Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T19:07:09.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Anti-Incumbent Effects of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Diego Sanches Corrêa  and
José Antonio Cheibub
Diego Sanches Corrêa
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Universidade de São Paulo. diego.correa@usp.br
José Antonio Cheibub
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. cheibub@illinois.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Scholars concur that conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs have a strong proincumbent effect among beneficiaries. Although no study has properly focused on the overall effect of cash transfers on incumbents' national vote shares, most scholars have deduced that this effect is positive; i.e., that cash transfers lead to the expansion of incumbents' electoral bases. This article analyzes survey data from nearly all Latin American countries and confirms that beneficiaries of CCT programs are more likely to support incumbents. However, it also shows that CCT programs may induce many voters who were previously incumbent supporters to vote for the opposition. As a consequence, the overall impact of cash transfers on incumbents' vote shares is indeterminate; it depends on the balance between both patterns of behavioral changes among voters. This study is the first to report evidence that cash transfer programs may have significant anti-incumbent effects.

Type
Research
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , Spring 2016 , pp. 49 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2016

References

Alesina, Alberto, and Ferrara, Eliana La. 2005. Preferences for Redistribution in the Land of Opportunities. Journal of Public Economics 89, 5–6: 897–931.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Giuliano, Paola. 2011. Preferences for Redistribution. In Handbook of Social Economics, ed. Benhabib, Jess, Bisin, Alberto, and O, Matthew. Jackson. San Diego: North-Holland. 93–131.Google Scholar
Bénabou, Roland, and Ok, Efe A.. 2001. Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: the Poum Hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116, 2: 447–87.Google Scholar
Benewick, R. J., Birch, A. H., Blumler, J. G., and Ewbank, Alison. 1969. The Floating Voter and the Liberal View of Representation. Political Studies 17, 2: 177–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biroli, Flávia, and Mantovani, Denise. 2010. Disputas, ajustes e acomodações na produção da agenda eleitoral: a cobertura jornalística ao programa Bolsa Família e as eleições de 2006. Opinião Pública 16, 1: 90–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blofield, Merike. 2011. Desigualdad y política en América Latina. Journal of Democracy en Español 3: 58–74.Google Scholar
Bohn, Simone. 2011. Social Policy and Vote in Brazil: Bolsa Família and the Shifts in Lula's Electoral Base. Latin American Research Review 46, 1: 54–79.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Swaan, A. 1988. In Care of the State: Health Care, Education, and Welfare in Europe and the USA in the Modern Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Díaz-Cayeros, Alberto, Estévez, Federico, and Magaloni, Beatriz. 2009. Welfare Benefits, Canvassing, and Campaign Handouts. In Consolidating Mexico's Democracy: The 2006 Presidential Campaign in Comparative Perspective, ed. Domínguez, Jorge I., Lawson, Chappell, and Moreno, Alejandro. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 229–45.Google Scholar
Filgueira, Fernando, Reygadas, Luis, Pablo Luna, Juan, and Alegre, Pablo. 2012. Crisis de incorporación en América Latina: límites de la modernización conservadora. Perfiles Latinoamericanos 40: 31–58.Google Scholar
Fiszbein, Ariel, and Schady, Norbert Rüdiger. 2009. Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Himmelweit, Hilde T., Jaeger Biberian, Marianne, and Stockdale, Janet. 1978. Memory for past Vote: Implications of a Study of Bias in Recall. British Journal of Political Science 8, 3: 365–75.Google Scholar
Hunter, Wendy, and Power, Timothy J.. 2007. Rewarding Lula: Executive Power, Social Policy, and the Brazilian Elections of 2006. Latin American Politics and Society 49, 1 (Spring): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, Torben, and Soskice, David. 2001. An Asset Theory of Social Policy Preferences. American Political Science Review 95, 4: 875–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, Torben, and Soskice, David. 2006. Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More than Others. American Political Science Review 100, 2: 165–81.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Robert R., 2009. The Political Effects of Inequality in Latin America: Some Inconvenient Facts. Comparative Politics 41, 3: 359–79.Google Scholar
Layton, Matthew L., and Smith, Amy E.. 2011. Social Assistance Policies and the Presidential Vote in Latin America. AmericasBarometer Insights no. 66.Google Scholar
Licio, Elaine Cristina, Rennó, Lucio R., and de Castro, Henrique Carlos de O.. 2009. Bolsa Família e voto na eleição presidencial de 2006: em busca do elo perdido. Opinião Pública 15, 1: 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López, Matias. 2013. The State of Poverty: Elite Perceptions of the Poor in Brazil and Uruguay. International Sociology 28, 3: 351–70. DOI 10.1177/0268580913484346.Google Scholar
Lupu, Noam, and Pontusson, Jonas. 2011. The Structure of Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution. American Political Science Review 105, 2: 316–36.Google Scholar
Manacorda, Marco, Miguel, Edward, and Vigorito, Andrea. 2011. Government Transfers and Political Support. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3, 3: 1–28.Google Scholar
Marques, Angela. 2008. O programa Bolsa-Família na mídia e na fala das beneficiárias: o lugar ocupado pelo estado na configuração dialógica dos espaços de debate público. Revista ECO-POS 11, 1: 166–91.Google Scholar
Marques, Angela. 2010. A deliberação a longo prazo no espaço de visibilidade mediada: o Bolsa-Família na mídia impressa e televisiva. Estudos em Jornalismo e Mídia 7, 2: 273–85.Google Scholar
Meltzer, Allan H., and Richard, Scott F.. 1981. A Rational Theory of the Size of Government. Journal of Political Economy 89, 5: 914–27.Google Scholar
Moene, Karl Ove, and Wallerstein, Michael. 2001. Inequality, Social Insurance, and Redistribution. American Political Science Review 95, 4: 859–74.Google Scholar
Nicolau, Jairo, and Peixoto, Vitor. 2007. As bases municipais da votação de Lula em 2006. Cadernos do Fórum Nacional 6: 15–25.Google Scholar
Nupia, Oskar. 2011. Anti-Poverty Programs and Presidential Election Outcomes: Familias en Acción in Colombia. Documentos CEDE 008743. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes/CEDE.Google Scholar
Queirolo, María R. 2010. El rol de los programas de transferencias monetarias en la reelección del Frente Amplio en 2009. In Del cambio a la continuidade: ciclo electoral 2009–2010 en Uruguay, ed. Buquet, Daniel and Johnson, Nikki. Montevideo: Editorial Fin de Siglo. 195–212.Google Scholar
Reis, Elisa. 2005. Perceptions of Poverty and Inequality Among Brazilian Elites. In Elite Perceptions of Poverty and Inequality, by Reis, and Moore, Mick. London: Zed Books. 26–56.Google Scholar
Reis, Elisa, and Moore, Mick. 2005. Elites, Perceptions and Poverties. In Elite Perceptions of Poverty and Inequality, by Reis, and Moore, Mick. London: Zed Books. 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheve, Kenneth, and Stasavage, David. 2006. Religion and Preferences for Social Insurance. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1, 3: 255–86.Google Scholar
Sewall, Renee Gardner. 2008. Conditional Cash Transfer Programs in Latin America. SAIS Review of International Affairs 28, 2: 175–87.Google Scholar
Shayo, Moses. 2009. A Model of Social Identity with an Application to Political Economy: Nation, Class, and Redistribution. American Political Science Review 103, 2: 147–74.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Betsy, McConnell, Margaret, and Green, Donald P.. 2012. Detecting Spillover Effects: Design and Analysis of Multilevel Experiments. American Journal of Political Science 56, 4: 1055–69.Google Scholar
Singer, André. 2009. Raízes sociais e ideológicas do lulismo. Novos Estudos CEBRAP 85: 83–102.Google Scholar
Soares, Gláucio A. D., and Terron, Sonia L.. 2008. Dois Lulas: a geografia eleitoral da reeleição (explorando conceitos, métodos e técnicas de análise geoespacial). Opinião Pública 14, 2: 269–301.Google Scholar
Elsas, Van, J., Erika, Lubbe, Rozemarijn, van der Meer, Tom W. G., and van der Brug, Wouter. 2014. Vote Recall: a Panel Study on the Mechanisms that Explain Vote Recall Inconsistency. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 26, 1 (Spring): 18–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldahl, Ragnar, and Aardal, Bernt Olav. 1982. Can We Trust Recall-Data? Scandinavian Political Studies 5, 2: 101–16.Google Scholar
Weir, Blair T., 1975. The Distortion of Voter Recall. American Journal of Political Science 19, 1: 53–62.Google Scholar
Zucco, Cesar. 2008. The President's “New” Constituency: Lula and the Pragmatic Vote in Brazil's 2006 Presidential Elections. Journal of Latin American Studies 40, 1: 29–49.Google Scholar
Zucco, Cesar. 2013. When Payouts Pay off: Conditional Cash Transfers and Voting Behavior in Brazil, 2002–10. American Journal of Political Science 57, 4: 810–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucco, Cesar, and Power, Timothy. 2013. Bolsa Familia and the Shift in Lula's Electoral Base, 2002–2006: a Reply to Bohn. Latin American Research Review 48, 2: 3–24.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Corrêa and Cheibub supplementary material

Appendix A

Download Corrêa and Cheibub supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 135.7 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Corrêa and Cheibub supplementary material

Appendix B

Download Corrêa and Cheibub supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 78.3 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Corrêa and Cheibub supplementary material

Appendix C

Download Corrêa and Cheibub supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 159 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Corrêa and Cheibub supplementary material

Appendix D

Download Corrêa and Cheibub supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 79.4 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Corrêa and Cheibub supplementary material

Appendix E

Download Corrêa and Cheibub supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 252.3 KB