Theories of accountability predict that when governments underperform, voters and electoral challengers will hold incumbents accountable. Yet governments frequently fail to deliver on essential responsibilities like public service provision without electoral consequences. I propose that incumbents, knowing how hard problems like public service quality are to solve, proactively “play defense” to keep those issues off the electoral agenda. Local incumbents fear visible protest and viral events. As a consequence, they invest time and resources to prevent negative events from drawing public attention to hard-to-solve issues. Incumbents “playing defense” may even prioritize responding to demands from opposition groups, if those groups wield sufficient public influence. I illustrate this logic with a multi-method case study of piped water provision in Mexico City, using qualitative fieldwork and survey-, administrative-, and social media data. I show how local borough mayors monitored and intercepted disaffected actors to keep piped water off the agenda.
AguilarA. G.LópezF. M. (2009). Water insecurity among the urban poor in the peri-urban zone of xochimilco, Mexico city. Journal of Latin American Geography, 8(2), 97–123. https://doi.org/10.1353/lag.0.0056
AuerbachA. M. (2019). Demanding development: The politics of public goods provision in India’s urban slums. Cambridge University Press.
4.
AuyeroJ. (2001). Poor people’s politics: Peronist survival networks and the legacy of Evita. Duke University Press.
5.
AyalaA. G.EscamillaM. A. (2020). Seismic vulnerability and resilience of the water systems of Mexico City based on the evaluation of the effects of the 2017 Puebla-Morelos Earthquake. In Proceedings of the 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (17WCEE) (Paper No. C000785). International Association for Earthquake Engineering.
6.
BardhanP.MookherjeeD. (1999). Relative capture of local and central governments: An essay in the political economy of decentralization(CIDER Working Paper No. C99-109). Center for International and Development Economics Research, University of California, Berkeley. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.233624
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (2010). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press.
9.
Becerra PérezM.Sáinz SantamaríaJ.Muñoz PiñaC. (2006). Water conflicts in Mexico. diagnosis and analysis. Gestion y Politica Publica, 15(1), 111–143. http://hdl.handle.net/11651/3038.
10.
BesleyT. (2006). Principled agents? The political economy of good government: Oxford University Press.
11.
Bischoff-MattsonZ.MareeG.VogelC.LynchA.OlivierD.TerblancheD. (2020). Shape of a water crisis: Practitioner perspectives on urban water scarcity and ‘day zero’in South Africa. Water Policy, 22(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2020.233
Canes-WroneB.ShottsK. W. (2004). The conditional nature of presidential responsiveness to public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 690–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00096.x
14.
ChahimD. (2022). Governing beyond capacity: Engineering, banality, and the calibration of disaster in Mexico city. American Ethnologist, 49(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.13052
15.
ChriswellK.HubertsA. (2024). Collective action infrastructure: The downstream effects of urban neighborhood organizing. Comparative Political Studies, 57(7), 1175–1209. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231193018
16.
CobbR.RossJ.-K.RossM. H. (1976). Agenda building as a comparative political process. American Political Science Review, 70(1), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.2307/1960328
17.
CoopermanA. D. (2022). Bloc voting for electoral accountability. American Political Science Review, 118(3), 1222–1239.
18.
CorneliusW. A. (1975). Politics and the migrant poor in Mexico City. Stanford University Press.
19.
CulpepperP. D. (2010). Quiet politics and business power: Corporate control in Europe and Japan. Cambridge University Press.
Dal BóE.RossiM. A. (2011). Term length and the effort of politicians. The Review of Economic Studies, 78(4), 1237–1263. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdr010
22.
De AlbaF. (2017). Challenging state modernity: Governmental adaptation and informal water politics in Mexico city. Current Sociology, 65(2), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116657288
23.
DelgadilloV. (2016). Ciudad de méxico, quince años de desarrollo urbano intensivo: la gentrificación percibida. Revista INVI, 31(88), 101–129. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-83582016000300004
EcksteinS. E. (1977). The poverty of revolution: The state and the urban poor in Mexico. Princeton University Press.
26.
FreyA. (2019). Cash transfers, clientelism, and political enfranchisement: Evidence from Brazil. Journal of Public Economics, 176, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2019.05.002
27.
GamsonW. A. (1975). The strategy of social protest. Dorsey Press.
28.
GayR. (1994). Popular organization and democracy in Rio de Janeiro: A tale of two favelas. Temple University Press.
HuangH.Boranbay-AkanS.HuangL. (2019). Media, protest diffusion, and authoritarian resilience. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.25
34.
HubertsA. (2026). “Replication Data for: “Playing Defense” to Keep Public Services Off the Agenda: Evidence from Water in Mexico City”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/Z6OXL3, Harvard Dataverse.
35.
HubertsA.PalmaD.Bernal GarcíaA. C.ColeF.RobertsE. F. (2023). Making scarcity “enough”: The hidden household costs of adapting to water scarcity in Mexico city. PLOS Water, 2(3), Article e0000056. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000056
36.
KingdonJ. W.StanoE. (1984) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Vol. 45): Little.
LindblomC. (2018). The science of “muddling through”. In Classic readings in urban planning (pp. 31–40). Routledge.
39.
LorentzenP. L. (2013). Regularizing rioting: Permitting public protest in an authoritarian regime. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 8(2), 127–158. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00012051
MaskinE.TiroleJ. (2004). The politician and the judge: Accountability in government. The American Economic Review, 94(4), 1034–1054. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002606
42.
MasonS.SinghL. (2022). Reporting and discoverability of “tweets” quoted in published scholarship: Current practice and ethical implications. Research Ethics, 18(2), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221076948
43.
MullinM.HansenK. (2022). Local news and the electoral incentive to invest in infrastructure. American Political Science Review, 117(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055422001083
44.
NichterS. (2018). Votes for survival: Relational clientelism in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
45.
O’BrienK. J.LiL. (2006). Rightful resistance in rural China. Cambridge University Press.
46.
ParejaA.FernándezC.BlancoB.TheobaldK.MartínezA. (2016). Simplifying lives: Quality and satisfaction in public services. Inter-American Development Bank. https://doi.org/10.18235/0012841
47.
PasottiE. (2010). Political branding in cities: The decline of machine politics in Bogotá, Naples, and Chicago. Cambridge University Press.
48.
PivenF. F.ClowardR. (2012). Poor people’s movements: Why they succeed, how they fail. Vintage.
49.
Powell JrG. B.WhittenG. D. (1993). A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of the political context. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 391–414. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111378
Reid JrJ. D.KurthM. M. (1992). The rise and fall of urban political patronage machines. In Strategic factors in nineteenth century American economic history: A volume to honor Robert W. Fogel (pp. 427–445). University of Chicago Press.
53.
Resolución de carácter general mediante la cual se determinan y se dan a conocer las zonas en las que los contribuyentes de los derechos por el suministro de agua en sistema medido, de uso doméstico o mixto, reciben el servicio por tandeo [General resolution]. (2004, July 7) Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal.
54.
Resolución decarácter general mediante la cual se condona totalmente el pago de los derechos por el suministro de agua, correspondientes a los ejerciciosfiscales 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 y 2012, así como los recargos y sanciones a los contribuyentes cuyos inmuebles se encuentren en las colonias que se indican [General resolution]. (2012, April). Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal.
55.
Resolución de carácter general mediante la cual se condonan multas fiscales, recargos y gastos de ejecución ordinarios por la omisión de pago de los impuestos y derechos que se indican [General resolution]. (2014, December 31). Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal.
56.
RosenzweigL. R.BergquistP.PhamK. H.RampazzoF.MildenbergerM. (2025). Survey sampling in the Global South using Facebook advertisements. Political Science Research and Methods, 13(4), 781–797.
57.
Sainz-SantamariaJ.AndersonS. E. (2013). The electoral politics of disaster preparedness. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 4(4), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12044
58.
SavedoffW. D.SpillerP. (1999). Spilled water: Institutional commitment in the provision of water services. Inter-American Development Bank.
59.
SchneiderS. K. (1995). Flirting with disaster: Public management in crisis situations. ME Sharpe.
60.
SmulovitzC.PeruzzottiE. (2000). Societal accountability in latin America. Journal of Democracy, 11(4), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2000.0087
61.
Soberón-AcevedoG.Valdés-OlmedoC. (1987). A dos años. reflexiones sobre los terremotos de 1985. Salud Publica de Mexico, 29(5), 448–a.
62.
StokesD. E. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57(2), 368–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952828
63.
StokesS. C. (1991). Politics and Latin america’s urban poor: Reflections from a Lima shantytown. Latin American Research Review, 26(2), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0023879100023761
64.
StokesS. C.DunningT.NazarenoM. (2013). Brokers, voters, and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics. Cambridge University Press.
65.
TamayoS. (2007). Los Desafios de Bando 2. Gobierno del Distrito Federal, Distrito Federal, Mexico.
66.
TillyC. (1983). Speaking your mind without elections, surveys, or social movements. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(4), 461–478. https://doi.org/10.1086/268805
67.
TortajadaC.CastelánE. (2003). Water management for a megacity: Mexico city metropolitan area. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 32(2), 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-32.2.124
68.
WasowO. (2020). Agenda seeding: How 1960s Black protests moved elites, public opinion and voting. American Political Science Review, 114(3), 638–659. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305542000009x
69.
WintersM. S.KarimA. G.MartawardayaB. (2014). Public service provision under conditions of insufficient citizen demand: Insights from the urban sanitation sector in Indonesia. World Development, 60, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.017
70.
World Bank, T. (2003). World development report 2004: Making services work for poor people. The World Bank.
