What explains variation in mayors’ strategic linkages with police forces they do not formally control? This question is of central importance in Latin America, home to 43 of the 50 most violent cities in the world. As mayors with limited to no authority over police came to see their electoral fortunes affected by citizen demands for security, some have expanded the role of municipal governments in policing. Others, however, deliberately constrained their role in this electorally risky area. Drawing on within and cross-case comparisons of São Paulo, Colombia, and Mexico City police forces, we argue and show that variation in mayors’ strategic linkages to policing and security is shaped by electoral incentives for responsiveness, constitutional rules that impose responsibility, and risks of shirking by police. Our findings speak to an emerging research agenda placing policing at the center of our understanding of urban governance and democratic responsiveness more broadly.
Alcaldía Cuajimalpa deMorelos. (2019). Adrián Rubalcava will shield Cuajimalpa borough with his new security strategy. https://cuajimalpa.cdmx.gob.mx/?p=451
CaldeiraG. A.CowartA. T. (1980). Budgets, institutions, and change: Criminal justice policy in America. American Journal of Political Science, 24(3), 413–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110826
9.
CaldeiraT. (2000). City of walls: Crime, segregation, and citizenship in São Paulo. University of California Press.
10.
CárdiaN.SchifferS. (2002). Violence and social inequality. Ciência e Cultura (SBPC), 54(1), 25–31.
11.
CarrerasM.ViscontiG. (2022). Who pays for crime? Criminal violence, right-wing incumbents, and electoral accountability in Latin America. Electoral Studies, 79, Article 102522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2022.102522
12.
Casas DupuyP.González CeperoP. (2005). Security policies and homicide reduction in Bogotá: Myths and reality. In Casas DupuyP. (Ed.), Urban Security and Police in Colombia. Fundación Seguridad y Democracia.
13.
CentenoM. A.KohliA.YasharD. J.MistreeD. (Eds.) (2017). States in the developing world. Cambridge University Press.
14.
DammertL.MaloneF. T.DammertL. (2002). Insecurity and fear in Argentina: The effect of trust in the police and corruption on citizens’ perception of crime. Desarrollo Económico, 42(166), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.2307/3455944
15.
DavisD. (2006). Undermining the rule of law: Democratization and the dark side of police reform in Mexico. Latin American Politics and Society, 48(1), 55–86. https://doi.org/10.1353/lap.2006.0005
16.
de Benedictis-KessnerJ. (2018). How attribution inhibits accountability: Evidence from train delays. The Journal of Politics, 80(4), 1417–1422. https://doi.org/10.1086/698754
17.
DingI. (2022). The performative state: Public scrutiny and environmental governance in China. Cornell University Press.
18.
Durán-MartínezA. (2017). The politics of drug violence: Criminals, cops and politicians in Colombia and Mexico. Oxford University Press.
19.
EatonK. (2008). Paradoxes of police reform: Federalism, parties, and civil society in Argentina’s public security crisis. Latin American Research Review, 43(3), 5–32.
20.
EinsteinK. L.Godinez PuigL.PistonS. (2021). The pictures in their heads: How U.S. mayors think about racial inequality. Urban Affairs Review, 57(3), 611–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087420908653
21.
FalletiT. (2005). A sequential theory of decentralization: Latin American cases in comparative perspective. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055405051695
FlomH. (2022). The informal regulation of criminal markets in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
24.
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
25.
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
26.
GoldsteinH. (1977). Policing a free society. Ballinger Publishing Company.
27.
GonzálezY. M. (2017). “What citizens can see of the state”: Police and the construction of democratic citizenship in Latin America. Theoretical Criminology, 21(4), 494–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480617724826
28.
GonzálezY. (2021). Authoritarian police in democracy: Contested security in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
29.
GonzálezY.ZarkinJ. (2024). Replication data for: Who governs policing? Mayor’s strategic linkages to police in Latin American cities. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/GTTDX6
30.
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
31.
HollandA. C. (2017). Forbearance as redistribution. Cambridge University Press.
32.
HollandA. C.IncioJ. (2019). Imperfect recall: The politics of subnational office removals. Comparative Political Studies, 52(5), 777–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018797939
33.
JacobsD.HelmsR. (2001). Toward a political sociology of punishment: Politics and changes in the incarcerated population. Social Science Research, 30(2), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1006/ssre.2000.0686
34.
LaterzoI. G. (2023). Progressive ideology and support for punitive crime policy: Evidence from Argentina and Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 57(6), 999–1034. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231193011
35.
LessingB. (2017). Making peace in drug wars: Crackdowns and cartels in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
36.
LeyS. (2017). Electoral accountability in the midst of criminal violence: Evidence from Mexico. Latin American Politics and Society, 59(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/laps.12008
37.
LiebermanE. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055405051762
38.
LoayzaN. V.RigoliniJ.Calvo‐GonzálezO. (2014). More than you can handle: Decentralization and spending ability of Peruvian municipalities. Economics & Politics, 26(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.12026
39.
MasulloJ.MorisiD. (2024). The human costs of the war on drugs. Attitudes towards militarization of security in Mexico. Comparative Political Studies, 57(6), 887–920. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231192056
40.
MoncadaE. (2016). Urban violence, political economy, and territorial control: Insights from Medellín. Latin American Research Review, 51(4), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1353/lar.2016.0057
MuggahR. (2017). “The rise of citizen security in Latin America and the Caribbean.” In Carbonnier G., CampodonicoH.Tezano VasquezS. (Eds.), Alternative pathways to sustainable development: Lessons from Latin America. Geneva, Switzerland: Graduate Institute.
43.
NiedzwieckiS. (2016). Social policies, attribution of responsibility, and political alignments: A subnational analysis of Argentina and Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 49(4), 457–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015612392
44.
Núcleo de Estudos da Violência. (1999). Survey on the attitudes, cultural norms, and values linked with violence in Brazil’s ten capital cities. São Paulo, Brazil.
45.
O’DonnellG. (1993). The browning of Latin America. New Perspectives Quarterly, 10(4), 50–53.
RicoG.LiñeiraR. (2018). Pass the buck if you can: How partisan competition triggers attribution bias in multilevel democracies. Political Behavior, 40(1), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9409-5
48.
RoddenJ. (2004). Comparative federalism and decentralization: On meaning and measurement. Comparative Politics, 36(4), 481–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/4150172
49.
RomeroV.MagaloniB.Díaz-CayerosA. (2016). Presidential approval and public security in Mexico’s war on crime. Latin American Politics and Society, 58(2), 100–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2016.00312.x
50.
Rose-AckermanS. (1980). Risk-taking and re-election: Does federalism promote innovation?The Journal of Legal Studies, 9(3), 593–616. https://doi.org/10.1086/467654
51.
RotkerS. (Ed.), (2002). Citizens of fear: Urban violence in Latin America. Rutgers University Press.
52.
SaínM. F. (2002). Security, democracy, and police reform in Argentina. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
53.
SancesM. W. (2017). Attribution errors in federalist systems: When voters punish the president for local tax increases. The Journal of Politics, 79(4), 1286–1301. https://doi.org/10.1086/692588
54.
SoiferH. (2008). State infrastructural power: Approaches to conceptualization and measurement. Studies in Comparative International Development, 43(3–4), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-008-9028-6
55.
SossJ.WeaverV. M. (2017). Police are our government: Politics, political science, and the policing of race–class subjugated communities. Annual Review of Political Science, 20(1), 565–591. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060415-093825
56.
TaylorB. D. (2011). State building in Putin’s Russia: Policing and coercion after communism. Cambridge University Press.
57.
TrejoG.LeyS. (2016). Federalism, drugs, and violence. Why intergovernmental partisan conflict stimulated inter-cartel violence in Mexico. Politica y Gobierno, 23(1), 1–26.
58.
UildriksN. A. (2009). Policing insecurity: Police reform security and human rights in Latin America. Rowman & Littlefield.
59.
Universidad Autónoma de México. (2018). Iztapalapa has the highest levels of inequality in the city in all areas. Semanario de la UAM, 25(15), 9.
60.
UNODC. (2013). Global study on homicide 2013.
61.
WeaverV. M. (2007). Frontlash: Race and the development of punitive crime policy. Studies in American Political Development, 21(2), 230–265. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0898588x07000211
62.
WibbelsE. (2000). Federalism and the politics of macroeconomic policy and performance. American Journal of Political Science, 44(4), 687–702. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669275
63.
WilkinsonS. I. (2004). Votes and violence: Electoral competition and ethnic riots in India. Cambridge University Press.
64.
WillisE.GarmanC. d. C. B.HaggardS. (1999). The politics of decentralization in Latin America. Latin American Research Review, 34(1), 7–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0023879100024298
65.
WillisG. D. (2015). The killing consensus: Police, organized crime, and the regulation of life and death in urban Brazil. University of California Press.
66.
WilsonJ. Q. (1968). Dilemmas of police administration. Public Administration Review, 28(5), 407–417. https://doi.org/10.2307/973756
67.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. Basic Books.
68.
ZechmeisterE. (Ed.), (2014). The political culture of democracy in the Americas, 2014: Democratic governance across 10 Years of the AmericasBarometer, USAID - Latin American public opinion project. Vanderbilt University.
69.
ZiblattD. (2008). Why some cities provide more public goods than others: A subnational comparison of the provision of public goods in German cities in 1912. Studies in Comparative International Development, 43(3–4), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-008-9031-y
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.
