Hubbry Logo
ClientelismClientelismMain
Open search
Clientelism
Community hub
Clientelism
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Clientelism
Clientelism
Clientelism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on
Politics
Primary topics
Systems
Academic disciplines
Public administration
Policy
Government branches
Related topics
Subseries
icon Politics portal

Clientelism or client politics is the exchange of goods and services for political support, often involving an implicit or explicit quid-pro-quo.[1][2][3] It is closely related to patronage politics and vote buying.[4]

Clientelism involves an asymmetric relationship between groups of political actors described as patrons, brokers, and clients. In client politics, an organized interest group benefits at the expense of the public. Client politics may have a strong interaction with the dynamics of identity politics. This is particularly common in an elite pluralist or rigidly duopolistic system, such as in the United States, where lobbying can have considerable power shaping public policy. The opposite of client politics is entrepreneurial politics, or conviction politics. Although many definitions for clientelism have been proposed, according to the political scientist Allen Hicken, it is generally thought that there are four key elements of clientelistic relationships:

  • Dyadic relationships: Simply, these are two-way relationships.
  • Contingency: Delivery of a service to a citizen by a politician or broker is contingent on the citizen's actions on behalf of the politician or party through which they are receiving services.
  • Hierarchy: The politician or party is in a higher position of power than the citizen.
  • Iteration: The relationship is not a one-off exchange, but rather, ongoing.[5]

Contingency and iteration are the two components shared across most definitions of clientelism.[6]

Origins

[edit]

The origin of the practice has been traced to ancient Rome. Here relationships between the patron (patronus) and client (cliens) were seen as crucial to understanding the political process. While the obligations between these were mutual, the key point is they were hierarchical. These relationships might be best viewed not as an entity but rather as a network (clientela), with the patronus himself perhaps being obligated to someone of greater power, and the cliens perhaps having more than one patron. These extensions increase the possibilities of conflicting interests arising. While the familia was the basic unit underlying Roman society, the interlocking networks (clientela) acted as restrictions on their autonomy but allowed a more complex society to develop. Historians of the late medieval period evolved the concept into bastard feudalism. There is, as is usual, ambiguity in the use of political terminology and the terms "clientelism", the "patron–client relationship", "patronage", and the political machine are sometimes used to describe similar or related concepts.[7][8][9][10]

The reigns of Julius Caesar (49–44 BCE) and Tiberius (14–16 AD) have been characterized as examples of widespread clientelism. In the 1500s, French political theorist Étienne de La Boétie did not use the term clientelism, but described the practice of emperors who used gifts to the public to gain loyalty from those who were eager to accept what amounted to bribery:

Tyrants would distribute largesse, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce [coin]: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, "Long live the King!" The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them. A man might one day be presented with a sesterce and gorge himself at the public feast, lauding Tiberius and Nero for handsome liberality, who on the morrow, would be forced to abandon his property to their avarice, his children to their lust, his very blood to the cruelty of these magnificent emperors, without offering any more resistance than a stone or a tree stump. The mob has always behaved in this way—eagerly open to bribes.[11]

Mechanics

[edit]

Susan Stokes et al. distinguish clientelism as a form of non-programmatic policy within distributive politics. It meets the criteria through failing to meet the two requirements of programmatic distribution, that are (1) 'formalized and public' and (2) 'shape actual distribution of benefits or resources'.[1] Within non-programmatic policy, clientelism is then distinguished from 'pork-barrel politics' in that voters are given a benefit or are able to avoid a cost conditional on their returning the favor with a vote.[1] The patron/client system can be defined as a mutual arrangement between a person that has authority, social status, wealth, or some other personal resource (patron) and another who benefits from their support or influence (client).[12] The patron provides selective access to goods and opportunities, and place themselves or their support in positions from which they can divert resources and services in their favor. Their partners-clients- are expected to buy support, and in some cases, votes. Patrons target low-income families to exchange their needed resources for their abundant resources: time, a vote, and insertion into networks of other potential supporters whom they can influence;[13] however, patrons are unable to access the information needed to effectively form the exchange; thus they hire intermediaries, brokers, that more equipped to find out what the targeted voter needs, which voters will require less prodding, and if the voter followed through on their end of the bargain.[1] As Stokes, Dunning, Nazareno, and Brusco emphasize, brokers in turn serve political leaders, and they may also not target resources exactly as leaders would wish; the resulting principal-agent problems can have important implications for understanding how clientelism works.[1]

A key to understanding clientelism might come in stressing not only the mutually beneficial relationships of exchange but also asymmetries in power or standing. Implied is a certain selectivity in access to key resources and markets. Those with access, the patrons and/or sometimes sub-patrons or brokers rely on the subordination and dependence of the clients. In return for receiving some benefits the clients should provide political support. Standard modeling of clientelism assumes that politicians are able to monitor votes, and in turn reward or punish voters based on their choices. Quid pro quo would dissolve in the absence of such monitoring, rendering clientelism highly inefficient at best and completely ineffective at worst; however, evidence suggests that systematic monitoring of voter choice at the polls is surprisingly uncommon.[6] Patronage, turnout buying, abstention buying, and vote buying are subcategories of clientelism.[1][14] Patronage refers to an intra-party flow of benefits to members.[1] Turnout buying, coined by Nichter, treats or bribes voters to the polls whereas abstention buying treats or bribes voters to keep them from going to the polls.[15] Vote buying is a direct transfer of goods or services, in exchange for one's support and vote. The result for the good or service is a question of "did you or will you vote for me?"[16]

Forms of clientelism

[edit]

Politicians can engage in clientelism on either (or both) a group or individual level. One way individual level clientelism can manifest itself is in a vote buying relationship: a politician gives a citizen goods or services, and, in exchange, that individual citizen promises to vote for that politician in the next election.[17] Individual level clientelism can also be carried out through coercion where citizens are threatened with lack of goods or services unless they vote for a certain politician or party.[18] The relationship can also work in the opposite direction, where voters pressure politicians into clientelistic relationships in exchange for electoral support.[19]

Stokes' research on clientelism in Argentina assumed that the Peronist Party was providing financial support to prospective voters to buy their votes. It was hypothesized that Peronists targeted moderately opposed voters because they were thought to be easily persuaded to change sides at the party's minimal expense.[20] Stokes elaborated on the need of the Peronist Party to be able to track its clientele despite the secret ballot system. Stokes's argument was that the potential for vote buying depends on the accuracy with which the patron party, the Peronists in the case of Argentina, can monitor votes.[20] She uses evidence to show that overall smaller communities offer less anonymity, which makes it easier for the patrons to find out who committed to supporting them. Thus, Stokes concluded that to be one of the reasons that vote buying is more frequent in relatively small communities. Another reason is that smaller communities are generally poorer. Furthermore, smaller communities, which are generally poorer and have a greater need for resources, are a more attractive target.[20]

Research by Nichter promoted a simpler hypothesis for the Argentinian election cycle: to prove Peronists that were solely buying supporting voters' turnout, not all of their votes.[21] He dismissed Stokes's arguments on patrons spying on smaller and poorer communities and instead said the Peronists initially targeted votes assumed to be their strong supporters. In that case, the patrons would be reasonably sure that they received a vote from a person who receives a good from them.[21]

In many young low-income democracies, clientelism may assume the form of group-level targeting in which parties channel benefits to specific groups of voters that are conditional on past or future electoral support.[5] For group-based targeting to work, parties must find efficient ways to distribute benefits while also holding voters accountable, ensuring that they keep their commitments.[22] That leads parties to hire intermediaries, often referred to as 'brokers', who supply them with fine-grained information about who needs what and what sorts of voters will and will not vote for them, regardless of the benefit(s) provided.[1] Party brokers are not the only type of intermediaries that mediate clientelist exchanges. There are also organizational brokers who represent specific interest groups but mobilize voters for multiple parties, hybrid brokers who also represent specific interest groups but demonstrate strong party loyalties, and independent brokers who neither represent specific group interests nor exhibit stable partisan attachments.[23]

Scholarly consensus has thus far eluded the question of why parties channel clientelist benefits to certain groups more than others. Some of the earlier work on group-level targeting argues that politicians are more likely to direct party largesse to their co-ethnics because ethnicity helps parties solve the commitment problems that are so critical to making clientelism work.[24] Some of the more contemporary work underscores the salience of partisan loyalties: politicians direct the bulk of their vote-buying efforts at persuadable swing voters, those who are either indifferent to the party's professed programmatic goals or moderately opposed to them. Some studies have challenged those claims but suggest that most instances of vote-buying in clientelist democracies might actually be instances of turnout-buying in which parties shower benefits on their most loyal supporters in the hope they will show up at the polling booth on election day.[25] However, the lack of well-developed political machines does not preclude clientelist targeting. Recent studies have shown that in many emerging democracies, parties often lack the organizational capacity to monitor individual-level voting behavior and so they finetune their targeting strategies by updating their beliefs about what sorts of groups have been most responsive to their clientelist appeals.[26]

Contexts

[edit]

Clientelism may not look the same from context to context.[18] Several individual and country-level factors may shape if and how clientelism takes hold in a country including the types of individual leaders, socio-economic status of individuals, economic development, democratization, and institutional factors.[27] In some contexts, clientelistic behavior is almost expected, as such interactions can become embedded in the formal political structures.[19] Some types of leaders such as hereditary traditional leaders, who remain in power for extended periods of time, are more effective in carrying out clientelistic relationships than others such as elected officials.[28] Research has also shown that politicians can benefit electorally from clientelistic relationships by gaining support from those who receive goods from them, but there are also potential costs since clientelistic politicians may lose support from wealthier voters, who do not engage in clientelistic relationships themselves view the practice negatively.[29] Not all voters view clientelistic behavior as a positive trait in politicians, especially voters of higher socioeconomic statuses.[29] In short, there is no single factor that causes clientelism to take hold.

Consequences

[edit]

Clientelism has generally negative consequences on democracy and government and has more uncertain consequences on the economy. The accountability relationship in a democracy in which voters hold elected officials accountable for their actions, is undermined by clientelism. That is because clientelism makes votes contingent on gifts to clients, rather than the performance of elected officials in office. Clientelism also degrades democratic institutions such as the secret ballot and administrative oversight. Such factors both weaken democratic institutions and negatively impact the efficiency of government.[5]

Corruption and the perception of corruption have also been established as strongly correlated with clientelist systems for many reasons. One is that patrons often appear above the law in many clientelist systems. Also, some acts in clientelist systems such as vote buying, could be inherently illegal. Finally, resources needed for patrons to maintain the clientelist system may require illicit means to obtain goods.[30] A 2021 study found that voters in clientelist systems are less willing to punish corrupt politicians electorally.[31]

Some scholars believe that because patrons focus on the control and procurement of private goods, they also neglect public goods such as roads and public schools, which aid economic development.[32] Scholars also note that rent-seeking and corruption, prevalent in clientelist systems, could negatively impact the economy as well. Nevertheless, there is still great uncertainty in the economic effects of clientelism.[5]

Controversy

[edit]

It is common to link clientelism with corruption; both involve political actors using public and private resources for personal gain, but they are not synonymous. Corruption is commonly defined as "dishonest and fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery",[33] while political clientelism is seen as "the distribution of benefits targeted to individuals or groups in exchange for electoral support".[34] It is common to associate the two together because they moderately overlap.[35] There are different forms of corruption that have nothing to do with clientelism, such as voter intimidation or ballot stuffing. "Clientelism is considered negative because its intention is to generate 'private' revenue for patrons and clients and, as a result obstruct 'public' revenue for members of the general community who are not a part of the patron-client arrangement."[36]

Clientelism as a strategy of political organisation is substantially different from other strategies which rely on appeals to wider programmatic objectives or simply emphasize higher degrees of competence. It is often assumed that clientelism is a vestige of political underdevelopment, a form of corruption, and that political modernization will reduce or end it. But alternative views stressing the persistence of clientelism – and the patronage associated with it – have been recognized.[7][8][37]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Clientelism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Clientelism is a form of non-programmatic in which political actors provide targeted material benefits, such as cash, jobs, or infrastructure, to specific individuals or groups in direct exchange for electoral support or , establishing asymmetric, contingent patron-client relationships that universal policy criteria. This practice, rooted in the mobilization of votes through personalistic ties rather than ideological platforms, thrives in environments of economic vulnerability, weak state institutions, and limited access to public goods, where clients' dependence on patrons incentivizes compliance over collective welfare. Prevalent in many developing democracies across , , and parts of , clientelism manifests through vote-buying, pork-barrel spending, and brokerage networks that link distant patrons to local supporters, often exacerbating ethnic or class divisions to sustain power. from field experiments and cross-national data reveals its persistence in younger democracies, where low credibility of long-term policy promises drives politicians toward immediate, verifiable exchanges to secure turnout and allegiance. Clientelism's defining controversies stem from its causal role in distorting , as resources are funneled into private gains rather than productive public investments, leading to reduced provision of universal services like and , heightened , and weakened . Studies consistently link higher clientelism to slower and democratic backsliding, as it entrenches and voter short-termism, though some argue it provides short-term stability in fragmented societies by filling gaps left by ineffective bureaucracies. Despite efforts like electoral monitoring, its adaptability—shifting from overt handouts to subtler forms like conditional welfare—ensures endurance where formal institutions fail to enforce .

Definition and Conceptual Foundations

Core Definition and Characteristics

Clientelism constitutes the strategic allocation of particularistic material benefits—such as cash payments, jobs, public services, or projects—by political patrons to individual voters or small groups, explicitly conditioned on the recipients' delivery of electoral support or . This exchange is fundamentally contingent, meaning benefits are withheld or revoked if the client fails to comply, distinguishing it from programmatic redistribution based on policy platforms or universal welfare. Unlike broader systems that may sustain long-term relational ties independent of elections, clientelism centers on short-term, vote-centric transactions, often leveraging public resources for private political gain. Key characteristics include particularism, where goods are targeted narrowly to supporters rather than distributed universally or by merit, enabling politicians to mobilize turnout among low-income or swing voters who prioritize immediate needs over ideological alignment. pervades these relations, with patrons holding superior access to state resources and coercive leverage, while clients, often economically vulnerable, face credible threats of exclusion from future aid. Clientelism thrives in contexts of weak formal institutions, high voter , and limited monitoring of elections, fostering repeated interactions that build broker networks to track compliance, such as local party operatives verifying votes post-election. Empirical studies, including field experiments in and , confirm voters' responsiveness to such offers, with compliance rates rising when enforcement mechanisms like vote-buying lists are employed. This practice contrasts with pure by embedding exchanges within electoral competition, yet it undermines impartial by diverting public funds from collective goods to individualized payoffs, perpetuating dependency cycles. While definitions vary slightly across scholars—some emphasizing dyadic patron-client dyads and others networked party-voter dynamics—the core elements of conditionality and selectivity remain invariant, observable in data from over 100 countries where clientelistic parties secure 20-40% higher vote shares in targeted districts.

Theoretical Underpinnings from First Principles

Clientelism emerges as a rational equilibrium in political systems where actors—politicians and voters—pursue self-interested maximization of amid constraints like imperfect information and credible commitment challenges. Politicians aim to secure electoral majorities to attain benefits, such as rents or influence, while voters weigh tangible, immediate gains against diffuse, future-oriented promises that carry enforcement risks. In environments lacking robust institutions, programmatic platforms prove unstable due to time-inconsistency problems: post-election, rulers may renege on broad redistributive pledges to favor narrow constituencies, undermining voter trust and incentivizing a shift to particularistic exchanges where benefits are directly tied to demonstrated . This dynamic reflects a principal-agent framework in which voters, as principals, face high monitoring costs for delivery, rendering indirect incentives inefficient; clientelism circumvents this by enabling observable, contingent transfers—such as jobs, cash, or favors—that politicians can withhold from non-supporters, ensuring reciprocity without relying on pre-electoral contracts. relies on mechanisms like local brokers who verify compliance through social networks or repeated interactions, transforming one-shot exchanges into sustainable equilibria under conditions of voter immobility and divisible preferences. Rational choice models highlight that such practices dominate when the of targeting private falls below that of public provision, particularly in fragmented societies where ideological cohesion is weak. Causally, clientelism perpetuates in low-productivity economies because amplifies voter demand for divisible benefits, while state incapacity limits impartial administration, creating a feedback loop where redistributed resources reinforce inequality and dependency rather than broad growth. Empirical cross-national data show clientelism correlating with GDP below $5,000 (in 2010 PPP terms) and ethnic fractionalization indices exceeding 0.5, as these factors heighten the efficacy of targeted over universal appeals. Unlike coerced or ideological control, this rests on voluntary, utility-maximizing trades that endure until institutional reforms—such as or economic expansion—raise the opportunity costs of particularism.

Historical Evolution

Pre-Modern and Ancient Precursors

In , the clientela system exemplified an early form of clientelism, wherein patrons (patronus) extended material, legal, and to clients (cliens) in exchange for personal , political , and practical services. This vertical, reciprocal bond originated during the Roman monarchy (traditionally 753–509 BCE) and solidified in the by the BCE, structuring much of Roman social and political life as freedmen, , and even foreign provincials sought for protection against creditors or rivals. Patrons, often from the senatorial or equestrian classes, provided clients with daily sustenance (sportula), advocacy in courts, and access to networks, while clients reciprocated by accompanying patrons in public (deductio), voting en bloc in assemblies like the comitia centuriata, and furnishing troops or labor during campaigns. The system's political potency intensified in the late (c. 133–27 BCE), as ambitious leaders leveraged client networks to amass votes and influence; for instance, patrons controlled client votes in electoral comitia tributa, enabling figures like and Crassus to dominate consular elections through distributed favors such as grain doles or land allotments. Under the Empire, clientelism extended to provincial elites and "client kings" in peripheral states, who pledged military auxiliaries and tribute for Roman forbearance of , as seen in Herod the Great's Kingdom of (37–4 BCE), where loyalty to Rome secured autonomy and resources. Emperors like formalized imperial patronage, granting citizenship and fiscal privileges to loyal provincials, thereby integrating diverse territories through personalized exchanges rather than impersonal . While less institutionalized in , analogous dynamics appeared in proxenia arrangements, where wealthy citizens hosted foreign envoys or allies in return for diplomatic support, though these lacked the enduring, hierarchical obligations of Roman clientela and emphasized mutual hospitality (xenia) over vertical dependency. In non-Western contexts, such as (206 BCE–220 CE), Confucian hierarchies fostered ruler-subject bonds with resource distribution for fidelity, prefiguring clientelist patterns, but empirical records indicate these were more ideologically framed than transactionally enforced. These ancient precedents highlight clientelism's roots in pre-modern power asymmetries, where personalized reciprocity substituted for modern state institutions to mobilize support.

Modern Emergence and Spread (19th-20th Centuries)

The modern manifestation of clientelism crystallized in the alongside the advent of mass , rapid , and immigration waves in industrializing democracies, where sought to secure votes through targeted exchanges of material benefits rather than ideological appeals. In the United States, urban patronage machines epitomized this shift, emerging before 1850 and reaching their zenith from 1865 to 1930, with influencing over 70% of major cities between 1890 and 1910. These organizations, such as New York's under Boss William in the , appointed one in eight voters to public jobs, leveraging a 105% surge in foreign-born urban populations from 1870 to 1900 to provide direct aid like , assistance, and emergency relief in return for electoral loyalty. This "new clientelism" supplanted informal premodern ties with structured, broker-mediated networks, enabling parties to monitor compliance in polyglot wards where voters' economic vulnerability facilitated arrangements. Clientelism disseminated across Europe as electoral reforms expanded the franchise in the late 19th century, often preceding robust bureaucratic safeguards and thus entrenching patronage as a mobilization tool. In Britain, overt practices like electoral bribery peaked from the 1832 Reform Act until the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act of 1883, which diminished but did not eradicate subtler exchanges amid industrial poverty and party competition. Continental cases followed suit: in unified Italy, regional notables evolved into party brokers distributing state favors, laying groundwork for 20th-century expansions under regimes like Christian Democracy; similarly, in Spain and France's Third Republic, clientelistic job allocations sustained rural and urban loyalties where programmatic politics faltered. The phenomenon's resilience stemmed from developmental sequencing—democratization accessing state resources before administrative insulation—allowing incumbents to target swing or core voters with excludable goods like subsidies, a dynamic observed in both autocratic holdovers and nascent democracies. By the 20th century, clientelism proliferated globally with successive democratization waves, adapting to post-colonial and transitional contexts in , , and , where weak institutions amplified its utility for elite control. In , early 20th-century shifts in countries like transitioned from elite-dominated dyads to broker-facilitated vote trading, mirroring U.S. machines but amplified by traditions and resource rents. This spread correlated with electoral competition in low-information environments, where parties prioritized selective incentives over public goods, perpetuating hierarchies despite formal democratic institutions and contributing to inefficiencies in over 60% of surveyed developing democracies by mid-century. Empirical analyses confirm its endurance where voter monitoring remained feasible through social networks, underscoring clientelism's causal role in undermining meritocratic during industrialization and .

Persistence into the 21st Century

Clientelism has endured as a core feature of political exchange in numerous countries throughout the , particularly in contexts of weak institutions and high levels, where politicians leverage targeted benefits to secure electoral support. Cross-national analyses indicate that electoral clientelism remains prevalent in up to 87 countries, correlating with reduced fiscal redistribution as resources are diverted from public goods to selective favors. In developing economies, this persistence is modeled as a function of weak , enabling and the strategic allocation of state benefits to loyal voters, as evidenced by economic frameworks applied to post-2000 data. In , exemplifies ongoing electoral clientelism, where parties distribute goods and services to mobilize voters, a practice intensifying after the Institutional Revolutionary Party's (PRI) defeat in 2000 and the advent of competitive multiparty democracy. During the 2024 presidential elections, clientelistic networks were pivotal in rural and urban poor constituencies, with parties offering cash, food, and infrastructure promises in exchange for votes, undermining programmatic policy alternatives. Similar patterns appear in other regions; in , clientelism intertwines with neo-patrimonial governance, perpetuating under democratization efforts as elites trade patronage for loyalty amid ethnic divisions, as documented in electoral studies from 2000 to 2025. Even in advanced economies, relational clientelism—characterized by enduring ties between brokers and voters rather than one-off transactions—persists alongside modernization, defying expectations of decline with rising incomes. For instance, data across democracies show relational forms maintaining influence in high-income settings through organized networks, while single-shot electoral clientelism exhibits a curvilinear pattern peaking mid-development. In , 2024 surveys reveal widespread perceptions of clientelistic job allocations and benefits tied to ruling party support, eroding trust despite EU integration pressures. This endurance stems from incentives in fragmented electorates, where or inequality amplifies demand for immediate gains over long-term policies.

Operational Dynamics

Exchange Mechanisms and Incentives

Clientelism relies on contingent exchanges in which political patrons, such as parties or candidates, provide targeted material benefits to clients, typically voters, in return for political support like votes or turnout. These exchanges emphasize particularistic distribution—favoring specific individuals or groups based on their demonstrated or promised —over universal programmatic policies. Common mechanisms include vote-buying through or small goods distributed near elections, patronage involving public-sector jobs or favors that can be withheld post-election, and pork-barrel spending on local projects like roads or schools to secure group-level support. Politicians engage in these exchanges to overcome commitment problems in electoral competition, where programmatic promises may lack credibility due to time inconsistency or weak . By offering reversible incentives, such as jobs tied to ongoing , patrons create self-enforcing relationships that align client behavior with patron success, often underinvesting in public goods to heighten the relative value of private benefits. This strategy proves particularly viable in settings with high inequality and low , where politicians can leverage brokers—intermediaries like local activists—to monitor compliance and target swing or core voters effectively. Voters participate due to immediate utility from tangible transfers, which address short-term needs in contexts of and economic uncertainty, outweighing diffuse benefits that require and long horizons. Risk-averse clients favor observable, personal gains over ideological platforms, especially when monitoring ensures reciprocity, though preferences vary—empirical data indicate women often respond more to appeals like reforms. Inequality amplifies this dynamic, as low-productivity environments make private redistribution cheaper than broad growth investments. Field experiments substantiate these incentives: in Benin's 2001 , clientelistic promises of jobs and local projects boosted candidate vote shares by approximately 10 percentage points over platforms in randomized , confirming exchanges' electoral efficacy in low-information settings. Similarly, historical cases like Southern Italy's Christian Democrats distributing selective —accounting for up to 50% of the region's wage bill by the late —illustrate how sustains through credible threats of withdrawal.

Monitoring, Enforcement, and Risk Factors

In clientelist exchanges, monitoring is essential to mitigate the inherent uncertainty of voter compliance, particularly under secret ballots that obscure individual choices. Political parties often rely on hierarchical networks of local brokers—such as party activists or community leaders—who distribute benefits and observe turnout and vote shares at granular levels, using disaggregated electoral data to evaluate and identify underperforming intermediaries. This broker-mediated allows patrons to approximate individual through proxies like rates or bloc voting patterns in client-heavy precincts, though it remains imperfect and resource-intensive. Complementary mechanisms, such as repeated interactions in long-term relationships, further enable ongoing assessment of loyalty, reducing information asymmetries without formal oversight. Enforcement in clientelism lacks due to the illicit nature of vote-for-benefits trades, instead depending on credible threats of future exclusion from , social sanctions via community norms, or selective retaliation against defectors. Norms of reciprocity play a pivotal role, fostering voluntary compliance by framing exchanges as moral obligations rather than purely transactional deals, which sustains clientelism even in low-monitoring environments. In high-stakes contexts, enforcement can escalate to coercive tactics, including or by party enforcers, though these carry risks of backlash and legal scrutiny. Empirical studies from field experiments in demonstrate that such mechanisms effectively link benefit provision to observed electoral support, validating clientelism's viability where alternatives like programmatic are weak. Key risk factors undermining clientelist sustainability include voter defection, driven by the temptation to consume private goods without reciprocating under ballot secrecy—a classic "" puzzle in the , as rational voters should free-ride absent . Patron risks amplify when targeting non-marginal voters or in competitive races, where defection losses outweigh gains, per applications showing heightened vote-buying by parties facing recent defeats or assured victories to hedge uncertainties. Systemic vulnerabilities, such as economic and low , paradoxically bolster clientelism by increasing client dependence but heighten patron exposure to interventions—like randomized audits in , which curb handout distribution and demands by enhancing accountability and reducing vulnerability-driven reciprocity. Weak or bureaucratic independence further exacerbates risks by facilitating unchecked brokering, while rising or income levels erode enforceability by diminishing the marginal utility of targeted benefits.

Typologies and Variations

Electoral vs. Non-Electoral Forms

Electoral clientelism refers to the targeted distribution of private goods, cash, or favors by or candidates to individual voters or small groups in direct exchange for their votes during elections. This practice thrives in contexts where electoral monitoring is feasible through local brokers, networks, or turnout buying, allowing patrons to condition benefits on demonstrated support despite secret ballots. Empirical studies document its prevalence in over 100 countries, particularly in , , and , where parties assess voter "swing" potential using data or surveys to allocate resources efficiently. For instance, in the 2010 Brazilian elections, parties spent an estimated 1-2% of GDP on clientelistic transfers, correlating with higher turnout among recipients but reduced programmatic focus. Non-electoral clientelism encompasses exchanges of benefits for forms of political support beyond immediate votes, such as ongoing , efforts, provision, or compliance within structures, bureaucracies, or authoritarian hierarchies. In these forms, patrons secure allegiance through repeated interactions, like public sector jobs, contracts, or protection, enforceable via ongoing oversight rather than one-time electoral verification. This variant predominates in authoritarian regimes, where elections lack competitiveness; for example, in since the 1980s, President has maintained power by distributing ministerial posts and regional favors to ethnic elites and local chiefs, forming a pyramid of "creatures" loyal to the regime for personal gains. Similarly, in historical pre-modern systems, Roman patrons exchanged legal advocacy and resources for clients' services and deference, absent formal voting. While both forms hinge on asymmetric exchanges circumventing universal rules, electoral clientelism is episodic and vote-contingent, amplifying risks from unenforceable promises due to ballot secrecy, whereas non-electoral variants foster durable hierarchies with lower rates through iterated dealings. Research highlights that electoral forms correlate with democratic via weakened —evidenced by a 10-15% drop in public goods provision in high-clientelism districts in —while non-electoral sustains authoritarian durability, as seen in prolonged rule in sub-Saharan cases where client networks deter coups. Commitment problems persist across types, but electoral heightens them, prompting innovations like pre-election gifts versus post-support rewards in non-electoral ties.

Vertical, Horizontal, and Hybrid Models

Vertical clientelism represents the hierarchical, top-down exchange typical of traditional patron-client relations, where political elites or party leaders (patrons) provide material incentives—such as , , jobs, or targeted public goods—to lower-level clients, including voters or local supporters, in return for votes or . This model relies on asymmetric power dynamics and often operates through brokers who distribute benefits, monitor recipient behavior, and enforce reciprocity to prevent . Public resources frequently fund these exchanges, with mechanisms like vote-buying or pork-barrel spending sustaining the pyramid-like structure; for instance, in from 2008 to 2012, parties engaged in documented vote-buying operations reported in 581 media instances. Horizontal clientelism, by contrast, features more symmetric exchanges among actors of comparable status, bypassing direct voter-level distribution to focus on or peer networks. It commonly involves parties trading access, contracts, or regulatory favors with private contributors, such as firms or elites, to secure financial resources for broader operations rather than individualized voter payoffs. In the Romanian case spanning 2008–2012, parties amassed millions of euros in donations from contractors who benefited from procurement deals, illustrating how this model prioritizes resource accumulation over . Alternative conceptualizations emphasize intra- trades, such as favors or funds exchanged between legislators or between legislative and executive branches, which reinforce alliances without hierarchical client dependence. Hybrid models blend elements into a bi-dimensional , enabling to leverage resource flows for funding voter-directed benefits in resource-scarce environments. This integration allows vertical —via brokers and selective goods—to pair with horizontal of private funds, reducing dependence on state budgets and adapting to weak organizational structures; Romania's practices from 2008 to 2012 exemplify this, where procurement-linked donations supported extensive vote-buying campaigns. Such hybrids enhance resilience against challenges but amplify risks, as vertical to clients intersects with horizontal pacts.

Contextual Applications

In Developing and Post-Colonial States

Clientelism thrives in developing and post-colonial states, where weak formal institutions, ethnic fragmentation, and economic vulnerability enable politicians to mobilize support through targeted material exchanges rather than ideological appeals or public goods provision. In these contexts, post-independence leaders often inherited centralized power structures from colonial eras, which facilitated the personalization of state resources into networks, perpetuating neo-patrimonial systems that prioritize loyalty over meritocratic . Empirical analyses across up to 87 countries indicate that higher clientelism correlates with reduced fiscal redistribution toward the poor, as resources are diverted to swing voters or core supporters via inefficient mechanisms like public-sector jobs. In , electoral clientelism manifests prominently through vote-buying, with politicians distributing cash, food, or goods during campaigns to secure ballots in multiparty elections. Field experiments in , for instance, demonstrate that clientelist promises influence more than policy platforms, reflecting low for programmatic alternatives amid and information asymmetries. Surveys from Afrobarometer across multiple countries reveal that up to 30-50% of respondents report receiving electoral gifts, normalizing such practices and undermining efforts, as seen in Nigeria's 2019 where parties distributed items openly. This persistence stems from ethnic mobilization, where leaders target co-ethnics or pivotal groups, fostering hybrid vertical-horizontal networks that sustain ruling coalitions despite democratic facades. Latin American post-colonial states exhibit similar patterns, rooted in colonial latifundia systems that evolved into modern democracies, as in where parties historically exchanged services for votes via unions or rural networks. Cross-regional evidence from and shows vote-buying targets vulnerable populations, with gifts buying votes at rates comparable to campaign spending in advanced economies, yet yielding suboptimal development outcomes by crowding out investments in or . In both regions, clientelism entrenches inequality, as public goods provision declines—evidenced by lower rule-of-law scores and higher in clientelist regimes—trapping economies in low-growth equilibria where politicians prioritize short-term loyalty over long-term productivity.

In Established Democracies and Advanced Economies

In established democracies and advanced economies, clientelism manifests in subtler, often programmatic forms compared to direct vote-buying in less developed systems, such as targeted fiscal transfers, pork-barrel projects, and networks that reward supportive constituencies with public resources. These practices leverage centralized budgets to secure electoral loyalty without overt coercion, though they undermine merit-based allocation and contribute to inefficiencies. Empirical analyses across countries show clientelism correlates with reduced progressive redistribution, as politicians prioritize cheaper, dependent voter blocs over broad tax-and-transfer policies. Stronger rule-of-law institutions and have diminished its prevalence since the mid-20th century, yet it endures where parties maintain organizational machines or fiscal discretion allows geographic or sectoral favoritism. In the United States, pork-barrel spending serves as a variant of clientelism, with legislators directing federal funds to district-specific projects to bolster reelection chances. The /Tunnel Project, known as the in , exemplifies this: initiated in 1991 with an initial $2.8 billion estimate, costs escalated to $14.6 billion by 2007 due to scope expansions and overruns, benefiting local contractors and voters in . Similarly, the proposed in —derided as the "Bridge to Nowhere"—received $223 million in congressional appropriations by 2005 before public backlash led to its cancellation, highlighting how such allocations target sparse populations for political gain. More recently, 2020 federal farm payments totaled $46 billion—the highest since 2005—disproportionately favoring large operations in Republican-leaning southern states, prompting scrutiny over partisan distribution rather than pure economic need. Japan's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) sustains dominance through group-based clientelism, channeling centralized and subsidies—such as to construction firms and agricultural protections—to organized supporter networks in exchange for mobilized votes. This model, rooted in post-1955 fiscal centralization, has enabled the LDP's near-monopoly on local power, with pork-barrel "pipelines" ensuring loyalty across rural and sectoral bases despite periodic scandals. Reforms under Prime Minister in the early aimed to curb such practices by decentralizing spending, yet the LDP's 2020s resurgence underscores their adaptive persistence. In , Italy's Mezzogiorno region illustrates entrenched clientelism, where post-World War II Christian Democratic governments distributed jobs and transfers to secure mass voter allegiance, fostering dependency and . By the 1970s, this "mass clientelism" model involved discretionary use of state resources, contributing to southern Italy's GDP lagging northern levels by over 30% into the . Comparable patterns in and link clientelistic hiring in bloated bureaucracies to fiscal crises, as seen in Greece's pre-2010 public wage bill exceeding 12% of GDP, sustained by party patronage.

Empirical Consequences

Political and Institutional Impacts

Clientelism distorts electoral competition by incentivizing politicians to prioritize short-term material exchanges over platforms, thereby weakening programmatic and voter . Empirical analyses across democracies show that pervasive clientelism correlates with reduced , as parties invest resources in monitoring vote compliance rather than ideological mobilization, fostering a cycle of dependency that entrenches incumbents. In contexts like and , this has led to fragmented systems where is bought rather than earned through , diminishing the role of elections as mechanisms for collective preference aggregation. Institutionally, clientelism undermines bureaucratic and merit-based administration by embedding networks within state structures, which prioritize to political bosses over competence. In Spain, for instance, political parties have bloated the public workforce through politicized hiring, weakening meritocracy and contributing to institutional inefficiency. Studies indicate that higher levels of clientelism are associated with elevated perceptions and a deteriorated , as resources are diverted from public goods to selective distribution, reducing overall efficiency. For instance, cross-national data reveal that clientelist practices contribute to lower coverage of welfare programs and , as fiscal allocations favor electoral strongholds over national needs, perpetuating inefficiency and inequality in . These dynamics also erode in democratic institutions, as citizens exposed to clientelist exchanges exhibit diminished in electoral processes despite potentially higher induced by inducements. Over time, this fosters a permissive environment for further , where weakened mechanisms allow to infiltrate judicial and regulatory bodies, compromising impartial enforcement. In developing states, such institutional decay has measurable effects, including stalled reforms and persistent , as evidenced by comparative governance indices linking clientelism intensity to poorer outcomes.

Economic and Social Effects

Clientelism distorts public by prioritizing selective, short-term transfers—such as jobs or —to political supporters over investments in public goods like and , resulting in economic inefficiency. Theoretical models demonstrate that politicians underprovide public goods to enhance the credibility of clientelistic offers, as observable voting allows for punishment via withdrawal of benefits, leading to suboptimal investment levels. Empirical from 161 countries (1900–2017) confirm that clientelistic practices reduce universal welfare program coverage by 1.78 standard deviations and elevate by 0.29–0.38 standard deviations, while weakening by 0.15–0.20 standard deviations, all of which undermine productive economic activity. Cross-country regressions further reveal that higher clientelism levels correlate with diminished fiscal redistribution, with OLS estimates showing a -0.0116 (p<0.01) and instrumental variable approaches yielding -0.0152 to -0.0281 (p<0.05 or 0.01), using expert surveys on party linkages and controls for GDP, , and inequality. This inefficiency persists particularly in low-productivity, high-inequality contexts, where clientelism traps economies by incentivizing low-wage public to maintain voter dependence; in Spain, parties' expansion of the civil service and targeted subsidies have imposed fiscal burdens, slowed economic growth, and eroded merit-based systems by creating dependent voting blocs. though historical cases like post-WWII Italy and mid-20th-century show it can coexist with temporary growth spurts before reforms erode it. Socially, clientelism reinforces dependency and particularistic networks, shifting citizen expectations from universal entitlements to personalized exchanges, which entrenches and limits . It exacerbates inequality by favoring connected groups, fostering exclusion for non-participants and eroding institutional trust, as evidenced by its persistence amid poverty traps that hinder broad societal advancement. In developing contexts, this dynamic amplifies ethnic or class divisions, with social networks channeling benefits selectively and perpetuating hierarchies over merit-based progress.

Perspectives and Debates

Dominant Criticisms and Evidence

Clientelism is widely criticized for fostering by incentivizing politicians to secure illicit funds for distributing private benefits, thereby eroding the . Empirical analyses across countries demonstrate that higher levels of political clientelism correlate with elevated perceptions and reduced , with a one standard deviation increase in clientelism associated with governance declines equivalent to the gap between and moderately corrupt states. In relational forms of clientelism, where networks of favors create , mechanisms fail as citizens become complicit in exchanges that shield officials from punishment. A core critique centers on clientelism's distortion of public goods provision, as resources are diverted from universal services to targeted handouts, leading to underinvestment in and . Cross-national from the Varieties of Democracy project indicate that clientelistic systems exhibit significantly lower public goods supply, with effects on corruption and bureaucratic quality rivaling differences between high- and low-performing democracies. In , for instance, clientelist reliance has trapped governments in labor-intensive, low-skill bureaucracies that prioritize over capacity-building, hampering long-term state effectiveness. Critics argue that clientelism undermines democratic accountability by substituting programmatic policy for personalized exchanges, turning voters into supplicants rather than citizens exercising oversight. Field experiments in confirm that clientelistic promises dominate electoral behavior, sidelining issue-based voting and perpetuating elite control. This dynamic erodes trust in institutions, as evidenced by reduced and weakened mechanisms for punishing poor performance, with pervasive clientelism linked to higher vote-buying and lower policy responsiveness in developing contexts.

Defenses, Benefits, and Adaptive Functions

Clientelism has been defended theoretically as a mechanism to overcome political commitment problems inherent in programmatic redistribution, where politicians face time-inconsistency incentives to renege on universal policies after elections. In such models, clientelistic exchanges—such as public-sector jobs offering reversible rents—provide credible, targeted transfers that tie voter welfare to the politician's ongoing success, facilitating ex post redistribution in contexts of weak institutions or high inequality. This approach prevails in low-productivity economies, where it disproportionately benefits poorer groups susceptible to material incentives, potentially enhancing efficiency over unattainable broad-based policies. Historically, clientelistic machines have served adaptive functions by filling gaps in , delivering and to marginalized populations. In early 20th-century U.S. urban areas like New York under , such systems incorporated immigrant communities through aid for essentials like funerals and naturalization support, fostering political integration and dependence amid limited bureaucratic welfare. Similarly, in , the PRI regime's clientelism via public employment and programs like PRONASOL distributed resources to sustain broad support, contributing to despite inefficiencies in formal institutions. These practices can generate benefits like localized , as patrons must deliver valued goods—such as —to secure repeated , potentially spurring provision where abstract electoral promises fail. In developing settings, clientelism adapts to low-information environments by leveraging personal networks for monitoring vote compliance, enabling politicians to prioritize the poor who respond strongly to economic rewards over diffuse programmatic appeals. Empirical patterns, including higher clientelism in unequal societies, suggest it functions as a pragmatic response to challenges, sometimes yielding integration and material gains absent alternative channels.

Mitigation Strategies and Recent Developments

Institutional Reforms and Policy Interventions

Efforts to combat clientelism through institutional reforms emphasize depoliticizing by prioritizing merit-based recruitment and promotion in bureaucracies, thereby reducing opportunities for appointments. Such reforms typically involve enacting laws that mandate competitive examinations, tenure protections, and performance-based incentives, as opposed to loyalty-driven hiring. However, empirical analyses indicate that clientelistic politicians frequently obstruct these changes to preserve access to rents from jobs, leading to incomplete implementation in many contexts. Anti-corruption institutions, including independent agencies and judicial oversight, represent another core strategy, designed to monitor and penalize the misuse of public resources for electoral handouts. In , randomized municipal audits conducted under the country's federal program from 2003 onward have demonstrably curtailed clientelistic practices; for instance, audited municipalities experienced a significant decline in politicians' distribution of private goods during campaigns and a corresponding drop in citizens' requests for such favors, with effects persisting up to two election cycles. These interventions leverage transparency mechanisms, such as public disclosure of audit findings, to deter vote-buying by increasing the perceived costs of detection and prosecution. Policy interventions often complement institutional changes by shifting resource allocation from discretionary, particularistic benefits to universal programmatic policies, thereby diminishing voters' dependence on patron-client exchanges. Providing non-excludable public goods, like resilient to environmental shocks, has proven effective in reducing susceptibility to clientelism; in Brazil's semi-arid Northeast, the rollout of over 1 million rain-fed water cisterns between 2005 and 2013 lowered drought vulnerability, resulting in a 5-10 decrease in vote shares and reduced demands for targeted favors in affected municipalities. Similarly, programs with centralized, rule-based eligibility criteria—such as Brazil's , expanded in the —limit local officials' discretion in beneficiary selection, fostering accountability through verifiable targeting metrics rather than political allegiance. Electoral policy measures, including stricter regulations and prohibitions on vote-buying, aim to equalize competition by capping expenditures on inducements. In developing contexts, these are frequently paired with voter education campaigns to promote programmatic voting over transactional exchanges, though enforcement relies on credible to overcome . Programmatic fiscal reforms, such as performance-based budgeting that ties allocations to measurable outcomes, further incentivize politicians to prioritize public goods delivery, as evidenced by reduced clientelism in municipalities adopting such systems alongside audits. Despite these approaches, success hinges on power asymmetries favoring reformers, as weak enforcement perpetuates clientelistic equilibria.

Empirical Findings from 2020-2025 Studies

A 2025 study analyzing Poland's 2023 parliamentary , based on a survey of 10,460 respondents, found that exposure to vote-buying—reported by 4.4% of adults—increased electoral turnout by 12 percentage points among affected individuals but reduced trust in by about 0.5 standard deviations, with no significant impact on broader institutional trust. Similarly, empirical analysis of local elections in , , using partial least squares on survey data from 100 voters, revealed that clientelism exerts no direct effect on democratic costs but indirectly elevates them through political (correlation of 0.664), whereas party coalitions directly mitigate such costs (negative significant relationship). Research on policy design in the ' Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program demonstrated that centralized proxy means testing and compliance verification systems limited local , achieving a beneficiary leakage rate of 35%—lower than many international benchmarks—and delisting 2% of cases for fraud by 2017, though politicians continued to claim credit, introducing potential shadow conditionalities. In , a 2025 conjoint survey experiment on voter preferences for city councilors showed that clientelistic practices generally reduce support, but offers of jobs face milder penalties and can bolster viability when paired with pro-poor programmatic redistribution, particularly among low-income respondents who exhibit greater tolerance. Cross-national from 26 countries (2013–2019), employing Arellano–Bond dynamic estimation to address endogeneity, established that a 1% rise in the Gini inequality correlates with a 1.3% increase in clientelism levels, positioning inequality as a structural catalyst that elites exploit via targeted resource distribution over public goods provision. These findings underscore clientelism's persistence amid inequality and electoral pressures, while highlighting pathways like programmatic safeguards to constrain its scope.

References

  1. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35474/chapter/303821587
  2. https://www.wider.unu.edu/project/clientelist-politics-and-economic-development-theories-perspectives-and-new-directions
  3. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jrobinson/files/clientelism.pdf
  4. https://v-dem.net/media/publications/wp_125_final.pdf
  5. https://www.princeton.edu/~lwantche/Clientelism_and_Voting_Behavior_Wantchekon
  6. https://u.osu.edu/laspoliticas/2016/10/30/clientelism-in-latin-america-case-study-of-mexico/
  7. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23589/w23589.pdf
  8. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28345/chapter/215179026
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X22001796
  10. https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/does-political-clientelism-lead-higher-corruption-and-weaker-rule-law
  11. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/05390184241268381
  12. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1334
  13. https://www.thepolicypractice.com/sites/default/files/2023-02/Clientelism.pdf
  14. https://cids.up.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ppj-16-17-hutchcroft-2017.pdf
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X24000718
  16. https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/UWP_52.pdf
  17. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~webfac/bardhan/papers/ClientelismTheoryDec2017.pdf
  18. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/099719006072335891/idu07de290e60ab7c045c20abe908b330ace78c6
  19. https://www.thepolicypractice.com/sites/default/files/2023-02/The%252520Political%252520Economy%252520of%252520Clientelism.pdf
  20. https://www.thoughtco.com/patrons-the-roman-social-structure-117908
  21. https://www.britannica.com/topic/clientship
  22. https://www.britannica.com/topic/clientelism
  23. https://oxford-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2013-1-bidnell.pdf
  24. https://www.persee.fr/doc/antiq_0770-2817_2000_num_69_1_2422
  25. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c6971/c6971.pdf
  26. https://personal.lse.ac.uk/hopkin/apsahopkin2006.pdf
  27. https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/Publications/Working-paper/PDF/wp2021-91-clientelism-and-development-poverty-trap.pdf
  28. https://kellogg.nd.edu/sites/default/files/old_files/documents/140_0.pdf
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268022000453
  30. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/4feb2357-f7d7-4c84-95b1-2c249d91292b
  31. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/role-clientelism-2024-elections
  32. https://www.eisa.org/storage/2025/08/2025-journal-of-african-elections-v24n1-clientelism-neopatrimonialism-democratisation-africa-eisa.pdf
  33. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510347.2025.2520349?src=
  34. https://www.dartmouth.edu/neudc2012/docs/paper_60.pdf
  35. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-political-science-review/article/varieties-of-clientelism-across-political-parties-new-measures-of-patronclient-relationships/6E9D206224DF9D4900D2650F7395ED66
  36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43664343
  37. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2f78/7445a5b718df56e7758cab5350dbdf430c50.pdf
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379422000555
  39. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31266/w31266.pdf
  40. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41269-020-00188-y
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385786942_Clientelism_in_a_broader_frame
  42. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-political-science-review/article/new-model-of-clientelism-political-parties-public-resources-and-private-contributors/8C048D184994705942D8A84FCB9B8F71
  43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43296571
  44. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstreams/493ab0c8-9d08-42fc-816b-7b4ac1a23859/download
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352363311_Political_Clientelism_Political_Culture_and_Development_in_Africa
  46. https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/Publications/Working-paper/PDF/wp2021-129-do-gifts-buy-votes-evidence-sub-Saharan-Africa.pdf
  47. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10611-023-10092-z
  48. https://www.afrobarometer.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/AfropaperNo106.pdf
  49. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24694452.2019.1701977
  50. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v162y2023ics0305750x22003151.html
  51. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292356470_The_demise_of_clientelism_in_affluent_capitalist_democracies
  52. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042115/what-are-some-examples-pork-barrel-politics-united-states.asp
  53. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/clientelism-another-reason-to-worry-about-us-democracy/
  54. https://scheiner.faculty.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/755/2022/08/scheiner_2005_cps.pdf
  55. https://cambridgeblog.org/2025/03/dominance-through-division-group-based-clientelism-in-japan/
  56. https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1979.tb00561.x
  57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S036381111400109X
  58. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/latin-american-research-review/article/driven-by-clients-a-variant-of-clientelism-and-its-consequences-for-democracy/2703DB9A78C616E700E18197E7F511A6
  59. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510347.2025.2485365
  60. https://sites.duke.edu/democracylinkage/files/2014/12/2.4.Singer.pdf
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X21004125
  62. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/104966/1/MPRA_paper_104966.pdf
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X2200198X
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X22003187
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X23001626
  66. https://cega.berkeley.edu/collection/who-benefits-from-clientelism/
  67. https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/blogs/why-clientelistic-politics-matter-development-prospects
  68. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Political-Parties-Clientelism-and-Bureaucratic-Reform.pdf
  69. https://www.tessabold.com/uploads/7/0/1/0/70101685/wdr17bpclientelismandservicedelivery.pdf
  70. https://academic.oup.com/ej/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ej/ueaf082/8249263
  71. https://voxdev.org/topic/institutions-political-economy/reducing-vulnerability-curbing-clientelism-case-study-brazil
  72. https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/research-paper/WP3694_Does-Combating-Corruption-Reduce-Clientelism-in-Brazil_Gertler-et-al_May2023.pdf
  73. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jmarshall/files/corett_v18.pdf
  74. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/797771489498533549
  75. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2025.1664786/full
  76. https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety/article/44/2/200/8240350
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X25002098
  78. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/13/7/205
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.