Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:01:04.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Intimidation in Contemporary Elections: Evidence from Romania and Bulgaria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2016

Isabela Mares ,
Aurelian Muntean  and
Tsveta Petrova
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines electoral intimidation of voters at their workplace in contemporary new democracies. What is the relative importance of workplace intimidation in the broader portfolio of clientelistic strategies used by politicians at times of elections? What explains the subnational variation in the incidence of this electoral strategy? We answer these questions using empirical evidence from two East European countries – Romania and Bulgaria. We assess the prevalence of non-programmatic electoral mobilization in these countries by using list experiments, a survey methodology that elicits unbiased and truthful responses to sensitive political questions. We find that in both countries, workplace intimidation is an important component in the repertoire of non-programmatic mobilization used at election times. Workplace intimidation is especially pervasive in localities dominated by a small number of large employers. The importance of economic intimidation in the portfolio of clientelistic strategies declines as the economic heterogeneity of the locality increases.

Keywords

clientelismelectionsEastern Europeintimidationeconomic concentration
Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , July 2018 , pp. 486 - 517
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

*

Isabela Mares is Professor of Political Science at Columbia University. Contact email: [email protected].

Aurelian Muntean is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the National University of Political Studies and Public Administration SNSPA, Bucharest; and Researcher at Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu. Contact email: [email protected].

Tsveta Petrova is MA Faculty Adviser at the European Institute at Columbia University. Contact email: [email protected].

References

Adevarul.ro (2012), ‘Dosar penal pentru liderii minerilor care au confiscat buletine înainte de referendum’, Adevarul.ro, http://adevarul.ro/news/eveniment/dosar-penal-liderii-minerilor-consfiscat-buletine-referendum-1_50ae26b87c42d5a6639a0eb6/index.html.Google Scholar
Allina-Pisano, J. (2010), ‘Social Contracts and Authoritarian Projects in Post-Soviet Space: The Use of Administrative Resource’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 43(4): 373–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M.L. (2000), Practicing Democracy: Elections and Political Culture in Imperial Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baland, J-M. and Robinson, J.A. (2008), ‘Land and Power: Theory and Evidence from Chile’, American Economic Review, 98(5): 1737–1765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, K. (2013), ‘Why Vote with the Chief? Political Connections and Public Goods Provision in Zambia’, American Journal of Political Science, 57(4): 794–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Biezen, I. and Kopecky, P. (2007), ‘The State and the Parties: Public Funding, Public Regulation and Rent-Seeking in Contemporary Democracies’, Party Politics, 13(2): 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, G. and Imai, K. (2012), ‘Statistical Analysis of List Experiments’, Political Analysis, 20(1): 47–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratton, M. and van de Walle, N. (1997), Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in a Comparative Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnay, J.P. (1964), Société Militaire et Suffrage Politique en France Depuis 1789 (Paris: SEVPEN).Google Scholar
Corstange, D. (2008), ‘Sensitive Questions, Truthful Answers? Modeling the List Experiment with LISTIT’, Political Analysis, 17(1): 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corstange, D. (2011), ‘Ethnic Clientelism in the Middle East’, unpublished manuscript, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Darden, K. (2001), ‘Blackmail as a Tool of State Domination: Ukraine under Kuchma’, East European Constitutional Review, 10(spring/summer): 67–71.Google Scholar
Darden, K. (2008), ‘The Integrity of Corrupt States: Graft as an Informal State Institution’, Politics and Society, 36(1): 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimitrov, V., Goetz, K. and Wollmann, H. (2006), Governing after Communism: Institutions and Policymaking (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).Google Scholar
Druzhinina, N. (2004), ‘Deputy Candidate Kozachenko Accuses Authorities of Intimidating Voters in Poltava Region: Bread Denied to Voters who Refuse to Sign Statement to Support Authorities’, Ukrainian News, 18 June.Google Scholar
Ganev, V. (2001), ‘The Dorian Gray Effect: Winners as State Breakers in PostCommunism’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 34(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganev, V. (2007), Preying on the State: The Transformation of Bulgaria after 1989 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Garrigou, A. (1992), Le Vote et la Vertu: Comment les Franc̨ais Sont Devenus Électeurs (Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, J. (2007), Case Study Research: Principles and Practices (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Glynn, A.N. (2013), ‘What Can We Learn with Statistical Truth Serum? Design and Analysis of the List Experiment’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(S1): 159–172.CrossRefGoogle 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
Grzymala-Busse, A. (2007), Rebuilding Leviathan: Party Competition and State Exploitation in Post-Communist Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, H. (2003), ‘Explaining Machine Politics in Russia’s Regions: Economy, Ethnicity, and Legacy’, Post-Soviet Affairs, 19(3): 228–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanham, H.J. (1959), Elections and Party Management: Politics in the Time of Disraeli and Gladstone (London: Longmans).Google Scholar
Holmes, L. (2003), ‘Political Corruption in Central and Eastern Europe’, in M.J. Bull and J. Newell (eds), Corruption in Contemporary Politics (New York: Palgrave Macmillan): 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffington Post (2012), ‘Election 2012: Ahead of Decision Day, Efforts Intensify to Misinform, Pressure Voters’, Huffington Post, 24 October, www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/election-2012-election-day_n_2008656.html.Google Scholar
Ichino, N. (2008), ‘Essays on Ethnic Diversity and Political Instability in Sub-Saharan Africa’, PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Imai, K. (2011), ‘Multivariate Regression Analysis for the Item Count Technique’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(494): 407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Innes, A. (2002), ‘Party Competition in Postcommunist Europe: The Great Electoral Lottery’, Comparative Politics, 35(1): 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JORF (Journal Officiel de la République Française (1898), Journal Officiel de la République Française Débats Chambre des Députés (Paris), 21 June.Google Scholar
JORF (Journal Officiel de la République Française) (1914), Journal Officiel de la République Française Débats Chambre des Députés (Paris), 16 January.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H., Mansfeldova, Z., Markowski, R. and Toka, G. (1999), Post-Communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle 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
Klein, T. (2003), ‘Gültig – ungültig’: die Wahlprüfungsverfahren des Deutschen Reichstages 1867–1918 (Marburg: N.G. Elwer).Google Scholar
Kopecky, P. (2006), ‘Political Parties and the State in Post-communist Europe: The Nature of Symbiosis’, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 22(3): 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostadinova, T. (2009), ‘Abstain or Rebel: Corruption Perceptions and Voting in East European Elections’, Politics and Policy, 37(4): 691–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, J.H., Cobb, M.D. and Gilens, M. (1997), ‘Racial Attitudes and the “New South”’, Journal of Politics, 59(2): 323–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luna, J.P. (2014), Segmented Representation: Political Party Strategies in Unequal Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, S. (1999), Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil (Stanford: Stanford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mares, I. (2015), From Open Secrets to Secret Voting: Democratic Electoral Reforms and Voter Autonomy (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mares, I. and Petrova, T. (2013), ‘Disaggregating Clientelism’, paper presented at Political Economy Seminar, Duke University.Google Scholar
Mares, I. and Young, L. (2016), ‘Buying, Stealing and Expropriating Votes’, Annual Review of Political Science, 19: 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mares, I. and Zhu, B. (2015), ‘The Production of Electoral Intimidation: Economic and Political Incentives’, Comparative Politics, 48(1): 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer-Sahling, J. (2004), ‘Civil Service Reform in Post-Communist Europe: The Bumpy Road to Depoliticisation’, West European Politics, 27(1): 71–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer-Sahling, J. and Veena, T. (2012), ‘Governing the Post-Communist State: Government Alternation and Senior Civil Service Politicisation in Central and Eastern Europe’, East European Politics, 28(1): 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Dwyer, C. (2006), Runaway State Building: Patronage Politics and Democratic Development (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveros, V. (2013), ‘A Working Machine: Patronage Jobs and Political Services in Argentina’, PhD thesis, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Sharafutdinova, G. (2007), ‘Why Was Democracy Lost in Russia’s Regions? Lessons from Nizhnii Novgorod’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 40(3): 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiriletvr.ro (2012), ‘Gorj: mai mulţi mineri acuză că le-au fost confiscate buletinele ca să nu poată vota duminică’, Stiriletvr.ro, http://stiri.tvr.ro/gorj--mai-multi-mineri-acuza-ca-le-au-fost-confiscate-buletinele-ca-sa-nu-poata-vota-duminica_19453_relationate.html.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.CrossRefGoogle 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).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vachudova, M.A. (2009), ‘Corruption and Compliance in the EU’s Post-Communist Members and Candidates’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(1): 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vicente, P.C. and Wantchekon, L. (2009), ‘Clientelism and Vote Buying: Lessons from Field Experiments in African Elections’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25(2): 292–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitz-Shapiro, R. and Winters, M.S. (2013), ‘The Brazilian Experience Shows that Voters Are More Forgiving of Incompetence than They Are of Corruption’, Democratic Audit UK, 19 December, www.democraticaudit.com/?p=1961.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, A. (1987), Coercion (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons).Google Scholar
Ziare.com (2012), ‘Se pregătește fraudarea referendumului? Anchete în Vaslui, dosare penale în Gorj’, Ziare.com, www.ziare.com/basescu/referendum-demitere/se-pregateste-fraudarea-referendumului-anchete-in-vaslui-dosare-penale-in-gorj-1180547.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Mares supplementary material

Appendix A

Download Mares supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 326.2 KB