Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article examines ambivalence—the simultaneous holding of two or more conflicting values or beliefs about a political issue—among Indonesian citizens' attitudes about vote buying. Using an original survey taken during the 2014 Indonesian elections, we analyse the factors related both to citizens' normative views about vote buying and their willingness to accept gifts from candidates. A large number of citizens demonstrate ambivalence by viewing the practice as unjustified or corrupt and yet expressing willingness to accept money from candidates. We also examine the differential effects of education and income on these attitudes. Consistent with "demand side" theories of vote buying, low income creates economic pressure to accept money but does not influence normative attitudes about vote buying. Education, however, has a broader effect by influencing both normative attitudes and willingness to accept money. We consider implications of these results for Indonesian officials focused on reducing vote-buying behavior.

How does the presence of a large group of remittance recipients in the electorate affect the way
political parties in Latin America plan their vote-buying operations during electoral campaigns?
Existing research claims that remittances bolster the political autonomy of recipients, allowing
them to escape clientelistic networks and making them less attractive targets from the point of view
of party machines. Although in the long run remittances may undermine the effectiveness of
clientelistic inducements, parties still have strong incentives to distribute gifts and favors among
these voters. Cross-national survey evidence and an original list experiment fielded in the
aftermath of El Salvador's 2014 presidential race support the view that remittances alter key
attitudes and patterns of political behavior among recipients in ways that are relevant for the
electoral strategies of party machines. In particular, remittance recipients are appealing targets
for clientelistic exchanges due to the uncertainty of their turnout propensity and their
distributive preferences.

Vote-buying mechanisms allow agents to express any level of support for their preferred alternative at an increasing cost. Focusing on large societies with wealth inequality, we prove that the family of binary social choice rules implemented by well-behaved vote-buying mechanisms is indexed by a single parameter, which determines the importance assigned to the agents' willingness to pay to affect outcomes and to the number of supporters for each alternative. This parameter depends solely on the elasticity of the cost function near its origin: as this elasticity decreases, the intensities of support matter relatively more for outcomes than the supporters' count. (JEL D63, D71, D72)

We examine the consequences of lobbying and vote buying, assuming this practice were allowed and free of stigma. Two lobbyists compete for the votes of legislators by offering up-front payments to the legislators in exchange for their votes. We analyze how the lobbyists budget constraints and legislators preferences determine the winner and the payments. When lobbyists are budget constrained then the preferences of all legislators can matter, and a lobbyists relative strength increases more steeply with a budget increase than with an increase of equal magnitude to the legislators original preferences for this lobbyists position. When lobbyists are not budget constrained then only the preferences of near median legislators matter and the preferences of these legislators and the budget enter equally in determining the winner. Adapted from the source document.

THIS PAPER EXAMINES ANOTHER IMPLICATION OF THE PROBABILISTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE POTENTIAL CHOICE OF THE INDIVIDUAL VOTER, AND THE ULTIMATE COLLECTIVE OUTCOME: THE MUTUALLY ADVANTAGEOUS OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE BUYING AND SELLING OF VOTES THAT MAY EMERGE AS THE PROBABILITIES OF INFLUENCE OVER COLLECTIVE OUTCOMES VARY. THE ANALYSIS IS INDIRECTLY RELATED TO THEORIES OF COALITION FORMATION.