This article reveals how the AKP’s use of clientelism contributes to its electoral dominance. It does so by examining the features and actors as well as the structure of the clientelist network. The arguments are based on fieldwork in one of the poorest and most densely populated districts of Bağcılar, where in the 2015 legislative elections the AKP achieved more votes than in any other district in Istanbul.
Ark-YıldırımC (2017) Political parties and grassroots clientelist strategies in urban Turkey: One neighbourhood at a time. South European Society and Politics22(4): 473–490.
2.
ArslantaşD (2019) Clientelism and dominance: Evidence from Turkey. PhD thesis, University of Cologne, Germany.
3.
ArslantaşDArslantaşŞ (2020) Keeping power through opposition: Party system change in Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey62: 27–50.
4.
ArslantaşDArslantaşŞKaiserA (2020) Does the electoral system foster a predominant party system? Evidence from Turkey. Swiss Political Science Review26(1): 125–143.
5.
AuyeroJ (2001) Poor People’s Politics: Peronist Survival Networks and the Legacy of Evita. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
6.
AuyeroJ (2012) Poor people’s lives and politics: The things a political ethnographer knows (and doesn’t know) after 15 years of fieldwork. New Perspectives on Turkey46: 95–127.
7.
AuyeroJBenzecryC (2017) The practical logic of political domination: Conceptualizing the clientelist habitus. Sociological Theory35(3): 179–199.
8.
AyataAG (1990) Class and clientelism in the Republican People’s Party. In: FinkelASirmanN (eds) Turkish State, Turkish Society. London: Routledge, pp. 159–184.
9.
AytaçSE (2014) Distributive politics in a multiparty system. Comparative Political Studies47(9): 1211–1237.
BruscoVNazarenoMStokesSC (2004) Vote buying in Argentina. Latin American Research Review39(2): 66–88.
13.
BulutA (2020) How clientelistic parties go programmatic: The strategic logic of responsiveness in a least likely case (the AKP of Turkey). Comparative Politics52(2): 333–356.
14.
CalvoEMurilloMV (2004) Who delivers? Partisan clients in the Argentina electoral market. American Journal of Political Science48(4): 742–757.
15.
ÇarkoğluAAytaçSE (2015) Who gets targeted for vote-buying? Evidence from an augmented list experiment in Turkey. European Political Science Review7(4): 547–566.
16.
ÇarkoğluABaruhLYıldırımK (2014) Press-party parallelism and polarization of news media during an election campaign. International Journal of Press/Politics19(3): 295–317.
17.
Çeviker-GürakarE (2016) Politics of Favoritism in Public Procurement in Turkey: Reconfigurations of Dependency Networks in the AKP Era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
DixitALondreganJ (1996) The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. Journal of Politics58(4): 1132–1155.
22.
DunleavyP (2010) Rethinking dominant party systems. In: BogaardsMBoucekF (eds) Dominant Political Parties and Democracy: Concepts, Measures, Cases and Comparisons. London: Routledge, pp. 23–44.
23.
EisenstadtSNRonigerL (1984) Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
EsenBGümüşçüŞ (2018) Building a competitive authoritarian regime: State–business relations in the AKP’s Turkey. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies20(4): 349–372.
25.
GrazianoL (1973) Patron–client relationships in southern Italy. European Journal of Political Research1(1): 3–34.
26.
GreeneKF (2007) Why Dominant Parties Lose: Mexico’s Democratization in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
GülalpH (2001) Globalization and political Islam: The social bases of Turkey’s Welfare Party. International Journal of Middle East Studies33(3): 433–448.
28.
GürcanECMeteB (2017) Neoliberalism and the Changing Face of Unionism. Chan: Palgrave Macmillan.
29.
HallinDCPapathanassopoulosS (2002) Political clientelism and the media: Southern Europe and Latin America in comparative perspective. Media, Culture and Society24(2): 175–195.
30.
HickenA (2011) Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science14(1): 289–310.
31.
KaratepeID (2016) The state, Islamists, discourses, and bourgeoisie: The construction industry in Turkey. Research and Policy on Turkey1(1): 46–62.
32.
KaufmanRR (1974) The patron–client concept and macro-politics: Prospects and problems. Comparative Studies in Society and History16(3): 284–308.
33.
KitscheltHWilkinsonSI (2007) Citizen–politician linkages: An introduction. In: KitscheltHWilkinsonSI (eds) Patrons, Clients, and Policies Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–49.
MagaloniBCayerosADEstevezF (2007) Clientelism and portfolio diversification: A model of electoral investment with applications to Mexico. In: KitscheltHWilkinsonSI (eds) Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182–205.
36.
MarschallMAydoğanABulutA (2016) Does housing create votes? Explaining the electoral success of the AKP in Turkey. Electoral Studies42: 201–212.
37.
MüllerWC (2006) Party patronage and party colonization of the state. In: KatzRSCrottyWJ (eds) Handbook of Party Politics. London: Sage Publications, pp. 189–195.
38.
OcaklıF (2016) Political entrepreneurs, clientelism, and civil society: Supply-side politics in Turkey. Democratization23(4): 723–746.
39.
RobinsonJAVerdierT (2013) The political economy of clientelism. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics115(2): 260–291.
40.
RonigerL (2004) Political clientelism, democracy, and market economy. Comparative Politics36(3): 353–375.
41.
SartoriG (2005[1976]) Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Colchester: ECPR Press.
42.
SayarıS (2014) Interdisciplinary approaches to political clientelism and patronage in Turkey. Turkish Studies15(4): 655–670.
43.
ScheinerE (2006) Democracy without Competition in Japan: Opposition Failure in a One-party Dominant State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SingerMMKitscheltH (2011) “Do everything” (DoE) parties: When can politicians combine clientelistic and programmatic appeals? In: Workshop on Democratic Accountability Strategies, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA, 18–19May 2011. Available at: https://sites.duke.edu/democracylinkage/files/2014/12/3.3.Kitschelt_Singer.pdf (accessed 15 November 2019).
46.
StokesSC (2005) Perverse accountability: A formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review99(3): 315–325.
47.
StokesSC (2007) Political clientelism. In: BoixCStokesSC (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 604–627.
48.
StokesSCDunningTNazarenoM, et al. (2013) Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
SzwarcbergM (2013) The microfoundations of political clientelism: Lessons from the Argentine case. Latin American Research Review48(2): 32–54.
50.
SzwarcbergM (2015) Mobilizing Poor Voters: Machine Politics, Clientelism, and Social Networks in Argentina. New York: Cambridge University Press.
TrantidisA (2013) Clientelism and the classification of dominant party systems. Democratization22(1): 113–133.
53.
WangCKurzmanC (2007) The logistics: How to buy votes. In: SchafferFC (ed.) Elections for Sale: The Causes and Consequences of Vote Buying. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, pp. 61–78.
54.
WantchekonL (2003) Clientelism and voting behavior: Evidence from a field experiment in Benin. World Politics55(3): 399–422.
55.
WeingrodA (1968) Patrons, patronage, and political parties. Comparative Studies in Society and History10(4): 377–400.
56.
WilkinsonSI (2007) Explaining changing patterns of party–voter linkages in India. In: KitscheltHWilkinsonSI (eds) Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 110–140.
57.
YıldırımK (2020) Clientelism and dominant incumbent parties: Party competition in an urban Turkish neighbourhood. Democratization27(1): 81–99.
