Poverty and vote buying: Survey-based evidence from Africa

Jensen, Peter S.; Justesen, Mogens Kamp

doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2013.07.020

Cited by 121 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At the individual level, voter behavior is influenced by the level of education, welfare, social status, religion and gender (Kolstad & Wiig, 2016). At the community level, political conditions, income inequality, tribal dominance, and public facilities can influence voting behavior of the citizen (De La Poza, Jódar, & Pricop, 2017;Sandholt & Justesen, 2014). Both conditions affect the voter's preference.…”

Section: A Voter's Preference and Money Politicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of LPM and logic has been widely used by previous studies on the same topic (Amos et al, 2016;Kolstad & Wiig, 2016;Sandholt & Justesen, 2014). LPM is multiple linear regression with a binary dependent variable.…”

Section: Linear Probability Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Education is believed to be the right instrument to reduce money politic acts. In addition, the relationship or interaction of respondents with activities and government actors is also a consideration in the study vote buying (Sandholt & Justesen, 2014).…”

Section: Voter's Characteristics and Vote Buyingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Direct vote buying conducted during an election by hand is out money or gift. Money and gift mostly given by broker or supporting member of a candidate (Sandholt & Justesen, 2014). The direct way is used mainly during election time where money and presents are distributed to voters.…”

Section: B Different Perspective Of Vote-buyingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Voters from poor families tend to be targeted for vote buying (Sandholt & Justesen, 2014). Some poor voters are willing to trade their voice for some basic needs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Determinants of Vote Buying in Local Head Election in Indonesia

Putra¹

2017

J. Bina Praja

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The local head election in Indonesia suffers from vote buying. However, there is a lack of study compared to vote-buying case in Indonesia, especially quantitative study. Therefore, this study aims to fill the gap. The purpose is to estimate the effect of individual and community characteristics on the probability of voter to consider money or gifts in a local head election. This study uses the data from Indonesia Family Life Survey 5 (IFLS5) conducted in 2014/2015 for 29,788 respondents. As the response is a binary data, the Linear Probability Model (LPM) and logit model is utilized. The result shows that both individual and community characteristics affect vote buying in Indonesia. Voters with tertiary education are far less likely to consider money or gift by 29.1% than others. By using logit test, the coefficient is corrected. Voters with a university degree tend to not engage in vote buying by 0.27 times than the others. This study finds other interesting findings that gender matter in vote buying in Indonesia. Female voters tend to consider money or gift more than male by 2.44%. Voters who live in rural areas have a higher probability to consider vote buying by 4.55%. Living in the internet-connected community may reduce the probability of vote buying. The coefficient indicates that those with internet access have less probability to consider money or gift in an election by 1.35%. Living in a community with high social awareness makes voters less vulnerable to vote-buying. The coefficient indicates that they have less possibility to consider money by 2.44% than those living in communities with less social awareness. Thus, the strategy to eliminate vote buying should be adjusted to the character of voters in a certain community.

show abstract

Section: A Voter's Preference and Money Politicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Linear Probability Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Voter's Characteristics and Vote Buyingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: B Different Perspective Of Vote-buyingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Voters from poor families tend to be targeted for vote buying (Sandholt & Justesen, 2014). Some poor voters are willing to trade their voice for some basic needs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations