Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T00:51:33.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Gets Credit? Citizen Responses to Local Public Goods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2023

Katherine McKiernan Open the ORCID record for Katherine McKiernan [Opens in a new window]
Katherine McKiernan*
Affiliation:
Katherine McKiernan is a CIPR nonresident fellow at Tulane University, New Orleans LA, USA. katherinemckiernan@gmail.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In decentralized systems, citizens struggle to identify which level of government provides local goods. This problem is particularly salient in weakly institutionalized party environments, where politicians at different levels of government are less likely to benefit from partisan coattail effects. This article asks how citizens attribute credit for local public goods. I argue that citizens have a strong tendency to attribute credit to local politicians. As a result, citizens will respond differently to credit-claiming behavior by local and national politicians. Local politicians experience a ceiling effect, in which credit claiming has no effect on how citizens attribute credit. However, national politicians have no such ceiling and can claim credit to increase the likelihood that citizens will attribute credit to them. As a result, both political actors can receive credit for the same local goods. The article tests and supports these theoretical predictions using a vignette survey experiment in Colombia.

Keywords

Credit attributionelectoral behaviorsurvey experimentpublic goods
Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 65 , Issue 4 , November 2023 , pp. 99 - 129
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the University of Miami

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Conflict of interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

Adida, Claire, Gottlieb, Jessica, Kramon, Eric, and McClendon, Gwyneth. 2020. When Does Information Influence Voters? The Joint Importance of Salience and Coordination. Comparative Political Studies 53, 6: 851–91.10.1177/0010414019879945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ames, Barry. 1994. The Reverse Coattails Effect: Local Party Organization in the 1989 Brazilian Presidential Election. American Political Science Review 88, 1: 95–111.10.2307/2944884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auerbach, Adam Michael, and Thachil, Tariq. 2020. Cultivating Clients: Reputation, Responsiveness, and Ethnic Indifference in India’s Slums. American Journal of Political Science 64, 3: 471–87.10.1111/ajps.12468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, Kate. 2019. Elected MPs, Traditional Chiefs, and Local Public Goods: Evidence on the Role of Leaders in Co-Production from Rural Zambia. Comparative Political Studies 52, 12: 1925–56.10.1177/0010414018774372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, Markus, Ecker, Alejandro, and Gross, Martin. 2020. Party Competition and Dual- Accountability in Multi-Level Systems. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Par ties 30, 4: 542–49.10.1080/17457289.2020.1780434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohlken, Anjali Thomas. 2018. Targeting Ordinary Voters or Political Elites? Why Pork Is Distributed Along Partisan Lines in India. American Journal of Political Science 62, 4: 796–812.Google Scholar
Brollo, Fernando, and Nannicini, Tommaso. 2012. Tying Your Enemy’s Hands in Close Races: The Politics of Federal Transfers in Brazil. American Political Science Review 106, 4: 742–61.10.1017/S0003055412000433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno, Natália S. 2018. Bypassing the Enemy: Distributive Politics, Credit Claiming, and Nonstate Organizations in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies 51(3), 304–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017710255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno, Natália S. 2021. The Timing of Public Policies: Political Budget Cycles and Credit Claiming. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12688 Google Scholar
Cruz, Cesi, and Schneider, Christina J.. 2017. Foreign Aid and Undeserved Credit Claiming. American Journal of Political Science 61, 2: 396–408.10.1111/ajps.12285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De La, O, Ana, L. 2013. Do Conditional Cash Transfers Affect Electoral Behavior? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Mexico. American Journal of Political Science 57, 1: 1–14.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00617.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devarajan, Shanta, Khemani, Stuti, and Shah, Shekar. 2009. The Politics of Partial Decentralization. In Does Decentralization Enhance Service Delivery and Poverty Reduction? ed. Ahmad, Ehtisham. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 79–101.Google Scholar
Eaton, Kent, and Chambers-Ju, Christopher. 2014. Teachers, Mayors, and the Transformation of Clientelism in Colombia. In Clientelism, Social Policy, and the Quality of Democracy, ed. Brun, Diego Abente and Diamond, Larry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 88–113.Google Scholar
Escobar-Lemmon, Maria, and Ross, Ashley D.. 2014. Does Decentralization Improve Perceptions of Accountability? Attitudinal Evidence from Colombia. American Journal of Political Science 58, 1: 175–88.10.1111/ajps.12043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faguet, Jean-Paul. 2004. Does Decentralization Increase Government Responsiveness to Local Needs?: Evidence from Bolivia. Journal of Public Economics 88, 3: 867–93.10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00185-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faguet, Jean-Paul, Fox, Ashley M., and Pöschl, Caroline. 2015. Decentralizing for a Deeper, More Supple Democracy. Journal of Democracy 26, 4: 60–74.10.1353/jod.2015.0059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feierherd, Germán. 2020. How Mayors Hurt Their Presidential Ticket: Party Brands and Incumbency Spillovers in Brazil. Journal of Politics 82, 1: 195–210.10.1086/705742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Justin, and Jordan, Stuart V.. 2011. Delegation and Accountability. Journal of Politics 73, 3: 831–44.10.1017/S0022381611000491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gélineau, François, and Remmer, Karen L.. 2006. Political Decentralization and Electoral Accountability: The Argentine Experience, 1983–2001. British Journal of Political Science 36, 1: 133–57.10.1017/S000712340600007XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulzar, Saad, Rueda, Miguel R., and Ruiz, Nelson A.. 2021. Do Campaign Contribution Limits Curb the Influence of Money in Politics? American Journal of Political Science 66, 4: 932–46.10.1111/ajps.12596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Robin, and Stasavage, David. 2014. What Democracy Does (and Doesn’t Do) for Basic Services: School Fees, School Inputs, and African Elections. Journal of Politics 76, 1: 229–45.10.1017/S0022381613001254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Marks, Gary. 2009. Does Efficiency Shape the Territorial Structure of Government? Annual Review of Political Science 12: 225–41.10.1146/annurev.polisci.12.041107.102315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, Peter. 2019. Visibility and Local Electoral Accountability. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, April 29–September 1, 2019, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Johns, Robert. 2011. Credit Where It’s Due? Valence Politics, Attributions of Responsibility, and Multi-Level Elections. Political Behavior 33: 53–77.10.1007/s11109-010-9116-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vacía, La Silla. 2018. El dulce poder: asi funciona la política en Colombia. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Colombia.Google Scholar
Lago-Peñas, Ignacio, and Lago-Peñas, Santiago. 2010. Decentralization and Electoral Accountability. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 28, 2: 318–34.10.1068/c0981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
León, Sandra, and Orriols, Lluis. 2016. Asymmetric federalism and economic voting. European Journal of Political Research 55, 4: 847–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, Michael, and Tilley, James. 2010. The Attribution of Credit and Blame to Governments and Its Impact on Vote Choice. British Journal of Political Science 40, 1: 115–34.10.1017/S0007123409990275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lucy, and Raffler, Pia J.. 2021. Fault Lines: The Effects of Bureaucratic Power on Electoral Accountability. American Journal of Political Science 65, 1: 210–24.10.1111/ajps.12530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milanese, Juan Pablo, and Albarracín, Juan. 2022. Electoral Decentralization with Weak Parties: Analysis of Colombia’s Subnational Elections. Regional and Federal Studies 32, 4: 471–83.10.1080/13597566.2022.2028279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichter, Simeon. 2018. Votes for Survival: Relational Clientelism in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316998014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ocampo, Gloria Isabel. 2014. Poderes regionales, clientelismo, y estado: etnografías del poder y la pol´ıtica en Córdoba, Colombia. Odecofi-Cinep.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, Pedro Floriano, and Borges, Andr´e. 2020. The Populist Challenge: Multi-level Electoral Coordination in Brazil’s 2018 Elections. Regional and Federal Studies 30, 3: 363–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodden, Jonathan, and Wibbels, Erik. 2010. Dual Accountability and the Nationalization of Party Competition: Evidence from Four Federations. Party Politics 17, 5: 629–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Chamussy, Lourdes. 2015. Local Electoral Rewards from Centralized Social Programs: Are Mayors Getting the Credit? IDB Working Paper IDB-WP-550. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
Schneider, Mark. 2020. The Discerning Voter: Party-voter Linkages and Local Distribution Under Multilevel Governance. Party Politics 26, 2: 191–202.10.1177/1354068818761195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yildirim, Kerem, and Kitschelt, Herbert. 2019. Analytical Perspectives on Varieties of Clien telism. Democratization 27, 1: 20–43.10.1080/13510347.2019.1641798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucco, Cesar. 2013. When Payouts Pay Off: Conditional Cash Transfers and Voting Behavior in Brazil, 2002–2010. American Journal of Political Science 57, 4: 810–22.10.1111/ajps.12026CrossRefGoogle Scholar