Electoral Risk and Redistributive Politics in Mexico and the United States

  • Alberto Diaz-CayerosEmail author


What strategy does a rational party follow in allocating discretionary expenditure? This article conceives redistributive politics as an investment strategy where expenditure allocations respond to electoral risk. To show the effects of risk, it provides evidence from Pronasol in Mexico and an analysis of New Deal spending in the United States. The analysis finds that the federal administrations in both countries responded to systematic electoral risk. Spending diversification into risky voters was a rational response to chances of losing elections. The analysis hence connects electoral volatility with redistributive spending.


New Deal Mexico Electoral volatility Party hegemony Risk Redistribution Public spending 


  1. Arrington L. The new deal in the west: a preliminary statistical inquiry. Pac Hist Rev. 1969;38:311–6.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson GM, Tollison RD. Congressional influence and patterns of new deal spending. 1933–1939. J Law Econ. 1991;34:161–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banamex-Accival. México electoral. Estadísticas federales y locales 1970–2000 (CD-ROM). Mexico: Grupo Financiero Banamex-Accival; 2001.Google Scholar
  4. Bodie Z, Kane A, Marcus A. Investments. Fifth ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2001.Google Scholar
  5. Clubb JM, Flanigan WH, Zingale NH. Electoral data for counties in the United States. Presidential and congressional races, 1840–1972. Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) data file 8611; 1986.Google Scholar
  6. Cornelius W, Craig A, Fox J. editors. Transforming state-society relations in Mexico: the national solidarity strategy. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, UCSD; 1994.Google Scholar
  7. Couch JF, Shughart WF. The political economy of the new deal. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar; 1998.Google Scholar
  8. Cox G, McCubbins MD. Electoral politics as a redistributive game. J Pol. 1986;48:370–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cox G, Thies M. How much does money matter? ‘Buying’ vote in Japan, 1967–1990. Comp Pol St. 2000;33(1):37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crain WM, Messenheimer HC, Tollison RD. The probability of being president. Rev Econ Stat. 1993;75(4):683–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahlberg M, Johansson E. On the vote-purchasing behavior of incumbent governments. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2002;96(1):27–40.Google Scholar
  12. Diaz-Cayeros A, Estevez F, Magaloni B. (2008) Strategies of vote buying: social transfers, democracy and welfare in Mexico (typescript, Stanford University).Google Scholar
  13. Dixit A, Londregan J. The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. J Polit. 1996;58:1132–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fama E, French K. Multifactor explanations of asset pricing anomalies. J Finance. 1996;51:55–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleck RK. The value of the vote: a model and test of the effects of turnout on distributive policy. Eco Inq. 1999;37(4):609–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fleck RK. Inter-party competition, intra-party competition, and distributive policy: a model and test using New Deal data. Public Choice. 2001a;108:77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleck RK. Population, land, economic conditions, and the allocation of new deal spending. Explor Econ Hist. 2001b;38:396–04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fleck RK. Voter influence and big policy change: the positive political economy of the new deal. J Polit Econ. 2008;1(116):1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hurja E. Materials relating to the ‘National Inquirer’ presidential preference polls (Hurja Papers). Hyde Park, NY: FDR Library; 1935.Google Scholar
  20. Key VO. The administration of federal grants to states. Crawfordsville: Donnelley and Sons; 1937.Google Scholar
  21. Lindbeck A, Weibull J. Balanced budget redistribution as the outcome of political competition. Public Choice. 1987;52(3):273–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Londregan J. Political income redistribution. In: Weingast B, Wittman D, editors. The Oxford handbook of political economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  23. Molinar J, Weldon J. Electoral determiants and consequences of national solidarity. In: Cornelius W, Craig A, Fox J, editors. Transforming state–society relations in Mexico: the national solidarity strategy. La Jolla: Center for U.S.–Mexican Studies, UCSD; 1994.Google Scholar
  24. Persson T, Tabellini G. Economic Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  25. Rose R, Urwin D. Persistence and change in western party systems since 1945. Polit Stud. 1970;18(3):287–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schady NR. The political economy of expenditures by the Peruvian Social Fund (FONCODES), 1991–95. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2000;94(2):289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sharpe W. Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. J Finance. 1964;19:425–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wright G. The political economy of new deal spending: an econometric analysis. Rev Econ Stat. 1974;56(1):30–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wallis JJ. The birth of the old federalism: financing the new deal. J Econ Hist. 1984;44:139–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wallis JJ. Employment, Politics and Economic Recovery During the Great Depression. Rev Econ Stat. 1987;59:516–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wallis JJ. The political economy of new deal spending revisited, again: with and without Nevada. Exp Eco His. 1998;35:140–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wallis JJ. The political economy of new deal spending, yet again: a reply to Fleck. Explor Econom Hist. 2001;38:296–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations