How do incumbents prevent the opposition from claiming credit for government programs? The received scholarly wisdom is that central government authorities favor copartisans in lower tiers of government to reward allies and punish opponents. Yet this depiction ignores the range of strategies available to incumbents at the center. I argue that another effective strategy is to channel resources through nonstate organizations, thus bypassing the opposition and reducing “credit hijacking.” Using a regression-discontinuity design with data from Brazil, I show that mayors from the president’s party receive more resources, but that the election of an opposition mayor induces the central government to shift resources to nonstate organizations that operate in the locality. Original survey data, fieldwork, and data on organizations’ leaders support the claim that opposition mayors do not hijack credit from government spending through nonstate organizations.
AllardS. W. (2009). Out of reach. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
AmesB. (1994). The reverse coattails effect. American Political Science Review, 88, 95-111. doi:10.2307/2944884
3.
ArulampalamW.DasguptaS.DhillonA.DuttaB. (2009). Electoral goals and center-state transfers: A theoretical model and empirical evidence from India. Journal of Development Economics, 88, 103-119. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2008.01.001
4.
AvelinoG.BidermanC.BaroneL. S. (2012). Articulações Intrapartidárias e Desempenho Eleitoral no Brasil. Dados – Revista de Ciências Sociais [Intra-partisan linkage and electoral performance in Brazil]. 55, 987-1013. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0011-52582012000400005
5.
BaroneL. S. (2014). Eleições, partidos e política orçamentárias no Brasil: Explorando os efeitos das eleições locais na política nacional [Elections, parties, and budgetary policy in Brazil: Exploring the effects of local elections in national politics]. (Ph.D. Dissertation), Fundação Getúlio Vargas, São Paulo.
6.
BawnK.NunesF. (2013, April). Maintaining a logroll or building a party?Los Angeles: Department of Political Science, University of California.
7.
BerryC. R.BurdenB. C.HowellW. G. (2010). The president and the distribution of federal spending. American Political Science Review, 104, 783-799. doi:10.1017/S0003055410000377
8.
BoasT. C.HidalgoF. D.RichardsonN. P. (2014). The spoils of victory: Campaign donations and government contracts in Brazil. The Journal of Politics, 76, 415-429. doi:10.1017/S002238161300145X
9.
BouldingC. (2014). NGOs, political protest, and civil society. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BraccoE.LockwoodB.PorcelliF.RedoanoM. (2015). Intergovernmental grants as signals and the alignment effect: Theory and evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 123, 78-91. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.11.007
11.
BrolloF.NanniciniT. (2012). Tying your enemy’s hands in close races: The politics of federal transfers in Brazil. American Political Science Review, 106, 742-761. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000433
12.
BrownD. S.BrownJ. C.DesposatoS. W. (2007). Promoting and preventing political change through internationally funded NGO activity. Latin American Research Review, 42, 126-137. doi:10.1353/lar.2007.0002
CalonicoS.CattaneoM. D.TitiunikR. (2015). Optimal data-driven regression discontinuity plots. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110, 1753-1769. doi:10.1080/01621459.2015.1017578
15.
CammettM. (2014). Compassionate communalism: Welfare and sectarianism in Lebanon. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
16.
CammettM.MacleanL. M. (Eds.). (2014). The politics of non-state social welfare. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
17.
CaugheyD.SekhonJ. S. (2011). Elections and the regression discontinuity design: Lessons from close U.S. house races, 1942-2008. Political Analysis, 19, 385-408. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr032
18.
ChavesM.StephensL.GalaskiewicsJ. (2004). Does government funding suppress nonprofits’ political activity?American Sociological Review, 69, 292-316. doi:10.1177/000312240406900207
19.
CoxG.McCubbinsM. D. (1986). Electoral politics as a redistributive game. The Journal of Politics, 48, 370-389. doi:10.2307/2131098
20.
de CarvalhoP. H. B.Jr. (2006). IPTU no Brasil: Progressividade, Arrecadação e Aspectos Extra-Fiscais [IPTU in Brazil: Progressivity, Revenue, and Non-Fiscal Aspects]. Brasília, DF: Texto para Discussão - IPEA, n.1251. Retrieved from http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/TDs/td_1251.pdf
21.
DietrichS. (2014). Bypass or engage?International Studies Quarterly, 57, 698-712. doi:10.1111/isqu.12041
22.
DunningT. (2012). Natural experiments in the social sciences: A design-based approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
23.
FouirnaiesA.Mutlu-ErenH. (2015). English bacon: Copartisan bias in intergovernmental grant allocation in England. The Journal of Politics, 77, 805-817. doi:10.1086/681563
24.
FoxJ.JordanS. V. (2011). Delegation and accountability. The Journal of Politics, 73, 831-844. doi:10.1017/s0022381611000491
25.
GoldenM.MinB. (2013). Distributive politics around the world. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 73-99. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-052209-121553
26.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multi-dimensional choices via stated preferences experiments. Political Analysis, 22, 1-30. doi:10.1093/pan/mpt024
27.
HansonK.BermanP. (1995). Private health care provision in developing countries: a preliminary analysis of levels and composition. Boston, MA: Data for Decision Making Project, Harvard School of Public Health.
28.
HollandA. C.Palmer-RubinB. (2015). Beyond the machine: Clientelist brokers and interest organizations in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 48, 1186-1223. doi:10.1177/0010414015574883
29.
ImbensG.KalyanaramanK. (2012). Optimal bandwidth choice for the regression discontinuity estimator. The Review of Economic Studies, 79, 933-959. doi:10.1093/restud/rdr043
30.
JablonskiR. S. (2014). How aid targets votes: The impact of electoral incentives on foreign aid distribution. World Politics, 66, 293-330. doi:10.1017/S0043887114000045
31.
LavinasL. (2007). Gasto social no Brasil: Programas de transferência de renda versus investimento social. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva [Social spending in Brazil: Income transfer programs versus social investments]. 12, 1463-1476. doi:10.1590/S1413-81232007000600009
32.
LimongiF.FigueiredoA. (2008). Política Orçamentária no Presidencialismo de Coalizão [Budgetary Politics in the Coalitional Presidentialism]. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Editora FGV.
33.
LopezF. G.AbreuR. (2013). A Participação das ONGs nas Políticas Públicas: O ponto de vista de gestores federais [NGO Participation in Public Policies: A perspective from federal bureaucrats]. Brasília, DF: Texto para Discussão - IPEA, n.1949, Institute of Applied Economics. Retrieved from http://www.participa.br/articles/public/0008/5677/ponto_de_vista_dos_gestores_federais.pdf
34.
MayhewD. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
McCraryJ. (2008). Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 698-714. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.005
36.
MesquitaL. (2009). Emendas ao Orçamento e Conexão Eleitoral na Câmara dos Deputados Brasileira [Budget Amendments and the Electoral Connection in Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies] (Master’s thesis). Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil.
37.
MettlerS. (2011). The submerged State: How invisible government policies undermine American democracy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
38.
NichterS. (2011, September). Electoral clientelism or relational clientelism?Paper presented at the 2011 Annual Meeting APSA, Seattle, WA.
39.
NovaesL. M. (2014). Promiscuous politicians and the problem of party building. Berkeley: Department of Political Science, University of California.
40.
NunesF. (2013). Core voters or local allies? Presidential discretionary spending in centralized and decentralized systems in Latin America. Los Angeles: Department of Political Science, University of California.
41.
Palmer-RubinB. (2016). Interest organizations and distributive politics. World Development, 84, 97-117. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.03.019
42.
PereiraC.MuellerB. (2002). Comportamento Estratégico em Presidencialismo de Coalizão: As relações entre Executivo e Legislativo na Elaboração do Orçamento Brasileiro [Strategic Behavior in a Coalition-Based Presidential System: Executive-Legislative Relations in the Budgetary Process in Brazil]. Revista Dados, 45, 265-301. doi:10.1590/S0011-52582002000200004
43.
Pop-ElechesC.Pop-ElechesC. (2012). Targeted government spending and political preferences. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 7, 285-320. doi:10.1561/100.00011017
44.
PostA. E. (2014). Foreign and domestic investment in Argentina: The politics of privatized infrastructure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
45.
PuttomattiG. d. C. F. (2013). Capital Político e Transferências Voluntárias no Estado de São Paulo [Political Capital and Voluntary Transfers in the State of São Paulo] (Master’s thesis). Fundação Getúlio Vargas, São Paulo, Brazi.
46.
RichJ. (2013). Grassroots bureaucracy: Intergovernmental relations and popular mobilization in Brazil’s AIDS policy sector. Latin American Politics and Society, 55(2), 1-25. doi:10.1111/j.1548-2456.2013.00191.x
47.
SalamonL. M.AnheierH. K. (1997). Defining the nonprofit sector: A cross-national analysis. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
48.
SalamonL. M.SokolowskiS. W.ListR. (2003). Global civil society: An overview. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project.
49.
SamuelsD. (2002). Pork barreling is not credit claiming or advertising: Campaign finance and the sources of the personal vote in Brazil. The Journal of Politics, 64, 845-863. doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00149
50.
StokesS.DunningT.NazarenoM.BruscoV. (2013). Brokers, voters, and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
51.
ThachilT. (2014). Elite parties and poor voters. American Political Science Review, 108, 454-477.
52.
Weitz-ShapiroR. (2012). What wins votes: Why some politicians opt out of clientelism. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 568-583.doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00578.x
53.
ZuccoC.Jr. (2013). When payouts pay off: Conditional cash transfers and voting behavior in Brazil 2002-10. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 810-822. doi:10.1111/ajps.12026
54.
ZuccoC.SamuelsD. (2015). Crafting mass partisanship at the grass roots, from the top down. British Journal of Political Science, 45, 755-775. doi:10.1017/S000712341300054
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.
