Vote Buying is a Good Sign: Alternate Tactics of Fraud in Africa 1986-2012

Carolien van Ham, S. Lindberg
{"title":"Vote Buying is a Good Sign: Alternate Tactics of Fraud in Africa 1986-2012","authors":"Carolien van Ham, S. Lindberg","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2613854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over 90 percent of the world’s states currently select their national leaders through multi-party elections. However, in Africa the quality of elections still varies widely, ranging from elections plagued by violence and fraud to elections that are relatively “free and fair”. The literature on election fraud and integrity has identified several factors explaining cross-national variation in overall levels of election integrity. Much less is known about trade offs between different strategies of electoral manipulation and the differences between incumbent and opposition actors’ strategies. Existing research suggest that incumbents engage more in vote buying while opposition engage more in election violence. We theorize that choices for specific types of manipulation are driven by available resources and cost considerations for both incumbents and opposition actors, and are mutually responsive. We also suggest that costs of manipulative strategies are shaped by the level of democratization. We test our hypotheses on time-series- cross-section data for 285 African elections from 1986 to 2012. We find that democratization initially leads to increases in vote buying as “cheap” forms of electoral manipulation available to incumbents such as intimidation and manipulating electoral administration become less viable.","PeriodicalId":375906,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Other Effects of Conflict (Topic)","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Other Effects of Conflict (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2613854","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Over 90 percent of the world’s states currently select their national leaders through multi-party elections. However, in Africa the quality of elections still varies widely, ranging from elections plagued by violence and fraud to elections that are relatively “free and fair”. The literature on election fraud and integrity has identified several factors explaining cross-national variation in overall levels of election integrity. Much less is known about trade offs between different strategies of electoral manipulation and the differences between incumbent and opposition actors’ strategies. Existing research suggest that incumbents engage more in vote buying while opposition engage more in election violence. We theorize that choices for specific types of manipulation are driven by available resources and cost considerations for both incumbents and opposition actors, and are mutually responsive. We also suggest that costs of manipulative strategies are shaped by the level of democratization. We test our hypotheses on time-series- cross-section data for 285 African elections from 1986 to 2012. We find that democratization initially leads to increases in vote buying as “cheap” forms of electoral manipulation available to incumbents such as intimidation and manipulating electoral administration become less viable.
贿选是一个好兆头:1986-2012年非洲舞弊的替代策略
目前,世界上90%以上的国家通过多党选举产生国家领导人。然而,在非洲,选举的质量仍然参差不齐,有的选举充斥着暴力和舞弊,有的选举相对“自由和公平”。关于选举舞弊和诚信的文献已经确定了几个因素来解释选举诚信总体水平的跨国差异。人们对不同选举操纵策略之间的权衡以及现任和反对派行为者策略之间的差异知之甚少。现有的研究表明,现任者更多地参与贿选,而反对派更多地参与选举暴力。我们的理论认为,对特定类型的操纵的选择是由现有资源和对现任者和反对派行动者的成本考虑驱动的,并且是相互响应的。我们还认为,操纵策略的成本是由民主化程度决定的。我们用1986年至2012年285次非洲选举的时间序列横截面数据来检验我们的假设。我们发现,民主化最初导致购买选票的增加,因为现任者可以使用的“廉价”选举操纵形式,如恐吓和操纵选举管理变得不那么可行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信