Using both a cross-national data set on parties’ accountability strategies and public opinion survey data, this article provides a systematic analysis of how parties’ reliance on clientelistic strategies correlates with citizen evaluations of regime performance. Our analyses suggest that in systems where parties in general rely more heavily on clientelism, principles of democratic equality are undermined, and citizens on average express a lower level of satisfaction. In addition to democratic norms, material benefits are also closely related to citizens’ regime evaluations. Within countries, supporters of parties that make substantial clientelistic efforts are more satisfied than other citizens, because they are likely to be beneficiaries of this accountability mode. This within-country gap between clientelistic and non-clientelistic parties’ supporters widens where the clientelistic parties deliver benefits more effectively and in countries with lower overall democratic quality.
AartsKThomassenJ (2008) Satisfaction with democracy: do institutions matter?Electoral Studies27(1): 5–18.
2.
AmesB (1999) Electoral rules, constituency pressures, and pork barrel: bases of voting in the Brazilian congress. Journal of Politics57(2): 324–343.
3.
AndersonCJ (2002) Good questions, dubious inferences, and bad solutions: some further thoughts on satisfaction with democracy. Binghamton University, Center on Democratic Performance Working Paper.
4.
AndersonCJGuilloryCA (1997) Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy. American Political Science Review91(1): 66–81.
5.
AndersonCJTverdovaYV (2003) Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science47(1): 91–109.
6.
AndersonCJBlaisABowlerS, et al. (2005). Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
AnduizaEGallegoAMuñozJ (2013) Turning a blind eye: experimental evidence of partisan bias in attitudes toward corruption. Comparative Political Studies46(12): 1664–1692.
8.
BernauerJVatterA (2012) Can’t get no satisfaction with the Westminster model?European Journal of Political Research51(4): 435–468.
9.
BirchS (2008) Electoral institutions and popular confidence in electoral processes. Electoral Studies27(2): 305–320.
10.
BlaisAGélineauF (2007) Winning, losing and satisfaction with democracy. Political Studies55(2): 425–441.
11.
BlaisALoewenPJ (2007) Electoral systems and evaluations of democracy. In: CrossW (ed) Democratic Reform in New Brunswick. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press, pp. 39–57.
12.
BlaisAMorin-ChasseASinghSP (2015) Election outcomes, legislative representation, and satisfaction with democracy. Party Politics22(1): 1–15. DOI: 10.1177/1354068815583200
13.
BoothJASeligsonMA (2009) The Legitimacy Puzzle in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
BrattonMMattesR (2001) Support for democracy in Africa: intrinsic or instrumental?British Journal of Political Science31(03): 447–474.
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.
17.
CameronACMillerDL (2015) A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources50(2): 317–372.
18.
CanacheDAllisonME (2005) Perceptions of political corruption in Latin American democracies. Latin American Politics and Society47(3): 91–111.
19.
CanacheDMondakJJSeligsonMA (2001) Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly65(4): 506–528.
20.
ClarkeHDDuttNKornbergA (1993) The political economy of attitudes toward polity and society in Western European democracies. The Journal of Politics55(04): 998–1021.
21.
CriadoHHerrerosF (2007) Political support: taking into account the institutional context. Comparative Political Studies40(12): 1511–1532.
22.
CuriniLJouWMemoliV (2011) Satisfaction with democracy and the winner/loser debate. British Journal of Political Science42(02): 241–261.
23.
DahlbergSHolmbergS (2014) Democracy and bureaucracy: how their quality matters for popular satisfaction. West European Politics37(3): 515–537.
EastonD (1975) A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science5(4): 435–457.
26.
EsaiassonPGilljamMPerssonM (2012) Which decision-making arrangements generate the strongest legitimacy beliefs?European Journal of Political Research51(6): 785–808.
27.
EvansGWhitefieldS (1995) The politics and economics of democratic commitment: support for democracy in transition societies. British Journal of Political Science25(04): 485–514.
28.
EzrowLXezonakisG (2011) Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings. Comparative Political Studies44(9): 1152–1178.
29.
FerlandB (2015) A rational or a virtuous citizenry?–The asymmetric impact of biases in votes-seats translation on citizens’ satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies40: 394–408.
30.
FinkelSEMullerENSeligsonMA (1989) Economic crisis, incumbent performance and regime support. British Journal of Political Science19(03): 329–351.
31.
FoxJ (1994) The difficult transition from clientelism to citizenship. World Politics46(2): 151–184.
32.
KitscheltHFreezeKE (2010) Programmatic party system structuration. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 2–5 September 2010.
33.
GelmanA (2007) Struggles with survey weighting and regression modeling. Statistical Science22(2): 153–164.
34.
GerringJBondPBarndtWT, et al. (2005) Democracy and economic growth. World Politics57(3): 323–364.
35.
Hafner-BurtonEHydeDSJablonskiRS (2013) When do governments resort to election violence?British Journal of Political Science44(1): 149–179.
36.
HickenA (2011) Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science14(1): 289–310.
37.
HickenASimmonsJW (2008) The personal vote and the efficacy of education spending. American Journal of Political Science52(1): 109–124.
38.
HofferbertRIKlingemannH (1999) Remembering the bad old days: human rights, economic conditions, and democratic performance in transitional regimes. European Journal of Political Research36(2): 155–174.
39.
HowellPJustwanF (2013) Nail-biters and no-contests: the effect of electoral margins on satisfaction with democracy in winners and losers. Electoral Studies32(2): 334–343.
40.
KeeferP (2007) Clientelism, credibility, and the policy choices of young democracies. American Journal of Political Science51(4): 804–821.
41.
KimM (2009) Cross-national analyses of satisfaction with democracy and ideological congruence. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties19(1): 49–72.
42.
KitscheltH (2013) Democratic Accountability and Linkages Project. Durham: Duke University. Available at: http://sites.duke.edu/democracylinkage/ (accessed 25 October 2013).
43.
KitscheltHKselmanD (2011) Organizational extensiveness and political clientelism. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA, 1–4 September 2011.
44.
KitscheltHWilkinsonS (2007) Patrons, Clients, and Policies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
KlingemannHD (1999) Mapping political support in the 1990s. In: NorrisP (ed) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
KoterD (2013) King makers: local leaders and ethnic politics in Africa. World Politics65(02): 187–232.
47.
KrehbielPJCropanzanoR (2000) Procedural justice, outcome favorability and emotion. Social Justice Research13(4): 339–360.
48.
LindbergSI (2009) Democratization by elections: a mixed record. Journal of Democracy20(3): 86–92.
49.
LindbergSI (2010) What accountability pressures do MPs in Africa face and how do they respond?The Journal of Modern African Studies48(01): 117–142.
50.
LindeJ (2012) Why feed the hand that bites you? Perceptions of procedural fairness and system support in post-communist democracies. European Journal of Political Research51(3): 410–434.
51.
LindeJEkmanJ (2003) Satisfaction with democracy: a note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European Journal of Political Research42(3): 391–408.
52.
LindeJErlingssonGÓ (2013) The eroding effect of corruption on system support in Sweden. Governance26(4): 585–603.
53.
LinzJValenzuelaA (eds) (1994) The Failure of Presidential Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
54.
LühisteK (2014) Social protection and satisfaction with democracy: a multi-level analysis. Political Studies62(4): 784–803.
55.
Lust-OkarE (2009) Competitive clientelism in the Middle East. Journal of Democracy20(3): 122–135.
56.
MacCounRJ (2005) Voice, control, and belonging: the double-edged sword of procedural fairness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science1(1): 171–201.
57.
MagalhãesPC (2016) Economic evaluations, procedural fairness, and satisfaction with democracy. Political Research Quarterly69(3): 522–534.
58.
MagaloniBDiaz-CayerosAEstevezF (2012) Strategies for Vote Buying: Democracy, Clientelism, and Poverty Relief in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
ManzettiLWilsonCJ (2007) Why do corrupt governments maintain public support?Comparative Political Studies40(8): 949–970.
60.
MishlerWRoseR (2001a) Political support for incomplete democracies: realist vs. idealist theories and measures. International Political Science Review22(4): 303–320.
61.
MishlerWRoseR (2001b) What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies34(1): 30–62.
62.
MorrisSDKlesnerJL (2010) Corruption and trust: theoretical considerations and evidence from Mexico. Comparative Political Studies43(10): 1258–1285.
63.
NorrisP (ed) (1999) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
64.
OrdeshookP (1995) Institutions and incentives. Journal of Democracy6(2): 46–60.
65.
ReynoldsAReillyBEllisA (eds) (2005) Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook. Stockholm: International IDEA.
66.
RothsteinB (2009) Creating political legitimacy: electoral democracy versus quality of government. American Behavioral Scientist53(3): 311–330.
67.
SchedlerA (2002) The menu of manipulation. Journal of Democracy13(2): 36–50.
68.
SeligsonMA (2002) The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy. Journal of Politics64(2): 408–433.
69.
SeligsonMA (2006) The measurement and impact of corruption victimization: survey evidence from Latin America. World Development34(2): 381–404.
70.
SinghS (2014) Not all election winners are equal: satisfaction with democracy and the nature of the vote. European Journal of Political Research53(2): 308–327.
71.
SinghSKarakoçEBlaisA (2012) Differentiating winners: how elections affect satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies31(1): 201–211.
72.
SteckerCTausendpfundM (2016) Multidimensional government-citizen congruence and satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research55(3): 492–511.
73.
StokesSC (2005) Perverse accountability: a formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review99(3): 315–325.
74.
StokesSC (2007) Political clientelism. In: BoixCStokesSC (eds) Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 604–627.
75.
StokesSCDunningTNazarenoM, et al. (2013). Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism. London: Cambridge University Press.
76.
SzwarcbergM (2014) Political parties and rallies in Latin America. Party Politics20(3): 456–466.
77.
TavitsM (2008) Representation, corruption, and subjective well-being. Comparative Political Studies41(12): 1607–1630.
78.
TylerTR (2006) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology57(1): 375–400.
79.
WeissHMSuckowKCropanzanoR (1999) Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology84(5): 786–794.
80.
Weitz-ShapiroR (2007) The local connection: local government performance and satisfaction with democracy in Argentina. Comparative Political Studies41(3): 285–308.
81.
WintersMSWeitz-ShapiroR (2013) Lacking information or condoning corruption: when do voters support corrupt politicians?Comparative Politics45(4): 418–436.
82.
ZechmeisterEJZizumbo-ColungaD (2013) The varying political toll of concerns about corruption in good versus bad economic times. Comparative Political Studies46(10): 1190–1218.
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.
