IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jecomi/v13y2025i7p205-d1703774.html

The Price of Poverty: Inequality and the Strategic Use of Clientelism in Divided Democracies

Author

Listed:
  • Andrés Cendales

    (Departamento de Economía y Administración, Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, Universidad de Caldas, Manizales 170001, Colombia)

  • Hugo Guerrero-Sierra

    (Facultad de Relaciones Internacionales, Estrategia y Seguridad, Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, Cajicá 250240, Colombia
    Grupo de Investigaciones Jurídicas y Socio-Jurídicas, Universidad Santo Tomás, Tunja 150001, Colombia)

  • Jhon James Mora

    (Departamento de Economía, Universidad Icesi, Cali 760031, Colombia)

Abstract

This article investigates the political cost of poverty in democracies marked by deep social divisions. We develop a probabilistic voting model that incorporates clientelism as a strategic tool employed by elite political parties to secure electoral support from non-elite voters. Unlike models based on ideological proximity, our framework conceptualizes party competition as structured by the socioeconomic composition of their constituencies. We demonstrate that in contexts of high inequality and widespread poverty, elite parties face structural incentives to deploy clientelistic strategies rather than universalistic policy agendas. Our model predicts that clientelistic expenditures by elite parties increase proportionally with both inequality (GINI index) and poverty levels, rendering clientelism a rational and cost-effective mechanism of political control. Empirical evidence from a cross-national panel (2013–2019) confirms the theoretical predictions: an increase of the 1 percent in the GINI index increase a 1.3 percent in the clientelism, even after accounting for endogeneity and dynamic effects. These findings suggest that in divided democracies, poverty is not merely a condition to be alleviated, but a political resource that elites strategically exploit. Consequently, clientelism persists not as a cultural residue or institutional failure, but as a rational response to inequality-driven constraints within democratic competition.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrés Cendales & Hugo Guerrero-Sierra & Jhon James Mora, 2025. "The Price of Poverty: Inequality and the Strategic Use of Clientelism in Divided Democracies," Economies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-33, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jecomi:v:13:y:2025:i:7:p:205-:d:1703774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/13/7/205/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/13/7/205/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Susan Stokes, 2021. "Clientelism and development: is there a poverty trap?," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2021-91, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    3. 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.
    4. Vladimir Shchukin & Cemal Eren Arbatli, 2022. "Clientelism and development: Vote-buying meets patronage," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 34(1), pages 3-34, January.
    5. Koichi Suga & Akira Okada & Kenichi Sakakibara, 1996. "The dynamic transformation of political systems through social contract: a game theoretic approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 14(1), pages 1-21.
    6. Ekiert, Grzegorz, 1991. "Democratization Processes in East Central Europe: A Theoretical Reconsideration," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 285-313, July.
    7. Matsubayashi, Tetsuya & Sakaiya, Shiro, 2021. "Income inequality and income bias in voter turnout," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    8. Frederick Solt, 2008. "Economic Inequality and Democratic Political Engagement," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(1), pages 48-60, January.
    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. 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.
    2. Lourdes ROJAS RUBIO, 2022. "Inequality, Corruption and Support for Democracy," Thema Working Papers 2022-20, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    3. 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.
    4. Raul Magni-Berton & Simon Varaine, 2025. "Electoral plutocracy," Post-Print hal-05167160, HAL.
    5. Pranab Bardhan & Dilip Mookherjee, 2018. "A Theory of Clientelistic Politics versus Programmatic Politics," Boston University - Department of Economics - The Institute for Economic Development Working Papers Series dp-317, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    6. Ebney Ayaj Rana & Mustafa Kamal, 2018. "Does Clientelism Affect Income Inequality? Evidence from Panel Data," Journal of Income Distribution, Ad libros publications inc., vol. 26(1), pages 1-24, March.
    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. Amat, Francesc & Beramendi, Pablo, 2016. "Economic and Political Inequality: The Role of Political Mobilization," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 277, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    9. Paniagua, Victoria, 2022. "When clients vote for brokers: How elections improve public goods provision in urban slums," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    10. Nikolina Obradović & Goran Patrick Filic, 2019. "Inequality And Welfare State Clientelism In Bosnia And Herzegovina," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 64(223), pages 83-104, October –.
    11. repec:osf:osfxxx:rgz9t_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Troncone, Massimo, 2024. "Poverty, Competition, and Mass Patronage: Evidence from Southern Italy," OSF Preprints rgz9t, Center for Open Science.
    13. 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.
    14. Alice Guerra & Mogens K. Justesen, 2022. "Vote buying and redistribution," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 315-344, December.
    15. Faisal Z. Ahmed, 2017. "Remittances and incumbency: Theory and evidence," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 22-47, March.
    16. 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.
    17. Lindberg, Staffan I. & Lo Bue, Maria C. & Sen, Kunal, 2022. "Clientelism, corruption and the rule of law," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    18. Paola Azar & Sergio Espuelas, 2021. "Democracy and primary education spending in Spain, 1902-22," UB School of Economics Working Papers 2021/409, University of Barcelona School of Economics.
    19. Mauricio Morales & Fabián Belmar, 2022. "Clientelism, Turnout and Incumbents’ Performance in Chilean Local Government Elections," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, August.
    20. Keefer, Philip & Khemani, Stuti, 2014. "Radio's impact on preferences for patronage benefits," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6932, The World Bank.
    21. 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).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jecomi:v:13:y:2025:i:7:p:205-:d:1703774. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.