Who Trusts? Ethnicity, Integration, and Attitudes Toward Elected Officials in Urban Nigeria

• Author: Adrienne LeBas
• DOI: 10.1177/0010414020912269
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• Date: 01 September 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020912269

Comparative Political Studies

2020, Vol. 53(10-11) 1738 –1766

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0010414020912269

journals.sagepub.com/home/cps

Article

Who Trusts? Ethnicity,

Integration, and

Attitudes Toward

Elected Officials in

Urban Nigeria

Adrienne LeBas1

Abstract

In the developing world, politicians often use public office to redistribute

resources to their core constituencies. This form of clientelistic exchange

motivates ethnic voting in Africa and may also shape broader attitudes

toward the state. But does clientelism retain its power as cross-ethnic

contact increases, or might new forms of political linkage emerge? This

article uses public opinion data from urban Nigeria to investigate how social

position affects trust in elected local officials. The article finds that local

ethnic minorities are less trusting of local officials, but this trust deficit does

not diminish as cross-ethnic contact rises. For members of locally dominant

ethnic groups, however, greater cross-ethnic contact and lessened ethnic

attachment dampen expressed trust in local elected officials. The article

argues that ethnic clientelism is resilient in urban contexts but that

scholarship must take a more nuanced approach to assessing membership in

clientelistic coalitions.

Keywords

African politics, elections, public opinion, voting behavior, race, ethnicity and

politics, trust, social capital, subnational politics

1American University, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Adrienne LeBas, Department of Government, School of Public Affairs, American University,

4400 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016, USA.

Email: lebas@american.edu

912269CPSXXX10.1177/0010414020912269Comparative Political StudiesLeBas

research-article2020

LeBas 1739

Introduction

In the developing world, group-based inequalities are often created and

institutionalized through political strategies that give some groups greater

access to public goods and to elected office. To understand citizens’ political

attitudes, political scientists have tended to prioritize ethnicity or other

ascriptive differences in explaining access to benefits and to power. There is

good reason for this focus. Across the developing world, public goods distri-

bution often benefits groups that hold the presidency or are part of national

ruling coalitions (Burgess et al., 2015; Franck & Rainer, 2012). Categorical

distinctions—such as ethnicity—often provide the basis for political mobili-

zation and voting (Chandra, 2007; Ferree, 2011; Horowitz, 1985). Elections

reinforce relationships between citizens and government officials that are

based on clientelistic exchange, especially where voters are poor (Stokes

et al., 2013; Van de Walle, 2003; Wantchekon, 2003; Weitz-Shapiro, 2012).

In Africa, election campaigns may even heighten the salience of ethnic iden-

tities, as suggested by higher rates of ethnic identification during election

periods across a number of countries (Eifert et al., 2010).

When it comes to explaining how individual citizens navigate ethnic cli-

entelism, the political science literature has largely focused on ethnic voting.

The mechanism underlying voter support for coethnics is one of expected

benefit and, to a lesser extent, limited information. Thus, voters support coe-

thnic candidates because they expect these individuals are more likely to

favor their own communities in the distribution of benefits and access to

government (Bates, 1983; Chandra, 2007; Posner, 2005). Other information,

notably cues about positive or negative performance when in office, may

mediate—but rarely removes—this effect (Carlson, 2015; Conroy-Krutz,

2013). Despite a large amount of scholarly attention to these dynamics, exist-

ing literature has not adequately examined two important questions. First, to

what extent do state-citizen linkages built on clientelistic exchange affect

individuals’ broader attitudes toward the state and toward representatives? Is

clientelism trust-boosting, and, if so, for whom? Second, under what condi-

tions do ethnicity and clientelism begin to weaken their hold over individu-

als’ actions and beliefs? Does increasing urbanization result in more

“cosmopolitan” orientations toward community membership, thereby under-

mining the power of ethnic clientelism?

These questions relate to a larger debate about how identities and attitudes

toward the state shift over time. Some have argued that economic develop-

ment and state-making lead to the loosening of “primordial” ties and the reori-

entation of citizens toward more “civic” forms of engagement (Almond &

Verba, 1963; Robinson, 2014). Putnam suggests that hierarchical clientelism