Attempting to buy votes is, in some cases, inefficient and damaging to a clientelistic party. To explain why, we propose the concept of electoral retaliation: sanctioning clientelistic parties by voting against them or intentionally invalidating the ballot. These forms of negative reciprocity are meant to uphold the democratic norms—equal participation, popular sovereignty, electoral fairness—that vote buying undermines. Electoral retaliation is, we theorize, the domain of “democrats.” Thus, we expect voters who highly value democratic norms to be most likely to retaliate against vote-buying parties. We test our theory’s observable implications with a research design that pairs case study and subnational evidence from Argentina with cross-national evidence from Latin America. Results are consistent with the notion that when clientelistic parties target democrats, it is likely to backfire on the machine. Our analyses examine multiple indicators of democratic support, explore causal mechanisms, conduct placebo tests, and seek to rule out various forms of selection bias.
AnduizaEvaGallegoAinaMuñozJordi. 2013. “Turning a Blind Eye: Experimental Evidence of Partisan Bias in Attitudes toward Corruption.”Comparative Political Studies46 (12): 1664–92.
4.
BianchiMatías.2013. “The Political Economy of Subnational Democracy.” PhD diss., Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris, Paris.
5.
BowlesSamuelGintisHerbert. 2011. A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
6.
BrattonMichael. 2008. “Vote Buying and Violence in Nigerian Election Campaigns.”Electoral Studies27 (4): 621–32.
7.
BruscoValeriaNazarenoMarceloStokesSusan C.2004. “Vote Buying in Argentina.”Latin American Research Review39:66–88.
8.
CalvoErnestoMurilloMaria Victoria. 2013. “When Parties Meet Voters: Assessing Political Linkages through Partisan Networks and Distributive Expectations in Argentina and Chile.”Comparative Political Studies46 (7): 851–82.
9.
CalvoErnestoMurilloMaria Victoria. 2019. Non-Policy Politics: Richer Voters, Poorer Voters, and the Diversification of Electoral Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CarlinRyan E.2018. “Sorting out Support for Democracy: A Q-Method Study.”Political Psychology39 (2): 399–422.
11.
CarlinRyan E.LoveGregory J.SingerMatthew M.2014. “A Decade of Democratic Legitimacy in the Americas.” In The Political Culture of Democracy in the Americas, 2014: Democratic Governance across 10 Years of the AmericasBarometer, edited by ZechmeisterElizabeth J., 193–226. Nashville: Latin American Public Opinion Project and U.S. Agency for International Development.
12.
CarlinRyan E.MoseleyMason. 2015. “Good Democrats, Bad Targets: Democratic Values and Clientelistic Vote Buying.”The Journal of Politics77 (1): 14–26.
13.
CarrerasMiguelİrepoğluYasemin. 2013. “Trust in Elections, Vote Buying, and Turnout in Latin America.”Electoral Studies32 (4): 609–19.
14.
Castro CornejoRodrigoBeltránUlises. 2020. “List Experiments, Political Sophistication, and Vote Buying: Experimental Evidence from Mexico.”Journal of Politics in Latin America12 (2): 219–34.
15.
CohenMollie J.2018. “Protesting via the Null Ballot: An Assessment of the Decision to Cast an Invalid Vote in Latin America.”Political Behavior40 (2): 395–414.
16.
CohenMollie J.KobilanskiFacundo E. SallesZechmeisterElizabeth J.2018. “Electoral Volatility in Latin America.”The Journal of Politics80 (3): 1017–22.
17.
CohenMollie J.ZechmeisterElizabeth J.NoEui Young. n.d. “Vote Buying and Trust in Elections in Latin America.” Working Paper, Vanderbilt University, Nashville.
18.
DahlRobert A. (1971) 2008. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
19.
DixitAvinashLondreganJohn. 1996. “The Determinants of Success of Special Interests in Redistributive Politics.”The Journal of Politics58 (4): 1132–55.
20.
EastonDavid. 1975. “A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support.”British Journal of Political Science5 (4): 435–57.
21.
FehrErnstGächterSimon. 2000. “Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity.”Journal of Economic Perspectives14 (3): 159–81.
22.
FehrErnstGächterSimon. 2002. “Altruistic Punishment in Humans.”Nature415 (6868): 137–40.
23.
FerrazClaudioFinanFrederico. 2008. “Exposing Corrupt Politicians: The Effects of Brazil’s Publicly Released Audits on Electoral Outcomes.”The Quarterly Journal of Economics123 (2): 703–45.
24.
FinanFredericoSchechterLaura. 2012. “Vote-Buying and Reciprocity.”Econometrica80 (2): 863–81.
25.
FoxJonathan. 1994. “The Difficult Transition from Clientelism to Citizenship: Lessons from Mexico.”World Politics46 (2): 151–84.
26.
GerringJohn. 2001. Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
GervasoniCarlos. 2018. Hybrid Regimes within Democracies: Fiscal Federalism and Subnational Rentier States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Gonzalez OcantosEzequielde JongeChad KiewietNickersonDavid W.2014. “The Conditionality of Vote-Buying Norms: Experimental Evidence from Latin America.”American Journal of Political Science58 (1): 197–211.
29.
GreeneKenneth F.2021. “Campaign Effects and the Elusive Swing Voter in Modern Machine Politics.”Comparative Political Studies54 (1): 77–109.
30.
HainmuellerJens. 2012. “Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies.”Political Analysis20 (1): 25–46.
31.
HeckmanJames J.1979. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.”Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society40:153–61.
32.
HenrichJosephMcElreathRichardBarrAbigailEnsmingerJeanBarrettClarkBolyanatzAlexanderCardenasJuan Camilo, et al. 2006. “Costly Punishment across Human Societies.”Science312 (5781): 1767–70.
33.
HickenAllenKuhontaErik Martinez, eds. 2015. Party System Institutionalization in Asia: Democracies, Autocracies, and the Shadows of the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
HiskeyJonathan T.MoseleyMason W.2018. “Severed Linkages: Distorted Accountability in Uneven Regimes.”Comparative Political Studies51 (10): 1314–50.
35.
HiskeyJonathan T.MoseleyMason W.2020. Life in the Political Machine: Dominant-Party Enclaves and the Citizens They Produce. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
HoDaniel E.ImaiKosukeKingGaryStuartElizabeth A.2007. “Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference.”Political Analysis15 (3): 199–236.
37.
JohnsonTimDawesChristopher T.FowlerJames H.McElreathRichardSmirnovOleg. 2009. “The Role of Egalitarian Motives in Altruistic Punishment.”Economics Letters102 (3): 192–94.
38.
Kiewiet de JongeChad P.2016. “Should Researchers Abandon Questions about ‘Democracy’? Evidence from Latin America.”Public Opinion Quarterly80 (3): 694–716.
39.
KitscheltHerbertAltamiranoMelina. 2015. “Clientelism in Latin America: Effort and Effectiveness.” In The Latin American Voter: Pursuing Representation and Accountability in Challenging Contexts, edited by CarlinRyan E.SingerMatthew M.ZechmeisterElizabeth J., 246–73. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
40.
KitscheltHerbertKselmanDaniel M.2013. “Economic Development, Democratic Experience, and Political Parties’ Linkage Strategies.”Comparative Political Studies46 (11): 1453–84.
41.
KlašnjaMarkoTuckerJoshua A.Deegan-KrauseKevin. 2016. “Pocketbook vs. Sociotropic Corruption Voting.”British Journal of Political Science46 (1): 67–94.
42.
LawsonChappellDomínguezJorgeGreeneKennethMorenoAlejandro. 2013. “The Mexico 2012 Panel Study.” http://mexicopanelstudy.mit.edu/.
43.
LawsonChappellGreeneKenneth F.2014. “Making Clientelism Work: How Norms of Reciprocity Increase Voter Compliance.”Comparative Politics47 (1): 61–85.
44.
LupuNoamGervasoniCarlosOliverosVirginiaSchiumeriniLuis. 2015. Argentine Panel Election Study. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
45.
ManzettiLuigiRosasGuillermo. 2015. “Corruption and the Latin American Voter.” In The Latin American Voter: Pursuing Representation and Accountability in Challenging Contexts, edited by CarlinRyan E.SingerMatthew M.ZechmeisterElizabeth J., 300–23. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
46.
MaresIsabelaYoungLauren E.2016. “Buying, Expropriating, and Stealing Votes.”Annual Review of Political Science19:267–88.
47.
MaresIsabelaYoungLauren E.2019. Conditionality and Coercion: Electoral Clientelism in Eastern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MoralMert. 2016. “The Passive-Aggressive Voter: The Calculus of Casting an Invalid Vote in European Democracies.”Political Research Quarterly69 (4): 732–45.
50.
NichterSimeon. 2008. “Vote Buying or Turnout Buying? Machine Politics and the Secret Ballot.”American Political Science Review102 (1): 19–31.
51.
NorrisPippa. 2014. Why Electoral Integrity Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
OstromElinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
PowellJohn Duncan. 1970. “Peasant Society and Clientelist Politics.”The American Political Science Review64 (2): 411–25.
54.
PowerTimothy J.GarandJames C.2007. “Determinants of Invalid Voting in Latin America.”Electoral Studies26 (2): 432–44.
55.
ProthroJames W.GriggCharles M.1960. “Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement.”The Journal of Politics22 (2): 276–94.
56.
PutnamRobert D. with LeonardiRobertNanettiRaffaella Y.. 1994. Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
57.
RiedlRachel Beatty. 2014. Authoritarian Origins of Democratic Party Systems in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58.
RikerWilliam H.OrdeshookPeter C.1968. “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.”The American Political Science Review62 (1): 25–42.
59.
RuedaMiguel. n.d. “Vote Buying and Associational Life.” Working Paper, Emory University, Atlanta.
60.
SchafferFrederic Charles, ed. 2007. Elections for Sale: The Causes and Consequences of Vote Buying. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
61.
SchafferFrederic CharlesSchedlerAndreas. 2007. “What Is Vote Buying.” In Elections for Sale: The Causes and Consequences of Vote Buying, edited by SchafferFrederic C., 17–30.
62.
SchafferJobyBakerAndy. 2015. “Clientelism as Persuasion-Buying: Evidence from Latin America.”Comparative Political Studies48 (9): 1093–126.
63.
ScottJames C.1972. “Patron-Client Politics and Political Change in Southeast Asia.”The American Political Science Review66 (1): 91–113.
64.
SekhonJasjeet. 2009. “Opiates for the Matches: Matching Methods for Causal Inference.”Annual Review of Political Science12:487–508.
65.
SeligsonMitchell A.2000. “Toward a Model of Democratic Stability: Political Culture in Central America.”Estudios interdisciplinarios de América Latina y el Caribe11 (2): 5–29.
StokesSusan C.2005. “Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina.”American Political Science Review99:315–25.
68.
StokesSusan C.DunningThadNazarenoMarceloBruscoValeria. 2013. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69.
StoufferSamuel Andrew. 1955. Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties: A Cross-Section of the Nation Speaks Its Mind. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
70.
SzwarcbergMariela. 2015. Mobilizing Poor Voters: Machine Politics, Clientelism, and Social Networks in Argentina. Vol. 38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71.
TilleyJamesHoboltSara B.2011. “Is the Government to Blame? An Experimental Test of How Partisanship Shapes Perceptions of Performance and Responsibility.”The Journal of Politics73 (2): 316–30.
72.
TillmanErik R.2008. “Economic Judgments, Party Choice, and Voter Abstention in Cross-National Perspective.”Comparative Political Studies41 (9): 1290–309.
73.
VicentePedro C.2014. “Is Vote Buying Effective? Evidence from a Field Experiment in West Africa.”The Economic Journal124 (574): F356–87.
74.
VommaroGabriel. 2014. “‘Meterse en política’: La construcción de PRO y la renovación de la centroderecha argentina [Getting into politics: The construction of PRO and the renovation of the Argentine center-right].”Nueva Sociedad254:57–72.
75.
Weitz-ShapiroRebecca. 2014. Curbing Clientelism in Argentina: Politics, Poverty, and Social Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76.
Weitz-ShapiroRebeccaWintersMatthew S.2017. “Can Citizens Discern? Information Credibility, Political Sophistication, and the Punishment of Corruption in Brazil.”The Journal of Politics79 (1): 60–74.
77.
ZarazagaS. J. Rodrigo. 2014. “Brokers beyond Clientelism: A New Perspective through the Argentine Case.”Latin American Politics and Society56 (3): 23–45.
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.
