IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v136y2020ics0305750x20302308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organizational and partisan brokerage of social benefits: Social policy linkages in Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Garay, Candelaria
  • Palmer-Rubin, Brian
  • Poertner, Mathias

Abstract

The expansion of large-scale non-discretionary social policy has been one of the most important policy innovations in Latin America in recent decades. While these benefits have reduced the political manipulation of low-income citizens, discretionary social programs—whose distribution follows opaque criteria and are often allocated according to political considerations—continue to exist. Employing an original survey in Mexico, we explore how citizens, both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, experience and perceive access to discretionary social programs. While the literature on clientelism emphasizes the distribution of discretionary benefits by party agents in exchange for electoral support, a number of recent studies have found that access to discretionary social benefits can also operate through community associations or interest organizations. We conducted a list experiment in our survey to detect whether in the experience or perception of the respondent social benefits are allocated on the basis of partisan campaign support or organizational participation. Our findings reveal that organizational brokerage is at least as important as the much-studied role of party-mediated clientelism for access to discretionary benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Garay, Candelaria & Palmer-Rubin, Brian & Poertner, Mathias, 2020. "Organizational and partisan brokerage of social benefits: Social policy linkages in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:136:y:2020:i:c:s0305750x20302308
    DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X20302308
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105103?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stokes, Susan C., 2005. "Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 315-325, August.
    2. Ahlquist, John S., 2018. "List Experiment Design, Non-Strategic Respondent Error, and Item Count Technique Estimators," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 34-53, January.
    3. Albertus, Michael & Diaz-Cayeros, Alberto & Magaloni, Beatriz & Weingast, Barry R., 2016. "Authoritarian Survival and Poverty Traps: Land Reform in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 154-170.
    4. Auerbach, Adam Michael & Thachil, Tariq, 2018. "How Clients Select Brokers: Competition and Choice in India's Slums," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(4), pages 775-791, November.
    5. Lucas M. Novaes, 2018. "Disloyal Brokers and Weak Parties," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(1), pages 84-98, January.
    6. Palmer-Rubin, Brian, 2016. "Interest Organizations and Distributive Politics: Small-Business Subsidies in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 97-117.
    7. Bryn Rosenfeld & Kosuke Imai & Jacob N. Shapiro, 2016. "An Empirical Validation Study of Popular Survey Methodologies for Sensitive Questions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(3), pages 783-802, July.
    8. Kate Baldwin, 2013. "Why Vote with the Chief? Political Connections and Public Goods Provision in Zambia," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(4), pages 794-809, October.
    9. Larreguy, Horacio & Marshall, John & Querubín, Pablo, 2016. "Parties, Brokers, and Voter Mobilization: How Turnout Buying Depends Upon the Party’s Capacity to Monitor Brokers," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(1), pages 160-179, February.
    10. Blair, Graeme & Imai, Kosuke, 2012. "Statistical Analysis of List Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 47-77, January.
    11. Jordan Gans‐Morse & Sebastián Mazzuca & Simeon Nichter, 2014. "Varieties of Clientelism: Machine Politics during Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(2), pages 415-432, April.
    12. Fox, Jonathan A, 1994. "The Difficult Transition from Clientelism to Citizenship: Lessons from Mexico," Center for Global, International and Regional Studies, Working Paper Series qt4n4746hk, Center for Global, International and Regional Studies, UC Santa Cruz.
    13. Candelaria Garay, 2007. "Social Policy and Collective Action: Unemployed Workers, Community Associations, and Protest in Argentina," Politics & Society, , vol. 35(2), pages 301-328, June.
    14. De La O,Ana Lorena, 2015. "Crafting Policies to End Poverty in Latin America," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107089488, October.
    15. Soss, Joe, 1999. "Lessons of Welfare: Policy Design, Political Learning, and Political Action," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(2), pages 363-380, June.
    16. Graeme Blair & Kosuke Imai & Jason Lyall, 2014. "Comparing and Combining List and Endorsement Experiments: Evidence from Afghanistan," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 1043-1063, October.
    17. Ezequiel Gonzalez‐Ocantos & Chad Kiewiet de Jonge & Carlos Meléndez & Javier Osorio & David W. Nickerson, 2012. "Vote Buying and Social Desirability Bias: Experimental Evidence from Nicaragua," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(1), pages 202-217, January.
    18. Blair, Graeme & Chou, Winston & Imai, Kosuke, 2019. "List Experiments with Measurement Error," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(4), pages 455-480, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paniagua, Victoria, 2022. "When clients vote for brokers: How elections improve public goods provision in urban slums," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    2. Grossmann, Jakub & Pertold, Filip & Šoltés, Michal, 2024. "Parental allowance increase and labor supply: Evidence from a Czech reform," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    3. Benson, Allison L., 2021. "From targeted private benefits to public goods: land, distributive politics and changing political conditions in Colombia," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112700, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. De La O, Ana L., 2024. "How clientelism undermines state capacity: Evidence from Mexican municipalities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    5. Dyzenhaus, Alex, 2021. "Patronage or policy? The politics of property rights formalization in Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    6. Benson, Allison L., 2021. "From targeted private benefits to public goods: Land, distributive politics and changing political conditions in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos A. Molina & James A. Robinson, 2022. "The Weak State Trap," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(354), pages 293-331, April.
    2. Gallego, Jorge & Guardado, Jenny & Wantchekon, Leonard, 2023. "Do gifts buy votes? Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    3. Paniagua, Victoria, 2022. "When clients vote for brokers: How elections improve public goods provision in urban slums," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    4. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina & Juan Felipe Riaño, 2018. "I Sell My Vote, and So What? Incidence, Social Bias, and Correlates of Clientelism in Colombia," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Fall 2018), pages 181-218, November.
    5. Troncone, Massimo & Valli, Roberto, 2024. "Who Pays for the Church? Political Connections and Religious Clientelism in Post-War Italy," OSF Preprints nsyc3, Center for Open Science.
    6. Dragan Filipovich & Miguel Niño-Zarazúa & Alma Santillán Hernández, 2018. "Campaign externalities, programmatic spending, and voting preferences in rural Mexico: The case of Progresa-Oportunidades-Prospera programme," WIDER Working Paper Series 027, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    7. Dragan Filipovich & Miguel Niño-Zarazúa & Alma Santillán Hernández, 2018. "Campaign externalities, programmatic spending, and voting preferences in rural Mexico: The case of Progresa-Oportunidades-Prospera programme," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2018-27, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    8. Leopoldo Fergusson & Horacio Larreguy & Juan Felipe Riaño, 2022. "Political Competition and State Capacity: Evidence from a Land Allocation Program in Mexico," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(648), pages 2815-2834.
    9. Jeremy Bowles & Horacio Larreguy & Shelley Liu, 2020. "How Weakly Institutionalized Parties Monitor Brokers in Developing Democracies: Evidence from Postconflict Liberia," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 952-967, October.
    10. Kenju Kamei, 2021. "Incomplete Political Contracts with Secret Ballots: Reciprocity as a Force to Enforce Sustainable Clientelistic Relationships," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 392-439.
    11. Vladimir Shchukin & Cemal Eren Arbatli, 2022. "Clientelism and development: Vote-buying meets patronage," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 34(1), pages 3-34, January.
    12. Pranab Bardhan & Sandip Mitra & Dilip Mookherjee & Anusha Nath, 2020. "How Do Voters Respond to Welfare vis-à-vis Public Good Programs? An Empirical Test for Clientelism," Staff Report 605, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    13. Soumyanetra Munshi, 2022. "Clientelism or public goods: dilemma in a ‘divided democracy’," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 483-506, December.
    14. Horacio A Larreguy & John Marshall & James M SnyderJr, 2018. "Leveling the playing field: How campaign advertising can help non-dominant parties," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(6), pages 1812-1849.
    15. Jaehyun Song & Takeshi Iida & Yuriko Takahashi & Jesús Tovar, 2020. "Buying Votes across Borders? A List Experiment on Mexican Immigrants in the US," Working Papers 1919, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    16. Callen, Michael & Gulzar, Saad & Hasanain, Ali & Khan, Muhammad Yasir & Rezaee, Arman, 2023. "The political economy of public sector absence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    17. Lai, Yufeng & Boaitey, Albert & Minegishi, Kota, 2022. "Behind the veil: Social desirability bias and animal welfare ballot initiatives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    18. Alice Guerra & Mogens K. Justesen, 2022. "Vote buying and redistribution," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 315-344, December.
    19. Casas, Agustin, 2020. "The electoral benefits of unemployment, clientelism and distributive politics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    20. Richard Traunmüller & Sara Kijewski & Markus Freitag, 2019. "The Silent Victims of Sexual Violence during War: Evidence from a List Experiment in Sri Lanka," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(9), pages 2015-2042, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:136:y:2020:i:c:s0305750x20302308. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.