ScholarGate
アシスタント

手法を比較

選択した手法を並べて確認できます。異なる行はハイライト表示されます。

Clientelism Analysis×Economic Voting Analysis×
分野Political EconomyPolitical Economy
系統Process / pipelineMCDM
提唱年20051971
提唱者Susan C. Stokes; Herbert Kitschelt & Steven WilkinsonGerald Kramer; Michael Lewis-Beck & Mary Stegmaier
種類Network-and-exchange pipeline for clientelist accountabilityFormal reward-punishment model of voting
原典Stokes, S. C. (2005). Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 315-325. DOI ↗Kramer, G. H. (1971). Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior, 1896-1964. American Political Science Review, 65(1), 131-143. DOI ↗
別名Machine Politics Analysis, Contingent Exchange Analysis, Broker-Mediated Clientelism, Party Machine Network AnalysisReward-Punishment Model, Retrospective Voting Model, Economic Vote Function, Responsibility Hypothesis
関連34
概要Clientelism 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.Economic voting analysis is the formal study of how voters reward or punish incumbents according to economic performance. In the reward-punishment (retrospective) model pioneered by Gerald Kramer in 1971, support for the governing party is a function of recent economic outcomes — growth, unemployment, and inflation — so that good times re-elect incumbents and bad times turn them out. Michael Lewis-Beck and Mary Stegmaier's 2000 review consolidated the field, establishing that economic voting is predominantly sociotropic (based on the national economy rather than personal finances) and that its strength depends on the clarity of responsibility: how easily voters can attribute outcomes to the incumbent.
ScholarGateデータセット
  1. v1
  2. 2 出典
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 出典
  3. PUBLISHED

検索へ スライドをダウンロード

ScholarGate手法を比較: Clientelism Analysis · Economic Voting Analysis. 2026-06-25に以下より取得 https://scholargate.app/ja/compare