clientelism.Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 24, no. 2: 371406. doi: 10.1093/jleo/ewm054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 2000. “Linkages between Citizens and Politicians in Democratic Polities.Comparative Political Studies 33, no. 6–7: 845–79. doi: 10.1177/001041400003300607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert, and Wilkinson, Steven I., eds. 2007. Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koter, Dominika. 2013. “King Makers: Local Leaders and Ethnic Politics in Africa.World Politics 65, no. 2 (April): 187232. doi: 10.1017/S004388711300004X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramon, Eric. 2016. “Electoral Handouts as Information: Explaining Unmonitored Vote Buying.World Politics 68, no. 3 (July): 454–98. doi: 10.1017/S0043887115000453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larreguy, Horacio, Marshall, John, and Querubin, Pablo. 2016. “Parties, Brokers, and Voter Mobilization: How Turnout Buying Depends upon the Party’s Capacity to Monitor Brokers.American Political Science Review 110, no. 1: 160–79. doi: 10.1017/S0003055415000593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, Chappell, and Greene, Kenneth F.. 2014. “Making Clientelism Work: How Norms of Reciprocity Increase Voter Compliance.Comparative Politics 47, no. 1: 6185. doi: 10.5129/001041514813623173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehoucq, Fabrice E., and Molina, Iván. 2002. Stuffing the Ballot Box: Fraud, Electoral Reform, and Democratization in Costa Rica. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemarchand, René. 1972. “Political Clientelism and Ethnicity in Tropical Africa: Competing Solidarities in Nation-Building.American Political Science Review 66, no. 1: 6890. doi: 10.2307/1959279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levada Market Research Survey. 2011. 15 December.Google Scholar
Mares, Isabela. 2015. From Open Secrets to Secret Voting: Democratic Electoral Reforms and Voter Autonomy. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mares, Isabela, Muntean, Aurelian, and Petrova, Tsveta. 2016. “Economic Intimidation in Contemporary Elections: Evidence from Romania and Bulgaria.Government and Opposition 53, no. 3: 486517. doi: 10.1017/gov.2016.39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mares, Isabela, and Young, Lauren E.. 2016. “Buying, Expropriating, and Stealing Votes.Annual Review of Political Science 19, no. 1: 267–88. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-060514-120923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mares, Isabela, and Young, Lauren E.. 2018. “The Core Voter’s Curse: Clientelistic Threats and Promises in Hungarian Elections.Comparative Political Studies 5, no. 11: 1441–71. doi: 10.1177/0010414018758754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMann, Kelly M. 2006. Economic Autonomy and Democracy: Hybrid Regimes in Russia and Kyrgyzstan. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, Miller, Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Brashears, Matthew E.. 2006. “Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades.American Sociological Review 71, no. 3: 353–75. doi: 10.1177/000312240607100301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, Luis Fernando, and Stokes, Susan. 2007. “Monopoly and Monitoring: An Approach to Political Clientelism.” In Kitschelt, Herbert and Wilkinson, Steven I., eds., Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press: 6883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichter, Simeon. 2008. “Vote Buying or Turnout Buying? Machine Politics and the Secret Ballot.American Political Science Review 102, no. 1: 1931. doi: 10.1017/S0003055408080106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichter, Simeon, and Palmer-Rubin, Brian. 2015. “Clientelism, Declared Support, and Mexico’s 2012 Campaign.” In Dominguez, Jorge I., Greene, Kenneth F., Lawson, Chappell H., and Moreno, Alejandro, eds., Mexico’s Evolving Democracy: A Comparative Study of the 2012 Elections. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press: 220–26.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa, Frank, Richard W., and Martinez i Coma, Ferran. 2013. “Assessing the Quality of Elections.Journal of Democracy 24, no. 4: 124–35. doi: 10.1353/jod.2013.0063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveros, Virginia. 2016. “Making It Personal: Clientelism, Favors, and the Personalization of Public Administration in Argentina.Comparative Politics 48, no. 3: 373–91. doi: 10.5129/001041516818254437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penfold-Becerra, Michael. 2007. “Clientelism and Social Funds: Evidence from Chavez’s Misiones.Latin American Politics and Society 49, no. 4: 6384. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-2456.2007.tb00392.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remington, Thomas F. 1984. Building Socialism in Bolshevik Russia: Ideology and Industrial Organization, 1917–1921. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Reuter, Ora John. 2017. The Origins of Dominant Parties: Building Authoritarian Institutions in Post-Soviet Russia. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Kenneth M. 2006. “Populism, Political Conflict, and Grass-Roots Organization in Latin America.Comparative Politics 38, no. 2: 127–48. doi: 10.2307/20433986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueda, Miguel R. 2017. “Small Aggregates, Big Manipulation: Vote Buying Enforcement and Collective Monitoring.American Journal of Political Science 61, no. 1: 163–77. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, James C. 1972. “Patron-Client Politics and Political Change in Southeast Asia.American Political Science Review 66, no. 1: 91113. doi: 10.2307/1959280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidel, John Thayer. 1999. Capital, Coercion, and Crime: Bossism in the Philippines. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Silver, Brian D., Anderson, Barbara A., and Abramson, Paul R.. 1986. “Who Overreports Voting?American Political Science Review 80, no. 2: 613–24. doi: 10.2307/1958277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Susan C. 2005. “Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina.American Political Science Review 99, no. 3: 315–25. doi: 10.1017/S0003055405051683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Susan C. 2011. “Political Clientelism.” Goodin, Robert E., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan C., Dunning, Thad, and Nazareno, Marcelo. 2013. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usmanova, Svetlana. 2008. “Influence of Pre-Election Campaigning on Voter Choice.Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes 1, no. 85: 3747. At http://wciom.com/fileadmin/user_upload/file_monitoring/2012_108_13_eng.pdf, accessed June 15, 2019.Google Scholar
van de Walle, Nicolas. 2007. “Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss? The Evolution of Political Clientelism in Africa.” In Kitschelt, Herbert and Wilkinson, Steven I., eds., Patrons, Clients and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press: 5067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vicente, Pedro C. 2014. “Is Vote Buying Effective? Evidence from a Field Experiment in West Africa.Economic Journal 124, no. 574: F356–87. doi: 10.1111/ecoj.12086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wantchékon, Leonard. 2003. “Clientelism and Voting Behavior: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Benin.World Politics 55, no. 3 (April): 399422. doi: 10.1353/wp.2003.0018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitz-Shapiro, Rebecca. 2014. Curbing Clientelism in Argentina: Politics, Poverty, and Social Policy. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziblatt, Daniel. 2009. “Shaping Democratic Practice and the Causes of Electoral Fraud: The Case of Nineteenth-Century Germany.American Political Science Review 103, no. 1: 121. doi: 10.1017/S0003055409090042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Frye et al. supplementary material

Frye et al. supplementary material 1

Download Frye et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 304 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Frye et al. Dataset

Link
8
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Vote Brokers, Clientelist Appeals, and Voter Turnout: Evidence from Russia and Venezuela
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Vote Brokers, Clientelist Appeals, and Voter Turnout: Evidence from Russia and Venezuela
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Vote Brokers, Clientelist Appeals, and Voter Turnout: Evidence from Russia and Venezuela
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? *