与公益项目相比,选民对福利有何反应?对Clientelism的实证检验

Staff Report Pub Date : 2020-07-08 DOI:10.21034/sr.605
P. Bardhan, Sandip Mitra, Dilip Mookherjee, Anusha Nath
{"title":"与公益项目相比,选民对福利有何反应?对Clientelism的实证检验","authors":"P. Bardhan, Sandip Mitra, Dilip Mookherjee, Anusha Nath","doi":"10.21034/sr.605","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines allocation of benefits under local government programs in West Bengal, India to isolate patterns consistent with political clientelism. Using household survey data, we find that voters respond positively to private welfare benefits but not to local public good programs, while reporting having benefited from both. Consistent with the voting patterns, shocks to electoral competition induced by exogenous redistricting of villages resulted in upper-tier governments manipulating allocations across local governments only for welfare programs. Through the lens of a hierarchical budgeting model, we argue that these results provide credible evidence of the presence of clientelism rather than programmatic politics, and how this distorts the allocation of government programs both within and across villages.","PeriodicalId":164493,"journal":{"name":"Staff Report","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Do Voters Respond to Welfare vis-a-vis Public Good Programs? An Empirical Test for Clientelism\",\"authors\":\"P. Bardhan, Sandip Mitra, Dilip Mookherjee, Anusha Nath\",\"doi\":\"10.21034/sr.605\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper examines allocation of benefits under local government programs in West Bengal, India to isolate patterns consistent with political clientelism. Using household survey data, we find that voters respond positively to private welfare benefits but not to local public good programs, while reporting having benefited from both. Consistent with the voting patterns, shocks to electoral competition induced by exogenous redistricting of villages resulted in upper-tier governments manipulating allocations across local governments only for welfare programs. Through the lens of a hierarchical budgeting model, we argue that these results provide credible evidence of the presence of clientelism rather than programmatic politics, and how this distorts the allocation of government programs both within and across villages.\",\"PeriodicalId\":164493,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Staff Report\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Staff Report\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21034/sr.605\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Staff Report","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21034/sr.605","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

本文考察了印度西孟加拉邦地方政府项目下的利益分配,以隔离与政治庇护主义相一致的模式。利用家庭调查数据,我们发现选民对私人福利的反应是积极的,但对当地的公共产品计划却没有反应,尽管他们报告说自己从两者中受益。与投票模式一致的是,外生村庄重新划分引起的选举竞争冲击导致上层政府仅为福利项目操纵地方政府之间的拨款。通过分级预算模型的视角,我们认为,这些结果提供了可靠的证据,证明裙带主义而非程序性政治的存在,以及这如何扭曲了村庄内部和村庄之间政府项目的分配。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Do Voters Respond to Welfare vis-a-vis Public Good Programs? An Empirical Test for Clientelism
This paper examines allocation of benefits under local government programs in West Bengal, India to isolate patterns consistent with political clientelism. Using household survey data, we find that voters respond positively to private welfare benefits but not to local public good programs, while reporting having benefited from both. Consistent with the voting patterns, shocks to electoral competition induced by exogenous redistricting of villages resulted in upper-tier governments manipulating allocations across local governments only for welfare programs. Through the lens of a hierarchical budgeting model, we argue that these results provide credible evidence of the presence of clientelism rather than programmatic politics, and how this distorts the allocation of government programs both within and across villages.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信