The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Parties, Brokers, and Voter Mobilization: How Turnout Buying Depends Upon the Party’s Capacity to Monitor Brokers
Abstract
Despite its prevalence, little is known about when parties buy turnout. We emphasize the problem of parties monitoring local brokers with incentives to shirk. Our model suggests that parties extract greater turnout buying effort from their brokers where they can better monitor broker performance and where favorable voters would not otherwise turn out. Exploiting exogenous variation in the number of polling stations—and thus electoral information about broker performance—in Mexican electoral precincts, we find that greater monitoring capacity increases turnout and votes for the National Action Party (PAN) and the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). Consistent with our theoretical predictions, the effect of monitoring capacity on PRI votes varies nonlinearly with the distance of voters to the polling station: it first increases because rural voters—facing larger costs of voting—generally favor the PRI, before declining as the cost of incentivizing brokers increases. This nonlinearity is not present for the PAN, who stand to gain less from mobilizing rural voters.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Holmstrom, B. (1982) · The Bell Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/3003457 · Cited by 4,903
Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice
Imbens, G. W., & Lemieux, T. (2008) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.001 · Cited by 3,694
Manipulation of the Running Variable in the Regression Discontinuity Design: A Density Test,
McCrary, J. (2008) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.005 · Cited by 3,600
Balanced-budget redistribution as the outcome of political competition
Lindbeck, A., & Weibull, J. W. (1987) · Public Choice · doi:10.1007/bf00116710 · Cited by 1,611
Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina
STOKES, S. C. (2005) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055405051683 · Cited by 1,586
Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico
Magaloni, B. (2006) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511510274 · Cited by 1,554
Electoral Politics as a Redistributive Game
Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (1986) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.2307/2131098 · Cited by 1,274
Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics
Stokes, S. C., Dunning, T., Nazareno, M., & Brusco, V. (2013) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107324909 · Cited by 1,241
Voting for autocracy: hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-4695 · Cited by 1,155
Patrons, Clients and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition
(2007) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511585869 · Cited by 1,068
Metadata
- Authors
- LARREGUY, H., MARSHALL, J., & QUERUBÍN, P.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2016-02
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 160-179
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2319868242
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 50
- FWCI
- 193.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Parties, Brokers, and Voter Mobilization: How Turnout Buying Depends Upon the Party’s Capacity to Monitor Brokers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0003055415000593
- The paper
- LARREGUY, H., MARSHALL, J., & QUERUBÍN, P. (2016). Parties, Brokers, and Voter Mobilization: How Turnout Buying Depends Upon the Party’s Capacity to Monitor Brokers. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055415000593
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.