Editing Mares Young 2016

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 3: Line 3:


*Main Topic: Explores the complex dynamics of electoral influence worldwide, examining how voters are influenced by both threats and promises based on their vote.
*Main Topic: Explores the complex dynamics of electoral influence worldwide, examining how voters are influenced by both threats and promises based on their vote.
**Electoral Manipulation: this is also called fraud, basically when the voting process is being tampered with before an election. Votes are manipulated and can be given more to one candidate and also removed from another candidate to get the desired results. This is a problem because its basically cheating and goes against the democratic values
**Clientelism Evolution: Details the progression of clientelism, highlighting the variety of intermediaries involved in the electoral process and the different tactics they employ.
**Clientelism Evolution: Details the progression of clientelism, highlighting the variety of intermediaries involved in the electoral process and the different tactics they employ.
**Types of Clientelism: Distinguishes between positive inducements (rewards) and negative inducements (threats).
**Types of Clientelism: Distinguishes between positive inducements (rewards) and negative inducements (threats).
Line 15: Line 13:
*Distinction from Other Practices: This differs from general promises of benefits which are not tied to individual votes, and from electoral fraud that does not consider voter preferences.
*Distinction from Other Practices: This differs from general promises of benefits which are not tied to individual votes, and from electoral fraud that does not consider voter preferences.


*Types of Inducements:
#Types of Inducements:
##Positive Inducements: Tangible rewards like money, goods, or favors exchanged for votes.
##Positive Inducements: Tangible rewards like money, goods, or favors exchanged for votes.
**
-Example: The  Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in Mexico would target individuals and give them benefits such as money and groceries to win their votes
##Negative Inducements: Threats of economic or physical harm used to influence voting behavior,including withdrawal of benefits, eviction, or violence.
##Negative Inducements: Threats of economic or physical harm used to influence voting behavior,including withdrawal of benefits, eviction, or violence.
**-Example: The countries of Zimbabwe and Belarus would target opposition rallies and would use  media censorship to suppress people from voting for the opposition


*Challenges in Measurement: Difficulty in measuring inducements due to their illegal nature and the mutual desire to conceal these transactions, especially where vote-buying is illegal.
*Challenges in Measurement: Difficulty in measuring inducements due to their illegal nature and the mutual desire to conceal these transactions, especially where vote-buying is illegal.
Line 32: Line 24:
*Topic: Discussion on the variety of brokers and strategies in clientelism, highlighting the critical role of intermediaries in linking political candidates and voters. There is an increased academic focus on understanding the complex dynamics between brokers, candidates, and voters.
*Topic: Discussion on the variety of brokers and strategies in clientelism, highlighting the critical role of intermediaries in linking political candidates and voters. There is an increased academic focus on understanding the complex dynamics between brokers, candidates, and voters.


*Types of Brokers:
#Types of Brokers:
##Partisan Brokers: Affiliated directly with political parties.
##Partisan Brokers: Affiliated directly with political parties.
##State Employees: Government officials or workers.
##State Employees: Government officials or workers.
Line 65: Line 57:
Political actors shift tactics, possibly toward intimidation by state employees or unpenalized actions by employers.
Political actors shift tactics, possibly toward intimidation by state employees or unpenalized actions by employers.


*Strategic Calculus: Political actors adapt their strategies based on the existing monitoring and punishment environment, demonstrating a nuanced understanding of the risks and benefits of different electoral malpractices.
##Strategic Calculus: Political actors adapt their strategies based on the existing monitoring and punishment environment, demonstrating a nuanced understanding of the risks and benefits of different electoral malpractices.




Line 78: Line 70:
*Lack of Scholarly Consensus:Significant disagreement remains among scholars regarding whether open or closed lists lead to more electoral corruption.
*Lack of Scholarly Consensus:Significant disagreement remains among scholars regarding whether open or closed lists lead to more electoral corruption.


-----------------


*Control of Local Institutions: Incumbency and Traditional Leaders
This subsection delves into how the control of local institutions, mainly through incumbency and traditional leadership, significantly influences the distribution and effectiveness of clientelistic strategies. The authors discuss how long-term incumbents, with their extended control over local administrative resources, can leverage these assets to influence electoral outcomes. This control allows for a more strategic deployment of state resources during elections, effectively turning state employees into brokers of clientelism.
The discussion further extends to the role of traditional leaders and local elites, who, like incumbents, can significantly sway electoral results. Deeply rooted in their communities, these leaders command respect and loyalty that can be mobilized for political purposes. Their ability to influence voter behavior, often for economic or ideological reasons, underscores the complex interplay between local governance structures and electoral clientelism.




Control of Local Institutions: Incubancy and Traditional Leaders
Control of Local Institutions: Incubancy and Traditional Leaders
 
As Mares & Young seek to understand the importance of the influence of electoral strategies within leaders, they will break down the variables that may arise with the practice of electoral clientelism  
*Mares & Young seek to understand the importance of the influence of electoral strategies within leaders, they will break down the variables that may arise with the practice of electoral clientelism  
  Clientelism: a practice where politicians exchange favors for political support from individuals or groups  Incubancy: a situation where a person currently holds a particular office or position
  Clientelism: a practice where politicians exchange favors for political support from individuals or groups  Incubancy: a situation where a person currently holds a particular office or position
Foundational understanding:
Foundational understanding:
  An important aspect of explaining the level and distribution of clientelism is understanding how political parties seek control over institutions, particularly local ones.
  An important aspect of explaining the level and distribution of clientelism is understanding how political parties seek control over institutions, particularly local ones  
Clientelism can be seen for instance with local leaders (mayors, traditional leaders) influencing voters for economic or ideological reasons.
Clientelism can be seen for instance with local leaders (mayors, traditional leaders) influencing voters for economic or ideological reasons
Argument:The greater the contact can be made for the benefit of political support, the more likely state resources will be deployed
Argument:The greater the contact can be made for the benefit of political support, the more likely state resources will be deployed


*Studies:  
Studies:  
#Have found significant differences in the use of clientelistic strategies that involve state employee brokers, such as the provision of administrative favors  (Mares & Petriva 2014)
Have found significant differences in the use of clientelistic strategies that involve state employee brokers, such as the provision of administrative favors  (Mares & Petriva 2014)
#Mares & Muntean (2015): demonstrate differences between the use of welfare coercion for political turnover  
Mares & Muntean (2015): demonstrate differences between the use of welfare coercion for political turnover  
##Concluding:The structures of leadership may affect variation in clientelistic strategies by shaping the strength and availability of local leaders who command moral authority and resources to influence the electoral behavior of voters
Concluding:The structures of leadership may affect variation in clientelistic strategies by shaping the strength and availability of local leaders who command moral authority and resources to influence the electoral behavior of voters
 
*VARIABLES
#Economic Conditions
##Employers electoral influence is the result of their control over important dimensions affecting the welfare of workers, such as their wages, levels of employment, or access to social policy benefits that are privately provided. 
 
*3 factors lower the costs of economic intimidation in localities with high levels of concentration
**Owing to their scale, larger firms incur lower costs in carrying out political activities, such as control of electoral turnover or the distribution of political material on behalf of a particular candidate.
**In concentrated localities, workers have fewer employment opportunities outside the firm.
**The concentration of employment in the hands of small members of actors reduces the possible coordination problems faced by employers in punishing workers with “dangerous” political views by denying them employment opportunities.


*The willingness of employers to engage in electoral intimidation is also affected by labor market conditions such as labor scarcity  
VARIABLES
 
Economic Conditions
*Voter Characteristics  
Employers electoral influence is the result of their control over important dimensions affecting the welfare of workers, such as their wages, levels of employment, or access to social policy benefits that are privately provided
** There is also compelling evidence that brokers and parties use different strategies against voters with different characteristics
Three factors lower the costs of economic intimidation in localities with high levels of concentration
** These explanations refer to voters' partisan preferences, socioeconomic status, and psychological attributes
First, owing to their scale, larger firms incur lower costs in carrying out political activities, such as control of electoral turnover or the distribution of political material on behalf of a particular candidate
Second, in concentrated localities, workers have fewer employment opportunities outside the firm
*Policy or Partisan preference
Finally, the concentration of employment in the hands of small members of actors reduces the possible coordination problems faced by employers in punishing workers with “dangerous” political views by denying them employment opportunities
The willingness of employers to engage in electoral intimidation is also affected by labor market conditions such as labor scarcity  
Voter Characteristics  
There is also compelling evidence that brokers and parties use different strategies against voters with different characteristics
These explanations refer to voters' partisan preferences, socioeconomic status, and psychological attributes
   
   
*Arguments on Partisan Preference:
POLICY OR PARTISAN PREFERENCE
 
There is compelling evidence that brokers and parties use different strategies against voters with different characteristics
**Formal theories often predict that parties should focus inducements on voters with weak ideological affiliations.
These explanations refer to voters' partisan preferences, socioeconomic status, and psychological attributes
**Some argue that it's more efficient to target core supporters, who are deeply embedded in partisan networks.
Arguments on Partisan preference
**Robinson & Torvick (2009) suggest that violence or threats should be used against swing voters, who are costly to win over due to competitive bidding from multiple parties.
Most formal theories on this topic have predicted that, under most conditions, parties should target inducements on voters with weak ideological affiliations  
 
Some scholars have argued that core supporters are easier to target efficiently because they are embedded in partisan networks  
 
Robinson & Torvick (2009) argue that parties should substitute violence for threats against swing voters because they are the most expensive to buy off if multiple parties are bidding for their votes
*Stokes et al. (2013) propose that politicians ideally target swing voters for vote buying, but due to imperfect monitoring, brokers often mobilize core supporters to maximize their own benefits.
Proposition
 
Stokes et. al. (2013) propose a “broker-mediated” theory of targeting in which politicians prefer to buy the votes of swing voters, but brokers who are imperfectly monitored end up mobilizing core supporters in order to capture rents
*Study/Data:
Study/Data  
 
A study was conducted by collecting data from 10 countries in Africa to understand the amount of inducement offered and the fear of violence the results were the following:
#Data from 10 African countries show that swing voters are less likely to receive vote-buying offers, contradicting theories that they should be primarily targeted.
The Afrobaometer data shows a negative and statistically significant relationship between being a swing voter and a vote-buying offer in six of the ten countries  
##No substantial evidence links the targeting of electoral threats or violence to voters’ partisan alignments.
This evidence suggests that parties are more likely to offer positive inducements to their own core supporters, but little evidence supports that there is any targeting based on the strength of voters' party identifications, which runs counter to the idea that swing voters should be singled out for violence
Socioeconomic Status:
Concluding: The threats of electoral violence, however, do not appear to be strongly targeted on the basis of voter partisan preference
 
*Economic factors, especially income, significantly influence whether voters are targeted with inducements or subjected to violence.
 
#Socioeconomic Argument
 
## It’s hypothesized that poorer voters are less likely to face violence as a substitute for vote buying, yet they are often more vulnerable due to their inability to afford personal security.
 
###In Africa, poorer voters tend to fear electoral violence more, evident in seven out of ten countries surveyed with high levels of such fear.
 
*Psychological Factors:
 
**Psychological attributes significantly affect how voters respond to electoral threats, potentially influencing their political actions
 
*Psychological Argument
 
##Emotional responses, shaped by campaign content, can significantly alter voter behavior, with anger proving more effective in mobilizing pro-opposition sentiments, especially in higher-income areas.
Concluding (Psychological):
 
*The effectiveness of electoral violence can partly be explained by how different psychological predispositions among citizens influence their reaction to threats or violence, suggesting varied emotional responses across different demographic groups.
 


*Summary
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
**As trade-off and clientelistic mobilization was at the center of electoral processes, studies have been attempting to further disaggregate the types of clientelistic echnages that we can be seen done by brokers with candidates and voters. Questions such as “what are the most salient variables that explain variation across countries, regions, and localities in the mix of clientelistic strategies?” and “who are the voters being targetted by different clientelistic strategies?”. TTherefore Mares & Young seek to gain a further understanding of how local leaders/ brokers are important during elections and what changes are possible to shift influence strategies, as well as understanding when voters are more likely to support particular candidates if those relations are viewed as gifts or threats.
Looking further into different variables that might alter the approach of persuading votes, a socioeconomic analysis will be made
It is likely that economic factors such as income play an important role in determining whether voters are targetted with both positive and negative inducements
Argument:
If vote buying and violence are substitutes, then we might expect that parties would be less likely to use violence against poor voters because their
However low-income voters may also be the most vulnerable to violence, as they are least capable of investing in security
Study
The same afrobarameter measuring inducements offered and fear of violence was conducted upon such arguments and the results are the following:
Poorer voters are consistently more to be afraid of electoral violence in seven out of ten of the African countries with the most fear of electoral violence
Psychological Factors
As one of many possible factors for voting outcomes, Mares and Young explains how one of the major puzzles is the understanding of how brokers enforce contracts with voters despite the existence of the secret ballot
Secret Ballot: confidential voting method
Argument
That emotion shapes reaction to the threat of repression and con ultimately cost of a shift in political standpoints
Young (2015) finds that campaign ads shared by an opposition party in a repressive environment cause more pro-opposition political speech when they appeal to anger rather than enthusiasm and that this effect is particularly strong among voters in higher-income areas
Concluding
With the results Mares & Young can argue that results suggest that citizens vary in psychological propensity when it comes to mobilizing or demobilizing emotions in response to the threat of electoral violence to then help explain how effective violence is from the regime 
Summary
As trade-off and clientelistic mobilization was at the center of electoral processes, studies have been attempting to further disaggregate the types of clientelistic echnages that we can be seen done by brokers with candidates and voters. Questions such as “what are the most salient variables that explain variation across countries, regions, and localities in the mix of clientelistic strategies?” and “who are the voters being targetted by different clientelistic strategies?”. TTherefore Mares & Young seek to gain a further understanding of how local leaders/ brokers are important during elections and what changes are possible to shift influence strategies, as well as understanding when voters are more likely to support particular candidates if those relations are viewed as gifts or threats.
Please note that all contributions to Projecting Power may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Projecting Power:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)