Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Political parties and clientelism in transition countries: evidence from Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Acta Politica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Earlier research focused extensively on political parties as promoters and users of clientelism. However, previous studies have also revealed that parties are not monolithic organizations and they can be seen through the lenses of several faces or components. As such, it is unclear which of the party features is more conducive to clientelism than others. This article analyses several party features in relation to clientelism and tests their explanatory power. Our analysis is driven by a differentiation between several features of the political parties: performance in office, public funding, territorial coverage and notoriety of local political leaders. We rely on data from an original expert survey conducted for 15 parties in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine between February and June 2018.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Auyero, J. 1999. “From the Client’s Point(s) of View”: How Poor People Perceive and Evaluate Political Clientelism. Theory and Society 28 (2): 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auyero, J. 2000. The Logic of Clientelism in Argentina: An Ethnographic Account. Latin American Research Review 35 (3): 55–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, S. 1997. Nomenklatura Democratization: Electoral Clientelism in Post-soviet Ukraine. Democratization 4 (4): 40–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brun, D.A., and L. Diamond (eds.). 2014. Clientelism, Social Policy, and the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore: JHU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolleyer, N. 2011. New Party Organization in Western Europe: Of Party Hierarchies, Stratarchies and Federations. Party Politics 18 (3): 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvo, E., and M.V. Murillo. 2004. Who Delivers? Partisan Clients in the Argentine Electoral Market. American Journal of Political Science 48 (4): 742–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carreras, M., and Y. İrepoğlu. 2013. Trust in Elections, Vote Buying, and Turnout in Latin America. Electoral Studies 32 (4): 609–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chubb, J. 1981. The Social Bases of an Urban Political Machine: The Case of Palermo. Political Science Quarterly 63: 107–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chhibber, P., and K. Kollman. 2004. The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Britain. India and the US: Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Attoma, J. 2017. Divided Nation: The North-South Cleavage in Italian Tax Compliance. Polity 49 (1): 69–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enyedi, Z., and G. Toka. 2007. The Only Game in Town. Party Politics in Hungary. In Party Politics in New Democracies, ed. P. Webb and S. White, 147–177. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gherghina, S. 2014. Party Organization and Electoral Volatility in Central and Eastern Europe: Enhancing Voter Loyalty. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gherghina, S., and C. Volintiru. 2017. A New Model of Clientelism: Political Parties, Public Resources, and Private Contributors. European Political Science Review 9 (1): 115–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Ocantos, E., C. Kiewiet de Jonge, and D.W. Nickerson. 2015. Legitimacy Buying. Comparative Political Studies 48 (9): 1127–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzymala-Busse, A. 2007. Rebuilding Leviathan: Party Competition and State Exploitation in Post-communist Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harmel, R., and K. Janda. 1982. Parties and Their Environments. Limits to Reform. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasen, R.L. 2000. Vote Buying. California Law Review 88 (5): 1323–1371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkin, J. 2002, March. The emergence and convergence of the cartel party: Parties, state and economy in Southern Europe. In panel on ‘The New Political Economy of European Political Parties’ at the Conference of Europeanists, Chicago.

  • Kawata, J. (ed.). 2006. Comparing Political Corruption and Clientelism. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R.S., and P. Mair. 1993. The Evolution of Party Organizations in Europe: The Three Faces of Party Organization. The American Review of Politics 14: 593–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, H. 2000. Linkages Between Citizens and Politicians in Democratic Polities. Comparative political studies 33 (6–7): 845–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, H., and S.I. Wilkinson (eds.). 2007. Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopecký, P., P. Mair, and M. Spirova. 2012. Party Patronage and Party Government in European Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Manzetti, L., and C.J. Wilson. 2007. Why Do Corrupt Governments Maintain Public Support? Comparative Political Studies 40 (8): 949–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mares, I., A. Muntean, and T. Petrova. 2017. Pressure, Favours, and Vote-buying: Experimental Evidence from Romania and Bulgaria. Europe-Asia Studies 69 (6): 940–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, L. 2006. Power and Opposition in the Former Soviet Union: The Communist Parties of Moldova and Russia. Party Politics 12 (3): 341–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martz, J.D. 1997. The Politics of Clientelism: Democracy and the State in Colombia. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medina, L.F., and S.C. Stokes. 2002. Clientelism as Political Monopoly. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Sahling, J.H., and T. Veen. 2012. Governing the Post-communist State: Government Alternation and Senior Civil Service Politicisation in Central and Eastern Europe. East European Politics 28 (1): 4–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, M.M. 2013. ‘Public’ Security and Patron-Client Exchanges in Latin America. Government and Opposition 48 (4): 548–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichter, S. 2008a. Vote Buying or Turnout Buying? Machine Politics and the Secret Ballot. American political Science Review 102 (1): 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichter, S. 2008b. Vote Buying or Turnout Buying? Machine Politics and the Secret Ballot. The American Political Science Review 102 (1): 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panebianco, A. 1988. Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piattoni, S. (ed.). 2001. Clientelism, Interests, and Democratic Representation: The European Experience in Historical and Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, J.D. 1970. Peasant Society and Clientelist Politics. American Political Science Review 64 (2): 411–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Protsyk, O., and A. Wilson. 2003. Centre Politics in Russia and Ukraine: Patronage, Power and Virtuality. Party Politics 9 (6): 703–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roniger, L. 2004. Political Clientelism, Democracy, and Market Economy. Comparative Politics 36: 353–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saikkonen, I.A. 2017. Electoral Mobilization and Authoritarian Elections: Evidence from Post-Soviet Russia. Government and Opposition 52 (1): 51–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, F.C. (ed.). 2007. Elections for Sale: The Causes and Consequences of Vote Buying. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefes, C.H. 2006. Understanding Post-Soviet Transitions: Corruption, Collusion and Clientelism. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, S.C., T. Dunning, and M. Nazareno. 2013. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, S.C. 2005. Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review 99 (3): 315–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Biezen, I., and P. Kopecký. 2007. The State and the Parties: Public Funding, Public Regulation and Rent-Seeking in Contemporary Democracies. Party politics 13 (2): 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volintiru, C. 2012. Clientelism: Electoral Forms and Functions in the Romanian Case Study. Romanian Journal of Political Science 12 (1): 35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volintiru, C. (2016). Clientelism and Cartelization in Post-communist Europe: The Case of Romania. Doctoral dissertation, The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).

  • Wantchekon, L. 2003. Clientelism and Voting Behavior: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Benin. World Politics 55 (3): 399–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, J.R. 2003. Clans, Cliques and Captured States: Rethinking ‘Transition’ in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Journal of International Development 15 (4): 427–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Politics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Sergiu Gherghina

  2. Department of International Economic Relations, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania

    Clara Volintiru

Authors
  1. Sergiu Gherghina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clara Volintiru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sergiu Gherghina.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendices

Appendix 1: Descriptive statistics for the variables included in the analysis

 

Mean

SD

Min

Max

N

Clientelistic practices

2.68

1.03

1

4

763

Performance

2.05

1.00

1

5

787

Private funding

2.32

0.75

1

3

636

Territorial coverage

2.81

0.97

1

4

561

Leaders’ notoriety

2.63

0.88

1

4

578

Appendix 2: The confidence of experts in their assessments

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gherghina, S., Volintiru, C. Political parties and clientelism in transition countries: evidence from Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Acta Polit 56, 677–693 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-020-00151-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-020-00151-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation