IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v130y2020ics0305750x20300401.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Partisan responses to democracy promotion – Estimating the causal effect of a civic information portal

Author

Listed:
  • John, Peter
  • Sjoberg, Fredrik M

Abstract

Citizens respond to information about democracy according to whether they are electoral winners or losers. This difference occurs both at the national and constituency level. Democratic interventions that seek to promote accountability and transparency might therefore impact citizens differentially depending on the political party that people support. In a placebo-controlled experimental design, carried out in Kenya, we find that democracy promotion boosts the external efficacy and political participation of ruling party partisans, but leaves those from the opposition unaffected. These responses—based on national incumbency—are further conditioned by the partisanship of the MP of the constituency where the voter resides. These findings throw new light on the impact of civic interventions, such as Get Out the Vote (GOTV) and civic education, common in Africa as well as elsewhere, as we show their benefits accrue to the electoral winners rather than to the losers.

Suggested Citation

  • John, Peter & Sjoberg, Fredrik M, 2020. "Partisan responses to democracy promotion – Estimating the causal effect of a civic information portal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:130:y:2020:i:c:s0305750x20300401
    DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104914
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X20300401
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104914?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. Banducci, Susan A. & Karp, Jeffrey A., 2003. "How Elections Change the Way Citizens View the Political System: Campaigns, Media Effects and Electoral Outcomes in Comparative Perspective," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 443-467, July.
    2. Robin Burgess & Remi Jedwab & Edward Miguel & Ameet Morjaria & Gerard Padró i Miquel, 2015. "The Value of Democracy: Evidence from Road Building in Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(6), pages 1817-1851, June.
    3. Karp, Jeffrey A & Banducci, Susan A, 2008. "Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 311-334, April.
    4. Gerber, Alan S. & Green, Donald P., 2000. "The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(3), pages 653-663, September.
    5. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    6. Anderson, Christopher J. & Guillory, Christine A., 1997. "Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(1), pages 66-81, March.
    7. ANDERSON, CHRISTOPHER J. & LoTEMPIO, ANDREW J., 2002. "Winning, Losing and Political Trust in America," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 335-351, April.
    8. Michael Bratton & Mwangi S. Kimenyi, 2008. "Voting in Kenya: Putting Ethnicity in Perspective," Working papers 2008-09, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    9. Bobo, Lawrence & Gilliam, Franklin D., 1990. "Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(2), pages 377-393, June.
    10. McPherson, J. Miller & Welch, Susan & Clark, Cal, 1977. "The Stability and Reliability of Political Efficacy: Using Path Analysis to Test Alternative Models," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(2), pages 509-521, June.
    11. André Blais & François Gélineau, 2007. "Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 425-441, June.
    12. Leonard Wantchekon, 2003. "Clientelism and voting behavior: Evidence from a field experiment in benin," Natural Field Experiments 00339, The Field Experiments Website.
    13. Mvukiyehe, Eric & Samii, Cyrus, 2017. "Promoting Democracy in Fragile States: Field Experimental Evidence from Liberia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 254-267.
    14. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    15. André Blais & François Gélineau, 2007. "Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(2), pages 425-441, June.
    16. Brambor, Thomas & Clark, William Roberts & Golder, Matt, 2006. "Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 63-82, January.
    17. Alan Gerber & Donald Green, 2000. "The effects of canvassing, direct mail, and telephone contact on voter turnout: A field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00248, The Field Experiments Website.
    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. Carolina Plescia & Jean-François Daoust & André Blais, 2021. "Do European elections enhance satisfaction with European Union democracy?," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 94-113, March.
    2. Mayne, Quinton & Hakhverdian, Armen, 2016. "Ideological Congruence and Citizen Satisfaction: Evidence from 25 Advanced Democracies," Scholarly Articles 25302405, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    3. Marlene Mauk, 2022. "Electoral integrity matters: how electoral process conditions the relationship between political losing and political trust," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1709-1728, June.
    4. Ali Abdelzadeh, 2014. "The Impact of Political Conviction on the Relation Between Winning or Losing and Political Dissatisfaction," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, May.
    5. Dominik Schraff & Frank Schimmelfennig, 2020. "Does differentiated integration strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU? Evidence from the 2015 Danish opt-out referendum," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 590-611, December.
    6. Stiers, Dieter & Dassonneville, Ruth, 2018. "Affect versus cognition: Wishful thinking on election day," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 199-215.
    7. Adrienne LeBas, 2017. "Who trusts? Ethnicity, integration, and attitudes toward elected officials in urban Nigeria," WIDER Working Paper Series 126, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    8. Paniagua, Victoria, 2022. "When clients vote for brokers: How elections improve public goods provision in urban slums," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    9. Little, Andrew T., 2022. "Bayesian Explanations for Persuasion," OSF Preprints ygw8e, Center for Open Science.
    10. Kosuke Imai, 2005. "Do get-out-the-vote calls reduce turnout? The importance of statistical methods for field experiments," Natural Field Experiments 00272, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. Chad Kendall & Tommaso Nannicini & Francesco Trebbi, 2015. "How Do Voters Respond to Information? Evidence from a Randomized Campaign," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 322-353, January.
    12. Grácio, Matilde & Vicente, Pedro C., 2021. "Information, get-out-the-vote messages, and peer influence: Causal effects on political behavior in Mozambique," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    13. Pereira dos Santos, João & Tavares, José & Vicente, Pedro C., 2021. "Can ATMs get out the vote? Evidence from a nationwide field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    14. Benjamin Marx & Vincent Pons & Tavneet Suri, 2021. "Voter Mobilisation and Trust in Electoral Institutions: Evidence from Kenya," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(638), pages 2585-2612.
    15. Wagner, Alexander F. & Schneider, Friedrich & Halla, Martin, 2009. "The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe -- A panel analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 30-41, March.
    16. Donald P. Green & Peter John, 2010. "Field Experiments in Comparative Politics and Policy," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 628(1), pages 6-10, March.
    17. Adrienne LeBas, 2017. "Who trusts?: Ethnicity, integration, and attitudes toward elected officials in urban Nigeria," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2017-126, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    18. Bailey, Michael & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Rogers, Todd, 2013. "Unresponsive and Unpersuaded: The Unintended Consequences of Voter Persuasion Efforts," Working Paper Series rwp13-034, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    19. Barbara Dluhosch & Daniel Horgos & Klaus W. Zimmermann, 2016. "EU enlargement and satisfaction with democracy: a peculiar case of immiserizing growth," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 273-298, September.
    20. Christiansen, Petter, 2018. "Public support of transport policy instruments, perceived transport quality and satisfaction with democracy. What is the relationship?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 305-318.

    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:130:y:2020:i:c:s0305750x20300401. 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.