Skip to main content

Do local elections increase violence? Electoral cycles and organized crime in Mexico

Abstract

Although several previous studies have advanced the knowledge of how violence perpetrated by DTOs affects electoral outcomes, the study of how levels of criminal violence vary during local electoral contests remains scant. Stated differently, we know little on whether the local electoral cycle has an effect on the level of criminal violence. Employing the CIDE-PPD Database, we find that local elections do have an effect on levels of DTOs violence and that the greatest incentives to upscale violence occur shortly before election day. These fluctuations suggest that DTOs are actively seeking to influence local governance in their favor especially during the campaigns. Our analysis also suggests that candidates in local Mexican elections face a more precarious and dangerous situation compared to recently-elected authorities.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Electoral competition is defined by the number of electoral alternatives in electoral competitions (Sartori 1976).

  2. 2.

    Electoral competitiveness grows as the electoral support for all available electoral alternatives becomes more similar (Sartori 1976). In other words, this happens when the distribution of electoral support becomes more egalitarian.

  3. 3.

    By electoral cycles, we consider the period that starts before the registration of candidates and ends after the day of election.

  4. 4.

    By captured local governments, we imply that a relatively stable DTO has influence over the actions of local authorities or candidates. Local officials support DTOs’ demands in exchange for safety, protection, and other possible benefits.

  5. 5.

    Moral hazard is the risk that a party entered into a contract in good faith or that provided misleading information.

  6. 6.

    Since 2018, it is possible reelection of mayors in Mexico.

  7. 7.

    Online Appendix 1 presents anecdotal examples of moves made by DTOs during local election campaigns, including killings and threats to candidates and key authorities.

  8. 8.

    Ponce (2016) and Sánchez and Palau (2006) show evidence on how DTOs have systematically threatened candidates in Mexico and Colombia respectively.

  9. 9.

    We acknowledge that there are other potential non-violent means to capture local governments such as providing illegal financial resources to local authorities. DTOs might attempt to use these strategies before employing violence. However, we focus on the occurrence of violent actions during the election period once DTOs have exhausted other means.

  10. 10.

    Unfortunately, it is not possible to distinguish which actor (DTO or public security force) started the fight in which homicides occurred, based on the information provided by the database.

  11. 11.

    The CIDE-PPD Database classify events according to three categories: 1) Executions: “any intentional homicide in which the victim or the perpetrator is an alleged member of a criminal organization. It is not the result of a prior confrontation or an aggression. Neither does it include the participation of Mexican authorities”; 2) confrontations: “…events in which public forces use firearms (against criminals), or those events involving clashes among or within specific criminal groups”; and 3) aggressions: “…as an attack by criminal organizations against government institutions, public officers, or any other institution related to the government to which authorities are unable to respond” (Atuesta et al. 2019).

  12. 12.

    Despite these advantages, we point out that the CIDE-PPD Database presents two disadvantages as the authors of the database -- Atuesta et al. (2019), 1778) -- acknowledge: 1) differences in the collection of the information, probably caused by different agencies gathering the data, and 2) spatial-temporal differences in information collection. There are no ways to correct these differences as we cannot identify their sources. However, as we discuss below, we include several control variables in our multivariate models to account for the effect of temporal and spatial differences in our dataset.

  13. 13.

    The average number of homicides employed to calculate these deviations is the annual amount of homicides occurred in confrontations among DTOs for each municipality

  14. 14.

    The panel data sets combine measures of time (weeks or months) and units of analysis (municipalities) (Wooldridge 2012).

  15. 15.

    The Hausman test (1978) also confirms the convenience of employing this model instead of one with fixed effects.

  16. 16.

    The average period between registration day and election day for all municipalities is close to half a year (4.9 months)

  17. 17.

    Online Appendix 2 displays descriptive statistics of variables used in the analyses. To verify the robustness of our results, we replicate in Online Appendix 3 the models displayed in Table 1 using state fixed effects to control for the possible influence of unobserved state characteristics. Online Appendix 3 shows evidence that also supports the hypothesis of this study. While in the first specification the dependent variable is the deviation in the number of homicides in fights among DTOs, in the second specification the dependent variable is the deviation in the total number of homicides related to organized crime. Online Appendix 4 also replicates the model specifications displayed in Table 1, but this time we add a trend to control for the growing tendency in violent events. We also include the amount of municipal expenditures per capita as a proxy of municipal capabilities. Relatively strong capabilities might prevent from significant fluctuations in violence as local governments could be in better shape to reduce criminal interference in local politics. Moreover, we include a dichotomous variable that indicates whether partisan alternation occurred. Trejo and Ley (2018) propose that partisan alternation in Mexico broke the informal networks of agreements between state actors and criminal organizations. Such interruption weakened the protection that authorities offered to criminals. To evaluate whether changes in partisan control of municipalities alter violence in the short term (during the months following the election), we multiply the variable indicating whether there was partisan alternation by the dummy variable indicating the presence of a period post-election. If statistically significant, we could conclude that partisan alternation increases criminal violence in the short term. In all cases, our results confirm the validity of those reported by Table 1. Likewise, we do not find evidence indicating that our control variables are relevant for explaining short-term fluctuations in violence. This does not mean that partisan alternation does not produce an effect on violence; it just implies that this does not cause fluctuations in violence or does so immediately after the election day.

    Finally, we also put together all variables used in the first and second model specifications in Online Appendix 5. Instead of using 3 months for the binary variables indicating the pre-registration period and the post-election period as Online Appendix 4 does, Online Appendix 5 employs a periodicity of 6 months for both variables. Overall, the results remain very similar to those of all previous tables and they confirm the validity of our hypothesis.

  18. 18.

    Although the aforementioned problems and drawbacks of the CIDE-PPD Database could create distortions, the findings reported by our empirical analyses are still statistically significant and robust. Besides, the high concentration of criminal violence in a few Mexican municipalities (in approximately 71% of them homicides related to criminal violence do not occur) increases our confidence in our results.

  19. 19.

    For instance, if only one DTO committed one or more homicides during a certain month, these homicides lead us to count only one DTO. We keep the same logic if more DTOs are involved in violent events during the analyzed period.

  20. 20.

    In the third specification of Online Appendix 3, we verify the robustness of this result by introducing state fixed effects in the model shown in Table 2. In the third specification of Online Appendix 4, we add a trend to control for the increasing tendency in the number of homicides during the studied period. We also add the partisan alternation variable and the interaction between the partisan alternation variable and the dummy variable indicating whether the month under study corresponds to a post electoral period with a periodicity of 3 months. In both cases, we confirm the validity of the results reported in Table 2. Likewise, in Online Appendix 5, we put together all control variables together with our key independent variables. In Online Appendix 5, we change the periodicity of the binary variables; this time the post-election variable and the pre-registration variable employ periods of 6 months. We also confirm previous results.

  21. 21.

    Unfortunately, the dataset does not allow us to identify the exact position of the politician in the local administration. This time we do not employ the deviations with respect to the annual average to construct this variable, since the mean closes to the value of zero.

  22. 22.

    The coefficient for attacks occurred between the registration day and the election day (during the campaign) is also positive, and it does reach the 10% level of statistical significance.

  23. 23.

    The fourth specifications in Online Appendices 3 and 4 also provide additional robustness checks for this finding. In both models, as in Table 2, the impact of the variable pre-registration period is statistically significant at the 1% level. While the model specification in Online Appendix 3 includes state fixed effects, the model specification in Online Appendix 4 controls for a trend, municipal expenditures per capita, and the variables indicating the occurrence of partisan alternation and the effect of partisan alternation in the short term. Both Online Appendices confirm Table 2’s findings. In Online Appendix 5, we employ a periodicity of 6 months for defining the short-term. Again, we find evidence confirming those results displayed by Table 2. It is important to acknowledge that the number of missing observations in the section of the CIDE-PPD Database for registering attacks to politicians might be significant. For instance, if a politician of a government agency committed an extrajudicial execution or the agency began a confrontation, such information is unlikely to be specified in the description of the event (Atuesta et al. 2019). Given this informational lacuna, specific events could not be recorded in the CIDE-PPD Database. Overall, when dealing with data related to drug violence, a higher standard of scrutiny (or higher statistical significance) might be necessary. Despite this potential drawback, the high concentration of these events in a few municipalities, increases our confidence in our findings.

  24. 24.

    We employ Stata 15 to perform this non-parametric analysis.

  25. 25.

    The results remain the same if we extend or reduce the six-month periodicity used to elaborate these graphs.

References

  1. Acemoglu D, Robinson J, Santos R (2013) The monopoly of violence: evidence from Colombia. J Eur Econ Assoc 11:5–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Albarracín J (2018) Criminalized electoral politics in Brazilian urban peripheries. Crime Law Soc Chang 69(4):553–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alesina A, Piccolo S, Pinotti P (2016) Organized crime, violence, and politics. https://www.nber.org/papers/w22093.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2017

  4. Altman NS (1992) An introduction to kernel and nearest-neighbor nonparametric regression. Am Stat 46(3):175–185

    Google Scholar 

  5. Anaya-Muñoz A (2012) Security and human rights in the framework of Mexico’s “war on drugs”. In: Bow B, Santa-Cruz A (eds) The State and Security in Mexico. Transformation and crisis in regional perspective. Routledge, New York, pp 61–76

    Google Scholar 

  6. Astorga L (1999) Drug trafficking in Mexico: a first general assessment. Management Social Transformations MOST, working paper 36, UNESCO

  7. Astorga L (2007) Seguridad, Traficantes y Militares: el Poder y la Sombra. Tusquets, Mexico City

    Google Scholar 

  8. Astorga L, Shirk D (2010) Drug trafficking organizations and counter-drug strategies in the U.S.-Mexican context. USMEX working paper 10–01, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of San Diego

  9. Atuesta L, Pérez-Dávila S (2017) Fragmentation and cooperation: the evolution of organized crime in Mexico. Trends in Organized Crime 21(2):235–261

    Google Scholar 

  10. Atuesta L, Ponce A (2017) Meet the Narco: increased competition among criminal organisations and the explosion of violence in Mexico. Global Crime 18(4):375–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Atuesta L, Siordia O, Madrazo Lajous A (2019) The “war on drugs” in Mexico: (official) database of events between December 2006 and November 2011. J Confl Resolut 63(7):1765–1789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bagley B (2012) Drug trafficking and organized crime in the Americas: major trends in the twenty-first century. Woodrow Wilson Center Update on the Americas, August. Washington: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

  13. Bailey J, Taylor M (2009) Evade, corrupt, or confront? Organized crime and the state in Brazil and Mexico. Journal of Politics in Latin America 1(2):3–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Beittel J (2013) Mexico’s drug trafficking organizations: source and scope of the violence. Congressional Research Service Report R41576

  15. Cabrero E, Arellano D (2011) Los gobiernos municipales a debate. Un análisis de la institución municipal a través de la encuesta INEGI 2009. CIDE, México

    Google Scholar 

  16. Calderón G, Robles G, Díaz-Cayeros A, Magaloni B (2015) The beheading of criminal organizations and the dynamics of violence in Mexico’s drug war. J Confl Resolut 59(8):1455–1485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chabat J (2002) Mexico’s war on drugs: no margin for maneuver. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 582(Cross National Drug Policy):134–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chabat J (2010) La Respuesta del Gobierno de Calderón al Desafío del Narcotráfico: Entre lo Malo y lo Peor.  CIDE Working Paper 196, Mexico City

  19. Chacón M (2013) In the line of fire: political violence and decentralization in Colombia. Working paper. NYU-Abu Dhabi. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2386667

  20. Collier P, Vicente P (2012) Violence, bribery, and fraud: the political economy of elections in sub-Saharan Africa. Public Choice 153(1):117–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dal Bó E, Di Tella R (2003) Capture by threat. J Polit Econ 111(5):1123–1154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dal Bó E, Dal Bó P, Di Tella R (2006) Plata or Plomo? Bribe and punishment in a theory of political influence. Am Polit Sci Rev 100(1):41–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Daniele, Gianmarco, and Benny Geys (2015) Organised Crime, Institutions and Political Quality: Empirical Evidence from Italian Municipalities Econ J, 125 (586):233–255

  24. Daniele G, Dipoppa G (2017) Mafia, elections, and violence against politicians. J Public Econ 154:10–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. De Feo G, de Luca G (2017) Mafia in the ballot box. Am Econ J Econ Pol 9(3):134–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dell M (2015) Trafficking networks and the Mexican drug war. Am Econ Rev 105(106–6):1738–1779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dercon S, Gutiérrez-Romero R (2012) Triggers and characteristics of the 2007 Kenyan electoral violence. World Dev 40(4):731–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dickenson M (2014) The impact of leadership removal on Mexican drug trafficking organizations. J Quant Criminol 30(4):651–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Durán-Martínez A (2015) To kill and tell? State power, criminal competition, and drug violence. J Confl Resolut 59(8):1377–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Durán-Martínez A (2018) The politics of drug violence. Criminal, cops, and politicians in Colombia and Mexico. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  31. Felbab-Brown V (2019) Mexico’s out-of-control criminal market. In: Foreign policy at Brookings working paper. Brookings, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  32. Grillo I (2011) El Narco. Bloomsbury Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  33. Guerrero E (2011) La Raíz de la Violencia. Nexos, November 1, 2010. https://www.nexos.com.mx/?p=14318

  34. Hausman J (1978) Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46(6):1251–1271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hope A (2013) Peace now? Mexican security policy after Felipe Calderón. Latin America working group working paper. Available at: http://thedialogue.orgwww.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/Mexico_Security_Hope.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2018

  36. Hsieh C-C, Pugh MD (1993) Poverty, income inequality, and violent crime: a meta-analysis of recent aggregate data studies. Crim Justice Rev 18(2):182–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lessing B (2012) The logic of violence in criminal war: cartel-state conflict in Mexico, Colombia and Brazil. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley

  38. Lessing B (2015) Logics of violence in criminal war. J Confl Resolut 59(8):1486–1516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ley S (2018) To vote or not to vote: how criminal violence shapes electoral participation. J Confl Resolut 62(9):1963–1990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Merino J, Zarkin J, Fierro E (2015) Desaparecidos. Nexos, February 1. Available at: http://www.nexos.com.mx/?p=23811. Accessed 15 Feb 2017

  41. Moro F, Petrella A, Sberna S (2016) The politics of mafia violence: explaining variation in mafia killings in southern Italy (1983-2008). Terrorism and Political Violence 28(1):90–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Morris S (2012) Corruption, drug trafficking, and violence in Mexico. Brown Journal of World Affairs 18(2):29–43

    Google Scholar 

  43. Morris S (2013) The impact of drug-related violence on corruption in Mexico. Lat Am 57(1):43–64

    Google Scholar 

  44. Osorio, Javier (2012) Las Causas Estructurales de la Violencia: Evaluación de Algunas Hipótesis. In José Antonio Aguilar (ed.), Las Bases Sociales del Crimen Organizado y la Violencia en México, 73–132. Mexico City: Centro de Investigación y Estudios de la Seguridad

  45. Osorio J (2014) Democratization and drug violence in Mexico. http://eventos.itam.mx/sites/default/files/eventositammx/eventos/aadjuntos/2014/01/democratizacion_and_drug_violence_osorio_appendix_1.pdf. Accessed 28 Apr 2016

  46. Osorio J (2015) The contagion of drug violence: spatiotemporal dynamics of the Mexican war on drugs. J Confl Resolut 59(8):1403–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Phillips B (2015) How does leadership decapitation affect violence? The case of drug trafficking organizations in Mexico. J Polit 77(2):324–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pinotti P (2012) Organized crime, violence, and the quality of politicians: evidence from southern Italy. Paolo Baffi Centre Research Paper 2012-124

  49. Ponce A (2016) Cárteles de Droga, Violencia y Competitividad Electoral a Nivel Local: Evidencia del Caso Mexicano. Lat Am Res Rev 51(4):62–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ponce A (2019) Violence and electoral competition: criminal organizations and municipal candidates in Mexico. Trends in Organized Crime 22(2):231–254

  51. Ríos V (2013) Why did Mexico become so violent? A self-reinforcing violent equilibrium caused by competition and enforcement. Trends in Organized Crime 16:138–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ríos V (2015) How government coordination controlled organized crime. The case of Mexico’s cocaine markets. J Confl Resolut 59-8:1433–1454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ríos V, Shirk D (2011) Drug violence in Mexico: data and analysis through 2010. Trans-border Institute, University of California-San Diego. https://justiceinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/2012-tbi-drugviolence.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2017

  54. Sánchez F, Palau MDM (2006) Conflict, decentralization, and local governance in Colombia, 1974–2000. Documento de Trabajo CEDE 2006–20, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá

  55. Sartori G (1976) Parties and party systems: a framework for analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sberna S, Olivieri E (2014) Set the night on fire! Mafia violence and elections in Italy. Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association

  57. Shirk D, Wallman J (2015) Understanding Mexico’s drug violence. J Confl Resolut 59(8):1348–1376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Skaperdas S (2001) The political economy of organized crime: providing protection when the state does not. Econ Gov 2:173–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Snyder R, Duran-Martinez A (2009) Does illegality breed violence? Drug trafficking and state-sponsored protection rackets. Crime Law Soc Chang 52:253–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Taylor S (2009) Voting amid violence. Electoral democracy in Colombia. Northeastern University Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  61. Toro MC (1995) Mexico’s "war" on drugs: causes and consequences. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  62. Trejo G, Ley S (2016) Federalismo, drogas y violencia. Por qué el conflicto partidista estimula la violencia del narcotráfico en México. Política y Gobierno 23-1:11–56

    Google Scholar 

  63. Trejo G, Ley S (2018) Why did drug cartels go to war in Mexico. Comparative Political Studies 51(7):900–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Trelles A, Carreras M (2012) Bullets and votes: violence and electoral participation in Mexico. Journal of Politics in Latin America 4(2):89–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wantchekon L (1999) On the nature of first democratic elections. J Confl Resolut 43(2):245–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wooldridge J (2012) Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. South-Western Pub, Mason

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aldo F. Ponce.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no potential conflicts of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This research does not involve participants and/or animals.

Informed consent

This research does not involve participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 54 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ponce, A.F., López Velarde, R.V. & Santamaría, J.S. Do local elections increase violence? Electoral cycles and organized crime in Mexico. Trends Organ Crim (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-019-09373-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Criminal organizations
  • Mexico
  • Municipal elections
  • Local electoral cycle