IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unu/wpaper/wp-2021-144.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Poverty, social networks, and clientelism

Author

Listed:
  • Nico Ravanilla
  • Allen Hicken

Abstract

Why are the poor susceptible to clientelism, and what factors shield them from the influence of vote buying? We explore the role of both formal and informal social networks in shaping the likelihood of being targeted with private inducements. We argue that when the poor lack access to formal social networks, they become increasingly reliant on vote buying channelled through informal networks. To test our theory, we build the informal, family-based network linkages between voters and local politicians spanning a city in the Philippines.

Suggested Citation

  • Nico Ravanilla & Allen Hicken, 2021. "Poverty, social networks, and clientelism," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2021-144, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    • Handle: RePEc:unu:wpaper:wp-2021-144
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/Publications/Working-paper/PDF/wp2021-144-poverty-social-networks-clientelism.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frederico Finan & Laura Schechter, 2012. "Vote‐Buying and Reciprocity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 863-881, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Miguel R. Rueda, 2017. "Small Aggregates, Big Manipulation: Vote Buying Enforcement and Collective Monitoring," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(1), pages 163-177, January.
    4. N/A, 2015. "Books for review," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 29(5), pages 890-890, October.
    5. Adida, Claire L., 2015. "Do African Voters Favor Coethnics? Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Benin," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 1-11, April.
    6. N/A, 2015. "Books for review," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 29(4), pages 699-699, August.
    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. Ravanilla, Nico & Hicken, Allen, 2023. "Poverty, social networks, and clientelism," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    2. Bardhan, Pranab, 2022. "Clientelism and governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Frey, Anderson, 2019. "Cash transfers, clientelism, and political enfranchisement: Evidence from Brazil," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 1-17.
    5. Assouad, Lydia, 2023. "Rethinking the Lebanese economic miracle: The extreme concentration of income and wealth in Lebanon, 2005–2014," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(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. Jeremy Bowles & Horacio Larreguy, 2019. "Who Debates, Who Wins? At-Scale Experimental Evidence on Debate Participation in a Liberian Election," CID Working Papers 375, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    8. Bowles, Jeremy & Larreguy, Horacio, 2020. "Who Debates, Who Wins? At-Scale Experimental Evidence on the Supply of Policy Information in a Liberian Election," TSE Working Papers 20-1153, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    9. Jorge Calero & Rosario Ivano Scandurra, 2016. "Modelling adult skills in OECD countries," Working Papers 2016/17, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    10. Neal, Luke, 2021. "Ecological contradictions of Labour's Green New Deal," IPE Working Papers 152/2021, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Institute for International Political Economy (IPE).
    11. Anand Murugesan & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2023. "The Puzzling Practice of Paying “Cash for Votes”," CESifo Working Paper Series 10504, CESifo.
    12. Kabeer, Naila, 2020. "Misbehaving’ RCTs: the confounding problem of human agency," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102940, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. W.F. Lawless, 2019. "Interdependence, Morality and Human-Machine Teams: The Revenge of the Dualists," Scientia Moralitas Journal, Scientia Moralitas, Research Institute, vol. 4(1), pages 31-50, July.
    14. Casaburi, Lorenzo & Caprettini, Bruno & Venturini, Miriam, 2021. "Redistribution, Voting and Clientelism: Evidence from the Italian Land Reform," CEPR Discussion Papers 15679, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Vincenzo Sforza & Riccardo Cimini & Alessandro Mechelli & Taryn Vian, 2021. "A Review of the Literature on Corruption in Healthcare Organizations," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(4), pages 1-98, July.
    16. Gallego, Jorge & Guardado, Jenny & Wantchekon, Leonard, 2023. "Do gifts buy votes? Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    17. Lanfranchi, Gabriel & Herrero, Ana Carolina & Palenzuela, Salvador Rueda & Camilloni, Inés & Bauer, Steffen, 2018. "The new urban paradigm," Economics Discussion Papers 2018-70, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    18. Kaba, Mustafa, 2022. "Who buys vote-buying? How, how much, and at what cost?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 98-124.
    19. Lehmann, M. Christian & Matarazzo, Hellen, 2019. "Voters’ response to in-kind transfers: Quasi-experimental evidence from prescription drug cost-sharing in Brazil," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social networks; Poor; vote-buying; Clientelism; Voting behaviour; Philippines;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:unu:wpaper:wp-2021-144. 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: Siméon Rapin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/widerfi.html .

    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.