Vote Buying in Argentina

By V. Brusco, Marcelo Nazareno, S. Stokes. 2004

608 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Political Science and International Relations, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d08b7c9885cb4ae0b7c0782a070f87d6635c5e29

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Political Science and International Relations

1. Rohini Pande
2. Kosuke Imai
3. M. V. Murillo
4. Pedro C. Vicente
5. Kenneth F. Greene
6. Ernesto Calvo
7. Bethany Park
8. A. Coppock

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Rohini Pande
2. Kosuke Imai
3. Pedro C. Vicente
4. M. V. Murillo
5. Léonard Wantchekon
6. Margaret Moor
7. Kenneth F. Greene
8. Ernesto Calvo

Citations in the corpus

• Clientelism and vote buying: lessons from field experiments in African elections (2009, result): “4.3 Policy Implications 9 This finding, revealing that vote buying is indeed driving voters, is consistent with earlier work by Brusco et al (2004) in Argentina.”
• Vote-Buying and Reciprocity (2011, unknown): “For instance, in Argentina Brusco et al. (2004) find that seven percent of the respondents were asked to sell their votes. In Taiwan Wang & Kurzman (2007) find that, in an important township campaign in 1993, officials of one party claim to have bought 67 percent of eligible votes at a non-negotiabl”
• Can Informed Voters Enforce Better Governance? Experiments in Low-Income Democracies (2011, background): “…as Malaysia and Philippines and the urban political machines in US cities, Scott (1969) argued that the most fundamental quality shared by the mass clientele of the machines was poverty.7 More recently, Brusco et al. (2004); Stokes (2005) shows that machine politics in Argentina target the poor.”
• Does Oil Corrupt? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in West Africa (2010, result): “For instance, regarding vote buying, we find that respondents with higher expenditure report lower vote buying influence in voting, which is consistent with Brusco, Nazareno, and Stokes (2004).”
• Using the Predicted Responses from List Experiments as Explanatory Variables in Regression Models (2015, methodology): “…in political science, a primary task has been to understand the efficacy of vote-buying as a campaign strategy in elections around the world (e.g., Brusco, Nazareno, and Stokes 2004; Calvo and Murillo 2004; Stokes 2005; Penfold Becerra 2007; Magaloni, Diaz-Cayeros, and Estévez 2007; Stokes et…”
• Votes and Violence: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Nigeria (2014, unknown): “10 In related empirical work, though non-experimental, Brusco et al. (2004) use survey methods to analyze vote-buying in Argentina.”
• Clientelism and Social Funds: Evidence from Chávez's Misiones (2007, unknown): “In a similar vein, Brusco et al. (2004, 67) define vote buying as “the proffering to voters of cash or (more commonly) minor consumption goods by political parties in office or in opposition, in exchange for the recipient’s vote.””
• When to Worry about Sensitivity Bias: A Social Reference Theory and Evidence from 30 Years of List Experiments (2020, background): “Beyond the possible association with low socioeconomic standing, respondents may wish to avoid being seen as a participant in an immoral or unethical behavior (Mares, Muntean, and Petrova 2018) or to “ acknowledge that the handout influenced their vote ” (Brusco, Nazareno, and Stokes 2004, 69).”