Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T19:32:34.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local Economic Voting and the Agricultural Boom in Argentina, 2007–2015

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2018

Jorge Mangonnet ,
María Victoria Murillo  and
Julia María Rubio
Jorge Mangonnet*
Affiliation:
Doctoral candidate in political science, Columbia University.
María Victoria Murillo*
Affiliation:
Professor in the Department of Political Science and the School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University.
Julia María Rubio*
Affiliation:
Doctoral student in political science, Columbia University.
*
jgm2159@columbia.edu
mm2140@columbia.edu
jmr2263@columbia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the effect of local economic conditions on voting behavior by focusing on the export-oriented agricultural areas of Argentina during the commodities boom. It assesses the marginal effect of export wealth on electoral outcomes by studying the impact of soybean production, the main Argentine export product during this period. The combination of rising agricultural prices and a salient national tax on exports allows us to evaluate how wealth and tax policy shape local electoral behavior. This study relies on a spatial econometric analysis of the vote across Argentine departments for the 2007–15 period, along with qualitative evidence from interviews and a descriptive analysis of government appointments.

Keywords

economic votingsubnational politicsconservative partiescommodities boomArgentina
Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , August 2018 , pp. 27 - 53
Copyright
© 2018 University of Miami 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M.. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ámbito Financiero (Buenos Aires). 2012. Asumió el nuevo subsecretario de agricultura familiar. August 27. www.ambito.com/651584Google Scholar
Anselin, Luc. 2002. Under the Hood: Issues in the Specification and Interpretation of Spatial Regression Models. Agricultural Economics 27, 3: 247–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anselin, Luc, and Bera, Anil K.. 1998. Spatial Dependence in Linear Regression Models with an Introduction to Spatial Econometrics. Statistics Textbooks and Monographs 155: 237–290.Google Scholar
Anselin, Luc, and Arribas-Bel, Daniel. 2012. Spatial Fixed Effects and Spatial Dependence in a Single-Cross Section. Papers in Regional Science 92, 1: 3–17.Google Scholar
Ardanaz, Martin, Murillo, M. Victoria, and Pinto, Pablo M.. 2013. Sensitivity to Issue Framing on Trade Policy Preferences: Evidence from a Survey Experiment. International Organization 67, 2: 411–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsky, Osvaldo, and Dávila, Mabel. 2008. La rebelión del campo: historia del conflicto agrario argentino. Buenos Aires: Sudamericana.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan. 1996. Nuisance vs. Substance: Specifying and Estimating Time-series Cross-section Models. Political Analysis 6 (July): 1–36.Google Scholar
Bermeo, Nancy, and Bartels, Larry, eds. 2013. Mass Politics in Tough Times: Opinions, Votes and Protest in the Great Recession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bisang, Roberto, Anlló, Guillermo, and Campi, Mercedes. 2008. Una revolución (no tan) silenciosa. Claves para repensar el agro en Argentina. Desarrollo Económico 48, 190/91: 165–207.Google Scholar
Books, John, and Prysby, Charles. 1999. Contextual Effects on Retrospective Economic Evaluations: The Impact of the State and Local Economy. Political Behavior 21, 1: 1–16.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto. 2014. Legislator Success in Fragmented Congresses in Argentina: Plurality Cartels, Minority Presidents, and Lawmaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campello, Daniela, and Zucco, Cesar Jr. 2016. Presidential Success and the World Economy. Journal of Politics 78, 2: 589–602.Google Scholar
Campello, Daniela, and Zucco, Cesar Jr. 2017. Commodity Price Shocks and Misattribution of Responsibility for the Economy: Observational and Experimental Evidence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Red para el Estudio de la Economía Política de América Latina, Lima, Peru, April 27–28.Google Scholar
Canelo, Paula, and Castellani, Ana. 2017. Perfil sociológico de los miembros del gabinete inicial del presidente Mauricio Macri. Research Report No. 1. Observatorio de las Élites Argentinas, Universidad Nacional de San Martín.Google Scholar
Duch, Raymond M. 2001. A Developmental Model of Heterogeneous Economic Voting in New Democracies. American Political Science Review 95, 4: 895–910.Google Scholar
Duch, Raymond M., and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2008. The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eaton, Kent. 2016. Challenges of Party-Building in the Bolivian East. In Levitsky et al. 2016. 383–411.Google Scholar
Eaton, Kent. 2017. Territory and Ideology in Latin America: Policy Conflicts Between National and Subnational Governments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fairfield, Tasha. 2016. Private Wealth and Public Revenue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freytes, Carlos. 2015. The Cerrado Is Not the Pampas: Explaining Tax and Regulatory Policies on Agricultural Exports in Argentina and Brazil (2003–2013). Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Freytes, Carlos, and O’Farrell, Juan. 2016. Providers, Producers, Traders, and the State: Distributive Conflicts in the Soy Chain in Argentina and Brazil (2003–2015). Paper presented at the 34th International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, New York, May 27–30.Google Scholar
Fundación Argentina para el Desarrollo Agropecuario (FADA). 2017. Statistical index. June. http://fundacionfada.org/informes/indice-fada-junio-2017Google Scholar
Gélineau, François. 2007. Presidents, Political Context, and Economic Accountability: Evidence from Latin America. Political Research Quarterly 60, 3: 415–428.Google Scholar
Giarracca, Norma, Teubal, Miguel, and Palmisano, Tomás. 2008. Paro agrario: crónica de un conflicto alargado. Realidad Económica 237: 33–54.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward L. 1996. Class and Conservative Parties: Argentina in Comparative Perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Gras, Carla. 2009. El nuevo empresariado agrario: sobre la construcción y los dilemas de sus organizaciones. In La Argentina rural de la agricultura familiar a los agronegocios, ed. Gras and Valeria Hernández. Buenos Aires: Biblos. 29–59.Google Scholar
Hellwig, Timothy. 2010. Elections and the Economy. Comparing Democracies 3: 184–201.Google Scholar
Hellwig, Timothy. 2014. Globalization and Mass Politics: Retaining the Room to Maneuver. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hellwig, Timothy, and Samuels, David. 2008. Electoral Accountability and the Variety of Democratic Regimes. British Journal of Political Science 38, 1: 65–90.Google Scholar
Hora, Roy. 2010. La crisis del campo del otoño de 2008. Desarrollo Económico 50: 81–111.Google Scholar
Hora, Roy. 2012. La evolución del sector agroexportador argentino en el largo plazo, 1880–2010. Historia Agraria: Revista de Agricultura e Historia Rural 58: 145–181.Google Scholar
Infobae. 2016. Argentina espera una cosecha récord y precios estables para 2017. October 10. https://goo.gl/aR7zYoGoogle Scholar
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censo (INDEC). n.d. Intercambio Comercial Argentino. http://www.indec.gob.ar/nivel4_default.asp?id_tema_1=3&id_tema_2=2&id_tema_3=40. Accessed July 5, 2017.Google Scholar
Johnston, Ron, Pattie, Charles, Dorling, Daniel, MacAllister, Iain, Tunstall, Helena, and Rossiter, David. 2000. Local Context, Retrospective Economic Evaluations, and Voting: The 1997 General Election in England and Wales. Political Behavior 22, 2: 121–143.Google Scholar
Lattuada, Mario. 2006. Acción colectiva y corporaciones agrarias en la Argentina: Transformaciones institucionales a fines del siglo XX. Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, Loxton, James, Van Dyck, Brandon, and Domínguez, Jorge I., eds. 2016. Challenges of Party-Building in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Ratto, María Celeste. 2013. Economic Voting in Latin America: A General Model. Electoral Studies 32, 3: 489–493.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Stegmaier, Mary. 2013. Economic Determinants of Electoral Outcomes. Annual Review of Political Science 3, 1: 183–219.Google Scholar
Lowder, Sarah K., Skoet, Jakob, and Raney, Terri. 2016. The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide. World Development 87: 16–29.Google Scholar
Mazzuca, Sebastián L. 2013. The Rise of Rentier Populism. Journal of Democracy 24, 2: 108–122.Google Scholar
Millán, Facundo. 2010. Cartografías sociales II: Bigand. In El mundo chacarero en tiempos de cambio: herencia, territorio e identidad en los pueblos sojeros, ed. Carla Gras and Karina Bidaseca. Buenos Aires: CICCUS. 135–155.Google Scholar
Ministerio de Economía y Producción (MECON). 2008. Resolution 125. March 10. https://goo.gl/oRroo2Google Scholar
Murillo, M. Victoria. 2017. Del batacazo electoral al reformismo permanente. El Estadista, October 26. http://elestadista.com.ar/?p=13426Google Scholar
Murillo, M. Victoria, and Visconti, Giancarlo. 2017. Economic Performance and Incumbents’ Support in Latin America. Electoral Studies 45: 180–190.Google Scholar
Murillo, M. Victoria, and Mangonnet, Jorge. 2016. Protests of Abundance: Agricultural Rents and Rural Lockouts in Argentina During the Commodities Boom. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, September 1–4.Google Scholar
Murillo, M. Victoria, Oliveros, Virginia, and Vaishnav, Milan. 2010. Electoral Revolution or Democratic Alternation? Latin American Research Review 45, 3: 87–114.Google Scholar
La Nación (Buenos Aires). 2017. Agroindustria: un economista de la rural coordinará un fondo de $1700 millones. February 16. https://goo.gl/3qfC6sGoogle Scholar
Nadeau, Richard, Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Bélanger, Éric. 2013. Economics and Elections Revisited. Comparative Political Studies 46, 5: 551–573.Google Scholar
National Institute of Censuses and Statistics. 2002. National Agricultural Census. Buenos Aires. https://goo.gl/YrTNhLGoogle Scholar
Pizzorno, Alessandro. 1978. Political Exchange and Collective Identity in Industrial Conflict. In The Resurgence of Class Conflict In Western Europe Since 1968, ed. Colin Crouch and Pizzorno. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 277–298.Google Scholar
La Política Online. 2015. El PRO suma a un reconocido técnico de CREA como interlocutor con el campo. April 4. www.lapoliticaonline.com/nota/88136/Google Scholar
Porto, Alberto, and Lodola, Agustín. 2013. Economic Policy and Electoral Outcomes. Journal of Applied Economics 16, 2: 333–356.Google Scholar
Ratto, María C. 2011. El proceso de atribución de responsabilidades en América Latina: un estudio sobre el voto económico entre 1996 y 2004. Revista de la Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Político 5, 1: 59–92.Google Scholar
Remmer, Karen. 2003. Elections and Economics in Contemporary Latin America. In Post- Stabilization Politics in Latin America: Competition, Transition, Collapse, ed. Carol Wise and Riordan Roett. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 31–55.Google Scholar
Rho, Sungmin, and Tomz, Michael. 2017. Why Don’t Trade Preferences Reflect Economic Self-Interest? International Organization 71, S1: S85–S108.Google Scholar
Richardson, Neal P. 2009. Export-oriented Populism: Commodities and Coalitions in Argentina. Studies in Comparative International Development 44, 3: 228–255.Google Scholar
Richardson, Neal P. 2012. The Politics of Abundance: Export Agriculture and Redistributive Conflict in South America. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Scheve, Kenneth F., and Slaughter, Matthew J.. 2001. What Determines Individual Trade-Policy Preferences? Journal of International Economics 54, 2: 267–292.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew Soberg. 1995. The Electoral Cycle and Institutional Sources of Divided Presidential Government. American Political Science Review 89, 2 (June): 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, Matthew. 2015. Electoral Accountability for the Economy in Latin America. Revista Política 53, 1: 37–72.Google Scholar
Singer, Matthew. 2013. Economic Voting in an Era of Non-Crisis: The Changing Electoral Agenda in Latin America, 1982–2010. Comparative Politics 45, 2: 169–185.Google Scholar
Tagina, María L. 2012. Controlando al gobierno a través de las urnas. Un análisis del caso argentino entre 1995 y 2005. Revista Política 50, 1: 111–144.Google Scholar
Tagina, María L. 2016. Elecciones 2015 en Argentina: cambio de ciclo. In Elecciones y cambio de élites en América Latina, 2014 y 2015, ed. Manuel Alcántara Sáez and Tagina. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. 229–248.Google Scholar
Teubal, Miguel, and Rodríguez, Javier. 2002. Agro y alimentos en la globalización: una perspectiva crítica. Buenos Aires: Editorial La Colmena.Google Scholar
Vommaro, Gabiel, Morresi, Sergio, and Bellotti, Alejandro. 2015. Mundo PRO: anatomía de un partido fabricado para ganar. Buenos Aires: Planeta.Google Scholar
World Bank. Various dates. Global Economic Monitor—Commodities. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=global-economic-monitor-commoditiesGoogle Scholar
World Bank. World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://goo.gl/kKb4EEGoogle Scholar
Zunino, Esteban. 2015. La cobertura mediática del “conflicto campo-gobierno” de 2008 en la prensa gráfica argentina. Un estudio comparativo de las agendas informativas sobre la Resolución No. 125/08 de los diarios Clarín, La Nación y Página/12. Ph.D. diss., Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.Google Scholar
Zunino, Esteban, and Aruguete, Natalia. 2010. La cobertura mediática del conflicto campogobierno. Un estudio de caso. Global Media Journal 7, 14: 1–23.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Mangonnet et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PQHGIJ
Link
Supplementary material: File

Mangonnet et al. supplementary material

Mangonnet et al. supplementary material 1

Download Mangonnet et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.2 MB