Can subnational elections contribute to democratization? In autocracies that hold competitive elections at multiple levels of government, subnational executive offices provide opposition parties with access to resources, increase their visibility among voters, and let them gain experience in government. This allows opposition parties to use subnational executives as “springboards” from which to increase their electoral support in future races, and predicts that their electoral support should follow a diffusion process, that is, a party’s electoral performance in municipality m at time t should be better if that party already governs some of m’s neighbors since t − 1. I evaluate this claim with data from municipal-level elections in Mexico between 1984 and 2000. Consistent with the fact that the Partido Acción Nacional (National Action Party, PAN) followed an explicit strategy of party-building from below but the Partido de la Revolución Democrática (Party of the Democratic Revolution, PRD) did not, the results indicate that diffusion effects contributed to the growth of the former but not the latter.
AlbertusM. (2015). The role of subnational politicians in distributive politics: Political bias in Venezuela’s land reform under Chávez. Comparative Political Studies, 48, 1667-1710.
2.
AngristJ.PischkeJ. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
ArriolaL. R. (2012). Multi-ethnic coalitions in Africa: Business financing of opposition election campaigns. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
ArriolaL. R. (2013). Capital and opposition in Africa: Coalition building in multiethnic societies. World Politics, 65, 233-272.
5.
Aziz NassifA. (1994). Chihuahua: Historia de una alternativa [Chihuahua: History of an alternative]. Mexico City, México: CIESAS-La Jornada Ediciones.
6.
Aziz NassifA. (2001). Alternation and change: The case of Chihuahua. In MiddlebrookK. J. (Ed.), Party politics and the struggle for democracy in Mexico: National and state-level analyses of the Partido Acción Nacional (pp. 189-207). San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.
7.
BentonA. L. (2012). Bottom-up challenges to national democracy: Mexico’s (legal) subnational authoritarian enclaves. Comparative Politics, 44, 253-271.
8.
BesleyT.CaseA. (1995). Does electoral accountability affect economic policy choices? Evidence from gubernatorial term limits. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 769-798.
9.
BlaydesL. (2010). Elections and distributive politics in Mubarak’s Egypt. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BoehmkeF. J.WitmerR. (2004). Disentangling diffusion: The effects of social learning and economic competition on state policy innovation and expansion. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 39-51.
11.
BoschN.Solé-OlléA. (2007). Yardstick competition and the political costs of raising taxes: An empirical analysis of Spanish municipalities. International Tax and Public Finance, 14(1), 71-92.
12.
BraunD.GilardiF. (2006). Taking “Galton’s problem” seriously: Towards a theory of policy diffusion. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 18, 298-322.
13.
BrinksD.CoppedgeM. (2006). Diffusion is no illusion: Neighbor emulation in the third wave of democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 463-489.
14.
BrownleeJ. (2007). Authoritarianism in an age of democratization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
BruhnK. (1997). Taking on Goliath: The emergence of a new left party and the struggle for democracy in Mexico. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
16.
BruhnK. (1999). PRD local governments in Michoacán: Implications for Mexico’s democratization process. In CorneliusW. A.EisenstadtT. A.HindleyJ. (Eds.), Subnational politics and democratization in Mexico (pp. 19-48). San Diego: Center for U.S.-American Studies, University of California, San Diego.
17.
BruhnK. (2012). The PRD and the Mexican Left. In CampR. A. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Mexican politics (pp. 187-209). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18.
BruhnK.YannerK. (1995). Governing under the enemy. The PRD in Michoacán. In RodríguezV. E.WardP. M. (Eds.), Opposition government in Mexico (pp. 113-131). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
19.
BueraF. J.Monge-NaranjoA.PrimiceriG. E. (2011). Learning the wealth of nations. Econometrica, 79, 1-45.
20.
BunceV. J.WolchikS. L. (2010). Defeating dictators: Electoral change and stability in competitive authoritarian regimes. World Politics, 62, 43-86.
21.
BunceV. J.WolchikS. L. (2011). Defeating authoritarian leaders in postcommunist countries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
BurkiS. J.PerryG. E.DillingerW. R. (1999). Beyond the center: Decentralizing the state. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
23.
CampR. A. (2010). The metamorphosis of leadership in a democratic Mexico. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24.
CasasA.DíazG.TrinidadeA. (2016). Who monitors the monitor? Effect of party observers on electoral outcomes. Unpublished manuscript, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
25.
CastañedaJ. G. (2015). La herencia: Arqueología de la sucesión presidencial en México [Perpetuating power: How Mexican presidents were chosen]. México: DeBolsillo. (Original work published 1998)
26.
CedermanL.-E.GleditschK. S. (2004). Conquest and regime change: An evolutionary model of the spread of democracy and peace. International Studies Quarterly, 48, 603-629.
27.
ClearyM. R. (2007). Electoral competition, participation, and government responsiveness in Mexico. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 283-299.
28.
CorneliusW. A. (1986). Political liberalization and the 1985 elections in Mexico. In DrakeP.SilvaE. (Eds.), Elections and democratization in Latin America, 1980-1985 (pp. 115-142). San Diego: Center for Iberian and Latin American Studies, University of California, San Diego.
29.
CourcheneT.Díaz-CayerosA. (2000). Transfers and the nature of the Mexican federation. In GiugaleM. M.WebbS. B. (Eds.), Achievements and challenges of fiscal decentralization: Lessons from Mexico (pp. 200-236). Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
30.
CrowleyJ. E.SkocpolT. (2001). The rush to organize: Explaining associational formation in the United States, 1860s-1920s. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 813-829.
31.
Díaz-CayerosA. (2004). Decentralization, democratization and federalism in Mexico. In MiddlebrookK. J. (Ed.), Dilemmas of political change in Mexico (pp. 198-236). London, England: Institute of Latin American Studies.
32.
Díaz-CayerosA. (2006). Federalism, fiscal authority, and centralization in Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Díaz-CayerosA.MagaloniB. (2001). Party dominance and the logic of electoral design in Mexico’s transition to democracy. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 13, 271-293.
34.
DobsonW. J. (2012). The dictator’s learning curve: Inside the global battle for democracy. New York, NY: Doubleday.
35.
DonnoD. (2013). Elections and democratization in authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 703-716.
36.
EisenstadtT. A. (2004). Courting democracy in Mexico: Party strategies and electoral institutions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
EisenstadtT. A. (2006). Mexico’s concertacesiones: The rise and fall of a substitutive informal institution. In HelmkeG.LevitskyS. (Eds.), Informal institutions and democracy: Lessons from Latin America (pp. 227-248). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
38.
ElkinkJ. A. (2011). The international diffusion of democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 44, 1651-1674.
39.
Espinoza ValleV. A. (1999). Alternation and political liberalization: The PAN in Baja California. In CorneliusW. A.EisenstadtT. A.HindleyJ. (Eds.), Subnational politics and democratization in Mexico (pp. 73-84). San Diego: Center for U.S.-American Studies, University of California, San Diego.
40.
FalletiT. G. (2005). A sequential theory of decentralization: Latin American cases in comparative perspective. American Political Science Review, 99, 327-346.
41.
Fernández-DuránJ. J.PoiréA.Rojas-NandayapaL. (2004). Spatial and temporal effects in Mexican direct elections for the Chamber of Deputies. Political Geography, 23, 529-548.
42.
FoxJ.MoguelJ. (1995). Pluralism and anti-poverty policy: Mexico’s national solidarity program and left opposition municipal governments. In RodríguezV. E.WardP. M. (Eds.), Opposition government in Mexico (pp. 189-204). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
43.
FranzeseR. J.HaysJ. C. (2008). Empirical models of spatial interdependence. In Box-SteénsmeierJ. M.BradyH. E.CollierD. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 570-604). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
44.
GarmanC.HaggardS.WillisE. (2001). Fiscal decentralization: A political theory with Latin American cases. World Politics, 53, 205-236.
45.
Garrido de SierraS. (2013). Eroded unity and clientele migration: An alternative explanation of Mexico’s democratic transition. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
46.
GeddesB. (2006). Why parties and elections in authoritarian regimes?. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
47.
GeddesB.WrightJ.FrantzE. (2014). Autocratic breakdown and regime transitions: A new data set. Perspectives on Politics, 12, 313-331.
48.
GibsonE. L. (2005). Boundary control: Subnational authoritarianism in democratic countries. World Politics, 58, 101-132.
49.
GibsonE. L. (2013). Boundary control: Subnational authoritarianism in federal democracies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50.
GilardiF. (2010). Who learns from what in policy diffusion processes?American Journal of Political Science, 54, 650-666.
51.
GilardiF. (2015). The temporary importance of role models for women’s political representation. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 957-970.
52.
GiraudyA. (2009). Subnational undemocratic regime continuity after democratization: Argentina and Mexico in comparative perspective (Doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill.
53.
GleditschK. S.WardM. D. (2006). Diffusion and the international context of democratization. International Organization, 60, 911-933.
54.
GrahamE. R.ShipanC. R.VoldenC. (2013). The diffusion of policy diffusion research in political science. British Journal of Political Science, 43, 673-701.
55.
GreeneK. F. (2007). Why dominant parties lose: Mexico’s democratization in comparative perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
56.
GrindleM. S. (2006). Modernising town hall: Capacity building with a political twist. Public Administration and Development, 26, 55-69.
57.
HilgersT. (2008). Causes and consequences of political clientelism: Mexico’s PRD in comparative perspective. Latin American Politics and Society, 50, 123-153.
58.
HiskeyJ.CanacheD. (2005). The demise of one-party politics in Mexican municipal elections. British Journal of Political Science, 35, 257-284.
59.
HiskeyJ. T.BowlerS. (2005). Local context and democratization in Mexico. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 57-71.
60.
HolmesT. J. (2006). Geographic spillover of unionism (Working Paper No. 12025). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
61.
HolmesT. J. (2011). The diffusion of Wal-Mart and economies of density. Econometrica, 79, 253-302.
62.
HowardM. M.RoesslerP. G. (2006). Liberalizing electoral outcomes in competitive authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 365-381.
63.
HydeS. D.MarinovN. (2012). Which elections can be lost?Political Analysis, 20, 191-210.
64.
KayserM. A.PeressM. (2012). Benchmarking across borders: Electoral accountability and the necessity of comparison. American Political Science Review, 106, 661-684.
65.
KopsteinJ. S.ReillyD. A. (2000). Geographic diffusion and the transformation of the postcommunist world. World Politics, 53, 1-37.
66.
Krnjevic-MiskovicD. d. (2001). Serbia’s prudent revolution. Journal of Democracy, 12(3), 96-110.
67.
LangstonJ. (2006). The changing party of the institutional revolution: Electoral competition and decentralized candidate selection. Party Politics, 12, 395-413.
68.
LangstonJ. (2010). Governors and “their” deputies: New legislative principals in Mexico. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 35, 235-258.
69.
LangstonJ.BentonA. L. (2009). “A ras de suelo”: Apariciones de candidatos y eventos en la campaña presidencial de México [“At ground level”: Candidate visits and events in Mexico’s presidential campaign]. Política y Gobierno, 16, 135-176.
70.
LangstonJ.MorgensternS. (2009). Campaigning in an electoral authoritarian regime: The case of Mexico. Comparative Politics, 41, 165-181.
71.
LankinaT.GetachewL. (2006). A geographic incremental theory of democratization: Territory, aid, and democracy in postcommunist regions. World Politics, 58, 536-582.
72.
LarreguyH. A.MarshallJ.QuerubínP. (2016). Parties, brokers, and voter mobilization: How turnout buying depends upon the party’s capacity to monitor brokers. American Political Science Review, 110(1), 160-179.
73.
LawsonC. (2000). Mexico’s unfinished transition: Democratization and authoritarian enclaves in Mexico. Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos, 16, 267-287.
74.
LeesonP. T.DeanA. M. (2009). The democratic domino theory: An empirical investigation. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 533-551.
75.
LevitskyS.WayL. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
76.
LevitskyS.WayL. A. (2013). The durability of revolutionary regimes. Journal of Democracy, 24(3), 5-17.
77.
LujambioA. (2001). Democratization through federalism? The National Action Party strategy, 1939–2000. In MiddlebrookK. J. (Ed.), Party politics and the struggle for democracy in Mexico: National and state-level analyses of the Partido Acción Nacional (pp. 47-94). San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.
78.
MagaloniB. (2006). Voting for autocracy: Hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
79.
MagaloniB. (2008). Credible power-sharing and the longevity of authoritarian rule. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 715-741.
80.
MagaloniB.Díaz-CayerosA.EstévezF. (2006). Clientelism and portfolio diversification: A model of electoral investment with applications to Mexico. In KitscheltH.WilkinsonS. (Eds.), Patrons, clients, and policies (pp. 322-343). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
81.
MainwaringS.Pérez-LiñánA. (2014). Democracies and dictatorships in Latin America: Emergence, survival, and fall. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
82.
Martínez GonzálezV. H. (2005). Fisiones y fusiones, divorcios y reconciliaciones. La dirigencia del Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD) 1989-2004 [Fissions and fusions, divorces and reconciliations. The leadership of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) 1989-2004]. Mexico City, México: UNAM-Plaza y Valdés.
83.
MedinaL. F.StokesS. C. (2002). Clientelism as political monopoly. Unpublished manuscript.
84.
MedinaL. F.StokesS. C. (2007). Monopoly and monitoring: An approach to political clientelism. In KitscheltH.WilkinsonS. (Eds.), Patrons, clients, and policies (pp. 150-182). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
85.
MeseguerC. (2006). Rational learning and bounded learning in the diffusion of policy innovations. Rationality and Society, 18, 35-66.
86.
MeseguerC.Escribá-FolchA. (2011). Learning, political regimes and the liberalisation of trade. European Journal of Political Research, 50, 775-810.
87.
MeyenbergY.CarrilloU. (1999). El Partido de la Revolución Democrática. Avances electorales, responsabilidad de gobierno y ambigüedad identitaria [The Party of the Democratic Revolution. Electoral successes, government responsibilities, and an ambiguous identity]. Revista Mexicana de Sociología, 61(3), 53-68.
88.
MeyerL. (1994). Prólogo [Foreword]. In NassifA. Aziz, Chihuahua: Historia de una alternativa [Chihuahua: History of an alternative]. Mexico City, México: CIESAS-La Jornada Ediciones.
89.
MizrahiY. (1994). Rebels without a cause? The politics of entrepreneurs in Chihuahua. Journal of Latin American Studies, 26, 137-158.
90.
MizrahiY. (1998). Dilemmas of the opposition in government: Chihuahua and Baja California. Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos, 14, 151-189.
91.
MorgensternS.ZechmeisterE. (2001). Better the devil you know than the saint you don’t? Risk propensity and vote choice in Mexico. The Journal of Politics, 63, 93-119.
92.
MorseY. L. (2012). The era of electoral authoritarianism. World Politics, 64, 161-198.
93.
MorseY. L. (2014). Party matters: The institutional origins of competitive hegemony in Tanzania. Democratization, 21, 655-677.
94.
O’LoughlinJ.WardM. D.LofdahlC. L.CohenJ. S.BrownD. S.ReillyD.. . .ShinM. (1998). The diffusion of democracy, 1946-1994. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88, 545-574.
95.
Quintero LeónK.López PerdomoA.Leyva RoaC. (2004). Datos relevantes sobre el PRD [Relevant data on the PRD]. In Reveles VázquezF. (Ed.), Partido de la Revolución Democrática: Los problemas de la institutionalización [The Party of the Democratic Revolution: The problems of institutionalization] (pp. 403-431). Mexico City, México: UNAM-Gernika.
96.
RaknerL.van de WalleN. (2009). Opposition parties and incumbent presidents: The new dynamics of electoral competition in Africa. In LindbergS. I. (Ed.), Democratization by elections: A new mode of transition (pp. 202-225). Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University Press.
97.
ReuterO. J.BuckleyN.ShubenkovaA.GarifullinaG. (2016). Local elections in authoritarian regimes: An elite-based theory with evidence from Russian mayoral elections. Comparative Political Studies, 49, 662-697.
98.
ReuterO. J.GandhiJ. (2011). Economic performance and elite defection from hegemonic parties. British Journal of Political Science, 41, 83-110.
99.
ReuterO. J.RemingtonT. F. (2009). Dominant party regimes and the commitment problem: The case of United Russia. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 501-526.
100.
Reveles VázquezF. (2004). Fundación e institucionalización del PRD: Liderazgos, facciones y confrontaciones [Founding and institutionalizing the PRD: Leaders, factions, and conflicts]. In Reveles VázquezF. (Ed.), Partido de la Revolución Democrática: Los problemas de la institutionalización [The Party of the Democratic Revolution: The problems of institutionalization] (pp. 11-71). Mexico City, México: UNAM-Gernika.
101.
RodríguezV. E. (1997). Decentralization in Mexico: From Reforma Municipal to Solidaridad to Nuevo Federalismo. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
102.
RosasG.LangstonJ. (2011). Gubernatorial effects on the voting behavior of national legislators. Journal of Politics, 73, 477-493.
103.
RundlettA.SvolikM. W. (2016). Deliver the vote! Micromotives and macrobehavior in electoral fraud. American Political Science Review, 110, 180-197.
104.
SeleeA. (2012). Municipalities and policymaking. In CampR. A. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Mexican politics (pp. 101-118). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
105.
ShipanC. R.VoldenC. (2008). The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 840-857.
106.
ShirkD. (1999). Democratization and local party building: The PAN in León, Guanajuato. In CorneliusW. A.EisenstadtT. A.HindleyJ. (Eds.), Subnational politics and democratization in Mexico (pp. 49-71). San Diego: Center for U.S.-American Studies, University of California, San Diego.
107.
ShirkD. A. (2001). Mexico’s democratization and the organizational development of the National Action Party. In MiddlebrookK. J. (Ed.), Party politics and the struggle for democracy in Mexico: National and state-level analyses of the Partido Acción Nacional (pp. 95-128). San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.
108.
ShirkD. A. (2005). Mexico’s new politics: The PAN and democratic change. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
109.
SimmonsB. A.DobbinF.GarrettG. (2006). Introduction: The international diffusion of liberalism. International Organization, 60, 781-810.
110.
SimpserA. (2013). Why governments and parties manipulate elections: Theory, practice, and implications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
111.
SmithB. (2005). Life of the party: The origins of regime breakdown and persistence under single-party rule. World Politics, 57, 421-451.
112.
StarrH. (1991). Democratic dominoes: Diffusion approaches to the spread of democracy in the international system. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35, 356-381.
113.
SvolikM. W. (2012). The politics of authoritarian rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
114.
Valencia GarcíaG. (2001). The PAN in Guanajuato: Elections and political change in the 1990s. In MiddlebrookK. J. (Ed.), Party politics and the struggle for democracy in Mexico: National and state-level analyses of the Partido Acción Nacional (pp. 209-258). San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.
115.
van de WalleN. (2006). Tipping games: When do opposition parties coalesce? In SchedlerA. (Ed.), Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition (pp. 77-92). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
116.
VoldenC. (2006). States as policy laboratories: Emulating success in the children’s health insurance program. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 294-312.
117.
WeylandK. (2007). Bounded rationality and policy diffusion: Social sector reform in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
118.
WeylandK. (2009). The diffusion of revolution: “1848” in Europe and Latin America. International Organization, 63, 391-423.
119.
WoodE. J. (2001). An insurgent path to democracy popular mobilization, economic interests, and regime transition in South Africa and El Salvador. Comparative Political Studies, 34, 862-888.
120.
WuhsS. T. (2001). Barbarians, bureaucrats, and bluebloods: Fractional change in the National Action Party. In MiddlebrookK. J. (Ed.), Party politics and the struggle for democracy in Mexico: National and state-level analyses of the Partido Acción Nacional (pp. 129-155). San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.
121.
WuhsS. T. (2008). Savage democracy: Institutional change and party development in Mexico. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
