Journal of Theoretical Politics

How do distributive politics affect participation under incomplete information? We theorize a novel mechanism that we call asymmetric participation, which explains participation as a self-selection process induced by a broadly targeted welfare benefit. Incomplete information about the de facto allocation of benefits causes asymmetric participation. When citizens expect particularistic distribution and access to the benefit depends on voter registration, supporters of the incumbent, who supplies the benefit, self-select into the electorate. This creates an incumbency advantage. We illustrate this argument using the case of the Renda Básica de Cidadania (RBC) in Maricá, Brazil, the largest unconditional cash transfer program in Latin America. Based on qualitative evidence, we develop a formal model, which we test against novel survey data. We find that under the de facto procedure of implementation, supporters of the incumbent supplying the RBC, self-select into the electorate, and engage more in activities that signal party loyalty.

This article presents an explanation to observed trends in redistribution and cultural and political polarization. I extend a one-dimensional voting model by taking into account that voters, in addition to having economic preferences, also care about cultural issues. Political parties diverge in the cultural dimension to be able to implement different tax rates. A higher level of pre-tax income inequality makes it more difficult to win the election by proposing a low tax rate, but the right-wing party may be able to win the election by bundling a low tax rate with a focus on cultural issues.

When can a third party manipulate the bargaining dynamics between its protégé and its adversary through diplomacy? I develop a formal model in which (1) the third party and its protégé have misaligned interests, and (2) the disputants bargain simultaneously over two issue dimensions—one capturing common interests, the other capturing misaligned interests between the allies. The results show that when the protégé and its patron have heterogeneous preferences for the disputed issues, the protégé will not necessarily use the patron’s support in the way the patron wants. Foreign support increases the protégé’s bargaining leverage, and how the protégé will use this increased leverage at the negotiating table directly affects the way the patron communicates. The existence of misaligned interests increases the credibility of the patron’s alleged support if the signal can potentially improve the protégé’s gains over both shared and misaligned interests with its patron.