Advertisement

Mind the Electoral Gap: the Effect of Investment in Public Infrastructure on Authoritarian Support in South Korea

  • Joan E. Cho
  • Jae Seung Lee
  • B. K. SongEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study examines the effect of investment in transportation infrastructure on regime support in an electoral authoritarian regime. Using a difference-in-difference analysis of neighborhood-level panel data on a subway system from 1971–1985 in urban South Korea, we find that incumbent vote share increased in neighborhoods surrounding the newly constructed subway stations. We show that subway construction was effective at boosting regime support, especially in neighborhoods where people are more likely to read about the government propaganda of subway construction from newspapers. We also provide anecdotal evidence of private economic gains contributing to the increased support for the ruling party. The results suggest that investment in welfare-enhancing goods and services such as public transportation may help autocrats of developing countries to retain political power by increasing electoral support for their ruling parties.

Keywords

Electoral authoritarian regimes Public infrastructure Subway South Korea 

Notes

References

  1. Banerjee, A, Duflo E, Qian N. 2012. On the road: access to transportation infrastructure and economic growth in China. (NBER Working Paper No. 17897).Google Scholar
  2. Bates, RH. Markets and states in Africa: the political bias of agricultural policies. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1981.Google Scholar
  3. Blaydes, L. 2006. Electoral budget cycles under authoritarianism: economic opportunism in Mubarak’s Egypt. (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association).Google Scholar
  4. Blaydes, L. 2011. Elections and distributive politics in Mubarak’s Egypt. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boix, C, Svolik M. The foundation of limited authoritarian government: institutions, commitment, and power-sharing in dictatorships. J Polit 2013;75(2):300–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brender, A, Drazer A. Political budget cycles in new versus established democracies. J Monet Econ 2005;52(7):1275–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brender, A, Drazer A. 2008. How do budget deficits and economic growth affect reelection prospects? Evidence from a large panel of countries evidence from a large panel of countries. Am Econ Rev. 2008:2203–20.Google Scholar
  8. Browne, EC, Kim S. 2003. Regionalism in south korean national assembly elections: a vote components analysis of electoral change. (Working Paper).Google Scholar
  9. Brownlee, J. 2007. Authoritarianism in an age of democratization. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bueno de Mesquita, B, Downs GW. Development and democracy. Foreign Affairs 2005;84(5):77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Smith, A, Siverson RM, Marrow JD. The logic of political survival. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  12. Burgess, R, Jedwab R, Miguel E, Morjaria A, Miquel GPI. The value of democracy: evidence from road building in Kenya. Am Econ Rev 2015;105(6): 1817–1851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calthorpe, P, Fulton WB. 2001. The regional city: planning for the end of sprawl. Island Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cho, JE, Lee J, Song B. Media exposure and regime support under competitive authoritarianism: evidence from South Korea. J East Asian Stud 2017;17 (2):145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Choi, SH, Sung HG. Identifying the change of influencing power of subway line 9 construction project over housing prices: focusing on the business effects during the entire project stages [in Korean]. Kukt’ogyehoek 2011;46(3):169–177.Google Scholar
  16. Crossaint, A. Electoral politics in South Korea. G. Bruns, A. Croissant, and M. John Electoral politics in Southeast & EastAsia. Frederich Ebert Stiftung: Singapore; 2002.Google Scholar
  17. Donaldson, D, Hornbeck R. Railroads and american economic growth: a “market access” approach. Q J Econ 2016;131(2):799–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duncan, M. The impact of transit-oriented development on housing prices in SanDiego. Urban Stud 2011;48(1):101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duranton, G, Turner MA. Urban growth and transportation. Rev Econ Stud 2012;79(4):1407–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ebeid, M, Rodden J. Economic geography and economic voting: e from the US states. Br J Polit Sci 2006;36(3):527–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Enos, R. Causal effect of intergroup contact on exclusionary attitudes. Proc Natl Acad Soc Sci USA 2014;111(10):3699–3704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gandhi, J, Przeworski A. Authoritarian institutions and survival of autocrats. Compar Polit Stud 2007;40(11):1279–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Geddes, B. 2005. Why parties and elections in authoritarian regimes? (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association).Google Scholar
  24. Greene, KF. Why dominant parties lose: Mexico’s democratization in comparative perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harding, R. Attribution and accountability: voting for roads in Ghana. World Polit 2015;67(4):656–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Healy, A, Lenz GS. 2016. Presidential voting and the local economy: evidence from two population-baseddatasets. (Working Paper).Google Scholar
  27. Heo, U, Stockton H. The impact of democratic transition on elections and parties in SouthKorea. Party Polit 2005;11(6):674–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hong, JY, Park S. Factories for votes? How dictators gain popular support using targeted industrial policy. Br J Polit Sci 2016;46(3):501–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Im, H. Faltering democratic consolidation in South Korea: democracy at the end of the ‘Three Kims’ era. Democratization 2004;11(5):179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ji, J. The development of Gangnam and the formation of Gangnam-style urbanism: on the spatial selectivity of the anti-communist authoritarian developmental state. J Korean Assoc Reg Geograp 2016;22(2):307–330.Google Scholar
  31. Kang, MG. 2015. Development of Gangnam. (https://seoulsolution.kr/en/content/3445).
  32. Kim, W, Gandhi J. Coopting workers under dictatorship. J Polit 2010;7: 249–283.Google Scholar
  33. Korea Times. 2015. Seoul sees rapid growth as global metropolis.Google Scholar
  34. Kyǒnghyang Shinmun. 1985. Land values of areas surrounding subway lines 3 and 4 remain strong.Google Scholar
  35. Kyǒnghyang Shinmun. 1985. A real subway era (8): The rise of commerical areas.Google Scholar
  36. Lee, CW. 2011. A study on the effect of subway catchment area on apartment prices (Mémoire de Master non Publié). School Daegu University.Google Scholar
  37. Lee, J. Understanding korean politics: an introduction. In: Kil SH and C-i. Moon, editors. Albany: State University of New York Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  38. Lee, S. 2006. The logic of election system change in South Korea: context, strategy, and institutional choice. (Thése de doctorat non publiée). School Texas Tech University.Google Scholar
  39. Leuven, E, Sianesi B. 2012. Psmatch2: Statamodule to perform full mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html.
  40. Levitt, SD, Snyder JM. The impact of federal spending on house election outcomes. J Polit Econ 1997;105(1):30–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lipton, M. 1977. Why poor people stay poor: urban bias in world development. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
  42. Litschig, S, Morrison K. Government spending and re-election: quasi-experimental evidence from Brazillian municipalities. Manuscript: Universitat Pompeu Fabra; 2010.Google Scholar
  43. Lust-Okar, E. Elections under authoritarianism: preliminary lessons from Jordan. Democratization 2006;13(3):456–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lust-Okar, E. Compeitive clientelism in the Middle East. J Democr 2009;20(3): 122–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maeil Gyǒngje. 1974a. Land market value near sybway stations.Google Scholar
  46. Maeil Gyǒngje. 1974b. Let’s ride the subway this year.Google Scholar
  47. Maeil Gyǒngje. 1984. Local inspection of the subway zone (7): clean college towns inthe Donggyo and Hapjeong areas.Google Scholar
  48. Magaloni, B. Voting for autocracy: hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Manacorda, M, Miguel EA, Vigorito A. Government transfers and political support. Amer Econ J Appl Econ 2011;3(3):1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moore, M. Economic structure and the politics of sectoral bias: East Asian and other cases. J Dev Stud 1993;29(4):79–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nall, C. The political consequences of spatial policies: How interstate highways facilitated geographic polarization. J Polit 2015;77(2):394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Transit, NJ. Planning for transit-friendly land use: a handbook for New Jersey communities. NJ Transit: Trenton; 1994.Google Scholar
  53. Ontario Ministry of Transportation. 1992. Transit-supportive land use planning guidelines. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs.Google Scholar
  54. Persson, T, Tabellini G. Alfred marshall lecture on the size and scope of government: comparative politics with rational politicians. Eur Econ Rev 1999;43: 699–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Robinson, ME. Democratization in South Korea 1987-2000 Korea’s twentieth-century odyssey: a short history. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  56. Rosenbaum, PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies forcausal effects. Biometrika 1983;70(1):41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schady, NR. The political economy of expenditures by the peruvian social fund(foncodes), 1991-95. Amer Polit Sci Rev 2000;94(2):289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Seoul Metropolitan Government. 2000. The transportation history of Seoul [in korean].Seoul: Seoul Metropolitan Government.Google Scholar
  59. Seoul Museum of History. Forty years of Gangnam: from Yeongdong. Auteur: Seoul; 2011.Google Scholar
  60. Shami, M. Collective action, clientelism, and connectivity. Amer Polit Sci Rev 2012;106(3):588– 606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Simpser, A. 2005. Making votes not count: strategic incentives for electoral corruption (Thése de Doctorat non publiée), School Department of Political Science, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  62. Slater, D. Ordering power: contentious politics and authoritarian leviathans in Southeast Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Son, JM. The story of Seoul city planning: Volume 3 [in Korean]. Hanul: Paju; 2003.Google Scholar
  64. The City History Compilation Committee of Seoul. 1996. The 600 years’ history of Seoul: Volume 6 [in korean]. Seoul.Google Scholar
  65. Voigtländer, N, Voth HJ. 2017. Highway to Hitler. (Working Paper).Google Scholar
  66. Yan, B. 2012. Land values impacts of subway stations: a case study of Beijing city. (School of City and Regional Planning).Google Scholar
  67. Yankaya, U. 2004. Modeling the impacts of Izmir subways on the values of residential property using hedonic price model. (Izmir Institute of Technology Graduate School of Public Administration).Google Scholar
  68. Yea, S. Regionalism and political-economic differentiation in Korean development: power maintenance and the state as a hegemonic bloc. Korea J 1994;34(2):5–29.Google Scholar
  69. Yoon, C. 1981. The current situtations of the Korean elections: urbanization and voting behavior in Korea. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Yoon, C. 1987. The Korean political system: political environment and participation. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Yu, SH. 2011. Determinants of land value based on urban spatial structure of station catchment areas: analyzing Seoul subway stations by sphere of influence [in Korean]. (Hongik University Master’s Thesis).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of East Asian StudiesWesleyan UniversityMiddletownUSA
  2. 2.Department of Urban Design and PlanningHongik UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Policy StudiesHanyang UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations