4.2 Article

Working for the Machine: Patronage Jobs and Political Services in Argentina

Journal

COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Volume 53, Issue 3, Pages 381-+

Publisher

SHERIDAN PRESS
DOI: 10.5129/001041521X15974977783469

Keywords

Argentina; clientelism; patronage; political services; public administration; public employment

Funding

  1. Columbia University's Institute of Latin American Studies
  2. Columbia University's Center for International Business Education and Research
  3. Columbia University's Center for the Study of Development Strategies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conventional wisdom suggests that patronage jobs are given to supporters in exchange for political services, but in reality, public employees engage in political activities because their jobs are tied to the political survival of their patrons, which gives them the incentive to help the incumbent. This study, conducted with 1,200 Argentine public employees, shows that patronage employees are actively involved in politics and believe that their jobs are linked to the success of the incumbent.
Conventional wisdom posits that patronage jobs are distributed to supporters in exchange for political services. But why would public employees comply with the agreement and provide political services after receiving the job? Departing from existing explanations, I argue that patronage employees engage in political activities because their jobs are tied to their patrons' political survival. Supporters' jobs will be maintained by the incumbent, but not by the opposition. Supporters, then, have incentives to help the incumbent, which makes their original commitment to provide political services a credible one. Using survey experiments embedded in a survey of 1,200 Argentine public employees, I show that patronage employees are involved in political activities and that they believe their jobs are tied to the political success of the incumbent.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available