While comparative political studies of voting and protest abound, little attention has been paid to nonelectoral and noncontentious participation, particularly at the local level. Who participates in local associations and why? We study the individual-level determinants of local civic participation in Bolivia to ask: Does local engagement reproduce the high socioeconomic bias predicted by resource theory? Did the left turn in government change the predictors of participation? Contrary to expectations, we find there is no high-class bias in Bolivia’s local civic engagement. Moreover, the levels and predictors of local civic engagement have not changed after the left turn. We contribute to the comparative politics literature by conceptualizing local programmatic participation and showing that the resource theory does not apply to this type of participation in a developing context. We argue that need—rather than plenty—prompts people to participate. Our findings are relevant to participation studies in developing societies.
AbersR. N. (2000). Inventing local democracy: Grassroots politics in Brazil. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
2.
AbersR. N.KeckM. E. (2013). Practical authority. Agency and institutional change in Brazilian water politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3.
AdcockR.CollierD. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative. American Political Science Review, 95, 529-546.
4.
AlmondG. (1980). The intellectual history of the civic culture concept. In AlmondG.VerbaS. (Eds.), The civic culture revisited (pp. 1-36). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
5.
AlmondG.VerbaS. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
AltmanD. (2011). Direct democracy worldwide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
AltschulerD.CorralesJ. (2012). The spillover effects of participatory governance: Evidence from community-managed schools in Honduras and Guatemala. Comparative Political Studies, 45(5), 636-666.
8.
AndersonM. L. (2008). Multiple inference and gender differences in the effects of early intervention: A reevaluation of the Abecedarian, Perry Preschool, and Early Training Projects. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103, 1481-1495.
9.
AnriaS. (2010). Bolivia’s MAS: Between party and movement. In CameronM. A.HershbergE. (Eds.), Latin America’s left turn: Politics, policies, and trajectories of change (pp. 101-125). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
10.
AnriaS. (2013). Social movements, party organization, and populism: A study of the Bolivian MAS. Latin American Politics and Society, 55(3), 19-46.
11.
AuyeroJ. (2000). Poor people’s politics: Peronist survival networks and the legacy of Evita. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
12.
AvritzerL. (2009). Participatory institutions in democratic Brazil. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and The Johns Hopkins University Press.
13.
BaiocchiG.HellerP.SilvaM. (2011). Bootstrapping democracy: Transforming local governance and civil society in Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
Beasley-MurrayJ.CameronM. A.HershbergE. (2010). Latin America’s left turns: A Tour d’Horizon. In CameronM. A.HershbergE. (Eds.), Latin America’s left turns: Politics, policies, and trajectories of change (pp. 1-20). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
15.
BekkersR. (2005). Participation in voluntary associations: Relations with resources, personality, and political values. Political Psychology, 26, 439-454. doi:10.2307/3792605
16.
BoothJ. A. (1979). Political participation in Latin America: Levels, structure, context, concentration and rationality. Latin American Research Review, 14(3), 29-60.
17.
BoothJ. A.SeligsonM. A. (1978). Images of political participation in Latin America. In BoothJ. A.SeligsonM. A. (Eds.), Political participation in Latin America: Vol. I. Citizen and state (pp. 3-33). New York, NY: Holmes & Meier.
18.
BouldingC. E. (2010). NGOs and political participation in weak democracies: Subnational evidence on protest and voter turnout from Bolivia. The Journal of Politics, 72, 456-468.
19.
CammettM. (2014). Compassionate communalism: Welfare and sectarianism in Lebanon. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
20.
CentellasM. (2009). Electoral Reform, Regional Cleavages, and Party System Stability in Bolivia. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 1(2), 115-131.
21.
ClearyM. R.StokesS. C. (2006). Democracy and the culture of skepticism. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
22.
CollierD.CollierR. B. (1979). Inducements versus constraints: Disaggregating “corporatism.”American Political Science Review, 73, 967-986.
23.
CollierR. B.HandlinS. (Eds.). (2009). Reorganizing popular politics: Participation and the new interest regime in Latin America. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
24.
CollinsJ. N. (2006). Democratizing formal politics: Indigenous and social movement political parties in Ecuador and Bolivia, 1978-2000 (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, San Diego.
25.
DunningT. (2009). Direct action and associational participation: Problem-solving repertoires of individuals. In CollierR. B.HandlinS. (Eds.), Reorganizing popular politics: Participation and the new interest regime in Latin America (pp. 95-131). University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
26.
FaguetJ.-P. (2012). Decentralization and popular democracy: Governance from below in Bolivia. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
27.
FalletiT. G. (2005). A sequential of decentralization: Latin American cases in comparative perspective. American Political Science Review, 99, 327-346.
28.
FalletiT. G. (2010). Decentralization and subnational politics in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
29.
FilmerD.PritchettL. (2001). Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data-or tears: An application to educational enrollments in states of India. Demography, 38, 115-132.
30.
FlemmerR.Schilling-VacaflorA. (2016). Unfulfilled promises of the consultation approach: The limits to effective indigenous participation in Bolivia’s and Peru’s extractive industries. Third World Quarterly, 37, 172-188.
31.
FornosC. A.PowerT. J.GarandJ. C. (2004). Explaining voter turnout in Latin America, 1980 to 2000. Comparative Political Studies, 37, 909-940.
32.
GoldfrankB. (2007). The politics of deepening local democracy: Decentralization, party institutionalization, and participation. Comparative Politics, 39, 147-168.
33.
GoldfrankB. (2010, September). Sustaining local citizen participation: Evidence from Montevideo and Porto Alegre. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Meeting, Washington, DC.
34.
GoldfrankB. (2011). Deepening local democracy in Latin America: Participation, decentralization, and the left. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
35.
GreenJ. E. (2016). The shadow of unfairness: A plebeian theory of liberal democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
36.
HanH. (2009). Moved to action: Motivation, participation, and inequality in American politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
37.
HellerP. (2001). Moving the state: The politics of democratic decentralization in Kerala, South Africa, and Porto Alegre. Politics and Society, 29, 131-163.
38.
HiskeyJ.SeligsonM. (2003). Pitfalls of power to the people: Decentralization, local government performance, and system support in Bolivia. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37(4), 64-88. doi:10.1007/bf02686272
39.
KohlB. (2003). Democratizing decentralization in Bolivia—The law of popular participation. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23(2), 153-164.
40.
KrishnaA. (2006). Poverty and democratic participation reconsidered: Evidence from the local level in India. Comparative Politics, 38, 439-458.
41.
La Due LakeR.HuckfeldtR. (1998). Social capital, social networks, and political participation. Political Psychology, 19, 567-584.
42.
LevitskyS.RobertsK. M. (2011). Latin America’s “left turn”: A framework for analysis. In LevitskyS.RobertsK. M. (Eds.), The resurgence of the Latin American left (pp. 1-28). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
43.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services—30th anniversary expanded edition. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
44.
LupienP. (2015). Models of participation: A comparative study of participatory mechanisms in Latin America (Doctoral dissertation). University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
45.
MadridR. L. (2008). The Rise of Ethnopopulism in Latin America. World Politics, 60(3), 475-508.
46.
MadridR. L. (2012). The rise of ethnic politics in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Martí i PuigS. (2010). The emergence of indigenous movements in Latin America and their impact on the Latin American political scene: Interpretive tools at the local and global levels. Latin American Perspectives, 37(6), 74-92.
48.
McNultyS. L. (2011). Voice and vote: Decentralization and participation in post-Fujimori Peru. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
49.
MorganJ. (2011). Bankrupt representation and party system collapse. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
50.
MoseleyM. (2014). From ballots to blockades: The normalization of protest in Latin American democracies (Doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
51.
MurilloM. V.OliverosV.VaishnavM. (2011). Economic constraints and presidential agency. In LevitskyS.RobertsK. M. (Eds.), The resurgence of the Latin American left (pp. 52-70). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
PogrebinschiT.SamuelsD. (2014). The impact of participatory democracy: Evidence from Brazil’s National Public Policy Conferences. Comparative Politics, 46, 313-332.
54.
PutnamR. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
55.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
56.
RaoV.SanyalP. (2010). Dignity through discourse: Poverty and the culture of deliberation in Indian village democracies. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 629, 146-172.
57.
RemmerK. L. (2009). Political scale and electoral turnout: Evidence from the less industrialized world. Comparative Political Studies, 43, 275-303. doi:10.1177/0010414009352638
58.
RiofrancosT. (2014). Contesting extraction: State-making, democracy, and large scale mining in Ecuador (Doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
59.
Schilling-VacaflorA. (2011). Bolivia’s new constitution: Towards participatory democracy and political pluralism?European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 90, 3-22.
60.
SchlozmanK. L.VerbaS.BradyH. E. (2012). The unheavenly chorus. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
61.
SchmittC. (2010). Sources of civic engagement in Latin America: Empirical evidence from rural Ecuadorian communities. Journal of Development Studies, 46, 1442-1458.
62.
SchmitterP. C. (1971). Still the of corporatism?Review of Politics, 34, 85-131.
63.
SeawrightJ. (2009). Political participation and representational distortion: The nexus between associationalism and partisan politics. In CollierR. B.HandlinS. (Eds.), Reorganizing popular politics: Participation and the new interest regime in Latin America (pp. 132-183). University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
64.
SeligsonM. A. (1978). Development and participation in Costa Rica: The impact of context. In BoothJ. A.SeligsonM. A. (Eds.), Political participation in Latin America: Vol. I. Citizen and state (pp. 145-153). New York, NY: Holmes & Meier.
65.
SeligsonM. A.BoothJ. A. (1976). Political participation in Latin America: An agenda for research. Latin American Research Review, 11(3), 95-119.
66.
SimmonsE. S. (2016). Meaningful resistance: Market reforms and the roots of social protest in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
67.
SkocpolT. (2003). Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
68.
SmildeD.HellingerD. (2011). Venezuela’s Bolivarian democracy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
69.
StoyanA. T.NiedzwieckiS.MorganJ.HartlynJ.EspinalR. (2014). Trust in government institutions: The effects of performance and participation in the Dominican Republic and Haiti. International Political Science Review, 37(1), 18-35.
70.
ThachilT. (2014). Elite parties, poor voters: How social services win votes in India. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
71.
TrejoG. (2009). Religious competition and ethnic mobilization in Latin America: Why the Catholic Church promotes indigenous movements in Mexico. American Political Science Review, 103, 323-342. doi:10.1017/s0003055409990025
72.
Van CottD. L. (2003). From exclusion to inclusion: Bolivia’s 2002 elections. Journal of Latin American Studies, 35, 751-775.
73.
Van CottD. L. (2008). Radical democracy in the Andes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
74.
Veliz CórdovaF. B. (2011). Lo que nos dejó la Ley de Reforma Educativa de 1994 a nivel organizacional de padres de familia [What the 1994 Law of Education Reform left for parents of schoolchildren]. Temas Sociales (Instituto de Investigaciones Sociológicas “Mauricio Lefebvre”) [Social Topics (Institute of Sociological Research “Mauricio Lefebvre”)], 31, 275-295.
75.
VerbaS.NieN. H.KimJ.-O. (1978). Participation and political equality: A seven-nation comparison. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
76.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
77.
WamplerB. (2007). Participatory budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, cooperation, and accountability. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
78.
WeylandK.MadridR. L.HunterW. (2010). Leftist governments in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
79.
WolffJ. (2013). Towards post-liberal democracy in Latin America? A conceptual framework applied to Bolivia. Journal of Latin American Studies, 45, 31-59.
80.
WolfordW. (2010). Participatory democracy by default: Land reform, social movements and the state in Brazil. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37, 91-109.
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.
