How Many People Do You Know in Prison?

Abstract

BIBLID [1130-2887 (2013) 65, Fecha de recepción: 1 de julio del 2013 Fecha de aceptación: 18 de octubre del 2013 RESUMEN: Este artículo propone un nuevo método comparado para el estudio de los vínculos entre los partidos políticos y los electores. Visto desde los electores, la principal distinción entre los partidos clientelares y los programáticos se encuentra en el modo de acceso a los beneficios públicos. En el primer caso, partidos clientelares, las redes partidarias median en el acceso a los beneficios públicos. En el segundo caso, partidos programáticos, los beneficiarios son definidos por el gobierno mediante política pública y el acceso a los mismos es independiente de las redes de distribución partidarias. Por medio de una novedosa metodología para medir redes partidarias, este artículo muestra que diferentes mecanismos de acceso a los beneficios moldean las expectativas distributivas de los votantes y la naturaleza de su vínculo con los partidos polí-ticos. El método utiliza encuestas originales de Argentina y Chile y muestra la variación en los vínculos entre los partidos políticos y los votantes, midiendo la variación al interior de los paí-ses así como entre países. LOS PARTIDOS POLÍTICOS SE ENCUENTRAN CON SUS VOTANTES: UN ANÁLISIS DE LOS VÍNCULOS POLÍTICOS A TRAVÉS DE LAS REDES PARTIDARIAS Y LAS EXPECTATIVAS DISTRIBUTIVAS EN ARGENTINA Y CHILE © Ediciones Universidad de SalamancaAmérica Latina Hoy, 65, 2013, pp. 15-44 ABSTRACT: This article provides a new comparative methodology for the study of partyvoter linkages from the perspective of voters where the critical question that distinguishes clientelistic from programmatic parties is access to publicly provided benefits. In the former case, partisan networks mediate access to goods. In the latter, beneficiaries are defined by policy and access is independent from partisan distribution networks. We show that these different access mechanisms shape voters' distributive expectations and the nature of their linkages to political parties by developing a unique methodology to measure party networks. We test it using original survey data from Argentina and Chile and show variation both across and within countries on party-voter linkages based on differential access to benefits and parties' organizational capacity.Key words: networks, political parties, clientelism, political linkages. I. INTRODUCCIÓN 1Este artículo proporciona un nuevo marco conceptual para el estudio comparado de los vínculos programáticos y no programáticos entre los partidos políticos y sus electores. Desde la perspectiva de los votantes, la pregunta principal que distingue los vínculos clientelares de los programáticos es «¿Cómo voy a recibir el beneficio que me ofrece un partido político?». En efecto, partidos clientelares y programáticos se distinguen por la forma en que los votantes son definidos como potenciales receptores de beneficios públicos. En el primer caso -relaciones clientelares-las redes partidarias definen cuáles votantes merecen o no merecen recibir beneficios, c...

Estimating population size using the network scale up method

“…Previous research has suggested methods to adjust for recall bias based on the relationship between respondents’ recalled ties and the sizes of known groups of interest (Killworth et al 2003; Zheng et al 2006; McCormick and Zheng 2007; McCormick et al 2010). Our exploratory work suggests a linear relationship between the two on the log scale.…”

“…These questions are widely used on surveys such as the General Social Survey to measure connectivity patterns between individuals. Statistical work in this area includes Zheng et al (2006) who used aggregated relational data to estimate social structure through overdispersion, McCormick et al (2010) who developed methods for estimating individuals’ personal network size and rates of mixing between groups in the population, and McCormick and Zheng (2012) who estimated the demographic composition of hard-to-reach populations. While we focus here on estimating the sizes of population groups, the previous work focused primarily on estimating features of the population social network and the dynamics of interactions between population groups.…”

“…Zheng et al (2006)’s model involved a parameter denoted by b k , defined as the prevalence parameter or the proportion of total links that involve group k , and they provided a way of estimating it. It is tempting to interpret this as the proportion of the population in group k , and hence as providing a population size estimate for group k .…”

“…However, this is incorrect, particularly for populations for which transmission bias is a major concern, such as the hard-to-reach populations that are our main focus. If Zheng et al (2006)’s prevalence parameter b k were used to estimate the size of hard-to-reach populations, it would tend to give substantially biased estimates.…”

Six challenges in measuring contact networks for use in modelling

“…Greater variation between individuals in their number of contacts has been proposed as a measure of clustering in the underlying network (Zheng et al, 2006), which shows some promise as a means of obtaining social network information (Drumright and Frost, 2010). However, like all self-reported information, it is subject to numerous errors, and it remains to be seen whether additional information, for example on the psychology of estimation, could be used to improve accuracy.…”