How Victimization Status Increases Government Responsiveness

In the APSA Public Scholarship Program, graduate students in political science produce summaries of new research in the American Political Science Review. This piece, written by Angie Torres-Beltran, covers the new article by Joan Barceló, New York University Abu Dhabi, and Mauricio Vela Barón, Misión de Observación Electoral, “Political Responsiveness to Conflict Victims: Evidence from a Countrywide Audit Experiment in Colombia”.

In post-conflict societies, despite an economic, political, and social disadvantage, victims of armed conflict are willing to participate in political processes and make demands to their government. However, much less is known about how politicians respond to victims’ requests. In a new article published in the American Political Science Review, authors Joan Barceló and Mauricio Vela Barón demonstrate that local elected officials are more likely to respond to requests for help from victims and that their responsiveness varies based on ideology and identity. Their research highlights the complex dynamics of political representation in post-conflict societies with legacies of violence.

Although elected officials are expected to equally respond to all of their citizens, conflict victims are distinct from other underrepresented groups in society. Indeed, especially in post-conflict countries, government officials may feel responsible for preventing and responding to violence and violence-afflicted citizens. However, political actors may not perceive all victims the same. Barceló and Vela Barón understand politicians’ responsiveness to victims to vary by the ideological leaning of the elected officials and the identity of the perpetrator of violence.

To test their theory, Barceló and Vela Barón conduct a nationwide field experiment on local officials in Colombia. The authors sent emails asking for help and varied whether the person who wrote it was a conflict victim or an ordinary citizen. Among those that received emails from victims, the authors randomly varied the identity of the perpetrator, i.e., whether the violence came from left-oriented or right-oriented armed groups. In addition to the experiment, the authors conducted interviews with local government officials to explore why officials responded in the manner in which they did. The authors took numerous steps to ensure compliance with ethical standards.

“Overall, Barceló and Vela Barón demonstrate that local officials are more likely to respond to requests for help from victims of armed conflict.” The results suggest that elected officials were more likely to respond when the help request came from a victim of political violence. Moreover, local bureaucracies were much more friendly and helpful to conflict victims than to non-victims in their follow-up responses as well. However, when the political ideology of the mayor and the identity of the perpetrator of violence was considered, the responses from elected officials varied. For example, mayors with a left-leaning political ideology were more likely to respond to requests from individuals victimized by left-wing armed groups (FARC or ELN). The authors understand this as an effort from officials to distance themselves from violent groups with similar ideologies.

Overall, Barceló and Vela Barón demonstrate that local officials are more likely to respond to requests for help from victims of armed conflict. They further show that in post-conflict societies, elected officials respond to victims to demonstrate their commitment to peace and to separate themselves from violent groups with similar ideologies. The results highlight the importance of focusing on the responsiveness of elected officials to citizens’ needs and demands. As post-conflict countries rebuild political institutions, understanding the ways in which elected officials respond to citizens based on their ideology or victim status, is crucial to advancing our knowledge on governance in post-conflict societies.