ScholarGate
Asystent

Porównaj metody

Przeglądaj wybrane metody obok siebie; wiersze, które się różnią, są wyróżnione.

Distributive Politics Analysis×Patronage Network Analysis×
DziedzinaPolitical EconomyPolitical Economy
RodzinaRegression modelProcess / pipeline
Rok powstania19861972
TwórcaGary Cox & Mathew McCubbins (core); Avinash Dixit & John Londregan (swing)James C. Scott; S. N. Eisenstadt & Luis Roniger
TypRegression analysis of electorally motivated spending allocationNetwork-analytic pipeline for clientelist structures
Źródło pierwotneCox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (1986). Electoral Politics as a Redistributive Game. The Journal of Politics, 48(2), 370-389. DOI ↗Scott, J. C. (1972). Patron-Client Politics and Political Change in Southeast Asia. American Political Science Review, 66(1), 91-113. DOI ↗
Inne nazwyElectoral Targeting Analysis, Swing versus Core Voter Analysis, Pork Barrel Politics Analysis, Tactical Redistribution AnalysisPatron-Client Network Analysis, Patronage Pyramid Analysis, Brokerage Network Analysis, Clientelist Network Mapping
Pokrewne33
PodsumowanieDistributive 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.Patronage network analysis is a relational pipeline for representing patron-client politics as a directed network and measuring its structure with the tools of social network analysis. Building on James C. Scott's 1972 account of patron-client politics in Southeast Asia and Eisenstadt and Roniger's 1984 comparative study of clientelism and trust, the approach treats the vertical, asymmetric bond between a powerful patron and a dependent client — typically mediated by brokers — as the elementary tie. By coding who is connected to whom, in which direction, and with what resource content, the analyst can compute centrality, brokerage, and structural-hole measures to reveal the pyramidal architecture through which protection and resources flow down and loyalty and support flow up.
ScholarGateZbiór danych
  1. v1
  2. 2 Źródła
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Źródła
  3. PUBLISHED

Przejdź do wyszukiwania Pobierz slajdy

ScholarGatePorównaj metody: Distributive Politics Analysis · Patronage Network Analysis. Pobrano 2026-06-25 z https://scholargate.app/pl/compare