Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T06:37:38.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voting for the lesser evil: evidence from a conjoint experiment in Romania

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2019

Isabela Mares Open the ORCID record for Isabela Mares [Opens in a new window]  and
Giancarlo Visconti Open the ORCID record for Giancarlo Visconti [Opens in a new window]
Isabela Mares*
Affiliation:
Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
Giancarlo Visconti
Affiliation:
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: isabela.mares@yale.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In many elections around the world, voters choose between politicians who differ not only in personal background and policy promises, but also in their history of dishonest electoral conduct. While recent literature has begun to investigate the conditions under which voters punish electoral malfeasance, we know relatively little about whether they penalize different forms of illicit activities carried out by politicians differently. In this paper, we present the results of a candidate choice experiment embedded in a survey fielded prior to the 2016 Romanian local election. We asked voters to choose between two hypothetical candidates, randomly varying several attributes, including different illicit electoral activities. We find that citizens tolerate some forms of political malfeasance less than others depending on how much that malfeasance infringes on voters' autonomy. Informational campaigns carried out by prosecutorial agencies also affect how much voters punish different illicit exchanges.

Keywords

Clientelismconjoint designEastern EuropeintimidationRomaniavote choice
Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 315 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arriola, LR (2009) Patronage and political stability in Africa. Comparative Political Studies 42, 1339–1362.10.1177/0010414009332126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratton, M (2008) Vote buying and violence in Nigerian election campaigns. Electoral studies 27, 621–632.10.1016/j.electstud.2008.04.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchstein, H (2000) Öffentliche und geheime Stimmabgabe: eine wahlrechtshistorische und ideengeschichtliche Studie. Nomos: Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
Calvo, E and Murillo, MV (2004) Who delivers? Partisan clients in the Argentine electoral market. American Journal of Political Science 48, 742–757.10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00099.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, E and Murillo, MV (2019) Non-policy Politics: Richer Voters, Poorer Voters, and the Diversification of Electoral Strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108683708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, E (2015) Ethnic voting and accountability in Africa: a choice experiment in Uganda. World Politics 67, 353–385.10.1017/S0043887115000015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnes, N and Lupu, N (2016) Do voters dislike working-class candidates? Voter biases and the descriptive underrepresentation of the working class. American Political Science Review 110, 832–844.10.1017/S0003055416000551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, GW and McCubbins, MD (1986) Electoral politics as a redistributive game. The Journal of Politics 48, 370–389.10.2307/2131098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixit, A and Londregan, J (1996) The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. The Journal of Politics 58, 1132–1155.10.2307/2960152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Vázquez, P, Barberá, P and Rivero, G (2016) Rooting out corruption or rooting for corruption? The heterogeneous electoral consequences of scandals. Political Science Research and Methods 4, 379–397.10.1017/psrm.2015.8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisman, R and Golden, M (2017) Political Corruption: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franchino, F and Zucchini, F. (2015) Voting in a multi-dimensional space: a conjoint analysis employing valence and ideology attributes of candidates. Political Science Research and Methods 3, 221–241.10.1017/psrm.2014.24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Ocantos, E, De Jonge, CK, Meléndez, C, Osorio, J and Nickerson, DW (2012) Vote buying and social desirability bias: Experimental evidence from Nicaragua. American Journal of Political Science 56, 202–217.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00540.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J and Hopkins, D. (2014) The hidden American immigration consensus: a conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science 59, 529–548.10.1111/ajps.12138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J, Hopkins, D and Yamamoto, T (2013) Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis 22, 1–30.10.1093/pan/mpt024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J, Hangartner, D and Yamamoto, T (2015) Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112, 239–240.10.1073/pnas.1416587112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkland, P and Coppock, A (2016) Candidate Choice without Party Labels: New Insights from U.S. Mayoral Elections 1945–2007 and Conjoint Survey Experiments. Political Behavior.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H, Wang, Y and Kolev, K (2012) ‘Research and Dialogue on Programmatic Parties and Party Systems’, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance Case Study Reports (Stockholm: IDEA).Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H and Wilkinson, S (2007) Patrons, clients and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511585869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klašnja, M, Lupu, N and Tucker, JA. (2017) When do voters sanction corrupt politicians?.10.1177/1532673X16684574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, C (1977) “The dyadic basis of clientelism,” pp. xiii–xxxvii in Schmidt, S. et al. (eds.) Friends, Followers and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Luna, JP (2014) Segmented Representation: Political Party Strategies in Unequal Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199642649.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mares, I and Young, L (2016 a) Buying, stealing and expropriating votes. Annual Review of Political Science 19, 267–288.10.1146/annurev-polisci-060514-120923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mares, I and Young, L (2016 b) Incumbency and the Varieties of Clientelism: Evidence from Eastern Europe. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Mares, I and Young, L (2019) Conditionality and Coercion: Electoral Clientelism in Eastern Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198832775.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, J, Anduiza, E and Gallego, A (2016) Why do voters forgive corrupt mayors? Implicit exchange, credibility of information and clean alternatives. Local Government Studies 42, 598–615.10.1080/03003930.2016.1154847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichter, S (2008) Vote buying or turnout buying? Machine politics and the secret ballot. American Political Science Review 102, 19–31.10.1017/S0003055408080106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, A, Stokes, S and Manin, B (1999) Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139175104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveros, V (2016) Making it personal: Clientelism, favors, and the personalization of public administration in Argentina. Comparative Politics 48, 373–391.10.5129/001041516818254437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, JC (1972) Patron-client politics and political change in Southeast Asia. American political science review 66, 91–113.10.2307/1959280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, S (2007) Political clientelism. In Stokes, Susan and Boix, Carles (eds) Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 604–627.Google Scholar
Stokes, SC, Dunning, T, Nazareno, M and Brusco, V (2013) Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: the Puzzle of Distributive Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107324909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoianovici, A (2016) Peste o suta de candidate penali sau incompatibili au cistigat cursa pentru primarie. Initiativa pentru o justitie curate, Romania. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Van de Walle, N (2007) Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? The evolution of political clientelism in Africa. In Herbert, K and Wilkinson, S (eds), Patrons, Clients and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 50–67.10.1017/CBO9780511585869.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visconti, G (2018) After the Flood: Natural Disasters and Electoral Choices in Chile. Working paper, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Wallander, L (2009) 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: a review. Social Science Research 38, 505–520.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitz-Shapiro, R (2012) What wins votes: why some politicians opt out of clientelism. American Journal of Political Science 56, 568–583.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00578.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitz-Shapiro, R (2014) Curbing Clientelism in Argentina. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139683579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertheimer, A (1987) Coercion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weschle, S (2016) Punishing personal and electoral corruption: experimental evidence from India. Research & Politics 3, 1–6.10.1177/2053168016645136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, S (2007) Explaining changing patterns of party-voting linkages in India. In Herbert, K and Wilkinson, S (eds), Patrons, Clients and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 110–140.10.1017/CBO9780511585869.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, MS and Weitz-Shapiro, R (2013) Lacking information or condoning corruption: when do voters support corrupt politicians? Comparative Politics 45, 418–436.10.5129/001041513X13815259182857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Mares and Visconti Dataset

Dataset https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MJKCHZ
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Mares and Visconti supplementary material

Mares and Visconti supplementary material
Download Mares and Visconti supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 255.8 KB