We examine a phenomenon we call “credit claiming by labeling” in which a sitting politician places her name on a project, program, or policy with the goal of claiming credit for it. While the prevalence of this practice suggests that many politicians believe that credit claiming by labeling will aid their careers, there is little existing evidence on this question. We examine the effects of credit claiming by labeling with a survey experiment in Argentina. We find that it has a negative, though small, effect on respondents’ attitudes. Descriptive data suggests that these results stem from the perceived pervasiveness of the practice. We then use evidence from an additional treatment on the (un)biased selection of program beneficiaries to show that respondents actually reward politicians who neither label nor manipulate programs. These results suggest substantial obstacles to overturning citizens’ negative baseline beliefs about the politicized implementation of government programs.
AlesinaA.RosenthalH. (1995). Partisan politics, divided government, and the economy. Cambridge University Press.
2.
AndersonC. J. (2007). The end of economic voting? Contingency dilemmas and the limits of democratic accountability. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.050806.155344
3.
ArceneauxK. (2006). The federal face of voting: Are elected officials held accountable for the functions relevant to their office?Political Psychology, 27(5), 731–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00530.x
4.
ArceneauxK.SteinR. M. (2006). Who is held responsible when disaster strikes? The attribution of responsibility for a natural disaster in an urban election. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2166.2006.00258.x
5.
AriasE.LarreguyH.MarshallJ.QuerubinP. (2018). Priors rule: When do malfeasance revelations help or hurt incumbent parties?National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w24888
6.
AuerbachA. M.ThachilT. (2023). Migrants and machine politics: How party networks form in urban India. Princeton University Press.
7.
BaldwinK.WintersM. S. (2020). How do different forms of foreign aid affect government legitimacy? Evidence from an informational experiment in Uganda. Studies in Comparative International Development, 55(2), 160–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-020-09303-8
8.
BaldwinK.WintersM. S. (2023). Foreign aid and political support: How politicians’ aid oversight capacity and voter information condition credit giving. World Politics, 75(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2023.0004
9.
BoasT. C.HidalgoF. D.MeloM. A. (2019). Norms versus action: Why voters fail to sanction malfeasance in Brazil. American Journal of Political Science, 63(2), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12413
10.
BoteroS.Castro CornejoR.GamboaL.PavãoN.NickersonD. W. (2021). Are all types of wrongdoing created equal in the eyes of voters?Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 31(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2019.1651322
11.
BrolloF.NanniciniT. (2012). Tying your enemy’s hands in close races: The politics of federal transfers in Brazil. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 742–761. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055412000433
BuenoN. S. (2018). Bypassing the enemy: Distributive politics, credit claiming, and nonstate organizations in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 51(3), 304–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017710255
14.
BuenoN. S. (2021). The timing of public policies: Political budget cycles and credit claiming. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12688
15.
CalvoE.MurilloM. V. (2004). Who delivers? Partisan clients in the Argentine electoral market. American Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 742–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00099.x
16.
CalvoE.MurilloM. V. (2019). Non-policy politics. Richer voters, poorer voters, and the diversification of electoral strategies. Cambridge University Press.
17.
CarlinR. E.MoseleyM. W. (2021). When clientelism backfires: Vote buying, democratic attitudes, and electoral retaliation in Latin America. Political Research Quarterly, 75(3), 766–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211020126
18.
ChongA.De La OA. L.KarlanD.WantchekonL. (2015). Does corruption information inspire the fight or quash the hope? A field experiment in Mexico on voter turnout, choice and party identification. The Journal of Politics, 77(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1086/678766
19.
CruzC.SchneiderC. J. (2017). Foreign aid and undeserved credit claiming. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 396–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12285
20.
DietrichS.MahmudM.WintersM. S. (2018). Foreign aid, foreign policy, and domestic government legitimacy: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh. The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1086/694235
21.
DuchR. M.StevensonR. T. (2008). The economic vote: How political and economic institutions condition election results. Cambridge University Press.
22.
EchebarríaK. (Ed.), (2006). Informe sobre la situación del servicio civil en América Latina. Inter-American Development Bank.
23.
EvansC. Q. (2020). Spotlight on Perceptions of Corruption in Latin America and the caribbean (AmericasBarometer spotlights series). Vanderbilt University.
24.
FearonJ. D. (1999). Electoral accountability and the control of politicians: Selecting good types versus sanctioning poor performance. In PrzeworskiA.StokesS. C.ManinB. (Eds.), Democracy, Accountability, and representation (pp. 55–97). Cambridge University Press.
25.
FigueroaV. (2021). Political corruption cycles: High-frequency evidence from Argentina’s notebooks scandal. Comparative Political Studies, 54(3–4), 482–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020938102
26.
González-OcantosE.OliverosV. (2019). Clientelism in Latin American politics. In PrevostG.VandenH. (Eds.), The encyclopedia of Latin American politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1677
27.
GrimmerJ.MessingS.WestwoodS. J. (2012). How words and money cultivate a personal vote: The effect of legislator credit claiming on constituent credit allocation. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 703–719. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055412000457
28.
GuiterasR. P.MobarakA. M. (2015). Does Development Aid Undermine Political Accountability? Leader and Constituent Responses to a Large-Scale Intervention. https://doi.org/10.3386/w21434
29.
HaleH. E. (2022). A “terrific symbol”: Physical personalization of pandemic relief enhances presidential support. PS: Political Science & Politics, 55(2), 251–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096521001438
HardingR.StasavageD. (2014). What democracy does (and doesn’t do) for basic services: School fees, school inputs, and African elections. The Journal of Politics, 76(1), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613001254
JamilR. R. (2022). Being seen by the state: Social policy and changing citizenship boundaries in Pakistan[PhD Dissertation, Brown University].
34.
KlašnjaM.LupuN.TuckerJ. A. (2020). When do voters sanction corrupt politicians?Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8(2), 161–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2020.13
35.
LupuN. (2016). Party brands in crisis: Partisanship, brand dilution, and the breakdown of political parties in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
36.
LupuN.OliverosV.SchiumeriniL. (2019). Toward a theory of campaigns and voters in developing democracies. In LupuN.OliverosV.SchiumeriniL. (Eds.), Campaigns and voters in developing democracies: Argentina in comparative perspective (pp. 1–27). University of Michigan Press.
37.
MalhotraN.KuoA. G. (2008). Attributing blame: The public’s response to hurricane katrina. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381607080097
38.
MaresI.YoungL. E. (2019). Conditionality & coercion: Electoral clientelism in eastern europe. Oxford University Press.
39.
OliverosV. (2021). Patronage at work: Public jobs and political services in Argentina. Cambridge University Press.
40.
OliverosV.Weitz-ShapiroR.WintersM. (2023). Replication data for: Credit claiming by labeling. Harvard Dataversehttps://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/Y30VGW
41.
OlorunnipaT.ReinL. (2020, April 15). Trump denied he wanted his name on stimulus checks. In Here’s how it happened. The Washington Post.
42.
PavãoN. (2018). Corruption as the only option: The limits to electoral accountability. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 996–1010. https://doi.org/10.1086/697954
43.
RudolphT. J. (2003). Who’s responsible for the economy? The formation and consequences of responsibility attributions. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 698–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00049
44.
StokesS. C. (2005). Perverse accountability: A formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055405051683
45.
StokesS. C.DunningT.NazarenoM.BruscoV. (2013). Brokers, voters, and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics. Cambridge University Press.
46.
SzwarcbergM. (2015). Mobilizing poor voters: Machine politics, clientelism, and social networks in Argentina. Cambridge University Press.
Weitz-ShapiroR. (2014). Curbing clientelism in Argentina: Politics, poverty, and social policy. Cambridge University Press.
50.
ZarazagaR. (2014). Brokers beyond clientelism: A new perspective through the Argentine case. Latin American Politics and Society, 56(03), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2014.00238.x
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.
