This study reviews the relationship between democracy, development, and inequality, particularly the link between electoral competition and the provision of inequality-reducing policies at different stages of development. I argue that local government tools that help reduce income inequality may be underprovided due to the electoral risks faced by the local incumbents. The literature on clientelism and patronage together with the literature on the political budget cycle offers theoretical insights that explain why the opportunistic behavior of the incumbents depends on the development level of the polity. And while it is commonly assumed that specific types of expenditure are prone to manipulation, I challenge this view by showing how the socioeconomic characteristics of the locality influence the incumbents’ decision to strategically provide inequality-reducing policies.
AidtTokenVeigaFranciscoGoncalvesLinda. 2011. Election results and opportunistics policies: A new test of the Rational Political Business Cycle Model. Choice148:21–44.
3.
AmesBarry. 1987. Political survival: Politicians and public policy in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
BarrilleauxCharlesDavisBelinda. 2003. Explaining state-level variations in levels and change in the distribution of income in the United States, 1978-1990. American Politics Research31:280–300.
5.
BeallJoCrankshawOwenParnellSusan. 2000. Local government, poverty reduction and inequality in Johannesburg. Environment and Urbanization12:107–122. http://doi.org/10.1177/095624780001200108 (accessed December 15, 2015).
6.
BesleyTimothyCoateStephen. 2003. Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: A political economy approach. Journal of Public Economics87:2611–37.
7.
BrenderAdi. 2003. The effect of fiscal performance on local government elections results in Israel: 1989–1998. Journal of Public Economics87:2187–205.
8.
BrenderAdiDrazenAllan. 2005. Political budget cycles in new versus established democracies. Journal of Monetary Economics52:1271–95.
9.
Bueno de MesquitaBruce. 2003. Logic of political survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
CainBruceFerejohnJohnFiorinaMorris. 1987. The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
ClearyMatthew. 2007. Electoral competition, participation, and government responsiveness in Mexico. American Journal of Political Science51:283–99.
12.
Díaz-CayerosAlbertoMagaloniBeatrizRuiz-EulerAlexander. 2014. Traditional governance, citizen engagement, and local public goods: Evidence from Mexico. World Development53:80–93. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.008 (accessed December 15, 2015).
13.
DrazenAllanEslavaMarcela. 2010. Electoral manipulation via voter-friendly spending: Theory and evidence. Journal of Development Economics92:39–52.
14.
FaustJörgHarbersImke. 2011. On the local politics of administrative decentralization: Applying for policy responsibilities in Ecuador. Publius: The Journal of Federalism42:1–26.
15.
FuentesNoé Aarón. 2007. Las Disparidades Municipales en México: Un Estudio Desde la Optica de la Desiguadad. Problemas Del Desarrollo. Revista Latinoamericana de Economía38:1–22.
16.
GeddesBarbara. 1994. Politician’s dilemma. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
KellyNathanWitkoChristopher. 2012. Federalism and American inequiality. Journal of Politics74:414–26.
18.
KingdonJohn. 2003. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Longman.
19.
KlompJeroenHaanJkob. 2013. Conditional political budget cycles: A review of recent evidence. Public Choice154:387–410.
20.
LangerLaura. 2001. The consequences of state economic development strategies on income distribution in the Amercan States, 1976 to 1994. American Politics Research29:392–515.
21.
LarcineseValentino. 2007. Voting over redistribution and the size of the welfare state: The role of turnout. Political Studies55:568–85.
22.
LucyWilliam. 1981. Equity and planning for local services. Journal of the American Planning Association47:447–57.
23.
LucyWilliamGilbertDennisBirkheadButhrie. 1977. Equity in local service distribution. Public Administration Review37:687–97.
24.
MagaloniBeatrizDiaz-CayerosAlbertoEstevézFederico. 2007. Clientelism and portfolio diversification: A model of electoral investment with applications to Mexico. In Patrons, clients, and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition, ed. KitsheltHerbertWilkinsonSteven, 182–205. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
MedinaLuisStokesSusan. 2007. Monopoly and monitoring: An approach to political clientelism. In Patrons, clients and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition, ed. KintscheltHerbertWilkinsonSteven, 150–82. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
MeltzerAllanRichardScott. 1983. Tests of a rational theory of the size of government. Public Choice41:403–18.
27.
MezaOliver. 2015. Agenda Local: El entorno institucional detrás de las políticas públicas. México: INAP-ITESO.
28.
MolinarJuan. 1991. Counting the number of parties: An alternative index. American Political Science Review85:1383–91.
29.
Moreno-JaimesCarlos. 2008. Democracia electoral y calidad gubernativa: el desempeño de los gobiernos municipales en México. México: ITESO.
30.
Moreno-JaimesCarlos. 2011. Is local spending responsive to the poor? An appraisal of resource allocation and electoral rewards in Mexico. Politics & Policy39:1021–52.
31.
NiskanenWilliam. 1971. Bureaucracy in representative government. Chicago: Rand McNally.
32.
NordhausWilliam. 1975. The political business cycle. Review of Economic Studies42:169–90.
33.
OatesWallace. 1999. An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature37:1120–49.
34.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2011. An overview of growing income inequality in OECD Countries: Main findings. Divided we stand: Why inequality keeps rising. http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/49499779.pdf (accessed December 15, 2015).
35.
PetersonPaul. 1981. City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
PonceAldo F.Forthcoming. Cárteles de Droga, Violencia y Competitivdad Electoral a Nivel Local: Evidencia del Caso Mexicano. Latin American Research Review.
37.
RogoffKeneth. 1990. Equilibrium political budget cycles. American Economic Review80:21–36.
38.
Rose-AckermanSusan. 1978. Corruption: A study in political economy. New York: Academic Press.
39.
SchneiderMark. 1987. Income homogeneity and the size of Suburban Government. Journal of Politics49:36–53.
40.
ShiMinSvenssonJakob. 2006. Political budget cycles: Do they differ across countries and why?Journal of Public Economics90:1367–89. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.09.009.
41.
TieboutCharles. 1954. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy64:416–24.
42.
VergneClémence. 2009. Democracy, elections and allocation of public expenditures in developing counties. European Journal of Political Economy25:63–77.
43.
WeingastBarry. 2014. Second generation fiscal federalism: Political aspects of decentralization and economic development. World Development53:14–25.
44.
WeingastBarryShepsleKennethJohnsenChristopher. 1981. The political economy of benefits and costs: A neoclassical approach to distriburive politics. Journal of Political Economy89:642–64.
45.
Weitz-ShapiroRebecca. 2012. What wins votes: Why some politicians opt out of clientelism. American Journal of Political Science56:568–83.
46.
WolmanHarold. 2012. What cities do: How much does Urban policy matter? In The Oxford handbook of Urban politics, ed. JohnPeterMossbergerKarenClarkeSusan E., 1–14. New York: Oxford University Press.
47.
CIDAC (Centro de Investigación para el Desarrollo A.C.). 2012. Base electoral. Centro de Investigación para el Desarrollo A.C. www.cidac.org (accessed July 20, 2015).
INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Geografía). 2015. Sistema de Información de Municipios y Estado. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Geografía. http://sc.inegi.org.mx/cobdem/ (accessed July 20, 2015).
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.
