Conventional wisdom says vote buying undermines trust in elections, but few have examined this systematically. We identify why this relationship ought to hold, on average. We also derive two conditioning hypotheses: vote buying will be less consequential among citizens who view these exchanges as positive and in contexts marred by electoral irregularities. We test these three expectations with analyses of cross-national survey data and an original survey experiment. We find only a small and inconsistent relationship between vote buying and electoral trust. We find weak evidence on the role of norms and more support for the notion that context matters. We conclude that a modest connection between vote buying and electoral trust is driven less by approval of vote buying practices and more by variation in how elections are actually conducted and, related, the relative novelty of being exposed to vote buying.
AgerbergM. (2020). The lesser evil? Corruption voting and the importance of clean alternatives. Comparative Political Studies, 53(2), 253–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019852697
2.
AidtT.AsatryanZ.BadalyanL.HeinemannF. (2020). Vote buying or (political) business (cycles) as usual?The Review of Economics and Statistics, 102(3), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00820
3.
Amador Leal GonzálezB. (2021). La movilización clientelar y la brecha socioeconómico-electoral. [Doctoral dissertation. Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas]. https://repositorio-digital.cide.edu/handle/11651/4469.
4.
AngristJ. D.PischkeJ. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion: Princeton University Press.
5.
AspinallE.BerenschotW. (2019). Democracy for sale: Elections, clientelism, and the state in Indonesia: Cornell University Press.
6.
AuerbachA. M.ThachilT. (2018). How clients select brokers: Competition and choice in India’s slums. American Political Science Review, 112(4), 775–791. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305541800028X
7.
AuyeroJ. (2001). Poor people’s politics: Peronist survival networks and the legacy of Evita: Duke University Press.
8.
BaldwinK. (2013). Why vote with the chief? Political connections and public goods provision in Zambia. American Journal of Political Science, 57(4), 794–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12023
9.
Becerra MizunoE. L. (2012). Does everyone have a price? The demand side of clientelism and vote-buying in an emerging democracy. Duke Dissertations. [Doctoral dissertation, Duke University]. https://hdl.handle.net/10161/6185
10.
BirchS. (2008). Electoral institutions and popular confidence in electoral processes: A cross-national analysis. Electoral Studies, 27(2), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2008.01.005
BlairG.CoppockA.MoorM. (2020). When to worry about sensitivity bias: A social reference theory and evidence from 30 years of list experiments. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1297–1315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000374
13.
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
BrinkerhoffD. W.GoldsmithA. A. (2004). Good governance, clientelism, and patrimonialism: New perspectives on old problems. International Public Management Journal, 7(2), 163–185.
CalvoE.MurilloM. V. (2019). Non-policy politics: Richer voters, poorer voters, and the diversification of electoral strategies: Cambridge University Press.
19.
CanareT. A.MendozaR. U.LopezM. A. (2018). An empirical analysis of vote buying among the poor: Evidence from elections in the Philippines. South East Asia Research, 26(1), 58–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967828X17753420
20.
CantúF. (2019). Groceries for votes: The electoral returns of vote buying. The Journal of Politics, 81(3), 790–804. https://doi.org/10.1086/702945
ÇarkoğluA.AytaçS. E. (2015). Who gets targeted for vote-buying? Evidence from an augmented list experiment in Turkey. European Political Science Review, 7(4), 547–566. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773914000320
CarlinR. E.MoseleyM. (2015). Good democrats, bad targets: Democratic values and clientelistic vote buying. The Journal of Politics, 77(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/678307
25.
CarlinR. E.MoseleyM. W. (2022). 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
CastorenaO.LupuN.SchadeM.ZechmeisterE. J. (2023). Online surveys in Latin America. PS: Political Science & Politics, 56(2), 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001287
29.
ChubbJ. (1982). Patronage, power, and poverty in southern Italy: A tale of two cities: Cambridge University Press.
30.
ClearyM. R.StokesS. C. (2006). Democracy and the culture of skepticism: Political trust in Argentina and Mexico: Russell Sage.
31.
CohenM. (2021). Citizen approval of monetary- vs goods-for-votes exchanges. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8(1), 85–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2020.4
32.
CohenM.NohE.ZechmeisterE. (2024). Replication data for: Vote buying, norms, context, and trust in elections. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/HVSEBL
33.
Conroy-KrutzJ.LoganC. (2012). Museveni and the 2011 Ugandan election: Did the money matter?The Journal of Modern African Studies, 50(4), 625–655. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X12000377
CoxG. W.KousserJ. M. (1981). Turnout and rural corruption: New York as a test case. American Journal of Political Science, 25(4), 646–663. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110757
36.
CruzC.KeeferP.LabonneJ. (2021). Buying informed voters: New effects of information on voters and candidates. The Economic Journal, 131(635), 1105–1134. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueaa112
37.
CuriniL. (2010). Experts’ political preferences and their impact on ideological bias: An unfolding analysis based on a Benoit-Laver expert survey. Party Politics, 16(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068809341051
38.
DaxeckerU.FjeldeH. (2022). Electoral violence, partisan identity, and perceptions of election quality: A survey experiment in West Bengal, India. Comparative Politics, 55(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041522X16430324169141
39.
DebsA.HelmkeG. (2010). Inequality under democracy: Explaining the left decade in Latin America. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 5(3), 209–241. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00009074
40.
de SousaL. (2008). Clientelism and the quality(ies) of democracy: Public and policy aspects (2008/2; DISC working paper). Center for the study of imperfections in democracy. Central European University. https://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00004462
41.
Díaz-CayerosA.EstévezF.MagaloniB. (2016). The political logic of poverty relief: Electoral strategies and social policy in Mexico. Cambridge University Press.
42.
FergussonL.MolinaC.RiañoJ. F. (2018). I sell my vote, and so what? Incidence, social bias, and correlates of clientelism in Colombia. Economia, 19(1), 181–218. https://doi.org/10.1353/eco.2018.0011
43.
Fernández-VázquezP.BarberáP.RiveroG. (2016). Rooting out corruption or rooting for corruption? The heterogeneous electoral consequences of scandals. Political Science Research and Methods, 4(2), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.8
GainesB. J.KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J. (2007). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpl008
46.
GayR. (1999). The broker and the thief: A parable (Reflections on popular politics in Brazil). Luso-Brazilian Review, 36(1), 49–70.
47.
Gonzalez-OcantosE.de JongeC. K.MeléndezC.OsorioJ.NickersonD. W. (2012). Vote buying and social desirability bias: Experimental evidence from Nicaragua. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00540.x
48.
Gonzalez OcantosE.de JongeC. K.NickersonD. W. (2014). The conditionality of vote-buying norms: Experimental evidence from Latin America. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12047
49.
González-OcantosE.Kiewiet de JongeC.NickersonD. W. (2015). Legitimacy buying: The dynamics of clientelism in the face of legitimacy challenges. Comparative Political Studies, 48(9), 1127–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015574882
50.
Gonzalez-OcantosE.OliverosV. (2019). Clientelism in Latin American politics. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
GreeneK. F. (2021). Campaign effects and the elusive swing voter in modern machine politics. Comparative Political Studies, 54(1), 77–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020919919
52.
GreeneK. F. (2022). Money can't buy you love: Partisan responses to vote‐buying offers. American Journal of Political Science, 68(2), 644–660. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12738
HainmuellerJ. (2012). Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political Analysis, 20(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr025
HickenA.LeiderS.RavanillaN.YangD. (2015). Measuring vote-selling: Field evidence from the Philippines. The American Economic Review, 105(5), 352–356. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151033
57.
HiskeyJ. T.MoseleyM. W. (2017). Severed linkages: Distorted accountability in uneven regimes. Comparative Political Studies, 51(10), 1314–1350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017740603
58.
HiskeyJ. T.MoseleyM. W. (2020). Life in the political machine: Dominant-party enclaves and the citizens they produce. Oxford University Press.
59.
JohnsonM. (2020). Electoral discrimination: The relationship between skin color and vote buying in Latin America. World Politics, 72(1), 80–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887119000145
KerrN.LuhrmannA. (2017). Public trust in manipulated elections: The role of election administration and media freedom. Electoral Studies, 50, 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2017.08.003.
63.
KerrN. N. (2018). Election-day experiences and evaluations of electoral integrity in unconsolidated democracies: Evidence from Nigeria. Political Studies, 66(3), 667–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717724932
64.
Kiewiet de JongeC. P. (2015). Who lies about electoral gifts? Experimental evidence from Latin America. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79(3), 710–739. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv024
65.
KitscheltH. (2000). Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities. Comparative Political Studies, 33(6-7), 845–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041400003300607
66.
KitscheltH.WilkinsonS. I. (Eds.), (2007). Patrons, clients and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition: Cambridge University Press.
67.
KlašnjaM.LupuN.TuckerJ. (2021). When do voters sanction corrupt politicians?Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8(2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2020.13
LawsonC.GreeneK. F. (2014). Making clientelism work: How norms of reciprocity increase voter compliance. Comparative Politics, 47(1), 61–85. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041514813623173
LeightJ.FoartaD.PandeR.RalstonL. (2020). Value for money? Vote-Buying and politician accountability. Journal of Public Economics, 190, Article 104227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104227
73.
LetkiN.GóreckiM.GendźwiłłA. (2023). ‘They accept bribes; We accept bribery’: Conditional effects of corrupt encounters on the evaluation of public institutions. British Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 690–697. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123422000047
74.
LevickL.Olavarria-GambiM. (2020). Hindsight bias in expert surveys: How democratic crises influence retrospective evaluations. Politics, 40(4), 494–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395720914571
75.
LindbergS. I.MorrisonM. K. C. (2008). Are African voters really ethnic or clientelistic? Survey evidence from Ghana. Political Science Quarterly, 123(1), 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2008.tb00618.x
76.
LinosK.TwistK. (2018). Diverse pre-treatment effects in survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 5(2), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2017.29
LyneM. M. (2008). The voter’s dilemma and democratic accountability: Latin America and beyond. Penn State University Press.
79.
ManzettiL.WilsonC. J. (2007). Why do corrupt governments maintain public support?Comparative Political Studies, 40(8), 949–970. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414005285759
Martínez i ComaF.TrinhM. (2016). How electoral integrity affects voter turnout in democracies. Australian Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2016.1238869
82.
McAllisterI.WhiteS. (2015). Electoral integrity and support for democracy in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 25(1), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2014.911744
83.
MiratrixL.SekhonJ.TheodoridisA.CamposL. (2018). Worth weighting? How to think about and use weights in survey experiments. Political Analysis, 26(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.1
84.
MoseleyM. W. (2018). Protest state: The rise of everyday contention in Latin America. Oxford University Press.
85.
MuñozP. (2018). Buying Audiences: Clientelism and electoral campaigns when parties are weak. Cambridge University Press.
86.
MurilloM. V.OliverosV.ZarazagaR. (2021). The most vulnerable poor: Clientelism among slum dwellers. Studies in Comparative International Development, 56(3), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-021-09324-x
NichterS. (2008). Vote buying or turnout buying? Machine politics and the secret ballot. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055408080106
89.
NichterS. (2018). Votes for survival: Relational clientelism in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
90.
NichterS.PeressM. (2017). Request fulfilling: When citizens demand clientelist benefits. Comparative Political Studies, 50(8), 1086–1117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016666838
NorrisP. (2014). Why electoral integrity matters. Cambridge University Press.
93.
NorrisP. (2019). Do perceptions of electoral malpractice undermine democratic satisfaction? The US in comparative perspective. International Political Science Review, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512118806783
94.
OliverosV. (2016). Making it personal: Clientelism, favors, and the personalization of public administration in Argentina. Comparative Politics, 48(3), 373–391. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041516818254437
95.
OliverosV. (2019). Perceptions of ballot integrity and clientelism. In LupuN.OliverosV.SchiumeriniL. (Eds.), Campaigns and voters in developing democracies: Argentina in comparative perspective (pp. 213–238). University of Michigan Press.
96.
OliverosV.Weitz-ShapiroR.WintersM. S. (2023). Credit claiming by labeling. Comparative Political Studies, 56(13), 2099–2127. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231169016
97.
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
98.
PellicerM.WegnerE.BayerM.TischmeyerC. (2022). Clientelism from the client’s perspective: A meta-analysis of ethnographic literature. Perspectives on Politics, 20(3), 931–947. https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759272000420X
99.
PowellG. B. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. Yale University Press.
100.
PrzeworskiA.StokesS. C.ManinB. (Eds.), (1999). Democracy, accountability, and representation. Cambridge University Press.
101.
RizzoT. (2022). Breaking the clientelist feedback loop: Evidence from a field experiment in the Yucatan Peninsula. [Working Paper]. https://www.tesaliarizzo.com/research
102.
RonigerL.BriquetJ. L.SawickiF.AuyeroJ.PiattoniS. (2004). Political clientelism, democracy, and market economy. Comparative Politics, 36(3), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.2307/4150135
103.
SchafferF. C. (2005). Clean elections and the great unwashed: Vote buying and voter education in the Philippines (21; Papers of the School of Social Science). Institute for Advanced Study. https://www.ias.edu/sites/default/files/sss/papers/paper21.pdf
ScheinerE. (2007). Clientelism in Japan: The importance and limits of institutional explanations. In KitscheltH.WilkinsonS. M. (Eds.), Patrons, clients, and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition (pp. 276–297). Cambridge University Press.
106.
SeligsonM. A. (2002). The renaissance of political culture or the renaissance of the ecological fallacy?Comparative Politics, 34(3), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/4146954
107.
ShahS. (2015). Free and fair? Citizens’ assessments of the 2013 general election in Kenya. Review of African Political Economy, 42(143), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/03056244.2014.995162
ŠkolníkM. (2022). Gifts for votes? Vote buying as a predictor of turnout in Latin America. Latin American Policy, 13(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/lamp.12245
110.
SlothuusR. (2016). Assessing the influence of political parties on public opinion: The challenge from pretreatment effects. Political Communication, 33(2), 302–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1052892
111.
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
112.
StokesS. C. (2007). Is vote buying undemocratic? In SchafferF. C. (Ed.), Elections for sale: The causes and consequences of vote buying (pp. 81–100). Lynne Rienner Press.
StokesS. C.DunningT.NazarenoM.BruscoV. (2013). Brokers, voters, and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics. Cambridge University Press.
115.
SzwarcbergM. (2013). Building a following: Local candidates’ political careers and clientelism in Argentine municipalities. Latin American Politics and Society, 55(03), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2013.00200.x
116.
Van de WalleN. (2003). Presidentialism and clientelism in Africa's emerging party systems. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 41(2), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X03004269
117.
VeraS. B. (2020). Accepting or resisting? Citizen responses to corruption across varying levels of competence and corruption prevalence. Political Studies, 68(3), 653–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719868210
118.
VicenteP. C. (2014). Is vote buying effective? Evidence from a field experiment in west Africa. The Economic Journal, 124(574), 356–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12086
Weitz-ShapiroR. (2014). Curbing clientelism in Argentina: Politics, poverty, and social policy. Cambridge University Press.
121.
WellmanE. I.HydeS. D.HallT. E. (2018). Does fraud trump partisanship? The impact of contentious elections on voter confidence. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 28(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2017.1394865
122.
ZechmeisterE. J.Zizumbo-ColungaD. (2013). The varying political toll of concerns about corruption in good versus bad economic times. Comparative Political Studies, 46(10), 1190–1218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012472468
123.
ZhangCConradF (2014) (In press). Speeding in web surveys: the tendency to answer very fast and its association with straightlining. Survey Research Methods, 8(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2014.v8i2.5453
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.
