(iPoster) Coca Politics: Tough-on-Crime Policies in Colombia

• In Event: Poster Session: Crime, Violence, Institutions in Comparative Politics

Abstract

Abstract
Governments across the Global South often rely on tough-on-crime policies to combat cartels. Advocates see these measures as crucial for controlling drugs, while critics highlight their harmful impacts and limited success. How do the consequences of such policies influence electoral accountability and public support? This paper examines Colombia’s aerial coca eradication program, a central strategy for reducing cocaine production. Using data from three presidential elections and a difference-in-difference approach, I find that aerial spraying reduces the vote share for pro-policy incumbents. Over time, municipalities facing sustained eradication vote more strongly against these incumbents, indicating that the long-term effects of tough drug policies drive electoral accountability. A nationally representative survey further reveals that support for aerial eradication is ideological, but greater awareness of its consequences reduces support. This study sheds light on the effects of tough-on-crime policies in the Global South, offering insights for security policy and comparative politics.

Introduction
More than 50 years after the “War on Drugs” declaration, governments across the Global South continue to rely on forced eradication as the central policy against illegal drug crops. Despite the consistent use of this policy in Latin America, North Africa, East Asia, and the Middle East, there has been no significant reduction in the proliferation of illegal drugs. Instead, this policy has had significant negative effects on social, environmental, and health outcomes, while diminishing trust in public institutions. A 1% increase in aerial eradication leads to a 4 percentage point rise in poverty rates, a 0.8 percentage point increase in school dropout rates, a 1 percentage point rise in infant mortality rates, and a 4 percentage point increase in homicide rates, while paradoxically causing a 1% expansion in the area cultivated with coca crops.

Forced eradication is one of the main examples of harsh policies incumbents have implemented to fight against cartels within their borders. Like other “tough-on-crime” policies, advocates argue these strategies are necessary to reduce crime and improve citizens’ perceptions of safety. Opponents counter that such approaches undermine human rights and foster illiberal and anti-democratic attitudes. Despite the prevalence and negative consequences of “tough-on-crime” policies across the Global South, there is limited empirical evidence on their long-term political effects.

How does exposure to the consequences of tough-on-crime policies shape electoral accountability and public opinion? This paper addresses this question by examining the electoral impact of aerial eradication in Colombia. Using the case of Uribismo—Colombia’s principal electoral force and the most prominent advocate of “tough-on-crime” policies—I find that presidential candidates who rely on tough-on-drug strategies (i.e., aerial spraying) face negative electoral consequences in zones where eradication has occurred. Likewise, municipalities exposed to sustained aerial spraying over time tend to vote more strongly against these incumbents in subsequent elections, suggesting that the enduring social effects of forced eradication influence voter preferences. I test this mechanism by showing that, regardless of political views, awareness of the negative consequences of forced eradication policies is associated with reduced public support for such measures.

To do so, I estimate the causal effect of coca eradication on presidential vote share and conduct a nationally representative survey. Specifically, I focus on the vote share for Uribismo presidential campaigns in 2002, 2006, and 2010, during which these candidates secured the presidency, and analyze the impact of aerial spraying by leveraging comprehensive municipal-level data on eradication efforts. To identify causal effects, I employ several variations of difference-in-differences (DiD) designs, including a staggered DiD, a cohort-weighted DiD, and DiD with multiple time periods. These methods allow for robust estimation by accounting for variations in treatment timing, addressing anticipation effects, and isolating policy impacts in a dynamic context.

Additionally, I conducted a nationally representative survey of 2,449 Colombian voters in 2023 to test the mechanism by which negative consequences of tough-on-crime policies influence support for these policies. Participants were presented with information about the health risks and community disagreements associated with aerial spraying, followed by questions about their perceptions of the policy. To measure engagement with this information, the survey recorded the time respondents spent interacting with questions about eradication policy consequences. The findings suggest that while right-wing voters are more likely to endorse aerial eradication, increased engagement with policy details is associated with a decline in support for the policy across the ideological spectrum.

Author

• Juan David Gelvez, University of Maryland, College Park