Explain how the system works

Stokes, S. C., Dunning, T., Nazareno, M. i Brusco, V. (2013), Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism, Cambridge University Press.

Contribution to this answer

Stokes and co-authors show why a “relationship” can become practically rational even for people who don’t consider such a system good: local intermediaries control information and access to specific jobs, services and benefits, so a direct relationship with them may be a safer path to something that should be formally obtained under general rules.

review more research

Hicken, A. (2011), „Clientelism“, Annual Review of Political Science 14: 289–310.

Contribution to this answer

Hicken shows that clientelism is not simply “people love relationships”, but a relationship in which the concrete benefit is conditioned by political support. When resources are really shared in this way, using a personal political connection can be an answer to the rules of the system even when people privately want a more impartial system.

critical review of more research

Hicken, A. i Nathan, N. L. (2020), „Clientelism’s Red Herrings: Dead Ends and New Directions in the Study of Nonprogrammatic Politics“, Annual Review of Political Science 23: 277–294.

Contribution to this answer

Hicken and Nathan show that such relationships can survive even when a politician cannot reliably check how someone voted. This means that relationships do not have to function only through a direct threat: a personal relationship, expectation of reciprocity, and a repeat of the exchange can be enough for the system to survive.

Study of Serbia

Petrović, V. (2026), „Under Pressure: The Politics of Clientelism and Coercion in Serbia“, Democratization.

Petrović, V. (2026), “Under Pressure: The Politics of Clientelism and Coercion in Serbia”, Democratization.

Contribution to this answer

Petrovic shows how in Serbia clientelistic benefits can be intertwined with pressure: if access to a job or other resource depends on the political network, one can use the “relationship” not because he believes it is good, but because he estimates that without it there is less chance or greater risk.

review more research

Miller, D. T. (2023), „A Century of Pluralistic Ignorance: What We Have Learned About Its Origins, Forms, and Consequences“, Frontiers in Social Psychology 1.

Contribution to this answer

Miller gives the second part of the explanation: people often systematically misjudge what others privately think. If everyone sees that others use connections, they can conclude that everyone else accepts them and continue to use them even though most privately would prefer the system to function differently.