Well deserved. Congrats!

Just as food for thought: Why not understand geography as a particular way to define a group, similar to religion, ethnicity, occupation, etc., and therefore subsume geography under the group dimension. Then add particularistic--universalistic as the third dimension.

I think this is much improved! What is noteworthy though is that even institutionalized and/or universalit distributive policy can be clientelistic. And beyond that even if there is no clientelism in universalist distribution voters' expectation alone can create electoral distortions.

I'm not sure about the dimensions themselves. Groups have extremely geographic patterns. Clientelism often involves a whole village or a whole block, or another geographic unit. And it can also be completely illegal. I disagree that Prok Barell is, in fact, the implied intersection.

Stimme überwiegend zu. Bei der Trennung von Gender und/oder Umwelt von Armutsbekämpfung (auch im engeren Sinn) bin ich kritisch. Es gibt Projekte die der Charakterisierung im Interview entsprechen; aber bei Themen wie Cooking Fuels oder FGM, hängt Armut direkt mit Ökologie oder Gender zusammen.

If voters believe that distributive policy is particularistic (even if it is not) electoral distortions (incumbency advantage) ensue. Paradoxically, this raises the incumbent's incentive to distribute programmatically.