Is Clientelism (Only) for the Poor? Insights on Class and Clientelism from a Survey Experiment in Lebanon.
Clientelism—the exchange of goods and services for political support—is widely understood as a phenomenon targeted at and demanded by poorer constituents. In this short article, we question that assumption by exploring class differences in preferences for clientelism conditional on the type of goods...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Politics Vol. 87; no. 3; pp. 1204 - 1210 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
University of Chicago Press
Jul2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=185993374&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 185993374 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00223816 JPO jtl: Journal of Politics issn: 00223816 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jul2025 vid: 87 iid: 3 pid: 415 pub: University of Chicago Press artinfo: ui: 185993374 10.1086/732967 ppf: 1204 ppct: 6 formats: tig: atl: Is Clientelism (Only) for the Poor? Insights on Class and Clientelism from a Survey Experiment in Lebanon. aug: au: Cammett, Melani Parreira, Christiana Atallah, Sami affil: Harvard University Geneva Graduate Institute The Policy Initiative su: Lebanon Class differences Elections Voters sug: subj: Class differences Elections Lebanon Voters keyword: clientelism conjoint experiment development elections Middle East voter behavior clientelism conjoint experiment development elections Middle East voter behavior ab: Clientelism—the exchange of goods and services for political support—is widely understood as a phenomenon targeted at and demanded by poorer constituents. In this short article, we question that assumption by exploring class differences in preferences for clientelism conditional on the type of goods and services provided. We explore these intuitions through a conjoint experiment in Lebanon, where candidates in national elections make different clientelist pledges of varying value. We find that the poor and rich both disfavor lower-value clientelism, that the rich and poor react similarly toward different types of clientelism overall, and that the rich prefer higher-value clientelist pledges from copartisan candidates, whereas this distinction does not hold among poorer voters. Our findings suggest a need to reconsider previously assumed linear ties between class and clientelism and raise questions for further research about how the rich and poor engage differently with patronage-based parties in some developing country contexts. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|