How Many Clients does
it take to win and election? Estimating the Size and
Structure of Political
Networks in Argentina and Chile
Ernesto Calvo, ecalvo@uh.edu,University
of Houston; Maria Victoria Murillo,
mm2140@columbia.edu, Columbia
University
Abstract: Critical for
our understanding of clientelism is to measure the size and structure of
political networks.
That is, to measure
whether parties have a large enough supply of patrons, bureaucrats, activists,
and volunteers, which would allow party
leaders to properly invest particularistic resources among adequately
chosen voters.
In this article we take
advantage of new developments in network analysis to measurethe size of hard to
count populations and to explore network structure in survey data.
Using information
about the ideological and physical proximity of voters to political networks,
we estimate individual level vote choices in Argentina
and Chile.
Aunque Abel y Artemio comprendan el articulo,
el exceso de formuleo, genera la extrema “aridez” de los argumentos que contradicen
sus Tesis; mas centradas en los “candidatos” que las “estructuras”.
Mientras que Charly
Boyle, Andy Tow y Ayj; por distintos motivos, se
sentirán encantados con la data; en especial el paralelismo entre Chile y la
Argentina.
La dedicatoria a Rib, con todo concepto y
consideración; es una manera de remediar su fastidio por el post “5
estrellas…”; del Congreso de la Internacional Socialista.
Seria interesante que HB y el PS publicaran sobre lo tratado
en Portugal, antes de que les ganen de mano RA Jr. y la UCR; o peor, que algún
“populista nativo” termine distorsionando el “sentido”…;-P
Al fin de cuentas, en estos tiempos digitales, cada
“corresponsal” es un agujero frente a la espiral del silencio.
Tan interesante como la data son los “agradecimientos”, y la
“financiación”.
Textual
Aknowlegments: We thank Juan Manuel Abal Medina, Isabella Alcañiz,
Valeria Brusco, Ernesto Cabrera, Marcelo Escolar, Tulia Falleti, Andrew Gelman,
Edward Gibson, Jim Granato, Ricardo Gutierrez, Tim Helwig, Noah Kaplan, Chris
McCarthy, Ana Maria Mustapic, Cary Smulovitz, Susan Stokes, Mariela Szwarcberg,
and Juan Carlos Torre for their thougtfull
comments and suggestions.
We also thank Inaki
Sagarzazu, Mariana Gutierrez, and Virginia Oliveros for excellent research
assistance.
Research for this
paper was supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant # SES-0617659).
¿Que es la National Science Foundation?, hacer clic aquí,
para acceder al articulo de Wikipedia.
Timeline
pre–World War II
Academic research in
science and engineering is not considered a federal responsibility; almost all
support comes from private contributions and charitable foundations.
Governmental research into science and technology was largely uncoordinated;
military research is compartmentalized to the point where different branches
are often working on the same subject without realizing it.
World War II
There is a growing
awareness that America's
military capability owes a great deal to the nation's strength in science and
engineering. Congress considers several proposals to provide federal support
for research in these fields. Separately, President Franklin D. Roosevelt
sponsors the creation of several organizations to coordinate federal funding of
science for the purposes of war, including the National Defense Research
Committee and the Office of Scientific Research and Development.
1942
Senator Harley Kilgore
introduces the Science Mobilization Act (S. 1297). It does not pass.[14][15]
1945
Vannevar Bush—head of
the Office of Scientific Research and Development, intimately connected with
the Manhattan
Project, and personal acquaintance of the President—was asked by President
Roosevelt in 1944 to write a report on what should be done in the postwar to
further foster government commitment to science and technology. Bush issued his
report to President Harry S. Truman in July 1945, entitled Science—The Endless
Frontier. The report lays out a strong case for having the federal government
fund scientific research, arguing that the nation would reap rich dividends in
the form of better health care, a more vigorous economy, and a stronger
national defense. The report also proposes creating a new federal agency, the
"National Research Foundation," to administer this effort.
1945–1950
Although there is
broad agreement in Washington
with the principle of federal support for science, there is far less agreement
on exactly how that effort should be organized and managed. Thrashing out a
consensus requires five years of negotiation and compromise.[16]
1950
On May 10, President
Truman signs Public Law 507, creating the National Science Foundation. The act
provides for a National Science Board of twenty-four part-time members and a
director as chief executive officer, all appointed by the president.
1951
In early March, Truman
nominates Alan T. Waterman, the chief scientist at the Office of Naval
Research, to become the first Director of the fledgling agency. With the Korean
War underway, money is tight: the agency's initial budget is just $151,000.
1952
After moving its
administrative offices twice, NSF begins its first full year of operations with
an appropriation from Congress of just $3.5 million, a figure far less the
almost $33.5 million requested. Twenty-eight research grants are awarded.
1957
On October 5, the Soviet Union orbits Sputnik 1, the first ever man-made
satellite. The successful rocket launch forces a national self-appraisal that
questions American education, scientific, technical and industrial strength.
For 1958, Congress increases the NSF appropriation to $40 million. By 1968, the
NSF budget will stand at nearly $500 million.
1958
The NSF selects Kitt Peak,
near Tucson, Arizona, as the site of the first national
observatory, a research center that would make state-of-the-art telescopes
available to every astronomer in the nation. (Prior to this time, there was no
equal access; major research telescopes were privately funded, and were
available only to the astronomers who taught at the universities that ran
them.) Today, that idea has expanded to encompass the National Optical
Astronomy Observatory, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, the National
Solar Observatory, the Gemini Observatory and the Arecibo Observatory, all of
which are funded in whole or in part by NSF. Along the way, moreover, the NSF's
astronomy program has forged a close working relationship with that of NASA,
which was also founded in 1958: just as NASA has responsibility for the U.S. effort in space-based astronomy, the NSF
provides virtually all the U.S.
federal support for ground-based astronomy.
1959
The United States and other nations operating in Antarctica conclude a treaty that reserves the continent
for peaceful and scientific research. Shortly thereafter, a presidential
directive based on the treaty gives the NSF the responsibility for virtually
all U.S. operations and
research on the continent; the U.S.
Antarctic Program continues to this day.
1960
Emphasis on
international scientific and technological competition further accelerates NSF
growth. The foundation starts the Institutional Support Program, a capital
funding program designed to build a research infrastructure among American
universities; it will be the single largest beneficiary of NSF budget growth in
the 1960s. The NSF's appropriation is $152.7 million; 2,000 grants are made.
1968
The Deep Sea
Drilling Project begins. Over the years, the project reveals much new evidence
about the concepts of continental drift, sea floor spreading and the general
usefulness of the ocean basins. The program also becomes a model of
international cooperation as several foreign countries join the operation.
1972
The NSF takes over
management of twelve interdisciplinary materials research laboratories from the
Defense Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). These
university-based laboratories had taken a more integrated approach than did
most academic departments at the time, encouraging physicists, chemists,
engineers, and metallurgists to cross departmental boundaries and use systems
approaches to attack complex problems of materials synthesis or processing. The
NSF begins to expand these laboratories into a nationwide network of Materials
Research Science and Engineering
Centers.
1972
The NSF launched the
biennial Science & Engineering Indicators report to the President of the United States and U.S. Congress. Founded in 1968 as a
research institution in bibliometrics and patent analytics ipIQ dba The Patent
Board has provided patent indicators and science literature analysis since the
initial report in 1972.
1977
The first
"Internet" is developed. This interconnection of unrelated networks
is run by DARPA. Over the next decade, increasing NSF involvement leads to a
three-tiered system of internetworks managed by a mix of universities,
nonprofit organizations and government agencies. By the mid-1980s, primary
financial support for the growing project is assumed by the NSF.[17]
1983
The agency budget tops
$1 billion for the first time. Major increases in the nation's research budget
are proposed as the country recognizes the importance of research in science
and technology, as well as education. A separate appropriation is established
for the U.S.
Antarctic Program. The NSF receives more than 27,000 proposals and funds more
than 12,000 of them.
1985
In November, the NSF
delivers ozone sensors, along with balloons and helium, to researchers at the
South Pole so they can measure stratospheric ozone loss. The action is taken in
response to findings made in May of that year, indicating a steep drop in ozone
over a period of several years. The Internet project, now known as NSFNET,
continues.
1990
The NSF's
appropriation passes $2 billion for the first time.
1990s
NSF funds the
development of several curricula based on the NCTM standards, devised by the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. These standards are widely adopted
by school districts during the subsequent decade. However, in what newspapers
such as the Wall Street Journal later call the "math wars",
organizations such as Mathematically Correct complain that some elementary
texts based on the standards, including Mathland, have almost entirely
abandoned any instruction of traditional arithmetic in favor of cutting,
coloring, pasting, and writing. During that debate, NSF is both lauded and
criticized for favoring the standards.
1991
In March, the NSFNET
acceptable use policy is altered to allow commercial traffic. By 1995, with the
private, commercial market thriving, NSF decommissions the NSFNET, allowing for
public use of the Internet.
1993
Students and staff
working at the NSF-supported National Center for Supercomputing Applications
(NCSA) at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, develop Mosaic, the
first freely available browser to allow World Wide Web pages that include both
graphics and text. Within 18 months, NCSA Mosaic becomes the Web browser of
choice for more than a million users, and sets off an exponential growth in the
number of Web users.
1994
NSF, together with
DARPA and NASA, launches the Digital Library Initiative. One of the first six
grants goes to Stanford
University, where two graduate
students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, begin to develop a search engine that
uses the links between Web pages as a ranking method. They will later
commercialize their search engine under the name Google.
1996
NSF-funded research
establishes beyond doubt that the chemistry of the atmosphere above Antarctica is grossly abnormal and that levels of key
chlorine compounds are greatly elevated. During two months of intense work, NSF
researchers learn most of what we know today about the ozone hole.
1998
Two independent teams
of NSF-supported astronomers discover that the expansion of the universe is
actually speeding up, as if some previously unknown force, now known as dark
energy, is driving the galaxies apart at an ever increasing rate.
2000
NSF joins with other
federal agencies in the National Nanotechnology Initiative, dedicated to the
understanding and control of matter at the atomic and molecular scale. Today,
NSF's roughly $300 million annual investment in nanotechnology research is
still one of the largest in the 23-agency initiative.
2001
NSF's appropriation
passes $4 billion.
The NSF's Survey of
Public Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Science and Technology reveals
that the public has a positive attitude toward science but a poor understanding
of it.[18]
2004–5
NSF sends "rapid
response" research teams to investigate the aftermath of the Indian Ocean Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. An NSF-funded
engineering team helps uncover why the levees failed in New Orleans.
2005
NSF's budget stands at
just over $5.6 billion.
2006
NSF's budget stands at
$5.91 billion for the 2007 fiscal year that began on October 1, 2006 and runs
through September 30, 2007.
2007
NSF requests $6.43
billion dollars for FY 2008. (NSF Budgets).
2012
President Obama
requests $7.373 billion for fiscal year 2013[19]
¿Qué interés puede tener la Casa Blanca y/o el Capitolio en
“contar y ubicar” los “cuadros dirigenciales” del PS y la UDI chilenas, o
Pejotistas y Boinas Blancas argentos?
Una de las “respuestas”, la más ominosa, tiene un fuerte
tufo “prusiano”,
Inspirados en los conceptos “Poder Organizado” y “Sociedad
Civil desorganizada”, ¿Qué es una Constitución? de Lasalle; en el Reich se
desarrollaron varias líneas de investigación; de las cuales voy a citar dos
autores, muy influyentes en nuestros pagos.
Leon
Gambetta und seine Armee. Berlin, 1877; y “El Pueblo en Armas”
o Das Volk in Waffen, ein Buch über Heerwesen und Kriegführung unserer Zeit. Berlin, 1883; de Wilhelm
Leopold Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz.
Como Teórico Militar sobre la “Ocupación extranjera” y la “Resistencia
popular”, en la Gran Guerra de 1914 fue “destinado” como “Gobernador Militar”
de Bélgica, hasta que renuncio por diferencias con las Directivas Político
Militares; hacer
clic aquí.
Enviado al Imperio Turco, colaboro con Ataturk en la Batalla
de Gallipoli; y más tarde se traslado a Bagdad, para montar una Ofensiva
Político Militar hacia Persia, Afganistán, el Turquestán ruso y el Indostán
británico.
Contra cara teutona del “Panarabismo” de TE Lawrence y la
“Proclamación de Bagdad”; “…our armies do not come into your cities
and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators…”
El Objetivo era lanzar una Jihad Panislámica, para “liberar”
a los musulmanes del yugo del Zar y el Raj británico; hacer clic aquí.
Para su papel en el Genocidio Armenio, hacer
clic aquí.
En 1962, dos conferencias de un Católico Nacionalista
Alemán, para Católicos Nacionalistas Españoles; se condensan en “Teoría
del Guerrillero, Observaciones al Concepto de lo Político”, de 1963; hacer
clic aquí.
Carl Schmitt reactualiza, para la segunda mitad del siglo
XX, la bipolaridad Ocupación militar-Resistencia popular, con una erudición y
crudeza digna de Goya y Los Desastres de la Guerra.
La Revolución Francesa en España, Rusia y Prusia; el IIº
Reich en la Francia de los “francotiradores” de Gambetta y el Blanquismo de
barricada de la Comuna; el IIIº Reich de Maquis y Partisanos en la Europa
Ocupada; se termina trasladando a los “territorios” Coloniales y Neocoloniales.
A tal punto que, en los últimos 30 años, Afganistán se ha
convertido en “la Hemorragia Española” del Pacto de Varsovia y la OTAN.
¿Cómo puede una Ocupación militar superar la Resistencia
popular del Guerrillero-Maquis-Partisano?
Frente a la Irregularidad, el Telurismo, la Extrema
movilidad y el Intenso compromiso político; solo queda “Identificar”, “Ubicar”
y “Neutralizar” (Simbólica o Literalmente) a quienes son los “articuladores” de
las Redes de Resiliencia; para el Ocupante no hay “diferencia” entre Tito y
Gandhi, el Sinn Féin/IRA y Solidarność.
Dialogar, Reconocer, Negociar; son en si mismos el
reconocimiento de la “Derrota”, la Obliteración de la Propia Razón, como Verdad
Excluyente.
Mientras que, para la Resistencia popular, alcanza y sobra
con la “Negación de la Victoria”; el “Desgaste” de la “Estrategia del Agua”,
ver “The
Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara”.
La IV Flota, para no volver a meterse en un pantanal de
40.000.000, en el caso de Argentina; debe “reducir” a términos mas “manejables”
la Cuestión, el 1% como máximo.
El conglomerado Leadership, o sea la Dirigencia encuadrada,
en Chile y la Argentina:
The most interesting
result displayed in Tables 2 and 3 is that whereas political parties in Chile have relatively similar numbers of
political activists, in Argentina
there are very significant difference between the size of the Peronist networks
(reflecting its operational capacity)
and that of the other parties.
In effect, the number
of Peronists activists in Argentina is
two thirds larger than its closest follower, the Radicals.
While 0.766% of the
population is loosely recognized as an activist from the Peronism, only 0.42%
is recognized as an activist of the UCR.
The PRO, ARI and other
provincial parties together make up only 0.2% of the population.
All political activists
in Argentina add up to 1.4%
of the population while in Chile the most
important political parties combine for 1.2%.
However, in contrast
to the very dramatic differences in the share of activists held by each Argentine political party, the Chilean
political parties have relatively equal shares of activists, with the Socialist
Party concentrating 0.356%, closely followed
by the Christian Democrats with 0.299%, the PPD with 0.2%, the UDI with 0.199,
and the smaller RN with 0.147%.
More dramatic
differences are apparent when reporting the total numbers of activists in Table
3, to some extent because Argentina
has more than twice the population of Chile.
The estimated Peronist
core of 290,930 activists is almost six times larger than the 53,880 activists
of the Chilean Socialist Party.
It is important to
note, however, that Argentina’s federal constitution provides for a
considerably larger number of elective posts, including not only seats distributed
in multiple municipal, provincial, and federal elections but also a large
number of candidates running in the primaries for each party in those different
categories.
Considering that the
political crisis of 2001 practically halved the UCR vote, it is remarkable that
the size of the UCR network of activists is larger than that of any party in Chile even when
controlling for the differences in population.
La IV Flota, para no volver a meterse en un pantanal de
40.000.000, en el caso de Argentina; debe “reducir” a términos mas “manejables”
la Cuestión, el 1% como máximo.
Ahora bien, los 290,930 P, al igual que su contra parte Pan
Republicana; ni son los 3.000.000 largos de “afiliados”, masa de activistas
part time; ni el 40% a 60% del electorado que “acompaña” alguna vertiente “autodefinida”
como peronista.
En fin, se esta haciendo demasiado largo, corto aquí, con la
lista de la bibliografía del paper.
References
Auyero, Javier.
2001. Poor People’s Politics: Peronist
Survival Networks and the Legacy of Evita. Durham; Duke University Press.
Brusco, Valeria, Marcelo Nazareno and Susan Stokes. 2004. “Vote Buying in Argentina,”
Latin American Research Review 39/2, 66-87.
Cabrera, Ernesto.
1998. “The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws in Argentina,” PhD Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Calvo, Ernesto and
María Victoria Murillo. 2004. “Who Delivers? Partisan Clients in the Argentine
Electoral Market”. American Journal
of Political Science, Vol. 48, No. 4, October:
742-757.
Calvo, Ernesto and María Victoria Murillo. 2005. “A New Law of Argentine Politics.” In
Steven Levitsky and Maria Victoria Murillo (eds) Argentine Democracy: the Politics of Institutional
Weakness (Pennsylvania
State University
Press.
Carey, John. 2002.
“Parties, Coalitions, and the Chilean Congreso in the 1990s” In S. Morgenstern
& B. Nacif. Legislative Politics in Latin America.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cavarozzi, Marcelo. 2006. Autoritarismo y democracia (1995-2006). Buenos Aires: Ariel.
Chalmers, Douglas.
1977. “The Politicized State in Latin America”
in James Malloy (ed). Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America (Pittsburgh:
Pittsburgh University Press).
Conniff, Michael (ed).
1999. Populism in Latin America. University of Alabama Press.
Cox, Gary and Matthew
McCubbins. 1986. Electoral Politics as a Redistributive Game. Journal of
Politics, Vol.48, Issue 2, May: 370-389.
Dixit, Avinash, and
John Londregan. 1996. “The determinants of success of Special Interests in Redistributive
Politics,” Journal of Politics 58 (November): 1132-55.
Foewaker, Joe, Todd
Landman and Neil Harvey. 2003. Governing Latin America.
Cambridge: Polity.
Gibson, Edward and
Ernesto Calvo. 2000. Federalism and Low-Maintenance Constituencies: Territorial Dimensions of Economic Reform in Argentina. Studies
in Comparative International Development, Vol 35. N°3. Fall: 32-55.
Gibson, Edward L.
1997. The Populist Road
to Market Reform: Policy and Electoral Coalitions in Mexico
and Argentina.
World Politics, 49, April: 339-370.
Jones, Mark. 1997.
“Evaluating Argentina’s
Presidential Democracy: 1983-1995”
in Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Shugart (eds). Presidentialism and Democracy in
Latin
America. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Kitschelt, Herbert and
Steven Wilkinson (eds). 2007. Patrons, Clients, and Policies. Pattenrs of Democratic
Accountability and Political Competition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Levitsky, Steven. 2003. Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America: Argentine Peronism in Comparative
Perspective. Cambridge
University Press.
Levitsky, Steven and
Maria Victoria Murillo. 2005. “Building Castles in the Sand? The Politics of
Institutional Weakness in Argentina”
in Steven Levitsky and Maria Victoria Murillo (eds.) Argentine Democracy. The
Politics of Institutional Weakness, University Park:
The Pennsylvania State University
Press.
Luna, Juan Pablo. 2006.
“Programmatic and non-programmatic
party-voter linkages in two institutionalized party systems: Chile and Uruguay
in comparative perspective”, PhD Dissertation, Department of Political Science,
University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Magaloni, Beatriz, Alberto Diaz-Cayeros, and Federico Estevez. 2007. “Clientelism and portfolio
diversification: a model of electoral investment with applications to Mexico” in Herbert
Kitschelt and Steven Wilkinson (eds.) Patrons, Clients and Policies. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mainwaring, Scott and
Timothy Scully (eds.) 1995. Building
Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America.
Stanford University Press.
McCarty, C.,
Killworth, P.D, Bernard, H.R., Johnsen, E.C., and Shelley, G.A. (2001). Comparing
two methods for estimating network size. Human Organization 60, 28-39.
Roberts, Kenneth.
1995. “Neoliberalism and the Transformation of Populism in Latin America.” World Politics 48, no. 1: 82-116.
Roberts, Kenneth
and Erik Wibbels. 1999. “Party Systems
and Electoral Volatility in Latin America,” American Political Science Review 93,
575-90
Robinson, James and
Thierry Verdier. 2002. The Political Economy of Clientelism. Working Paper
3205, Public Policy. Centre for Economic Policy Research. UK.
Rock, David. Argentina
1516-1982. From Spanish Colonization to the Falklands
War. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Schaffer, Frederic C.
(ed) 2007. Elections for Sale. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Stokes, Susan. 2007.”Political
Clientelism” in Carles Boix and Susan Stokes (eds.) Handbook of Comparative
Politics. Oxford University Press.
Stokes, Susan and Luis
Medina. 2007. “Monopoly and Monitoring:
An Approach to Political Clientelism” in Herbert Kistchelt and Steve Wilkinson
(eds) Citizen-Party Linkages in Democratic Politics, Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
Stokes, Susan. 2001.
Mandates and Democracy, Cambridge
University Press.
Stokes, Susan. 2005.
“Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model
of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina,” American Polticial
Science Review, 99/3, 315-325.
Tian Zheng, Matthew
Salganik, and Andrew Gelman, 2006, "How many people do you know in prison?:
using overdispersion in count data to
estimate social structure in networks", Journal of the American
Statistical Association, Vol.101, N0. 474: p.409-23
Torre, Juan Carlos.
2005. “Citizens Versus Political Class: The Crisis of Partisan Representation”
in in Steven Levitsky and Maria Victoria Murillo (eds.) Argentine Democracy.
The Politics of Institutional Weakness, University Park:
The Pennsylvania
State University Press.
