Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:41:00.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who gets targeted for vote-buying? Evidence from an augmented list experiment in Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2014

Alı Çarkoğlu  and
S. Erdem Aytaç
Alı Çarkoğlu
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of International Relations, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey
S. Erdem Aytaç*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of International Relations, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding the dynamics of vote-buying is essential for improving accountability in elections in developing democracies. While list experiments are useful for attenuating social desirability bias associated with measuring vote-buying, they are not conducive to multivariate analyses, and the question of what types of individuals are targeted is left inadequately explored. We overcome this limitation by combining a population-based list experiment with an estimator (LISTIT) that allows for multivariate analyses in an efficient manner. Our analysis suggests that in the 2011 parliamentary elections in Turkey over one-third of the electorate was targeted for vote-buying, which is more than double the proportion willing to admit when asked directly. Additionally, we find that strong partisans of the ruling Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi), less-educated individuals, and urban residents are significantly more likely to be targeted for vote-buying. We present compelling evidence for the hypotheses that parties target their core supporters and socio-economically vulnerable individuals. The strength of our evidence derives from the use of original data on vote-buying that has been collected in an unobtrusive manner and analyzed at the level of individuals.

Keywords

vote buyinglist experimentLISTITTurkey
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , November 2015 , pp. 547 - 566
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2014 

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

Aytaç, S.E. (2014), ‘Distributive politics in a multiparty system: the conditional cash transfer program in Turkey’, Comparative Political Studies 47(9): 1211–1237.Google Scholar
Blair, G. and Imai, K. (2012), ‘Statistical analysis of list experiments’, Political Analysis 20(1): 47–77.Google Scholar
Bradburn, N.M., Sudman, S., Blair, E. and Stocking, C. (1978), ‘Question threat and response bias’, Public Opinion Quarterly 42(2): 221–234.Google Scholar
Brusco, V., Nazareno, M. and Stokes, S.C. (2004), ‘Vote-buying in Argentina’, Latin American Research Review 39(2): 66–88.Google Scholar
Çarkoğlu, A. (2011), ‘Turkey’s 2011 general elections: toward a dominant party system?’, Insight Turkey 13(3): 43–62.Google Scholar
Çarkoğlu, A. (2012a), ‘Voting behavior’, in M. Heper and S. Sayarı (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Modern Turkey, London: Routledge, pp. 160–170.Google Scholar
Çarkoğlu, A. (2012b), ‘Economic evaluations vs. ideology: diagnosing the sources of electoral change in Turkey, 2002–2011’, Electoral Studies 31: 513–521.Google Scholar
Corstange, D. (2009), ‘Sensitive questions, truthful answers? Modeling the list experiment with LISTIT’, Political Analysis 17(1): 45–63.Google Scholar
Corstange, D. (2012), ‘Vote trafficking in Lebanon’, International Journal of Middle East Studies 44(3): 483–505.Google Scholar
Cox, G.W. (2009), ‘Swing voters, core voters, and distributive politics’, in I. Shapiro, S.C. Stokes, E.J. Wood and A.S. Kirshner (eds), Political Representation, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 342–357.Google Scholar
Cox, G.W. and McCubbins, M.D. (1986), ‘Electoral politics as a redistributive game’, Journal of Politics 48(2): 370–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, R. (1987), Democracy and its Critics, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Desposato, S.W. (2007), ‘How does vote-buying shape the legislative arena?’ in F.C. Shaffer (ed.), Elections for Sale: The Causes and Consequences of Vote-Buying, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 101–122.Google Scholar
Diaz-Cayeros, A., Estevez, F. and Magaloni, B. (2012), Strategies of vote-buying: democracy, clientelism, and poverty relief in Mexico. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Dixit, A. and Londregan, J. (1996), ‘The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics’, Journal of Politics 58(4): 1132–1155.Google Scholar
Gallego, J. and Wantchekon, L. (2012), ‘Experiments on clientelism and vote-buying’, in D. Serra and L. Wantchekon (eds), New Advances in Experimental Research on Corruption, Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 177–212.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Ocantos, E., de Jonge, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gümüşçü, Ş. (2013), ‘The emerging predominant party system in Turkey’, Government and Opposition 48(2): 223–244.Google Scholar
Güneş-Ayata, A. (1994), ‘Roots and trends of clientelism in Turkey’, in L. Roniger and A. Güneş-Ayata (eds), Democracy, Clientelism, and Civil Society, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 49–63.Google Scholar
Gürkan, A.A. and Kasnakoğlu, H. (1991), ‘The political economics of agricultural price support in Turkey: an empirical assessment’, Public Choice 70: 277–298.Google Scholar
Hasen, R.L. (2000), ‘Vote buying’, California Law Review 88(5): 1323–1371.Google Scholar
Heper, M. and Keyman, E.F. (1998), ‘Double-faced state: political patronage and the consolidation of democracy in Turkey’, Middle Eastern Studies 34(4): 259–277.Google Scholar
Holbrook, A.L. and Krosnick, J.A. (2010), ‘Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: tests using the item count technique’, Public Opinion Quarterly 74(1): 37–67.Google Scholar
Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2008), ‘Attitudinal orientation to party organizations in Turkey in the 2000s’, Turkish Studies 9(2): 297–316.Google Scholar
Kemahlıoğlu, Ö. (2012), Agents or Bosses? Patronage and Intra-Party Politics in Argentina and Turkey, Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H. (2000), ‘Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities’, Comparative Political Studies 33(6–7): 845–879.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, J.H., Cobb, M.D. and Gilens, M. (1997), ‘Racial attitudes and the “New South”’, Journal of Politics 59(2): 323–349.Google Scholar
Lindbeck, A. and Weibull, J.W. (1987), ‘Balanced budget redistribution as the outcome of political competition’, Public Choice 52(3): 273–297.Google Scholar
Müftüler-Baç, M. and Keyman, E.F. (2012), ‘Turkey under the AKP: the era of dominant-party politics’, Journal of Democracy 23(1): 85–99.CrossRefGoogle 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
Öniş, Z. (2009), ‘Conservative globalism at the crossroads: the justice and development party and the thorny path to democratic consolidation in Turkey’, Mediterranean Politics 14(1): 21–40.Google Scholar
Sayarı, S. (1977), ‘Political patronage in Turkey’, in E. Gellner and J. Waterbury (eds), Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, London: Duckworth, pp. 103–113.Google Scholar
Sayarı, S. (2012), ‘Political parties’, in M. Heper and S. Sayarı (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Modern Turkey, London: Routledge, pp. 182–193.Google Scholar
Schaffer, F.C. (2007), ‘Why study vote-buying?’, in F.C. Shaffer (ed.), Elections for Sale: The Causes and Consequences of Vote-Buying, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Sniderman, P.M. and Hagendoorn, A. (2007), When Ways of Life Collide: Multiculturalism and Its Discontents in the Netherlands, Princeton: Princeton University Press.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. (2007a), ‘Is vote-buying undemocratic?’, in F.C. Shaffer (ed.), Elections for Sale: The Causes and Consequences of Vote-buying, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 81–100.Google Scholar
Stokes, S.C. (2007b), ‘Political clientelism’, in C. Boix and S.C. Stokes (eds), Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 604–627.Google Scholar
Stokes, S.C., Dunning, T., Nazareno, M. and Brusco, V. (2013), Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar