Vote Buying and Social Desirability Bias: Experimental Evidence from Nicaragua

Abstract

Qualitative studies of vote buying find the practice to be common in many Latin American countries, but quantitative studies using surveys find little evidence of vote buying. Social desirability bias can account for this discrepancy. We employ a survey-based list experiment to minimize the problem. After the 2008 Nicaraguan municipal elections, we asked about vote-buying behavior by campaigns using a list experiment and the questions traditionally used by studies of vote buying on a nationally representative survey. Our list experiment estimated that 24% of registered voters in Nicaragua were offered a gift or service in exchange for votes, whereas only 2% reported the behavior when asked directly. This detected social desirability bias is nonrandom and analysis based on traditional obtrusive measures of vote buying is unreliable. We also provide systematic evidence that shows the importance of monitoring strategies by parties in determining who is targeted for vote buying. C lientelistic electoral linkages are characterized by a transaction of political favors in which politicians offer immediate material incentives to citizens or groups in exchange for electoral support. 1 Vote buying, which is a more particularized form of clientelism involving the exchange of goods for votes at the individual level (Stokes 2007), has generated numerous ethnographies and surveys to measure its incidence and test-related hypotheses. While qualitative research routinely finds vote buying to be pervasive in the developing world (e.g., Auyero 2001), individual-level surveys often uncover low levels of such exchanges (e.g., Transparency

Trust in elections, vote buying, and turnout in Latin America

“…This effect is considerable, but weaker than the impact of most of the other variables in the model. However, given the tendency of individuals immersed in clientelistic networks not to report it (Gonzalez-Ocantos et al, 2012), it is plausible that the effect is actually stronger than what the analysis reveals. Interestingly, the effect of vote buying is different in the long term.…”

Using the Predicted Responses from List Experiments as Explanatory Variables in Regression Models

“…List experiments offer one solution to this under-reporting problem by allowing respondents to communicate truthful information without openly admitting to illicit behaviors. In their study of vote-buying in Nicaragua, Gonzalez-Ocantos et al (2012) show that only 2% of respondents admitted they sold their vote when asked directly, whereas almost 25% did so when queried through the list experiment. We follow the same measurement strategy by using a list experiment on vote-selling.…”

“…For example, Stokes (2005) and Stokes et al (2013) argue that vote-selling affects candidate approval, whereas Nichter (2008) argues that it increases turnout. Other work has shown that list experiments appear to improve the measurement of vote-selling behavior (Gonzalez-Ocantos et al 2012). Nevertheless, no existing method allows researchers to use this information about voteselling in a regression model to predict candidate approval and turnout.…”

“…List experiments have been used in various disciplines to measure behaviors as varied as employee theft and drug use (e.g., Wimbush and Dalton 1997;Biemer and Brown 2005). In political science, list experiments have been used to measure socially undesirable attitudes such as prejudice concerning race, religion, and gender (e.g., Kuklinski, Cobb, and Gilens 1997;Kane, Craig, and Wald 2004;Streb et al 2008), and illicit conduct such as voter fraud and vote-buying (e.g., Corstange 2012b; Gonzalez-Ocantos et al 2012;Ahlquist, Mayer, and Jackman 2013). List experiments have also been used to study seemingly less sensitive matters that are still prone to measurement error, such as turnout and attitudes toward voting rights (e.g., Corstange 2009;Holbrook and Krosnick 2010).…”

Labor Exclusion and the Erosion of Citizenship Responsibilities

“…The list experiment (or item count technique) provides an appealing alternative to direct questioning and have recently attracted attention among social scientists (Blair and Imai, 2012;Glynn, 2013). For example, list experiments have been used to measure racial and gender discrimination (Kuklinski et al, 1997;Streb et al, 2008), voter turnout (Holbrook and Krosnick, 2010), clientelism (González-Ocantos et al, 2012) and support for militant groups and organizations (Blair et al, 2014).…”