Who Monitors? Clientelism and Democratic Representation in Argentine Municipalities Mariela Szwarcberg* Kellogg Institute for International Studies University of Notre Dame
[email protected] Abstract: Why do some party candidates choose to monitor voter turnout while others do not? This article provides a novel approach to understanding clientelism through careful examination of candidate decisions to monitor voters, a political strategy with far-reaching consequences for political representation. I test for the individual and contextual traits that explain clientelistic monitoring, such as a candidate’s social origin, her incumbency status, partisan affiliation, the size of the electoral district, and the type of region in which she competes. I use an original dataset that combines information about the political careers of 144 municipal candidates gathered during 20 months of fieldwork across Argentine municipalities. Drawing on participant observation, field and archival research, and over 100 in-depth interviews with candidates and party activists, I show that the social and partisan origins of the candidates and the size of the municipality are important determinants of the decision to monitor voters. * I thank Ernesto Calvo and Noam Lupu for comments. Clientelism works as long as voters who receive goods from politicians support them at the polls. Clientelism or clientelistic strategies (terms that I use interchangeably) imply the distribution of excludable private goods to individual voters in exchange for their electoral support. In the United States, cigarettes, beer, medicine (in East St. Louis), coupons for free chicken dinners (in Oakland), and “street money” (in Chicago) are still delivered to induce voters to turn out at the polls (Nichter 2008: 19).