IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jinter/v34y2022i2p139-161.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Access to Information and Other Correlates of Vote Buying and Selling Behaviour: Insights from Philippine Data

Author

Listed:
  • Tristan Canare
  • Ronald U. Mendoza

Abstract

Access to information is a key factor influencing political behaviour and decisions. Recent studies on vote buying and selling have tried to unpack the possible drivers behind this phenomenon; yet, few studies have empirically examined the role of different sources of information. This study contributes to the nascent literature in this area by turning to a unique dataset from a survey of low-income voters in Metro Manila, the Philippines. It empirically examined the relationship between access to information and vote selling behaviour by low-income voters. It also studied other correlates of vote selling and the possible factors linked to receiving an offer. The results suggest that the quantity of information has no significant relationship with the likelihood of accepting the offer and voting for the candidate for whom the offer was made. However, the quality of information does matter. In particular, access to sources of ‘good quality information’ is negatively associated with completing the vote selling transaction (i.e., accepting the offer and voting for the candidate). This study also found evidence that when money is used for vote buying, it appears to be targeted at those with greater needs, confirming the literature that vote buying activities tend to be well targeted at poor and low-income communities. Unsurprisingly, vote buying offers are more likely in areas where elections are closely contested, and they are also more likely in socially cohesive communities. Our findings also suggest that vote buying may not necessarily be effective in the sense that it encourages only few voters to change their candidate preference. This coheres with earlier studies suggesting that vote buying and selling merely caps a longstanding patron–client relationship between politicians and low-income voters. JEL: D72, D91, K49

Suggested Citation

  • Tristan Canare & Ronald U. Mendoza, 2022. "Access to Information and Other Correlates of Vote Buying and Selling Behaviour: Insights from Philippine Data," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 34(2), pages 139-161, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jinter:v:34:y:2022:i:2:p:139-161
    DOI: 10.1177/02601079211034607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02601079211034607
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/02601079211034607?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pedro C. Vicente, 2014. "Is Vote Buying Effective? Evidence from a Field Experiment in West Africa," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 124(574), pages 356-387, February.
    2. Frederico Finan & Laura Schechter, 2012. "Vote‐Buying and Reciprocity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 863-881, March.
    3. Pedro C. Vicente & Leonard Wantchekon, 2009. "Clientelism and vote buying: lessons from field experiments in African elections," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 25(2), pages 292-305, Summer.
    4. Leonard Wantchekon, 2003. "Clientelism and voting behavior: Evidence from a field experiment in benin," Natural Field Experiments 00339, The Field Experiments Website.
    5. David Dreyer Lassen, 2005. "The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(1), pages 103-118, January.
    6. Nichter, Simeon, 2008. "Vote Buying or Turnout Buying? Machine Politics and the Secret Ballot," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 19-31, February.
    7. Ezequiel Gonzalez Ocantos & Chad Kiewiet de Jonge & David W. Nickerson, 2014. "The Conditionality of Vote‐Buying Norms: Experimental Evidence from Latin America," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(1), pages 197-211, January.
    8. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," NBER Working Papers 23089, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Cesi Cruz & Julien Labonne & Pablo Querubín, 2017. "Politician Family Networks and Electoral Outcomes: Evidence from the Philippines," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(10), pages 3006-3037, October.
    10. Lupia, Arthur, 1994. "The Effect of Information on Voting Behavior and Electoral Outcomes: An Experimental Study of Direct Legislation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 78(1), pages 65-86, January.
    11. Shiller, Robert J, 1995. "Conversation, Information, and Herd Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 181-185, May.
    12. Jessica Gottlieb, 2016. "Greater Expectations: A Field Experiment to Improve Accountability in Mali," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(1), pages 143-157, January.
    13. Valentino Larcinese, 2007. "Does political knowledge increase turnout? Evidence from the 1997 British general election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 387-411, June.
    14. Claudio Ferraz & Frederico Finan, 2008. "Exposing Corrupt Politicians: The Effects of Brazil's Publicly Released Audits on Electoral Outcomes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(2), pages 703-745.
    15. 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.
    16. Houser, Daniel & Morton, Rebecca & Stratmann, Thomas, 2011. "Turned on or turned out? Campaign advertising, information and voting," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 708-727.
    17. Philip Keefer, 2007. "Clientelism, Credibility, and the Policy Choices of Young Democracies," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 804-821, October.
    18. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 211-236, Spring.
    19. Khemani, Stuti, 2013. "Buying votes vs. supplying public services : political incentives to under-invest in pro-poor policies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6339, The World Bank.
    20. Cesi Cruz & Philip Keefer & Julien Labonne, 2016. "Incumbent Advantage, Voter Information and Vote Buying," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 94877, Inter-American Development Bank.
    21. Cruz, Cesi & Keefer, Philip & Labonne, Julien, 2016. "Incumbent Advantage, Voter Information and Vote Buying," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 7730, Inter-American Development Bank.
    22. Thomas Fujiwara & Leonard Wantchekon, 2013. "Can Informed Public Deliberation Overcome Clientelism? Experimental Evidence from Benin," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(4), pages 241-255, October.
    23. Lupia, Arthur, 1994. "Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 63-76, March.
    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. Hicken, Allen & Leider, Stephen & Ravanilla, Nico & Yang, Dean, 2018. "Temptation in vote-selling: Evidence from a field experiment in the Philippines," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 1-14.
    2. Kosec, Katrina & Wantchekon, Leonard, 2020. "Can information improve rural governance and service delivery?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    3. Keefer, Philip & Khemani, Stuti, 2014. "Radio's impact on preferences for patronage benefits," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6932, The World Bank.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Bardhan, Pranab, 2022. "Clientelism and governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    7. León, Gianmarco, 2017. "Turnout, political preferences and information: Experimental evidence from Peru," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 56-71.
    8. Christopher Blattman & Horacio Larreguy & Benjamin Marx & Otis Reid, 2019. "Eat Widely, Vote Wisely ? Lessons from a Campaign Against Vote Buying in Uganda," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03608420, HAL.
    9. Abhijit Banerjee & Nils T. Enevoldsen & Rohini Pande & Michael Walton, 2020. "Public Information is an Incentive for Politicians: Experimental Evidence from Delhi Elections," NBER Working Papers 26925, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Pranab Bardhan & Sandip Mitra & Dilip Mookherjee & Anusha Nath, 2020. "How Do Voters Respond to Welfare vis-à-vis Public Good Programs? An Empirical Test for Clientelism," Staff Report 605, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    12. 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.
    13. Toke Aidt & Zareh Asatryan & Lusine Badalyan & Friedrich Heinemann, 2020. "Vote Buying or (Political) Business (Cycles) as Usual?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(3), pages 409-425, July.
    14. Oana Borcan, 2016. "The illicit beneficts of local party alignment in national elections," University of East Anglia School of Economics Working Paper Series 2016-10, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    15. 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).
    16. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/7j1t12vvla8c887v4q18ihljej is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Isaksson, Ann-Sofie & Bigsten, Arne, 2014. "Clientelism and ethnic divisions," Working Papers in Economics 598, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    18. Christopher Blattman & Horacio Larreguy & Benjamin Marx & Otis Reid, 2019. "Eat Widely, Vote Wisely ? Lessons from a Campaign Against Vote Buying in Uganda," SciencePo Working papers hal-03608420, HAL.
    19. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/7j1t12vvla8c887v4q18ihljej is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Dragan Filipovich & Miguel Niño-Zarazúa & Alma Santillán Hernández, 2018. "Campaign externalities, programmatic spending, and voting preferences in rural Mexico: The case of Progresa-Oportunidades-Prospera programme," WIDER Working Paper Series 027, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    21. Anand Murugesan & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2023. "The Puzzling Practice of Paying “Cash for Votes”," CESifo Working Paper Series 10504, CESifo.
    22. Dragan Filipovich & Miguel Niño-Zarazúa & Alma Santillán Hernández, 2018. "Campaign externalities, programmatic spending, and voting preferences in rural Mexico: The case of Progresa-Oportunidades-Prospera programme," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2018-27, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Asian politics; political behaviour; political economy; Southeast Asian studies;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • K49 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Other

    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:sae:jinter:v:34:y:2022:i:2:p:139-161. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.