ScholarGate
Асистент

Сравнение на методи

Прегледайте избраните методи един до друг; редовете с разлики са откроени.

Clientelism Analysis×Distributive Politics Analysis×
ОбластPolitical EconomyPolitical Economy
СемействоProcess / pipelineRegression model
Година на възникване20051986
СъздателSusan C. Stokes; Herbert Kitschelt & Steven WilkinsonGary Cox & Mathew McCubbins (core); Avinash Dixit & John Londregan (swing)
ТипNetwork-and-exchange pipeline for clientelist accountabilityRegression analysis of electorally motivated spending allocation
Основополагащ източникStokes, S. C. (2005). Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 315-325. DOI ↗Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (1986). Electoral Politics as a Redistributive Game. The Journal of Politics, 48(2), 370-389. DOI ↗
Други названияMachine Politics Analysis, Contingent Exchange Analysis, Broker-Mediated Clientelism, Party Machine Network AnalysisElectoral Targeting Analysis, Swing versus Core Voter Analysis, Pork Barrel Politics Analysis, Tactical Redistribution Analysis
Свързани33
РезюмеClientelism analysis studies the contingent, direct exchange of material benefits for political support and the broker-mediated networks that make such exchange enforceable. Susan Stokes's 2005 formal model of machine politics, built on evidence from Argentina, showed that clientelism inverts normal democratic accountability: instead of voters holding politicians to account, the party machine holds voters to account, rewarding compliance and punishing defection through brokers who can monitor behavior. Kitschelt and Wilkinson's 2007 comparative volume situated this contingent linkage alongside programmatic competition and mapped its variation across democracies. The analysis combines a network view of the party-broker-client machine with a model of how monitoring through dense social ties sustains the bargain.Distributive politics analysis studies how governments allocate divisible public spending — grants, transfers, projects, and pork — across districts and groups to maximize electoral support. Two competing theories anchor the field. The swing-voter logic, formalized by Avinash Dixit and John Londregan in 1996 (building on Lindbeck and Weibull), holds that parties target marginal districts where votes are most responsive to spending. The core-voter logic, associated with Gary Cox and Mathew McCubbins's 1986 redistributive-game model, holds that parties instead reward loyal supporters whose preferences and reliability they know best. The empirical method is a regression of observed transfers on electoral characteristics — district marginality and partisan alignment — to test which targeting strategy the data reveal.
ScholarGateНабор от данни
  1. v1
  2. 2 Източници
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Източници
  3. PUBLISHED

Към търсенето Изтегляне на слайдове

ScholarGateСравнение на методи: Clientelism Analysis · Distributive Politics Analysis. Извлечено на 2026-06-25 от https://scholargate.app/bg/compare