Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:06:34.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultivating Effective Brokers: A Party Leader’s Dilemma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2015

Edwin Camp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political machines dominate many electoral democracies. Scholars argue that local party members, commonly called brokers, are crucial to the success of machines. This article enhances our understanding of party machines by developing a formal model that reveals how leaders extract services from brokers. The model also shows that leaders of machines face a dilemma: they need effective brokers, but these brokers create vulnerabilities that can ultimately reduce the party’s vote share and even cause electoral loss. So, in addition to highlighting electoral strengths of political machines, this article reveals their organizational vulnerabilities. This argument is evaluated with a novel survey experiment from Argentina. The survey is the first to draw upon a probability sample of brokers in any country.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 47 , Supplement 3 , July 2017 , pp. 521 - 543
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Vanderbilt University Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions (email: [email protected]). For excellent comments and suggestions, the author thanks the Editor Réne Lindstädt, and the three anonymous reviewers, as well as Jennifer Bussell, Luis Cecchi, Ignacio Cesar, Seok-Ju Cho, Thad Dunning, Pablo Fernandez-Vazquez, Justin Fox, Brian Fried, Federico Fuchs, Brenton Kenkel, Gregory Koger, Joel Middleton, Victoria Paniagua, Ignacio Puente, John Roemer, Michael Sances, Luis Schiumerini, Jason Sorens, Susan Stokes, Andres Vargas, Lee Walker, and seminar participants at Yale and Vanderbilt. He acknowledges support from the MacMillan Center. Data replication sets are available at http://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS. Online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123415000411.

References

REFERENCES

Alesina, A., and Spear, S. E.. 1988. An Overlapping Generations Model of Electoral Competition. Journal of Public Economics 37 (3):359–379.Google Scholar
Auyero, J. 2000. The Logic of Clientelism in Argentina: An Ethnographic Account. Latin American Research Review 35 (3):55–81.Google Scholar
Auyero, J. 2001. Poor People’s Politics: Peronist Survival Networks and the Legacy of Evita. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Calvo, E., and Murillo, V.. 2013. When Parties Meet Voters: Assessing Political Linkages through Partisan Networks and Distributive Expectations in Argentina and Chile. Comparative Political Studies 6 (7):851–882.Google Scholar
Camp, E., Dixit, A., and Stokes, S. C.. 2014. Catalyst or Cause? Legislation and the Demise of Machine Politics in Britain and the United States. Legislative Studies Quarterly 39 (4):559–592.Google Scholar
Chubb, J. 1982. Patronage, Power and Poverty in Southern Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, G. 2010. Swing Voters, Core Voters and Distributive Politics. Pp. 342–354, in Political Representation, edited by I. Shapiro, S. C. Stokes, E. J. Wood and A. S. Kirshner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, G., and McCubbins, M.. 1986. Electoral Politics as a Redistributive Game. Journal of Politics 48:370–389.Google Scholar
Desposato, S. 2006. Parties for Rent? Ambition, Ideology, and Party Switching in Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies. American Journal of Political Science 50 (1):62–80.Google Scholar
Diaz-Cayeros, A., Magaloni, B., and Weingast, B. R.. 2006. Tragic Brilliance: Equilibrium Party Hegemony in Mexico (working paper, Hoover Institute, Stanford, Calif.).Google Scholar
Dixit, A., and Londregan, J.. 1996. The Determinants of Success of Special Interests in Redistributive Politics. Journal of Politics 58:1132–1155.Google Scholar
Downs, A. 1957. The Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Finegold, K. 1995. Experts and Politicians: Reform Challenges to Machine Politics in New York, Cleveland, and Chicago. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gans-Morse, J., Mazzuca, S., and Nichter, S.. 2010. Varieties of Clientelism: Machine Politics during Elections (working paper, CDDRL, Stanford, Calif.).Google Scholar
Gervasoni, C. 2010. A Rentier Theory of Subnational Regimes: Fiscal Federalism, Democracy, and Authoritarianism in the Argentine Provinces. World Politics 62 (2):302–340.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Ocantos, E., de Jong, C. K., Meléndez, C., Osorio, J., and Nickerson, D. W.. 2012. Vote Buying and Social Desirability Bias: Experimental Evidence from Nicaragua. American Journal of Political Science 56 (1):202–217.Google Scholar
Greene, K. 2009. Why Dominant Parties Lose: Mexico’s Democratization in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschman, A. 1970. Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Response to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, M. 1979. Patrons and Clients, Jobs and Machines: A Case Study of the Uses of Patronage. American Political Science Review 73 (2):385–398.Google Scholar
Keefer, P., and Vlaicu, R.. 2007. Democracy, Credibility, and Clientelism. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 24:371–406.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H., and Kselman, D.. 2011. Organizational Extensiveness and Political Clientelism: The Formal and Informal ‘Ties That Bind’. (Paper prepared for the Workshop on Democratic Accountability Strategies, Duke University, Durham, N.C.).Google Scholar
Krishna, A. 2007. Political in the Middle: Mediating Relationships between the Citizens and the State in Rural North India. Pp. 141–158, in Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition, edited by H. Kitschelt and S. Wilkinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levitsky, S. 2003. Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America: Argentine Peronism in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindbeck, A., and Weibull, J.. 1987. Balanced-Budget Redistribution as the Outcome of Political Competition. Public Choice 52:273–297.Google Scholar
Magaloni, B., Diaz-Cayeros, A., and Estevez, F.. 2007. Clientelism and Portfolio Diversification: A Model of Electoral Investment with Applications to Mexico. In Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition, edited by Herbert Kitschelt and Steven Wilkinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, D. R. 1986. Placing Parties in American Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Medina, L. 2007. A Unified Theory of Collective Action and Social Change. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Medina, L., and Stokes, S. C.. 2007. Monopoly and Monitoring. Pp. 68–83, in Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition, edited by H. Kitschelt and S. Wilkinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nazareno, M., Stokes, S. C., and Brusco, V.. 2006. Reditos y peligros electorales del gasto publico en la argentina. Desarrollo Económico 46 (181):63–88.Google Scholar
Nichter, S. 2008. Vote Buying or Turnout Buying? Machine Politics and the Secret Ballot. American Political Science Review 102 (1):19–31.Google Scholar
Novaes, L. M. 2014. Promiscuous Politicians and the Problem of Party Building (paper presented at 2014 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C.).Google Scholar
Riordon, W. L. 1995. Plunkitt of Tammany Hall: A Series of Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics. New York: Signet Classic.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. E. 2001. Political Competition: Theory and Applications. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satz, D., and Ferejohn, J.. 1994. Rational Choice and social Theory. Journal of Philosophy 91 (2):71–87.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Scott, J. C. 1969. Corruption, Machine Politics, and Political Change. American Political Science Review 63 (4):1142–1158.Google Scholar
Stokes, S. C. 2005. Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review 99 (3):315–325.Google Scholar
Stokes, S. C., Dunning, T., Nazareno, M., and Brusco, V.. 2013. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szwarcberg, M. 2009. Making Local Democracy: Political Machines, Clientelism, and Social Networks in Argentina (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago).Google Scholar
Szwarcberg, M. 2013. The Microfoundations of Political Clientelism: Lessons from the Argentine Case. Latin American Research Review 48 (2):32–54.Google Scholar
Thachil, T. 2011. Embedded Mobilization: Nonstate Service Provision as Electoral Strategy in India. World Politics 63 (03):434–469.Google Scholar
Weitz-Shapiro, R. 2012. What Wins Votes: Why Some Politicians Opt Out of Clientelism. American Journal of Political Science 56 (3):568–583.Google Scholar
Wittman, D. 1973. Parties as Utility Maximizers. American Political Science Review 67:490–498.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Camp supplementary material

Appendix

Download Camp supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 792 KB