Why do citizens vote for candidates involved in organized crime? Drawing on theories of voting behavior and accountability, I assess the extent to which individuals engage in trade-off evaluations when voting for candidates linked to drug trafficking organizations (DTOs). Using a vignette experiment embedded in online surveys in Peru, I manipulated side benefits that accrue from drug trafficking. The results, which I also test using qualitative evidence from in-depth elite interviews, show support for my core hypothesis, which I term a competence mechanism: citizens are more favorable toward DTO-linked candidates when that connection brings positive returns. Specifically, I find security side benefits increase electoral support for narco-linked politicians, while economic goods do not have a direct significant effect on voting behavior unless citizens justify this illegal economy. Further, tolerance toward the drug trade has a direct effect on support for this type of malfeasant candidates.
AcemogluD.De FeoG.De LucaG. (2017). Social conflict, mafia, and state capacity. In American Economic Association 2017 annual meeting, Chicago, 6–8 January, 2017.
2.
AcemogluD.RobinsonJ. A.SantosR. J. (2013). The monopoly of violence: Evidence from Colombia. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(Suppl. 1), 5–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2012.01099.x
3.
AgerbergM. (2020). The lesser evil? Corrupt voting and the importance of clean alternatives. Comparative Political Studies, 53(2), 253–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019852697
4.
AidtT.GoldenM. A.TiwariD. (2011). Incumbents and criminals in the Indian National legislature.
5.
AlbarracínJ. (2018). Criminalized electoral politics: The socio-political foundation of electoral coercion in democratic Brazil. University of Notre Dame.
6.
AndreasP.WallmanJ. (2009). Illicit markets and violence: What is the relationship?Crime, Law and Social Change, 52(3), 225–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-009-9200-6
7.
AnduizaE.GallegoA.MuñozJ. (2013). Turning a blind eye: Experimental evidence of partisan bias in attitudes toward corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 46(12), 1664–1692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013489081
8.
AngristJ. D.KuglerA. D. (2008). Rural windfall or a new resource curse? Coca, income, and civil conflict in Colombia. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.90.2.191
9.
AriasE.LarreguyH.MarshallJ.QuerubínP. (2022). Priors rule: When do malfeasance revelations help or hurt incumbent parties?Journal of the European Economic Association, 20(4), 1433–1477. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvac015
10.
AriasE. D. (2006). Trouble en route: Drug trafficking and clientelism in Rio de Janeiro shantytowns. Qualitative Sociology, 29(4), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-006-9033-x
11.
AriasE. D. (2017). Criminal enterprises and governance in Latin America and the Caribbean. Cambridge University Press.
12.
ArjonaA. (2017). Civilian cooperation and non-cooperation with non-state armed groups: The centrality of obedience and resistance. Small Wars and Insurgencies, 28(4–5), 755–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2017.1322328
13.
AuerbachA.ThachilT. (2018). How clientelists select brokers: Competition and choice in India’s slums. American Political Science Review, 4(112), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305541800028X
14.
BanerjeeA.GreenD. P.McManusJ.PandeR. (2014). Are poor voters indifferent to whether elected leaders are criminal or corrupt? A vignette experiment in rural India. Political Communication, 31(3), 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.914615
15.
BanerjeeA. V.PandeR. (2007). Parochial politics: Ethnic competition and politician corruption in India. KSG Working Papers.
16.
BansakK.HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2018). The number of choice tasks and survey satisficing in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis, 26(1), 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2017.40
17.
BarnesN. (2017). Criminal politics: An integrated approach to the study of organized crime, politics, and violence. Perspectives on Politics, 15(4), 967–987. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592717002110
18.
BaroneG.NarcisoG. (2015). Organized crime and business subsidies: Where does the money go?Journal of Urban Economics, 86, 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2015.01.002
19.
BeckertJ.DeweyM. (2017). The architecture of illegal markets: Toward an economic sociology of illegality in the economy. Oxford University Press.
20.
BesleyT. (2006). Principled agents? The political economy of good government. Oxford University Press.
21.
BesleyT.PandeR.RaoV. (2005). Political selection and the quality of government: Evidence from South India. Yale University Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper (921).
22.
BlumeL. R. (2021). Narco Robin Hoods: Community support for illicit economies and violence in rural Central America. World Development, 143, Article 105464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105464
23.
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
24.
BreitensteinS. (2019). Choosing the crook: A conjoint experiment on voting for corrupt politicians. Research & Politics, 6(1), Article 2053168019832230. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168019832230
25.
BriscoeI.PerdomoC.Uribe BurcherC. (2014). Illicit networks and politics in Latin America.
26.
CarlinR. E.LoveG. J.Martínez-GallardoC. (2015). Cushioning the fall: Scandals, economic conditions, and executive approval. Political Behavior, 37(1), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9267-3
27.
CarlsonE. (2011). Great expectations: Ethnicity, candidate performance, and voters in Uganda. Unpublished manuscript, University of California.
CastorenaO.LupuN.SchadeM.ZechmeisterE. J. (2023). Online surveys in Latin America. PS: Political Science & Politics, 56(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001287
30.
ChangE. C. C.KerrN. N. (2017). An insider-outsider theory of popular tolerance for corrupt politicians. Governance, 30(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12193
31.
ChauchardS. (2016). Unpacking ethnic preferences: Theory and micro-level evidence from North India. Comparative Political Studies, 49(2), 253–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015609356
32.
ChauchardS.KlašnjaM.HarishS. P. (2018). Getting rich too fast? Voters’ reactions to politicians’ wealth accumulation. The Journal of Politics, 81(4), 1197–1209. https://doi.org/10.1086/704222
33.
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
34.
CórdovaA. (2019). Living in gang-controlled neighborhoods: Impacts on electoral and nonelectoral participation in El Salvador. Latin American Research Review, 54(1), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.25222/larr.387
De Benedictis-KessnerJ.WarshawC. (2020). Accountability for the local economy at all levels of government in United States elections. American Political Science Review, 114(3), 660–676. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055420000027
DeweyM.MíguezD. P.SaínM. F. (2017). The strength of collusion: A conceptual framework for interpreting hybrid social orders. Current Sociology, 65(3), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116661226
39.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper.
DuchR. M.StevensonR. (2005). Context and the economic vote: A multilevel analysis. Political Analysis, 13(4), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi028
42.
DuckW. (2015). No way out: Precarious living in the shadow of poverty and dealing. University of Chicago Press.
43.
DuckW. (2016). Becoming a drug dealer: Local interaction orders and criminal careers. Critical Sociology, 42(7–8), 1069–1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920514552534
44.
DuckW.RawlsA. W. (2012). Interaction orders of drug dealing spaces: Local orders of sensemaking in a poor black American place. Crime, Law and Social Change, 57(1), 33–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-011-9353-y
45.
DuncanG. (2014). Más que plata o plomo. El poder político del narcotráfico en Colombia y México. Debate.
46.
DuncanG. (2022). Beyond ‘plata o plomo’. Cambridge University Press.
47.
DuttaB.GuptaP. (2014). How Indian voters respond to candidates with criminal charges: Evidence from the 2009 Lok Sabha elections. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(4), 43–51.
48.
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.
49.
FeldmannA. E.LunaJ. P. (2022). Criminal governance and the crisis of contemporary Latin American states. Annual Review of Sociology, 48(1), 441–461. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-030420-124931
50.
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
51.
FerrazC.FinanF. (2008). Exposing corrupt politicians: The effects of Brazil’s publicly released audits on electoral outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2), 703–745. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.703
52.
FiorinaM. P. (1978). Economic retrospective voting in American national elections: A micro-analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 22(2), 426–443. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110623
53.
FiorinaM. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. Yale University Press.
54.
GeorgeS.GuptaS.NeggersY. (2018). Coordinating votes against criminal politicians: Evidence from a mobile experiment in India.
55.
GorritiG. (2006). La calavera en negro. El traficante que quiso gobernar un país. Planeta.
56.
GrisaffiT. (2022). Why is the drug trade not violent? Cocaine production and the embedded economy in the Chapare, Bolivia. Development and Change, 53(3), 576–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12696
57.
GrisaffiT.LedeburK. (2016). Citizenship or repression? Coca, eradication and development in the Andes. Stability: International Journal of Security and Development, 5(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.5334/sta.440
58.
HaimeA.CantúF. (2022). Negative partisanship in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society, 64(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/lap.2021.54
59.
HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD.YamamotoT. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(8), 2395–2400. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1416587112
60.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choice via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt024
61.
HargittaiE.KaraogluG. (2018). Biases of online political polls: Who participates?Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 4, Article 2378023118791080. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118791080
62.
HeuserC. (2017). Después del auge. Campos de poder en el valle del Monzón. Revista de Ciencia Política y Gobierno, 4(7), 105–132. https://doi.org/10.18800/rcpg.201701.005
63.
HeuserC. (2019). The effect of illicit economies in the margins of the state – The VRAEM. Journal of Illicit Economies and Development, 1(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.31389/jied.7
64.
HidalgoF. D.LessingB. (2019). Endogenous state weakness in violent democracies: Paramilitaries at the polls.
65.
HochschildJ. (2009). Conducting intensive interviews and elite interviews. Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research.
66.
HolbrookA. L.KrosnickJ. A. (2010). Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: Tests using the item count technique. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(1), 37–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp065
67.
HumphreysM.WeinsteinJ. M. (2008). Who fights? The determinants of participation in civil war. American Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 436–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00322.x
68.
IdlerA.ForestJ. J. F. (2015). Behavioral patterns among (violent) non-state actors: A study of complementary governance. Stability: International Journal of Security and Development, 4(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5334/sta.er
69.
KalyvasS. N. (2006). The logic of violence in civil war. Cambridge University Press.
70.
KernaghanR. (2009). Coca’s gone: Of might and right in the Huallaga post-boom. Stanford University Press.
KlašnjaM.LittleA. T.TuckerJ. A. (2016). Political corruption traps. Political Science Research and Methods, 6(3), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.45
73.
KlašnjaM.LupuN.TuckerJ. A. (2020). When do voters sanction corrupt politicians?Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2020.13
74.
KreuterF.PresserS.TourangeauR. (2008). Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys: The effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 847–865. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn063
LessingB. (2022). Criminal governance in Latin America in comparative perspective: Introduction to the special issue. Dilemas: Revista de Estudos de Conflito e Controle Social, 15(Especial 4), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.4322/dilemas.v15esp4.52896
77.
LevitskyS.CameronM. A. (2003). Democracy without parties? Political parties and regime change in Fujimori’s Peru. Latin American Politics and Society, 45(3), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2003.tb00248.x
78.
LevitskyS.ZavaletaM. (2016). Why no party-building in Peru? In LevitskyS.LoxtonJ.Van DyckB.DomínguezJ. (Eds.), Challenges of party-building in Latin America (pp. 412–439). Cambridge University Press.
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
81.
LeyS.TrejoG. (2020). Votes, drugs, and violence. Cambridge University Press.
82.
LópezN. (2015). Modelo de estimación de evitabilidad de la cocaína en el mercado mundial: El caso peruano. In Herramientas y métodos de análisis sobre el tráfico de cocaína (pp. 54–75). Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo y Vida sin Drogas, and the Pontifica universidad Católica del Perú.
83.
MagaloniB., et al. (2020a). Killing in the slums: Social order, criminal governance, and police violence in Rio de Janeiro. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 552–572. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055419000856
84.
MagaloniB., et al. (2020b). Living in fear: The dynamics of extortion in Mexico’s drug war. Comparative Political Studies, 53(7), 1124–1174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019879958
85.
MaresI.ViscontiG. (2020). Voting for the lesser evil: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Romania. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(2), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2019.12
86.
MelendezC. (2019). El mal menor: Vínculos políticos en el Perú posterior al colapso del sistema de partidos. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
87.
MelnikovN.Schmidt-PadillaC.SviatschiM. M. (2020). Gangs, labor mobility and development (No. w27832). National Bureau of Economic Research.
88.
MillsJ. (1986). The underground empire: Where crime and governments embrace. Doubleday.
NaylorR. T. (2002). Wages of crime: Black markets, illegal finance, and the underworld economy. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
91.
ParedesM.PastorA. (2023). Illicit crops in the frontier margins: Amazonian indigenous livelihoods and the expansion of coca in Peru. Journal of Peasant Studies, 51(4), 960–981. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2023.2225413
92.
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
93.
Pérez BentancurV.TiscorniaL. (2022). Iteration in mixed-methods research designs combining experiments and fieldwork. Sociological Methods & Research, 53(2), 729–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221082595
94.
Ramirez BustamanteM. (2025). Replication data for: Electoral support for candidates involved in drug trafficking: Experimental evidence from Peru. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/6Z4BVE
95.
RombiS.ValbruzziM. (2023). Economic voting goes local: Evidence from the Italian regions. Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 54(1), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2023.22
96.
SnyderR.Durán-MartínezA. (2009). Does illegality breed violence? Drug trafficking and state-sponsored protection rackets. Crime, Law and Social Change, 52(3), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-009-9195-z
97.
SviatschiM. M. (2022). Making a narco: Childhood exposure to illegal labor markets and criminal life paths. Econometrica, 90(4), 1835–1878. https://doi.org/10.3982/ecta17082
98.
TrejoG.LeyS. (2018). Why did drug cartels go to war in Mexico? Subnational party alternation, the breakdown of criminal protection, and the onset of large-scale violence. Comparative Political Studies, 51(7), 900–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017720703
99.
TrejoG.LeyS. (2019). High-profile criminal violence: Why drug cartels murder government officials and party candidates in Mexico. British Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000637
100.
TrejoG.LeyS. (2020). Votes, drugs, and violence: The political logic of criminal wars in Mexico. Cambridge University Press.
101.
TrellesA.CarrerasM. (2012). Bullets and votes: Violence and electoral participation in Mexico. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 4(2), 89–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802x1200400204
102.
TrudeauJ. (2022). How criminal governance undermines elections. APSA Preprints.
103.
UcedaR. (2020). La extorsión. Planeta.
104.
UNODC. (2023). Global report on cocaine 2023: Local dynamics, global challenges.
105.
UribeA.LessingB.SchouelaN.StecherE.BlockD. (2022). Criminal governance in Latin America: An initial assessment of its extent and correlates. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4302432
106.
VaishnavM. (2017). When crime pays: Money and muscle in Indian politics. Yale University Press.
107.
ValdésR.BasombríoC.VeraD. (2021). Las economías criminales y su impacto en el Perú.
108.
van DunM. (2014). “It’s never a sure deal”: Drug trafficking, violence, and coping strategies in a Peruvian cocaine enclave (2003–2007). Journal of Drug Issues, 44(2), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042613494838
109.
van DunM. (2016). Cocaine flows and the state in Peru’s Amazonian borderlands. Journal of Latin American Studies, 48(3), 509–535. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022216x16000390
110.
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
111.
VergaraA.QuiñónA. (2023). ¿De Guatemala a GuatePerú? O cómo mueren las democracias sin dictador. Foreign Affairs Latinamérica, 23(3), 51–62.
112.
Vizcarra CastilloS. (2018). La economía moral de la ilegalidad en la ciudad cocalera: significados y prácticas legitimadoras del narcotráfico en la ciudad de Pichari (2000-2017). [Doctoral Dissertation]. Pontifical University of Peru.
113.
Vizcarra CastilloS. (2019). O controle da violência do tráfico num vale ‘cocaleiro’ peruano. Revista Brasileira de Sociologia, 7(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.20336/rbs.489
114.
WintersM. S.Weitz-ShapiroR. (2013). Lacking information or condoning corruption: When do voters support corrupt politicians?Comparative Politics, 45(4), 418–436. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041513806933583
115.
YasharD. J. (2018). Homicidal ecologies: Illicit economies and complicit states in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
116.
ZavaletaM. (2014). Coaliciones de Independientes. Las reglas no escritas de la política electoral. IEP.
117.
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
118.
ZevallosN. (2022). El mercado de la cocaína: Fronteras (i)legales de la producción y comercio en el Perú. Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
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.
