When do organizations broadly represent the interests of their economic sectors and when do they narrowly represent the interests of members? This article investigates how agricultural and small-business organizations in Mexico make demands for programmatic policies or patronage benefits. Contrary to explanations based on the class of members, I show that the source of organizational capacity shapes demand-making strategies. Organizations that generate selective benefits internally are able to engage in programmatic policies that shape sectoral competitiveness, whereas organizations that fail to solve membership challenges internally are vulnerable to the patronage trap, a self-reproducing cycle wherein they become specialized in demand making for discretionary private goods. I generate this argument through process tracing of two agricultural organizations in Mexico. Analysis of an original survey of economic interest organizations provides broader evidence that organizational capacity is a better predictor of policy demands than social class.
AhlquistJ. S.LeviM. (2011). Leadership: What it means, what it does, and what we want to know about it. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 1-24.
2.
AndrewsK. T.GanzM.BaggettaH.HanH.LimC. (2010). Leadership, membership, and voice: Civic associations that work. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 1191-1242.
3.
AuerbachA. M. (2016). Clients and communities: The political economy of party network organization and development in India’s urban slums. World Politics, 68, 111-148.
4.
AuyeroJ. (2000). The logic of clientelism in Argentina: An ethnographic account. Latin American Research Review, 35, 55-81.
5.
BaldwinK. (2013). Why vote with the chief? Political connections and public goods provision in Zambia. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 794-809.
6.
BartraA. (2007). El Gobierno no Cumple con el Acuerdo Nacional para el Campo . . . y se Hicieron Pactos [The government is not complying with the National Agreement for the Countryside…and they made pacts]. In Sánchez AlbarránA. (Ed.), El Campo no Aguanta Más (pp. 69-79). Mexico City, Mexico: Miguel Angel Porrúa.
7.
CalvoE.MurilloM. V. (2004). Who delivers? Partisan clients in the Argentine electoral market. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 742-757.
8.
CammettM. (2014). Sectarian politics and social welfare: Non-state provision in Lebanon. In CammettM.MacleanL. M. (Ed.), The politics of non-state social welfare (pp. 137-156). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
9.
ClarkP. B.WilsonJ. Q. (1961). Incentive systems: A theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6, 129-166.
10.
CollierR. B. (1992). The contradictory alliance: State-labor relations and regime change in Mexico. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, International and Area Studies.
11.
CressD. M.SnowD. A. (2000). The outcomes of homeless mobilization: The influence of organization, disruption, political mediation, and framing. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1063-1104.
12.
DahlR. A. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
de GrammontH. C.MackinlayH. (2009). Campesino and indigenous social organizations facing democratic transition in Mexico, 1938-2006. Latin American Perspectives, 36(4), 21-40.
14.
de JanvryA.GordilloG.SadouletE. (1997). Mexico’s second agrarian reform: Household and community responses, 1990-1994. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.
15.
Díaz-CayerosA.EstévezF.MagaloniB. (2016). Strategies of vote buying: Democracy, clientelism and poverty relief in Mexico. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
16.
DixitA.LondreganJ. (1996). The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. Journal of Politics, 58, 1132-1155.
17.
EmersonR. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31-41.
18.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19.
FoxJ. (1992). Democratic rural development: Leadership accountability in regional peasant organizations. Development and Change, 23, 1-36.
20.
FoxJ. (1994). The difficult transition from clientelism to citizenship: Lessons from Mexico. World Politics, 46, 151-184.
21.
GarayC. (2007). Social policy and collective action: Unemployed workers, community associations, and protest in Argentina. Politics & Society, 35, 301-328.
22.
GayR. (1999). The broker and the thief: A parable (reflections on popular politics in Brazil). Luso-Brazilian Review, 36, 49-70.
23.
GeorgeA. L.BennettA. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
GerringJ. (2008). Case selection for case-study analysis: Qualitative and quantitative techniques. In Box-SteffensmeierJ. MBradyH. E.CollierD. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 645-684). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hernandez-TrilloF.Jarillo-RablingB. (2008). Is local beautiful? Fiscal decentralization in Mexico. World Development, 36, 1547-1558.
29.
HollandA. C.Palmer-RubinB. (2015). Beyond the machine: Clientelist brokers and interest organizations in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 48, 1186-1223.
30.
HolznerC. A. (2010). Poverty of democracy: The institutional roots of political participation in Mexico. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
31.
HunterW.SugiyamaN. B. (2014). Transforming subjects into citizens: Insights from Brazil’s Bolsa Família. Perspectives on Politics, 12, 829-845.
32.
IversenT. (1999). Contested economic institutions: The politics of macroeconomics and wage bargaining in advanced democracies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33.
KatznelsonI. A.ZolbergR. (1986). Working-class formation: Nineteenth-century patterns in Western Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
KeeferP. (2007). Clientelism, credibility, and the policy choices of young democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 804-821.
35.
KitscheltH. (2000). Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities. Comparative Political Studies, 33, 845-879.
36.
KorpiW. (1983). The democratic class struggle. Boston, MA: Routledge & K. Paul.
37.
KurtzM. J. (2004). Free market democracy and the Chilean and Mexican countryside. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38.
LarreguyH.MarshallJ.QuerubinP. (2016). Parties, brokers and voter mobilization: How turnout buying depends upon the party’s capacity to monitor brokers. American Political Science Review, 110, 160-179.
39.
LeviM.OlsonD. (2000). The battles in Seattle. Politics & Society, 28, 217-237.
40.
LindblomC. E. (1977). Politics and markets: The world’s political economic systems. New York, NY: Basic Books.
41.
MaresI. (2004). Wage bargaining in the presence of social services and transfers. World Politics, 57, 99-142.
42.
MarkusS. (2015). Property, predation, and protection: Piranha capitalism in Russia and Ukraine. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43.
McCarthyJ. D.ZaldM. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212-1241.
44.
MoeT. M. (1981). Toward a broader view of interest groups. The Journal of Politics, 43, 531-543.
45.
NichterS.Palmer-RubinB. (2015). Clientelism, declared support and Mexico’s 2012 campaign. In DomínguezJ. I.GreeneK. F.LawsonC. H.MorenoA. (Eds.), Mexico’s evolving democracy: A comparative study of the 2012 elections (pp. 200-226). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
46.
OffeC.WiesenthalH. (1980). Two logics of collective action: Theoretical notes on social class and organizational form. Political Power and Social Theory, 1, 67-115.
47.
OlsonM. (1968). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
Palmer-RubinB. (2016). Interest organizations and distributive politics: Small-business subsidies in Mexico. World Development, 84, 97-117.
49.
PiattoniS. (2001). Clientelism, interests, and democratic representation: The European experience in historical and comparative perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
50.
PivenF. F.ClowardR. A. (1979). Poor people’s movements: Why they succeed, how they fail. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
51.
SchattschneiderE. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
52.
SchneiderB. R. (2013). Hierarchical capitalism in Latin America: Business, labor, and the challenges of equitable development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
53.
ShadlenK. C. (2004). Democratization without representation: The politics of small industry in Mexico. University Park: Penn State University Press.
54.
ShefterM. (1977). Party and patronage: Germany, England, and Italy. Politics & Society, 7, 403-451.
55.
StaggenborgS. (1988). The consequences of professionalization and formalization in the pro-choice movement. American Sociological Review, 53, 585-605.
56.
StokesS. C. (2005). Perverse accountability: A formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review, 99, 315-325.
57.
StokesS. C.DunningT.NazarenoM.BruscoV. (2013). Brokers, voters, and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
58.
ThachilT. (2011). Embedded mobilization: Nonstate service provision as electoral strategy in India. World Politics, 63, 434-469.
59.
TrumanD. B. (1951). The governmental process: Political interests and public opinion. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
60.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61.
WeinsteinJ. M. (2006). Inside rebellion: The politics of insurgent violence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
62.
WilsonJ. Q. (1995). Political organizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 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.
