Incorporating Marginal Citizens and Voters

Abstract

In this article, we study how social assistance shapes election results across Latin America. Case studies in several countries have found electoral effects, yet it remains unclear whether and how effects vary cross-nationally, and whether electoral effects are due to mobilization or persuasion. We theorize that programs mobilize non-voters and convert the opposition simultaneously, but that the effects vary based on country-level political and programmatic differences. Using 2012 AmericasBarometer data, we develop a unified cross-national model that confirms that public assistance makes recipients more likely to turn out and, once at the polls, to vote for the incumbent. Compulsory voting laws and program politicization magnify the electoral effects of social assistance, but effects do not vary by presidential ideology or program conditionalities. These findings are consistent with the perspective that Latin American voters are boundedly rational, retrospective agents whose behavioral choices depend on their resources and environmental context.

How Voters Respond to Currency Crises: Evidence From Turkey

“…My results on the importance of the pocketbook channel also differ from the majority of scholarship on economic voting, which tends to emphasize the importance of sociotropic motivations (Kinder & Kiewiet, 1979; Nadeau et al, 2013). These findings add to a small but growing subset of scholarship on economic voting that has found support for pocketbook theories (Healy et al, 2017; Layton and AmySmith 2015; Linos 2013; Murillo & Visconti, 2017; Pop-Eleches and Pop-Eleches 2012). My evidence of pocketbook voting during a currency crisis indicates that pocketbook concerns apply across a wider range of economic policy issues than is often appreciated.…”

“…The majority of research concludes that sociotropic economic voting is more prevalent than pocketbook voting (Kinder & Kiewiet, 1979; Nadeau et al, 2013; Singer and Carlin 2013). On the other hand, a small number of recent studies that directly measure changes in household income (Healy et al, 2017; Murillo & Visconti, 2017) and that examine individuals that receive government transfers (Layton and Smith 2015; Linos 2013; Pop-Eleches and Pop-Eleches 2012) find support for the pocketbook theory. This article shows that pocketbook voting is not confined to microeconomic policy issues, such as targeted transfers.…”

REDD+ as a Public Policy Dilemma: Understanding Conflict and Cooperation in the Design of Conservation Incentives

“…Even before those developments, CCT programs started proliferating in Latin America. Studies found that voters tend to reward governments that implement targeted social assistance programs [77][78][79], at least in the short term [80]. Subsidies for forest conservation can, in addition, also legitimately benefit geographically marginalized rural populations that are otherwise hard to reach for central states.…”

Conditional Cash Transfers, Resources, and Political Participation in Latin America

“…First, it challenges the findings from the existing literature on the political behavioral consequences of program conditionalities. Whereas previous research suggests that CCT conditionalities, and means-tested program conditionalities more generally, reduce political participation or have no effect (Layton and Smith 2015;Watson 2015), I utilize an alternative research design to argue that CCT conditionalities spur increased involvement in political activities. Second, the article improves our theoretical understanding of why some means-tested social programs increase political participation, while others have no effect or even a negative effect on participation (Soss 1999;Campbell 2003;Mettler and Stonecash 2008;Bruch, Ferree, and Soss 2010;Garay 2007;Holzner 2010).…”