Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:31:40.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Clients Select Brokers: Competition and Choice in India's Slums

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2018

ADAM MICHAEL AUERBACH  and
TARIQ THACHIL
ADAM MICHAEL AUERBACH*
Affiliation:
American University
TARIQ THACHIL*
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
*
Adam Michael Auerbach is an Assistant Professor, School of International Service, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016 ([email protected])
Tariq Thachil is an Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Vanderbilt University, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN 37203 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conventional models of clientelism often assume poor voters have little or no choice over which local broker to turn to for help. Yet communities in many clientelistic settings are marked by multiple brokers who compete for a following. Such competition makes client choices, and the preferences guiding such choices, pivotal in fueling broker support. We examine client preferences for a pervasive broker—slum leaders—in the context of urban India. To identify resident preferences for slum leaders, we conducted an ethnographically informed conjoint survey experiment with 2,199 residents across 110 slums in two Indian cities. Contra standard emphases on shared ethnicity, we find residents place heaviest weight on a broker's capability to make claims on the state. A survey of 629 slum leaders finds client-preferred traits distinguish brokers from residents. In highlighting processes of broker selection, and the client preferences that undergird them, we underscore the centrality of clients in shaping local brokerage environments.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 112 , Issue 4 , November 2018 , pp. 775 - 791
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This study was preregistered with Evidence in Governance and Politics (20150619AA) and received IRB approval from American University (15098) and Yale University (1504015671). The authors thank Ameya Balsekar, Leticia Bode, Natalia Bueno, Aditya Dasgupta, Agustina Giraudy, Anirudh Krishna, Gareth Nellis, Irfan Nooruddin, David Ohls, Kelly Rader, Mark Schneider, Susan Stokes, Yuhki Tajima, Emmanuel Teitelbaum, Milan Vaishnav, Michael Walton, Rebecca Weitz-Shapiro, Ashutosh Varshney, Erik Wibbels, Adam Ziegfeld, and seminar participants at American University; the Centre for Policy Research, Delhi; Duke University; Georgetown University; Harvard University; MIT; the New School; the University of Pennsylvania; the University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Yale University. Ved Prakash Sharma and the MORSEL survey team provided excellent research assistance. This research was funded by American University, Vanderbilt University, and Yale University. Replication files are available on the American Political Science Review Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RUQ2KP.

References

REFERENCES

Adida, Claire, Gottlieb, Jessica, Kramon, Eric, and McClendon, Gwyneth. 2017. “Reducing or Reinforcing In-Group Preferences? An Experiment on Information and Ethnic Voting.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 12 (4): 437–77.Google Scholar
Auerbach, Adam Michael. 2016. “Clients and Communities: The Political Economy of Party Network Organization and Development in India's Urban Slums.” World Politics 68 (1): 111–48.Google Scholar
Auerbach, Adam Michael. 2017. “Neighborhood Associations and the Urban Poor: India's Slum Development Committees.” World Development 96: 119–35.Google Scholar
Auyero, Javier. 2000. Poor People's Politics. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Berenschot, Ward. 2010. “Everyday Mediation.” Development and Change 41 (5): 883–905.Google Scholar
Burgwal, Gerrit. 1995. Struggle of the Poor. Amsterdam: CEDLA.Google Scholar
Bussell, Jennifer. 2018. Clients and Constituents. Book Manuscript: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, and Murillo, Maria Victoria. 2013. “When Parties Meet Voters.” Comparative Political Studies 46 (7): 851–82.Google Scholar
Camp, Edwin. 2015. “Cultivating Effective Brokers.” British Journal of Political Science 47 (3): 521–43.Google Scholar
Carlson, Elizabeth. 2015. “Ethnic Voting and Accountability in Africa.” World Politics 67 (2): 353–85.Google Scholar
Chandra, Kanchan. 2004. Why Ethnic Parties Succeed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chauchard, Simon. 2016. “Unpacking Ethnic Preferences.” Comparative Political Studies 49 (2): 253–84.Google Scholar
Collier, David. 1976. Squatters and Oligarchs. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Cornelius, Wayne. 1975. Politics and the Migrant Poor in Mexico City. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Matthew. 1986. “Electoral Politics as a Redistributive Game.” Journal of Politics 48 (2): 370–89.Google Scholar
Dunning, Thad, and Nilekani, Janhavi. 2013. “Ethnic Quotas and Political Mobilization.” American Political Science Review 107 (1): 35–56.Google Scholar
Fershtman, Chaim, and Gneezy, Uri. 2001. “Discrimination in a Segmented Society.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (1): 351–77.Google Scholar
Gans-Morse, Jordan, Mazzuca, Sebastian, and Nichter, Simeon. 2014. “Varieties of Clientelism.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (2): 415–32.Google Scholar
Gay, Robert. 1994. Popular Organization and Democracy in Rio de Janeiro. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Alan. 1998. The Latin American City (2nd Edition). London: Latin America Bureau.Google Scholar
Gingerich, Daniel, and Medina, Luis. 2013. “The Endurance and Eclipse of the Controlled Vote.” Economics and Politics 25 (3): 453–80.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Ocantos, Ezequiel, de Jonge, Chad Kiewiet, Melendez, Carlos, Osorio, Javier, and Nickerson, David. 2012. “Vote-Buying and Social Desirability Bias.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1): 202–17.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, and Hopkins, Daniel. 2015. “The Hidden American Immigration Consensus.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 529–48.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2014. “Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis.” Political Analysis 22 (1): 1–30.Google Scholar
Hilgers, Tina. 2012. Clientelism in Everyday Latin American Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Holland, Alisha, and Palmer-Rubin, Brian. 2015. “Beyond the Machine.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (9): 1186–223.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, Craig. 2010. Timepass. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Jha, Saumitra, Rao, Vijayendra, and Woolcock, Michael. 2007. “Governance in the Gullies.” World Development 35 (2): 230–46.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 2011. “Clientelistic Linkage Strategies.” Working Paper: Duke University.Google Scholar
Krishna, Anirudh. 2002. Active Social Capital. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kruks-Wisner, Gabrielle. 2018. “The Pursuit of Social Welfare.” World Politics 70 (1): 122–63.Google Scholar
Larreguy, Horacio, Marshall, John, and Querubin, Pablo. 2016. “Parties, Brokers, and Voter Mobilization.” American Political Science Review 110 (1): 160–79.Google Scholar
Manor, James. 2000. “Small-Time Fixers in India's States.” Asian Survey 40 (5): 816–35.Google Scholar
Nichter, Simeon. 2008. “Vote Buying or Turnout Buying?” American Political Science Review 102 (1): 19–31.Google Scholar
Nichter, Simeon. 2014. “Conceptualizing Vote Buying.” Electoral Studies 35: 315–27.Google Scholar
Nichter, Simeon, and Peress, Michael. 2017. “Request Fulfilling.” Comparative Political Studies 50 (8): 1086–117.Google Scholar
Posner, Daniel. 2005. Institutions and Ethnic Politics in Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Post, Alison. 2018. “Cities and Politics in the Developing World.” Annual Review of Political Science 21: 115–33.Google Scholar
Ray, Talton. 1969. The Politics of the Barrios of Venezuela. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rueda, Miguel. 2015. “Buying Votes with Imperfect Local Knowledge and a Secret Ballot.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 27 (3): 428–56.Google Scholar
Scott, James. 1977. “Patron-Client Politics and Political Change in Southeast Asia.” In Friends, Followers, Factions. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan. 1995. Cultures in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan. 2005. “Perverse Accountability.” American Political Science Review 9 (3): 315–25.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan, Dunning, Thad, Nazareno, Marcelo, and Brusco, Valeria. 2013. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szwarcberg, Mariela. 2015. Mobilizing Poor Voters. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor-Robinson, Michelle. 2010. Do the Poor Count? University Park: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
Thachil, Tariq. 2017. “Do Rural Migrants Divide Ethnically in the City? Evidence from an Ethnographic Experiment in India.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (4): 908–26.Google Scholar
Thachil, Tariq. Forthcoming. “Improving Surveys Through Ethnography: Insights from India's Urban Periphery.” Studies in Comparative International Development.Google Scholar
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2015. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/366).Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Steven. 2004. Votes and Violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zarazaga, Rodrigo. 2014. “Brokers Beyond Clientelism.” Latin American Politics and Society 56 (3): 23–44.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Auerbach and Thachil Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RUQ2KP
Link
Supplementary material: File

Auerbach and Thachil supplementary material

Auerbach and Thachil supplementary material 1

Download Auerbach and Thachil supplementary material(File)
File 23.8 MB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.