Perfil sociodemográfico del intermediario político: diferencias entre hombres y mujeres

Abstract

Objective. the present work has as objective to present the differences between men and women in a sample of political brokers that obtain votes for a patron through material and/or symbolic incentives. Some sociodemographic characteristics of participation in this type of work are compared, as well as the presence of economic stability of the household, the difference in female and male participation by the type of rural or urban area, the origin of an authoritarian family, the confidence towards the boss or political boss, and trust towards the State. Method. descriptive, no experimental cross design. A sample of 49 political intermediaries or brokers was obtained, 13 women (26.5%) and 37 men (73.5%), from several municipalities of the department of Córdoba. The age of the sample ranged between 20 and 70 years (M=45.16 SD=11.60). Results. significant differences were found between men and women in the socioeconomic stratum variable (p ≤0.01), trust in the state (p≤0.05) and the level of education. No significant differences were found in the rest of the variables. Conclusions. there are few differences in the participation of men and women as political intermediaries. It is suggested that in order to decrease the activity of clientelism, a differential approach between women and men can be worked on, increasing the level of education and knowledge towards the State in women, as well as offering them job opportunities in the lower strata.

Keywords:

political broker, sexual differences, sociodemographic characteristics

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

Alcantara, M. (2015). El oficio de político. Madrid: Tecnos.

Anisman-Razin, M.; Rozen, R.; Halperin, E. y Saguy, T. (2018). Support for Leader’s Decisions in Conflict and Negotiation: Women Do Not Benefit from Relevant Expertise While Men Do. Political Psychology, 39(3), 633-648. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12434

Auyero, J., & Benzecry, C. (2016). La lógica práctica del dominio clientelista. Revista mexicana de ciencias políticas y sociales(226), 221-246.

Auyero, J. y Güneş-Ayata, A. (1997). ¿Favores por votos?: estudios sobre clientelismo político contemporáneo. Losada: Buenos Aires.

Ballera, M. y Parada, S. (2009). El empleo de las mujeres rurales. Roma: FAO-CEPAL.

Bauer, N.M. (2017). The Effects of Counterstereotypic Gender Strategies on Candidate Evaluations. Political Psychology, 38(2), 279-295. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12351

Beauregard, K. (2014). Gender, political participation and electoral systems: A cross-national analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 53(3), 617-634. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12047

Blinder, S. y Rolfe, M. (2018). Rethinking Compassion: Toward a Political Account of the Partisan Gender Gap in the United States. Political Psychology, 39(4), 889-906. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12447

Carosio, A. (2010). El trabajo de las mujeres: desigualdad, invisibilidad y explotación. Revista venezolana de estudios de mujer, 15(35), 7-13.

Castro, Y.; Carbonell, J. y Anestis, J. (2012). The influence of gender role on the prediction of antisocial behavior and somatization. The International journal of social psychiatry, 58(4), 409-416.

Chiang, M. & San Martin, N. (2015). Análisis de la satisfacción y el desempeño laboral en los funcionarios de la Municipalidad de Talcahuano. Ciencia & trabajo, 17(54), 159-165. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-24492015000300001

Coffé, H. y Bolzendahl, C. (2010). Same Game, Different Rules? Gender Differences in Political Participation. Sex Roles, 62(5-6), 318-333. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9729-

Coraggio, J. (2004). Economía del trabajo. En A. Cattani, La otra economía (págs. 151-164). Editorial Altamira.

Congreso de Colombia. (2017, Agosto 17). Mediante la cual se modifica la ley 599 de 2000 y se dictan otras disposiciones para proteger los mecanismos de participación democrática. Ley 1864 de 2017.

Dawes, T.; Loewen, J. y Fowler, H. (2011). Social Preferences and Political Participation. The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 845-856.

Delfino, G.I. y Zubieta, E.M. (2010). Participación política: concepto y modalidades. Anuario de investigaciones, 17, 211-220.

Delgadillo, G. (2010). Confianza ciudadana en el gobierno. Monterrey. [Tesis doctoral inédita]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León.

Deth, J.W. van. (2016). Political Participation. En: The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication (pp. 1-12). American Cancer Society. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc171

Driskell, R.; Embry, E. y Lyon, L. (2008). Faith and Politics: The Influence of Religious Beliefs on Political Participation. Social Science Quarterly, 89(2), 294-314. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00533.x

Fernandez, A. (2008). Las mujeres en la política latinoamericana. Nueva sociedad, 218.

Garcés, C.R.; Soto, M.; Andrea, J.; Garcés, C.R.; Soto, M. y Andrea, J. (2017). La contribución económica de la mujer en los hogares chilenos. Convergencia, 24(74), 209-230.

Girardi, C.I. y Velasco y Lambe, J. (2006). Padres autoritarios y democráticos y características de personalidad de estudiantes de licenciatura y posgrado. Revista Intercontinental de Psicología y Educación, 8(1). Recuperado de: http://www.redalyc.org/resumen.oa?id=80280103

Hernández, B. (2009). Women’s Movement, Latin America. En: The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest (pp. 1-7). American Cancer Society. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp1593

Hicken, A. (2011). Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science, 14(1), 289-310. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.031908.220508

Holland, A.C. y Palmer-Rubin, B. (2015). Beyond the Machine: Clientelist Brokers and Interest Organizations in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015574883

Kam, D. (2012). Risk Attitudes and Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 817-836.

Larreguy, H.; Marshall, J. y Querubín, P. (2016). Parties, Brokers, and Voter Mobilization: How Turnout Buying Depends Upon the Party’s Capacity to Monitor Brokers. American Political Science Review, 110(1), 160-179. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055415000593

Larreguy, H.; Olea, C.E.M. y Querubin, P. (2017). Political Brokers: Partisans or Agents? Evidence from the Mexican Teachers’ Union. American Journal of Political Science, 61(4), 877-891. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12322

Littlefield, M. y Mc Lane-Davidson, D. (2015). Global gender inequality. En: Encyclopedia of social work. National Association of Social Workers y Oxford Unversity Press USA.

Llamas, R. y Felipe, A. (2017). Intermediarios del voto: estudio exploratorio sobre la importancia de estos actores en las redes clientelistas en la ciudad de Cartagena. Recuperado de: http://repository.javeriana.edu.co/handle/10554/21877

Madero, M. (2010). Casas políticas y redes clientelares en Cartagena. Tesis de maestría. Bogotá D.C.: Facultad de economía, universidad nacional de Colombia.

Ocampo, G. (2014). Poderes regionales, clientelismo y estado. Bogotá: Odecofi-Cinep.

Ondercin, H.L. y Jones-White, D. (2011). Gender Jeopardy: What is the Impact of Gender Differences in Political Knowledge on Political Participation?. Social Science Quarterly, 92(3), 675-694. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00787.x

Ortiz, C.; Cárdenas, R. y López, Z. (2014). Elementos teóricos de los clientelismos. Memorias, 12(1), 73-89.

Quintelier, E.; Stolle, D. y Harell, A. (2012). Politics in Peer Groups: Exploring the Causal Relationship between Network Diversity and Political Participation. Political Research Quarterly, 65(4), 868-881.

Ross, K. (2017). Women and Politics. En: Gender, Politics, News (pp. 11-30). Wiley-Blackwell. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118561652.ch2

Rueda, M.R. (2017). Small Aggregates, Big Manipulation: Vote Buying Enforcement and Collective Monitoring. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 163-177. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12260

Sanchez, M. y Gamboa, R. (2013). La vinculación entre educación y género. Actualidades investigativas en educación, 1-16.

Schneider, M.C.; Holman, M.R.; Diekman, A.B. y McAndrew, T. (2016). Power, Conflict, and Community: How Gendered Views of Political Power Influence Women’s Political Ambition. Political Psychology, 37(4), 515-531. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12268

Singh, S.P. y Dunn, K. (2015). Authoritarianism, socioethnic diversity and political participation across countries. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 563-581. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12096

Stokes, S.C.; Dunning, T. y Nazareno, M. (2013). Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.

Wolf, E. (2001). Kinship, Friendship, and Patron-Client Relations in Complex Societies. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520223332.003.0013

Zúñiga Herazo, L. y Valencia López, H. (2016). Ciudadanía y democracia en Cartagena: entre la exclusión social y el clientelismo político. Reflexión Política, 18(36). Recuperado de http://www.redalyc.org/resumen.oa?id=11049415011