In this article, we examine the demand-and-supply dynamic of security policies. We argue there are two informational shortcuts through which voters process policy alternatives and choose among them: (1) their own personal experiences with violence and (2) candidates’ profiles. We test our argument through an original survey experiment conducted in Mexico. We model voters’ decisions to support candidates campaigning over a variety of security proposals. Our survey design takes advantage of recent developments in network models to better measure the effects of crime exposure on voters’ preferences. We find that higher exposure to crime victimization is associated with increased support for only some iron-fist policies, therefore highlighting the importance of unpacking security policies instead of generalizing the results of crime exposure. We show null effects of partisan advantages and reveal the role of non-partisan heuristics, such as the candidate’s professional experience, in preferences for security policies.
AguilarR. (2019). Las coaliciones electorales de López Obrador a través del tiempo. Variaciones sociales y políticas (pp. 57–74). CESOP. chapter 1.
2.
AltamiranoM.BerensS.LeyS. (2020). The welfare state amid crime: How victimization and perceptions of insecurity affect social policy preferences in Latin america and the caribbean. Politics & Society, 48(3), 389–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329220940850
BakerT.ClearyH. M.PickettJ. T.GertzM. G. (2016). Crime salience and public willingness to pay for child saving and juvenile punishment. Crime & Delinquency, 62(5), 645–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128713505487
5.
BeckettK. (1999). Making crime pay: Law and order in contemporary American politics. Oxford University Press.
6.
BeckettK.WesternB. (2001). Governing social marginality: Welfare, incarceration, and the transformation of state policy. Punishment & Society, 3(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624740122228249
7.
BernardH. R.HallettT.IovitaA.JohnsenE. C.LyerlaR.McCartyC.MahyM.SalganikM. J.SaliukT.ScutelniciucO.ShelleyG. A.SirinirundP.WeirS.StroupD. F. (2010). Counting hard-to-count populations: The network scale-up method for public health. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 86(Suppl_2), ii11–ii15. https://doi.org/10.1136/sti.2010.044446
8.
BesleyT. (2006). Principled agents? The political economy of good Government. Oxford University Press.
BoteroS.CornejoR. C.GamboaL.PavaoN.NickersonD. W. (2015). Says who? An experiment on allegations of corruption and credibility of sources. Political Research Quarterly, 68(3), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915591607
BuenoS. (2012). Letalidade policial. In de LimaR. S.RattonJ. L.de AzevedoR. G. (Eds.), Crime, polícia e justiça no Brasil. Editora Contexto.
13.
CalvoE.MurilloM. V. (2013). When parties meet voters: Assessing political linkages through partisan networks and distributive expectations in Argentina and Chile. Comparative Political Studies, 46(7), 851–882. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012463882
14.
CalvoE.MurilloM. V. (2019). Non-policy politics: Richer voters, poorer voters, and the diversification of electoral strategies. Cambridge University Press.
15.
CampbellR.CowleyP. (2014). What voters want: Reactions to candidate characteristics in a survey experiment. Political Studies, 62(4), 745–765. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12048
16.
CanoI. (1997). Letalidade da ação policial no Rio de Janeiro. Iser.
17.
CantúF.CarrerasM. (2021). Presidential debates in Latin America. Database.
18.
CantúF.LeyS. (2017). Poll worker recruitment: Evidence from the mexican case. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 16(4), 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2016.0385
19.
CarrerasM. (2013a). The impact of criminal violence on regime legitimacy in Latin america. Latin American Research Review, 48(3), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1353/lar.2013.0040
20.
CarrerasM. (2013b). The impact of criminal violence on regime legitimacy in Latin America (pp. 85–107). Latin American Research Review.
21.
Castro CornejoR. (2019). Partisanship and question-wording effects: Experimental evidence from Latin america. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(1), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz006
22.
CohenM.SmithA. E. (2016). Do authoritarians vote for authoritarians? Evidence from Latin America. Research & Politics, 3(4), 205316801668406. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168016684066
23.
CohenM. A.RustR. T.SteenS. (2006). Prevention, crime control or cash? Public preferences towards criminal justice spending priorities. Justice Quarterly, 23(3), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820600869103
24.
EdwardsF.LeeH.EspositoM. (2019). Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(34), 16793–16798. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821204116
25.
Ertola NavajasG.López VillalbaP. A.RossiM. A.VazquezA. (2022). The long-term effect of military conscription on personality and beliefs. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 104(1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00930
FlomH.PostA. E. (2016). Blame avoidance and policy stability in developing democracies: The politics of public security in Buenos Aires. Comparative Politics, 49(1), 23–46. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041516819582973
29.
Flores-MacíasG.Sánchez-TalanquerM. (2020). Building the modern state in developing countries: Perceptions of public safety and (un)willingness to pay taxes in Mexico. Politics & Society, 48(3), 423–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329220943848
30.
Flores-MacíasG.ZarkinJ. (2022). Militarization and perceptions of law enforcement in the developing world: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Mexico. British Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 1377–1397. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123421000259
31.
Flores-MacíasG. A.ZarkinJ. (2019). The militarization of law enforcement: Evidence from Latin america. Perspectives on Politics, 19(2), 519–538. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592719003906
32.
FrantzE. (2018). The legacy of military dictatorship: Explaining violent crime in democracies. International Political Science Review, 40(3), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512118769079
33.
García-PonceO.YoungL.ZeitzoffT. (2022). Anger and support for retribution in Mexico’s drug war. Journal of Peace Research, 60(2), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433221075191
34.
GelmanA.HillJ. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/Hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press.
35.
GerberM. M.JacksonJ. (2016). Authority and punishment: On the ideological basis of punitive attitudes towards criminals. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(1), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1034060
36.
GingerichD. W.OliverosV. (2018). Police violence and the underreporting of crime. Economics & Politics, 30(1), 78–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.12102
37.
GingerichD. W.ScartasciniC. (2022). A heavy hand or a helping hand? Information provision and citizen preferences for anti-crime policies. Journal of Public Policy, 42(2), 364–389. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x21000246
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt024
40.
HollandA. C. (2013). Right on crime? Conservative party politics and mano dura policies in el salvador. Latin American Research Review, 48(1), 44–67. https://doi.org/10.1353/lar.2013.0009
41.
IyengarS.ValentinoN. (2000). Who says what? Source credibility as a mediator of campaign advertising. In A. Lupia, M. McCubbins, & S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 108–129. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805813
42.
KaplanN.ParkD. K.RidoutT. N. (2006). Dialogue in American political campaigns? An examination of issue convergence in candidate television advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 724–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00212.x
43.
KillworthP. D.McCartyC.BernardH. R.ShelleyG. A.JohnsenE. C. (1998). Estimation of seroprevalence, rape, and homelessness in the United States using a social network approach. Evaluation Review, 22(2), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9802200205
44.
KrauseK. (2014). Supporting the iron fist: Crime news, public opinion, and authoritarian crime control in Guatemala. Latin American Politics and Society, 56(01), 98–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2014.00224.x
45.
LauR. R.RedlawskD. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669334
46.
LeyS. (2018). To vote or not to vote: How criminal violence shapes electoral participation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(9), 1963–1990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002717708600
47.
LupiaA. (2002). Who can persuade whom? Implications from the Nexus of psychology and rational choice theory (pp. 51–88). Cambridge Studies in Public Opinion and Political Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
MagaloniB.RodriguezL. (2020). Institutionalized police brutality: Torture, the militarization of security, and the reform of inquisitorial criminal justice in Mexico. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1013–1034. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055420000520
50.
MaloneM. F. T. (2010). Does dirty harry have the answer? Citizen support for the rule of law in central America. Public Integrity, 13(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.2753/pin1099-9922130104
51.
MaloneM. F. T.DammertL. (2021). The police and the public: Policing practices and public trust in Latin america. Policing and Society, 31(4), 418–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2020.1744600
52.
McCartyC.KillworthP. D.BernardH. R.JohnsenE. C.ShelleyG. A. (2001). Comparing two methods for estimating network size. Human Organization, 60(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.60.1.efx5t9gjtgmga73y
53.
McCormickT. H.SalganikM. J.ZhengT. (2010). How many people do you know?: Efficiently estimating personal network size. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105(489), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08518
54.
McCormickT. H.ZhengT. (2013). Network-based methods for accessing hard-to-reach populations using standard surveys. In Hard-to-Survey populations. Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381635
MoncadaE. (2020). The politics of criminal victimization: Pursuing and resisting power. Perspectives on Politics, 18(3), 706–721. https://doi.org/10.1017/s153759271900029x
57.
MummoloJ. (2018). Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(37), 9181–9186. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805161115
PérezO. J. (2015). The impact of crime on voter choice in Latin America. In R. Carlin, M. Singer, & E. Zechmeister (Eds.), The Latin American Voter: Pursuing Representation and Accountability in Challenging Contexts. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 324–345. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.8402589
60.
PetrocikJ. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111797
61.
Pion-BerlinD.CarrerasM. (2017). Armed forces, police and crime-fighting in Latin america. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 9(3), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802x1700900301
62.
PocasangreO. (2022). The political Consequences of chronic criminal violence. PhD thesis. Columbia University.
63.
PonceA. F. (2019). Violence and electoral competition: Criminal organizations and municipal candidates in Mexico. Trends in Organized Crime, 22(2), 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-018-9344-9
64.
PriceS.SechopoulosS.WhittyJ. (2019). Support for harsher criminal punishment is greater among the young, the insecure, victims, and those with low trust in the police. LAPOP Insights Series, 59(120), #140. https://bit.ly/3Ijh28n
65.
Prud’hommeJ.-F. (2020). Partidos y sistema de partidos en las elecciones mexicanas de 2018. Foro Internacional, LX(20), 397–450. https://doi.org/10.24201/fi.v60i2.2730
66.
PrzeworskiA.StokesS.ManinB. (1999). Introduction. In Democracy, accountability, and representation. Cambridge University Press.
67.
RuedaD.StegmuellerD. (2016). The Externalities of inequality: Fear of crime and preferences for redistribution in Western Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 60(2), 472–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12212
68.
SalganikM. J.FazitoD.BertoniN.AbdoA. H.MelloM. B.BastosF. I. (2011). Assessing network scale-up estimates for groups most at risk of hiv/aids: Evidence from a multiple-method study of heavy drug users in curitiba, Brazil. American Journal of Epidemiology, 174(10), 1190–1196. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwr246
69.
Sánchez MurilloL. F.Aceves GonzálezF. d. J. (2008). Campañas políticas y configuración del voto electoral en 2006. Encuestas electorales y publicidad política. Revista mexicana de ciencias políticas y sociales, 50(202), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.22201/fcpys.2448492xe.2008.202.42602
70.
SchwarzS.CoppockA. (2022). What have we learned about gender from candidate choice experiments? A meta-analysis of sixty-seven factorial survey experiments. The Journal of Politics, 84(2), 655–668. https://doi.org/10.1086/716290
71.
SingerA. J.ChouhyC.LehmannP. S.StevensJ. N.GertzM. (2020). Economic anxieties, fear of crime, and punitive attitudes in Latin America. Punishment & Society, 22(2), 181–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474519873659
72.
TeeleD. L.KallaJ.RosenbluthF. (2018). The ties that double bind: Social roles and women’s underrepresentation in politics. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 525–541. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055418000217
73.
TrejoG.AlbarracínJ.TiscorniaL. (2018). Breaking state impunity in post-authoritarian regimes. Journal of Peace Research, 55(6), 787–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343318793480
74.
TrejoG.LeyS. (2020). Votes, drugs, and violence: The political logic of criminal wars in Mexico. Cambridge University Press.
75.
VenturaT. (2021). Voting for violence: Crime and the election of law-and-order politicians in Brazil. Working Paper.
76.
VenturaT.LeyS.CantúF. (2023).Replication data for: “Voting for law and order: Evidence from a survey experiment in Mexico”.
77.
VillarrealA.SilvaB. F. (2006). Social cohesion, criminal victimization and perceived risk of crime in brazilian neighborhoods. Social Forces, 84(3), 1725–1753. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0073
78.
ViscontiG. (2019). Policy preferences after crime victimization: Panel and survey evidence from Latin America. British Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 1481–1495. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123418000297
79.
WeintraubM.BlairR. (2020). Fighting crime with an iron fist: An experimental evaluation of militarized policing in Cali, Colombia. Working paper.
ZhengT.SalganikM. J.GelmanA. (2006). How many people do you know in prison?Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101(474), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214505000001168
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.
