No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Citizen Approval of Monetary- vs Goods-For-Votes Exchanges
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 April 2020
Abstract
Does citizen approval of vote buying depend on the type of benefit being offered? I answer this question using data from a survey experiment conducted on a nationally representative sample of Nicaraguans in 2017. Nicaraguans report significantly lower approval of money-for votes exchanges compared to goods-for-votes exchanges. Furthermore, reported rates of vote buying are lower in the money condition (4.8%) than in the goods-for-votes condition (7.8%), even though the posttreatment question assessing vote buying experience was identical across conditions. This study echoes other work suggesting the need for care in designing questions about vote buying, as slight changes in question wording that prime participants to think about goods versus monetary exchanges can affect both citizen approval of the behavior and the reported prevalence of vote buying.
- Type
- Short Report
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2020
Footnotes
I thank Liz Zechmeister, Geoff Sheagley, and Ryan Powers for feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript and Mariana Rodriguez and the team at LAPOP for fieldwork support. The data, code, and additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available in the Journal of Experimental Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/XZOZGK. This study was funded by the Latin American Public Opinion Project and its major supporters (the United States Agency for International Development and Vanderbilt University). The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.
References
Auerbach, Adam Michael and Thachil, Tariq. 2018. How Clients Select Brokers: Competition and Choice in India’s Slums. American Political Science Review 112(4): 775–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Close, David. 2016. Nicaragua: Navigating the Politics of Democracy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Cohen, Mollie J. 2019. Replication Data for: Citizen Approval of Monetary- vs Goods-For-Votes Exchanges. Harvard Dataverse. doi: 10.7910/DVN/XZOZGK
Google Scholar
Corstange, Daniel. 2012. Vote Trafficking in Lebanon. International Journal of Middle East Studies 44: 483–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González Octanos, Ezequiel, de Jonge, Chad Kiewiet and Nickerson, David W.. 2014. The Conditionality of Vote-Buying Norms: Experimental Evidence from Latin America. American Journal of Political Science 58(1): 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiewiet De Jonge, Chad P. 2015. Who Lies About Electoral Gifts? Experimental Evidence from Latin America. Public Opinion Quarterly 79(3): 710–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramon, Eric. 2016. Where is Vote Buying Effective? Evidence from a List Experiment in Kenya. Electoral Studies 44: 397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichter, Simeon. 2014. Conceptualizing Vote Buying. Electoral Studies 35: 315–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveros, Virginia. 2016. Making it Personal: Clientelism, Favors, and the Personalization of Public Administration in Argentina. Comparative Politics 48(3): 373–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, Frederic C. 2007. Why Study Vote Buying? In Elections for Sale: The Causes and Consequences of Vote Buying, ed. Schaffer, F. C. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1–16.Google Scholar
Szwarcberg, Mariela. 2015. Mobilizing Poor Voters. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitz-Shapiro, Rebecca. 2014. Curbing clientelism in Argentina: Politics, poverty, and social policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen supplementary material
Cohen supplementary material
File
15.9 KB