|Title||The price of respect: The role of status and belonging in clients’ evaluations of clientelism|
|C1 Background and Explanation of Rationale||When considering the client’s point of view, most mainstream political science literature on clientelism focuses on the material aspect of the clientelistic exchange. However, literature with an ethnographic focus emphasizes the importance of non-material aspects of the exchange, such as rituals and the social messages (meaning) exchanged. One non-material aspect of clientelism that is starting to receive attention is dignity and respect (Paller 2014).This project seeks to advance the research agenda on non-material aspects of clientelism demand in general, and of dignity/ respect in particular, using a vignette experiment. We have two main objectives: 1. To estimate the monetary value of dignity in a clientelistic exchange for the potential client. 2. To understand which aspects of the clientelistic relation are associated to respect and dignity for the client. We focus on the belonging and status implications of clientelistic relations.|
|C2 What are the hypotheses to be tested?||
Our main hypothesis is that clientelistic exchanges performed in a way that signals high status (or does not signal low status) and high belonging are valued more highly that exchanges without those signals. We will consider four different types of exchanges with different combinations of status/ equality and belonging/ warmth: (warm & equal), (warm & non-equal), (non-warm & equal), and (non-warm & non-equal). Our main hypothesis is:
H1. Potential clients value more (i.e. require less material compensation to accept) clientelistic exchanges that signal more status and belonging for the client.
Whereas our theoretical framework implies that people in general value status and belonging, people differ in how important subordination and belonging are for them. This leads to interpersonal differences in the value attached to the two components of dignity. Our second set of hypotheses relate to this. We hypothesize heterogeneous effects of the different types of exchanges for people with different interpersonal dispositions: People with greater interpersonal disposition towards dominance/ status display greater differences in valuations of clientelistic exchanges that signal more vs. less status. People with greater interpersonal disposition towards belonging/ warmth display greater differences in valuations of clientelistic exchanges that signal more vs. less belonging.
|C3 How will these hypotheses be tested? *||
Respondents are asked to evaluate clientelistic exchanges that differ in the degree of status and warmth conveyed towards the client. In the vignette-experiment the respondents are confronted with a single vignette describing a vote-buying attempt. Respondent are asked to put themselves in the position of the citizen who is approached by a broker. The vignettes presented to the respondents vary in two dimensions: First, the degree of the client’s status (equal vs subordinate) and secondly, the warmth of the interaction (warm vs. non-warm) between the client and the patron/broker. There in total 2 x 2 = 4 scenarios. The main outcome variable is the price a respondent demands for her or his vote under the circumstances given in the vignette.
We test the hypotheses with standard OLS regressions of the outcome variable on indicator variables of the warmth and status of different scenarios. When relevant, we interact these indicator variables with the CSIV measures.
|C4 Country||South Africa, Tunisia|
|C5 Scale (# of Units)||600|
|C6 Was a power analysis conducted prior to data collection?||Yes|
|C7 Has this research received Insitutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee approval?||Yes|
|C8 IRB Number||18-8478-BO, Ethics Commission, University Duisburg-Essen|
|C9 Date of IRB Approval||12/13/2018|
|C10 Will the intervention be implemented by the researcher or a third party?||Ikapadata in South Africa, ELKA in Tunisia|
|C11 Did any of the research team receive remuneration from the implementing agency for taking part in this research?||No|
|C12 If relevant, is there an advance agreement with the implementation group that all results can be published?||not provided by authors|
|C13 JEL Classification(s)||not provided by authors|