Who Receives Electoral Gifts? It Depends on Question Wording: Experimental Evidence from Mexico

Abstract

This research shows that prior studies have been based on a survey methodology that systematically underestimates vote buying. Survey questions that rely on filter questions and include the phrase “in exchange for your vote” make respondents less likely to self-report receiving gifts during political campaigns. In turn, direct questioning that help respondents remember whether they received an electoral gift makes them more likely to report it. The findings of this paper suggest that prior vote-buying surveys have underestimated the amount of clientelism by political parties in Latin America. When following our proposed question wording, our research finds that the clientelistic linkages between parties and voters are stronger than previously considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the 1990–2015 period, the Mexican system, along with Uruguay, the Dominican Republic, and Chile registered almost perfect stability of the main contenders in Latin American presidential elections. When additional indicators are added (interparty electoral competition and stability of parties’ ideological positions), Uruguay, Mexico, and Chile constituted the most stable systems in Latin America (Mainwaring 2017).

  2. 2.

    Survey research studies also suggest that filtering triggers a “survey burden” (Eckman et al. 2014). In other words, filtering increases respondents’ tendency to choose the response that does not prompt a follow-up question in order to shorten the interview.

  3. 3.

    In the results section of this paper, we test if (1) in an attempt to mitigate social desirability effects, some respondents might simply cover up “vote buying” practices by their party by mentioning opposition parties and (2) by being asked the “vote-buying” question multiple times some respondents might be forced to say “yes.”.

  4. 4.

    For example, Kiewiet de Jonge’s (2015) analysis separates campaign giveaways, such as buttons, pins, calendars, hats, and t-shirts in Nicaragua, Mexico, Honduras, Uruguay, Chile, Bolivia, Guatemala, and Argentina.

  5. 5.

    The 2012 National Electoral Study was conducted on July 13–19. The original survey was conducted on July 11–15. The same polling firm conducted both surveys.

  6. 6.

    In conversations with colleagues, we know for certain that many list experiments are not published when they provide unexpected results; therefore, we report the results for transparency and to highlight that sometimes list experiments do not seem to work in the expected way (consistent with recent literature: Holbrook and Krosnick 2010 and Coutts and Jann 2011).

  7. 7.

    These results are also consistent with recent studies that rely on sensitive survey techniques such as randomized response (RR). Bockenholt and van der Heijden (2007) find that the complexity of the method (and the cognitive taxing process required) can make randomized response (RR) difficult to use with populations with lower levels of education. Consistent with Bockenholt and van der Heijden (2007), we find that the list experiment in Mexico tends to underestimate engagement in this sensitive behavior among lower educated respondents (see Fig. 1 in the Appendix).

  8. 8.

    Kiewiet de Jonge (2015) finds that such differences are an outcome of variations in social desirability bias. These variations can be attributed to awareness of social norms about the acceptability of vote buying, sensitivity to interviewer perceptions of socioeconomic status, and variation in the types of goods distributed in different countries.

  9. 9.

    Ideally, the experiment would have included a fourth condition, which would have had both the phrase “in exchange for” and the filter question. However, given the N of the survey, the study was too small to accommodate that condition. Given the findings, it is highly likely that such phrasing would have reported the least percentage of voters receiving electoral gifts.

  10. 10.

    During the campaign, the PRI distributed cards (“tarjetas rosas” or “pink cards”) which promised housewives a government sponsored stipend. The stipend was conditional on whether if the recipient of such a card voted for the PRI candidate. According to several news outlets, activists distributed those cards in exchange for voters’ personal information.

  11. 11.

    PAN (N = 13): Treatment 1: 1% (N = 4); Treatment 2: 2% (N = 6); Treatment 3: 1% (N = 3).

  12. 12.

    PRD (N = 25): Treatment 1: 5% (N = 16); Treatment 2: 1% (N = 2); Treatment 3: 2% (N = 7).

  13. 13.

    MORENA (N = 6): Treatment 1: 2% (N = 6); Treatment 2: 0% (N = 0); Treatment 3: 0% (N = 0).

References

  1. Auyero, J. (2000). The logic of clientelism in Argentina: An ethnographic account. Latin American Research Review,35, 55–81.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Beltrán, U., & Castro Cornejo, R. (2019). Clientelistic activation of Mexican voters: Between vote buying and political communication. Política y Gobierno,26(2), 171–204.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bishop, G., Oldendick, R. W., & Tuckfarber, A. (1983). Effects of filter questions in public opinion surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly,47, 528–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Nadeau, R., & Nevitte, N. (2001). Measuring party identification: Britain, Canada, and the United States. Political Behavior,23, 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bockenholt, U., & van der Heijden, P. G. M. (2007). Item randomized-response models for measuring noncompliance: Risk-return perceptions, social influences, and self-protective responses. Psychometrika,72(2), 245–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brusco, V., Nazareno, M., & Stokes, S. C. (2004). Vote buying in Argentina. Latin American Research Review,39(2), 66–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carlin, R., & Moseley, M. (2015). Good democrats, bad targets: Democratic values and clientelistic vote-buying. The Journal of Politics,77(1), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Castro Cornejo, R. (2019). Partisanship and question-wording effects: Experimental evidence from Latin America. Public Opinion Quarterly,83(1), 26–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. CIDE-CSES (Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas y Comparative Study of Electoral Systems). (2015). Séptima encuesta nacional electoral (2015). Mexico: CIDE-CSES.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Coutts, E., & Jann, B. (2011). Sensitive questions in online surveys: Experimental results for the randomized response technique (RRT) and the unmatched count technique (UCT). Sociological Methods and Research,40(1), 169–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. De la O, A. (2015). How corruption breeds clientelism. In J. I. Domínguez, et al. (Eds.), Mexico’s evolving democracy: A comparative study of the 2012 elections. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. DeMaio, T. (1984). Social desirability and survey measurement: A review. In C. Turner & E. Martin (Eds.), Surveying subjective phenomenon (pp. 257–282). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Diaz-Cayeros, A., F. Estevez, and B. Magaloni. 2016. Poverty, vote-buying and democracy.

  14. Gans-Morse, J., Mazzuca, S., & Nicther, S. (2014). varieties of clientelism: machine politics during elections. American Journal of Political Science,58, 413–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gonzalez Ocantos, E., Kiewiet de Jonge, C., Meléndez, C., Osorio, J., & Nickerson, D. (2012). Vote buying and social desirability bias: Experimental evidence from Nicaragua. American Journal of Political Science,56, 202–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gonzalez Ocantos, E., de Jonge, C. K., & Nickerson, D. W. (2014). The Conditionality of vote-buying norms: Experimental evidence from Latin America. American Journal of Political Science,58, 197–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Greene, K. (2007). Why dominant parties lose: Mexico's democratization in comparative perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Greene, K. F. 2018. How democracy undermines vote buying: Campaign effects and the elusive swing voter, manuscript.

  19. Holbrook, A. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010). Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports tests using the item count technique. Public Opinion Quarterly,74, 37–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Keith, B., Magleby, D., Nelson, C., Orr, E., Westlye, M., & Wolfinger, R. (1992). The myth of the independent voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kiewiet de Jonge, C. 2015. Who lies about electoral gifts? Experimental evidence from latin America. Public Opinion Quarterly.

  22. Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2009). Question and questionnaire design. In J. D. Wright & P. V. Marsden (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (2nd ed., pp. 1–81). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Krosnick, J. A., Malhotra, N., & Mittal, U. (2014). Public misunderstanding of political facts: How question wording affected estimates of partisan differences in birtherism. Public Opinion Quarterly,78(1), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nft08.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Langston, J. (2017). Democratization and authoritarian party survival: Mexico’s PRI. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Lawson, C., et al. 2013. The Mexico 2012 panel study. https://mexicopanelstudy.mit.edu/.

  26. Lehoucq, F. E. (2007). When does a market for votes emerge? Historical and theoretical perspectives. In F. C. Schaffer (Ed.), Elections for sale: The causes and consequences of vote buying. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Levitsky, S. (2003). Transforming labor-based parties in Latin America: Argentine peronism in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Magaloni, B. (2006). Voting for autocracy: Hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Mainwaring, S. (Ed.). (2017). Latin American party systems: Institutionalization, decay and collapse in Latin American Party Systems: institutionalization, decay and collapse. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nadeau, R., & Niemi, R. (1995). Educated guesses: The process of answering factual knowledge questions in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly,59(3), 323–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nichter, S. (2014). Conceptualizing vote buying. Electoral Studies,35, 315–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nichter, S., & Palmer-Rubin, B. (2015). Clientelism, declared support, and Mexico’s 2012 Campaign. In J. I. Domınguez, K. G. Greene, C. Lawson, & A. Moreno (Eds.), Mexico’s evolving democracy: A comparative study of the 2012 elections (pp. 200–226). Mexico: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rasinski, K. A. (1989). The effect of question wording on public support for government spending. Public Opinion Quarterly,53, 388–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schaffer, F. C., & Schedler, A. (2007). What is vote buying? In F. C. Schaffer (Ed.), Elections for sale: The causes and consequences of vote buying. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Schedler, A. (2004). ‘El voto es nuestro’: Como los ciudadanos mexicanos perciben el clientelismo electoral. Revista Mexicana de Sociologia,66, 57–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Schuldt, J. P., Konrath, S. H., & Schwarz, N. (2011). “Global warming” or “climate change”? Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opinion Quarterly,75(1), 115–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording and context. New York: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Stokes, S., T. Dunning, M. Nazareno, & V. Brusco. 2013. Brokers, voter, and clientelism. Cambridge studies in comparative politics.

  39. Stokes, S. C. (2005). Perverse accountability: A formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review,99, 315–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Stokes, S. (2007). Political clientelism. In C. Boix & S. Stokes (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative politics (pp. 604–627). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Szwarcberg, M. (2015). Mobilizing poor voters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Zarazaga, R. (2014). Brokers beyond clientelism: A new perspective through the Argentine CASE. Latin American Politics and Society,56(3), 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

For comments and feedback, the authors thank Daniel Gingerich, Peter Johannessen, Jeff Harden, and members of the Kellogg Institute’s Comparative Politics Workshop and University of Virginia’s Quantitative Collaborative. The data and code can be found in the following location: https://www.rodrigocastrocornejo.com/publications.html.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodrigo Castro Cornejo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Fig. 1 and Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

Fig. 1
figure1

Electoral gifts across levels of education (Mexico 2015, CSES). Direct question: dependent variable = receive at least one gift from any political party

Table 7 Question wordings
Table 8 Direct questions and list experiments results in recent studies (Kiewiet de Jonge 2015)
Table 9 Balance across groups
Table 10 Question wording effect (State of Mexico)
Table 11 Open-ended question: “what did you receive?”
Table 12 Number of gifts received during the campaign (direct question)
Table 13 Number of gifts received during the campaign (direct question)
Table 14 Type of gifts distributed by parties (Mexico 2017: State of Mexico)
Table 15 Question wording effect (State of Mexico)
Table 16 Among voters who receive electoral gifts from the PRI (Mexico 2017: State of Mexico)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Castro Cornejo, R., Beltrán, U. Who Receives Electoral Gifts? It Depends on Question Wording: Experimental Evidence from Mexico. Polit Behav (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09618-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Survey research
  • Public opinion
  • Survey experiments
  • Vote buying
  • Latin America
  • Clientelism