What shapes voters’ expectations of receiving private benefits and local public goods in developing world democracies? Models of instrumental voting suggest that voters’ expectations are shaped by co-partisanship; however, this work does not consider the calculations that voters make in multilevel systems where different types of goods are allocated by different tiers of government. In this article, I argue that voters condition their expectations of private benefits on co-partisan ties with the local leader, but only do so with respect to local public goods when the local leader is aligned with the state government that controls the allocation of pork barrel spending. I test my argument with a vignette experiment conducted in rural India that randomly assigns the partisan affiliation of real village politicians and find empirical support for the argument. I also find suggestive evidence of strategic voting in local elections towards leaders aligned with the ruling party.
AldermanH (2002) Do local officials know something I don’t? Decentralization of targeted transfers in Albania. Journal of Public Economics83(3): 375–404.
2.
AlsopRAnirudhKDisaS (2000) Inclusion and Local Elected Governments: The Panchayat Raj System in India. Washington, DC: World Bank Social DevelopmentPaper 37.
BaldwinK (2013) Why vote with the chief? Political connections and public goods provision in Zambia. American Journal of Political Science57(4): 794–809.
5.
BesleyTPandeRRahmanL, et al. (2004) The politics of public goods provision: evidence from Indian local councils. Journal of the European Economic Association2(2): 416–426.
6.
BohlkenA (2016) Democratization from Above: The Logic of Local Democracy in the Developing World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BohlkenA (2017) Ordinary Voters or Political Elites? Why Pork is Distributed Along Partisan Lines. Mimeo: Georgia Institute of Technology.
8.
CalvoEMurilloMV (2004) Who delivers? Partisan clients in the Argentine electoral market. American Journal of Political Science48(4): 742–757.
9.
CalvoEMurilloMV (2013) When parties meet voters: assessing political linkages through Partisan networks and distributive expectations in Argentina and Chile. Comparative Political Studies46(7): 851–882.
10.
CarlsonE (2015) Ethnic voting and accountability in Africa: a choice experiment in Uganda. World Politics67(2): 353–385.
11.
ChandraK (2004) Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Head Counts in India. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
ChauchardS (2016) Unpacking ethnic preferences: theory and micro-level evidence from North India. Comparative Political Studies49(2): 253–284.
13.
ChhibberPShastriSSissonR (2004) Federal arrangements and the provision of public goods in India. Asian Survey44(3): 339–352.
14.
Conroy-KrutzJ (2013) Information and ethnic politics in Africa. British Journal of Political Science43(02): 345–373.
15.
Conroy-KrutzJMoehlerDCAguilarR (2016) Partisan cues and vote choice in new multiparty systems. Comparative Political Studies49(1): 3–35.
16.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (1986) Electoral politics as a redistributive game. The Journal of Politics48(2): 370–389.
17.
DafoeAZhangBCaugheyD (2016) Confounding in Survey Experiments. Mimeo: Stanford University.
18.
DevMSRaviC (2007) Poverty and inequality: all-India and states, 1983-2005. Economic and Political Weekly42(6): 509–521.
19.
DasguptaA (2017) Voice in a Clientelism System: How Civically Engaged Villages Succeed in Distributive Politics. Mimeo: Stanford University.
20.
DevarajanSKhemaniSShahS (2009) The politics of partial decentralization. In: Bardhan (ed), Does Decentralization Enhance Service Delivery and Poverty Reduction. Northampton, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 79–101.
21.
DunningTNilekaniJ (2013) Ethnic quotas and political mobilization: caste, parties, and distribution in Indian village councils. APSR107 (1): 35–56.
22.
GainesBJKuklinskiJHQuirkPJ (2007) The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis15: 1–20.
23.
GreenDPPalmquistBSchicklerE (2004) Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
24.
HeathO (2005) Party systems, political cleavages and electoral volatility in India: a state-wise analysis, 1998–1999. Electoral Studies24(2): 177–199.
25.
IchinoNNathanNL (2013) Crossing the line: local ethnic geography and voting in Ghana. American Political Science Review107(2): 344–361.
26.
KrishnaA (2011) Gaining access to public services and the democratic state in India: institutions in the middle. Studies in Comparative International Development46(1): 98–117.
27.
KrosnickJ (1991) Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology5(3): 213–236.
28.
Kruks-WisnerG (2018) Active Citizenship: Claim-Making & the Pursuit of Social Welfare in Rural India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
MagaloniBDiaz-CayerosAEstévezF (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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182–205.
30.
MarkussenT (2011) Inequality and political clientelism: evidence from South India. Journal of Development Studies47(11): 1721–1738.
31.
McDermottR (2011) Internal and external validity. In: DruckmanJGreenDKuklinskiJLupidA (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–40.
32.
NunesF (2013) Core Voters or Local Allies? Presidential Discretionary Spending in Centralized and Decentralized Systems in Latin America. Mimeo: University of California at Berkeley.
33.
PosnerDN (2005) Institutions and Ethnic Politics in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
SchaffnerBFStrebMJ (2002) The partisan heuristic in low-information elections. Public Opinion Quarterly66: 559–581.
35.
SchneiderMSircarN (2016) Does Local Democracy Serve the Poor? Identifying Distributive Preferences of Local Politicians in India. Mimeo: Pitzer College.
36.
SircarN (2016) A tale of two villages: kinship networks and preference formation in rural India. Center for the Advanced Study of India Working Paper 15-02.
37.
SnyderJTingM (2002) An informational rationale for political parties. American Journal of Political Science46(1): 90–110.
38.
StokesSDunningTNazarenoM, et al. (2013) Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: the Puzzle of Distributive Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
StolteJ (1994) The context of satisficing in vignette research. The Journal of Social Psychology134(6): 727–733.
40.
WintersMWeitz-ShapiroR (2013) Lacking information or condoning corruption: when do voters support corrupt politicians. Comparative Politics45(4): 418–436.
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.
