2011
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1965669
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Turnout, Political Preferences and Information: Experimental Evidence from Perú

Abstract: Electoral institutions that encourage citizens to vote are widely used around the world. Yet little is known about the effects of such institutions on voter participation and the composition of the electorate. In this paper, I combine a field experiment with a change in Peruvian voting laws to identify the effect of monetary (dis-)incentives on voting. Using the random variation in the fine for abstention and an objective measure of turnout at the individual level, I estimate the elasticity of voting with resp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 76 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition to showing that political parties are sensitive to these considerations, we also find that the interaction with structural features determining the ability of parties to implement turnout buying may be just as important. In this respect our findings dovetail with previous research showing that institutions like the secret ballot (Cox and Kousser 1981; Nichter 2008), compulsory voting (León 2013), and party machines (Rakove 1976; Stokes et al 2013) affect election day strategies.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In addition to showing that political parties are sensitive to these considerations, we also find that the interaction with structural features determining the ability of parties to implement turnout buying may be just as important. In this respect our findings dovetail with previous research showing that institutions like the secret ballot (Cox and Kousser 1981; Nichter 2008), compulsory voting (León 2013), and party machines (Rakove 1976; Stokes et al 2013) affect election day strategies.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Empirically, our results extend the existing literature in several ways. First, unlike previous studies examining the effects of institutions on vote buying (Cox and Kousser 1981; León 2013), we instead explain variation in turnout buying and exploit a powerful research design to identify causal effects consistent with our monitoring explanation. Second, we identify the conditions under which parties interact effectively with brokers in a way that observational accounts cannot (e.g., Levitsky 2014; Stokes et al 2013; Szwarcberg 2012a; Wang and Kurzman 2007).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To our knowledge, onlyLeon (2017) and us are turnout studies in developing countries that rely on survey information merged with administrative data for the main outcome variable. Attrition is a cost to doing this.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%