IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v173y2024ics0305750x23001626.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How clientelism undermines state capacity: Evidence from Mexican municipalities

Author

Listed:
  • De La O, Ana L.

Abstract

Does clientelism perpetuate the weak state capacity that characterizes many young democracies? Prior work explains that clientelistic parties skew public spending to private goods and under-supply public goods. Building on these insights, this article argues that clientelism creates a bureaucratic trap. Governments that rely on clientelism invest in labor-intensive, low-skilled bureaucracies that can design and implement relatively more straightforward distributive policies. Although such bureaucracies are useful to win some elections, they lack the administrative capacity to sustain economic and human development. Empirically, the article examines the wage structure of municipal bureaucracies as a proxy for the personnel’s education and skills in Mexico between 2012 and 2018. During this period, turnover in the party in power in municipalities was frequent, a situation that also allows investigating how resilient the bureaucratic trap is to increased competition. The results show that all political parties invest in labor-intensive, low-skilled bureaucracies. However, the bureaucratic trap has a different grip on the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), a quintessential clientelistic party, compared to other parties. After an electoral turnover, PRI’s bureaucracies have a larger proportion of low-wage personnel compared to the bureaucracies of other parties. Moreover, after an electoral turnover, the PRI allocates more resources to social assistance, subsidies, and internal transfers that are more conducive to clientelism. The overall size of the bureaucracy and the total wage bill are not affected in the same way, suggesting that there is indeed a trade-off between hiring lower and higher skilled employees. While prior work has proposed other clientelism-induced negative equilibria, this article offers a more direct path from clientelism to state capacity. The results help explain why more fiscal resources, political competition, and demand-side strategies to fight vote buying are insufficient and underscore the importance of civil service reform to tame clientelism.

Suggested Citation

  • De La O, Ana L., 2024. "How clientelism undermines state capacity: Evidence from Mexican municipalities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:173:y:2024:i:c:s0305750x23001626
    DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X23001626
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106344?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leopoldo Fergusson & Horacio Larreguy & Juan Felipe Riaño, 2022. "Political Competition and State Capacity: Evidence from a Land Allocation Program in Mexico," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(648), pages 2815-2834.
    2. Frederico Finan & Laura Schechter, 2012. "Vote‐Buying and Reciprocity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 863-881, March.
    3. Cowell, Frank A. & P.F. Gordon, James, 1988. "Unwillingness to pay : Tax evasion and public good provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 305-321, August.
    4. Brollo, Fernanda & Forquesato, Pedro & Gozzi, Juan Carlos, 2017. "To the Victor Belongs the Spoils? Party Membership and Public Sector Employment in Brazil," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 353, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    5. Ernesto Calvo & Maria Victoria Murillo, 2004. "Who Delivers? Partisan Clients in the Argentine Electoral Market," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(4), pages 742-757, October.
    6. Timothy Besley & Torsten Persson, 2010. "State Capacity, Conflict, and Development," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 1-34, January.
    7. Ernesto Dal Bó & Frederico Finan & Martín A. Rossi, 2013. "Strengthening State Capabilities: The Role of Financial Incentives in the Call to Public Service," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 128(3), pages 1169-1218.
    8. Oeindrila Dube & Omar García-Ponce & Kevin Thom, 2016. "From Maize to Haze: Agricultural Shocks and the Growth of the Mexican Drug Sector," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(5), pages 1181-1224.
    9. Stokes, Susan C., 2005. "Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 315-325, August.
    10. Cesi Cruz & Philip Keefer, 2015. "Political Parties, Clientelism, and Bureaucratic Reform," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 89657, Inter-American Development Bank.
    11. Emanuele Colonnelli & Mounu Prem & Edoardo Teso, 2020. "Patronage and Selection in Public Sector Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(10), pages 3071-3099, October.
    12. James E. Alt & David Dreyer Lassen & Shanna Rose, 2006. "The Causes of Fiscal Transparency: Evidence from the American States," EPRU Working Paper Series 06-02, Economic Policy Research Unit (EPRU), University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    13. Michael M Ting & James M Snyder Jr & Shigeo Hirano & Olle Folke, 2013. "Elections and reform: The adoption of civil service systems in the U.S. states," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 25(3), pages 363-387, July.
    14. James A. Robinson & Thierry Verdier, 2013. "The Political Economy of Clientelism," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 115(2), pages 260-291, April.
    15. Cruz, Cesi & Keefer, Philip, 2015. "Political Parties, Clientelism, and Bureaucratic Reform," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 6968, Inter-American Development Bank.
    16. Garay, Candelaria & Palmer-Rubin, Brian & Poertner, Mathias, 2020. "Organizational and partisan brokerage of social benefits: Social policy linkages in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    17. Golden, Miriam A., 2003. "Electoral Connections: The Effects of the Personal Vote on Political Patronage, Bureaucracy and Legislation in Postwar Italy," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 189-212, April.
    18. Khemani, Stuti, 2015. "Buying votes versus supplying public services: Political incentives to under-invest in pro-poor policies," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 84-93.
    19. De La O,Ana Lorena, 2015. "Crafting Policies to End Poverty in Latin America," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107089488, November.
    20. Geddes, Barbara, 1991. "A Game Theoretic Model of Reform in Latin American Democracies," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(2), pages 371-392, June.
    21. Oeindrila Dube & Omar García-Ponce & Kevin Thom, 2016. "From Maize To Haze: Agricultural Shocks And The Growth Of The Mexican Drug Sector," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(5), pages 1181-1224, October.
    22. Matthew R. Cleary, 2007. "Electoral Competition, Participation, and Government Responsiveness in Mexico," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(2), pages 283-299, April.
    23. Pierskalla, Jan H & Sacks, Audrey, 2020. "Personnel Politics: Elections, Clientelistic Competition and Teacher Hiring in Indonesia," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 1283-1305, October.
    24. James E. Alt & David Dreyer Lassen & Shanna Rose, 2006. "The Causes of Fiscal Transparency: Evidence from the U.S. States," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 53(si), pages 1-2.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ana L. De La O, 2021. "How clientelism undermines state capacity: Evidence from Mexican municipalities," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2021-169, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    2. Leopoldo Fergusson & Horacio Larreguy & Juan Felipe Riaño, 2022. "Political Competition and State Capacity: Evidence from a Land Allocation Program in Mexico," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(648), pages 2815-2834.
    3. Christian Schuster, 2020. "Patrons against clients: Electoral uncertainty and bureaucratic tenure in politicized states," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 26-43, January.
    4. Callen, Michael & Gulzar, Saad & Hasanain, Ali & Khan, Muhammad Yasir & Rezaee, Arman, 2023. "The political economy of public sector absence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    5. Hassan, Mai & Kodouda, Ahmed, 2023. "Dismantling old or forging new clientelistic ties? Sudan’s civil service reform after uprising," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    6. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos A. Molina & James A. Robinson, 2022. "The Weak State Trap," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(354), pages 293-331, April.
    7. Gallego, Jorge & Li, Christopher & Wantchekon, Leonard, 2020. "Electoral Intermediaries," Working papers 45, Red Investigadores de Economía.
    8. Keefer, Philip & Vlaicu, Razvan, 2017. "Vote buying and campaign promises," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 773-792.
    9. Vladimir Shchukin & Cemal Eren Arbatli, 2022. "Clientelism and development: Vote-buying meets patronage," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 34(1), pages 3-34, January.
    10. Casas, Agustín & Díaz, Guillermo & Trindade, André, 2017. "Who monitors the monitor? Effect of party observers on electoral outcomes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 136-149.
    11. Paniagua, Victoria, 2022. "When clients vote for brokers: How elections improve public goods provision in urban slums," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    12. Francesco Amodio & Giorgio Chiovelli & Sebastian Hohmann, 2024. "The Employment Effects of Ethnic Politics," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 456-491, April.
    13. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina & Juan Felipe Riaño, 2018. "I Sell My Vote, and So What? Incidence, Social Bias, and Correlates of Clientelism in Colombia," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Fall 2018), pages 181-218, November.
    14. Leight, Jessica & Foarta, Dana & Pande, Rohini & Ralston, Laura, 2020. "Value for money? Vote-buying and politician accountability," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    15. Niño-Zarazúa, Miguel & Santillán Hernández, Alma, 2021. "The political economy of social protection adoption," MPRA Paper 109213, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Alice Guerra & Mogens K. Justesen, 2022. "Vote buying and redistribution," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 315-344, December.
    17. Daniel Gibbs, 2020. "Civil service reform, self‐selection, and bureaucratic performance," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 279-304, July.
    18. Anand Murugesan & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2023. "The Puzzling Practice of Paying “Cash for Votes”," CESifo Working Paper Series 10504, CESifo.
    19. Gustavo J. Bobonis & Paul J. Gertler & Marco Gonzalez-Navarro & Simeon Nichter, 2022. "Vulnerability and Clientelism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(11), pages 3627-3659, November.
    20. Bardhan, Pranab, 2022. "Clientelism and governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Clientelism; State capacity; Bureaucratic capacity; Turnover; Political competition;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H10 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - General
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • H75 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Government: Health, Education, and Welfare

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:173:y:2024:i:c:s0305750x23001626. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.