PERSONAL CONNECTIONS TO THE POLITICAL WORLD: SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE IN BRAZIL AND IN COMPARATIVE CONTEXT by Amy Erica Smith B.A., University of Texas at Austin, 1999 M.R.P., Cornell University, 2002 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2011 i UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Amy Erica Smith It was defended on October 6, 2011 and was approved by Jonathan M. Hurwitz, Professor, Department of Political Science James McCann, Professor, Department of Political Science, Purdue University Scott Morgenstern, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science Dissertation Advisors: Barry Ames, Andrew W. Mellon Professor, Department of Political Science and Steven E. Finkel, Daniel Wallace Professor, Department of Political Science ii Copyright © by Amy Erica Smith 2011 iii PERSONAL CONNECTIONS TO THE POLITICAL WORLD: SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE IN BRAZIL AND IN COMPARATIVE CONTEXT Amy Erica Smith, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2011 Conversation is at democracy’s core. In this dissertation, I examine citizens’ political discussion networks and their effects on democratic competence, meaning what citizens know about and how they interact with their political systems. I investigate how patterns of discussion and discussion’s impacts vary across the world, paying particular attention to Brazil. Data come from panel studies spanning Brazil’s 2002, 2006, and 2010 presidential elections, as well as a case study of the 2008 local elections; and from an eleven country study in the 1990s. I address three broad research questions. First, does political discussion affect democratic competence, and for whom? While the claim that political discussion has democratic benefits is common, selection effects make demonstrating causal claims difficult, since politically knowledgeable and engaged citizens are likely to choose to discuss politics. Using fixed effects and instrumental variables models, I find strong evidence that conversation promotes knowledge and participation, and that it has a “leveling effect,” helping citizens with lowest initial knowledge catch up with their neighbors. Moreover, spouses are particularly influential, and women give higher priority to spouses as their closest political discussants. Second, how does knowing people with different political opinions affect democratic competence? The key to solving longstanding debates requires recognizing that divergent iv preferences take two forms—the total preferences in the network (diversity) and the extent of disagreement with the reference person (conflict). Using multilevel models, I find that in systems with low numbers of candidates, conflict is demobilizing, but only when the network homogeneously disagrees with the reference person. Moreover, conflict combined with diversity promotes learning. In systems with more candidates, however, the effects of conflict disappear. Third, how do the electoral and party systems shape networks? And what are the downstream consequences for democratic competence? The number of candidates in a political system strongly affects exposure to diverse and conflicting preferences as well as the probability of knowing candidates and activists. I estimate that three-quarters of respondents in the local election I study in Brazil knew personally a candidate; using matching, I find that such connections promoted political engagement, but also fostered clientelism. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................................................................................... XX 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 THE BRAZILIAN CASE(S) ............................................................................. 12 1.1.1 Two Cities, Three Studies, Three Election Campaigns .............................. 16 1.1.1.1 The Three Studies: ABR, NNBP, and BEPS .................................... 16 1.1.1.2 The Two Cities: Juiz de Fora and Caxias do Sul ............................. 17 1.1.1.3 The Three Election Campaigns ......................................................... 19 1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION .............................................. 22 2.0 SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE: LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 26 2.1 WHAT IS DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE? ............................................... 27 2.2 HOW DO DISCUSSION NETWORKS AFFECT DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE? ............................................................................................................... 30 2.3 HOW DOES DISAGREEMENT AFFECT DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE? ............................................................................................................... 39 2.4 HOW DO NETWORKS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE VARY CROSS-NATIONALLY? ........................................................ 47 vi 2.4.1 Networks and Political Behavior outside the US ........................................ 48 2.4.2 Networks and Social Influence in Brazil ..................................................... 51 2.4.3 Cross-National Variation in Networks and their Effects on Democratic Competence ................................................................................................................. 53 2.4.3.1 Country-Level Political Factors: Electoral and Party Systems and Age of Democracy .............................................................................................. 55 2.4.3.2 Social Structure: Hierarchy, Education, and Access to Other Resources ............................................................................................................ 56 2.4.3.3 Political Culture .................................................................................. 57 2.5 CONCLUSION: THE STATE OF THE LITERATURE ON SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE .................................................. 59 3.0 SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE: THEORY ...... 61 3.1 DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE ................................................................... 63 3.1.1 The Components of Democratic Competence: Tasks and Criteria............ 66 3.1.2 Social Networks and Democratic Competence ........................................... 70 3.2 CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT OF NETWORKS ...... 71 3.3 POLITICAL DISCUSSION NETWORKS AND DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE ................................................................................................................. 74 3.3.1 Hypotheses: The Effects of Intimate, Egocentric Social Networks ........... 80 3.4 POLITICAL DIVERSITY AND CONFLICT AND DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE ................................................................................................................. 81 3.4.1 How Party Systems Condition the Effects of Diversity and Conflict ........ 84 3.4.2 Hypotheses: Diversity and Conflict in Social Networks ............................. 87 vii 3.5 BRAZIL’S ELECTORAL AND PARTY SYSTEMS, TIES TO LOCAL POLITICIANS, AND DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE .............................................. 87 3.5.1 Causality in Estimating the Effects of Local Political Connections .......... 93 3.5.2 Hypotheses: Local Connections .................................................................... 94 3.6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 95 4.0 FOUR STUDIES ........................................................................................................ 97 4.1 STUDY 1: THE AMES-BAKER-RENNÓ (ABR) TWO CITY PANEL ...... 97 4.1.1 Questionnaire and Measures in Each Wave ............................................... 98 4.1.2 Sample and Attrition ................................................................................... 100 4.1.2.1 Main Respondent Interviews ........................................................... 101 4.1.2.2 Discussant Interviews ....................................................................... 105 4.2 STUDY 2: NETWORKS AND NEIGHBORHOODS IN LOCAL BRAZILIAN POLITICS (NNLBP) ................................................................................ 107 4.3 STUDY 3: THE BRAZIL ELECTORAL PANEL STUDY (BEPS) ........... 108 4.4 STUDY 4: THE SECOND WAVE OF THE COMPARATIVE NATIONAL ELECTIONS PROJECT (CNEP II) .............................................................................. 110 4.5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 112 5.0 PERSONAL TOUCH: INTIMATE EGOCENTRIC NETWORKS AND DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE IN BRAZIL ..................................................................... 113 5.1 DATA AND METHODS ................................................................................. 117 5.1.1 Ames Baker Rennó (ABR) Two-City Brazilian Elections Panel ............. 117 5.1.1.1 Dependent Variables: Political Knowledge and Voting Decisions 117 viii 5.1.1.2 Network and Discussion Measures Reported by the Main Respondent ....................................................................................................... 120 5.1.1.3 Discussant Characteristics from Snowball Interviews .................. 127 5.1.1.4 Other Independent Variables: Political Engagement and Demographics ..................................................................................................