Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 60, Issue 5, pp 535–548 | Cite as

Corruption and turnout in Portugal—a municipal level study

  • Daniel Stockemer
  • Patricia CalcaEmail author


This article ventures to be one of the first studies that examines the relationship between corruption and electoral turnout on the sub-national level. Taking Portugal, a southern European country with nationally relatively high levels of corruption and relatively low levels of turnout, as a case, we examine the relationship between the two concepts across Portugal’s 304 out of 308 municipalities for the legislative elections in 2005 and 2009. Controlling for municipal level GDP per capita, unemployment, the percentage of senior citizens, and population density, as well as the closeness of the election and the district magnitude, we find corruption to be a rather strong mobilizing agent. Compared to “clean” municipalities, our results indicate that turnout is several percentage points higher in “very corrupt” municipalities.


Senior Citizen Municipal Level High Turnout Southern European Country Political Corruption 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Anderson, C. J., & Tverdova, Y. V. (2003). Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barkan, S. E. (2004). Explaining public support for the environmental movement: A civic voluntarism model. Social Science Quarterly, 85(4), 913–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bratton, M., Mattes, R., & Gyiman-Boadi, E. (2005). Public opinion, democracy, and market reform in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burns, N., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (2001). The private roots of public action: Gender, equality, and political participation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campbell, J. (2000). The American campaign: US presidential campaigns and the national vote. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cokgezen, M. (2004). Corruption in Kyrgyzstan: The facts, causes and consequences. Central Asia Survey, 23(1), 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    DCIAP-PGR/CIES-ISCTE. (2009). A Corrupção Participada em Portugal, 2004–2008: Resultados de uma Pesquisa em Curso. Final Report, 2009.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    DCIAP-PGR/CIES-ISCTE. (2009). A Corrupcão Participada em Portugal, 2004–2008: Resultados de uma Pesquisa em Curso. Data-Base, 2009.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Sousa, L. (2001). Political parties and corruption in Portugal. West European Politics, 24(1), 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Sousa, L. (2002). Hard responses to corruption: penal standards and the repression of corruption in Britain, France and Portugal. Crime, Law & Social Change, 38, 267–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Sousa, L. (2004). The regulation of political financing in Portugal. West European Politics, 27(1), 124–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dharmapala, D., & Hines, J. R., Jr. (2009). Which countries become tax havens? Journal of Public Economics, 93, 1058–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fauvelle-Aymar, C., & François, A. (2006). The impact of closeness on turnout: an empirical relation based on a study of a two-round ballot. Public Choice, 127, 469–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fishman, R., & Svensson, J. (2007). Are corruption and taxation really harmful to growth? Firm level evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 83(1), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flanagan, C. A. (2003). Developmental roots of political engagement. PS: Political Science and Politics, 36(2), 257–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Franklin, M. (2004). Voter turnout and the dynamics of electoral competition in established democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goerres, A. (2007). Why are older people more likely to vote? The impact of ageing on electoral turnout in Europe. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9(1), 90–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hellman, J.S., Jones, G., Kaufmann, D. (2000). Seize the state, seize the day. State capture, corruption and influence in transition. World Bank Policy Research Paper 2444.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrialized societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Inman, K., & Andrews J. (2010). Political participation in Africa: Evidence from survey and experimental research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL, April 22–25, 2010.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU). (2012). Parline database on national parliaments. From Accessed 23 May.
  23. 23.
    Internal Affairs Ministry of Portugal—Direccao Geral da Administracao Interna. (2013). Eleicoes Legislativas de 27 Setembro de 2009—Resultados Globais. From Accessed 6 Feb
  24. 24.
    Internal Affairs Ministry of Portugal—Direccao Gerald da Aministracao Interna. (2013). Eleicoes Legislativas de 20 de Fevereiro de 2005—Resultados Globais. From Accessed 6 Feb.
  25. 25.
    Johnston, M. (1983). Corruption and political culture in America. Publius, 13(1), 19–39.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jones, B., Kacanagh, D., Moran, M., & Norton, P. (2006). Politics UK (6th ed.). UK: Longman.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karahan Gokhan, R., Coats, M., & Shugart, W. F., II. (2006). Corrupt political jurisdictions and voter participation. Public Choice, 126(1), 87–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kostadinova, T. (2003). Voter turnout dynamics in post-communist Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 42(6), 741–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kostadinova, T. (2009). Abstain or rebel: Corruption perceptions and voting in east European elections. Politics and Policy, 37(4), 691–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ladner, A., & Milner, H. (1999). Do voters turn out more under proportional than majoritarian systems? The evidence from Swiss communal elections. Electoral Studies, 18(2), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lipset, S. M., & Lenz, G. S. (2002). Corruption, culture and markets. In L. E. Harrison & S. P. Huntington (Eds.), Culture matters: How values shape human progress (pp. 112–125). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    McCann, J. A., & Dominguez, J. I. (1998). Mexicans react to electoral fraud and political corruption. Electoral Studies, 17(4), 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peters, J. G., & Welch, S. (1980). Effects of charges on corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 74(3), 697–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pharr, S. J., & Putnam, R. D. (2000). Disaffected democracies: What is troubling the trilateral countries? Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Podobnik, B., et al. (2008). Influence of corruption on economic growth rate and foreign investment. European Physical Journal, 63(4), 547–550.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Powell, B. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rose-Ackerman, S. (2008). Corruption. In C. K. Rowley & F. G. Schneider (Eds.), Readings in public choice and constitutional political economy (pp. 551–556). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rothstein, B. (2003). Social capital, economic growth and quality of government: the causal mechanism. New Political Economy, 14(1), 67–87.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rothstein, B., & Eek, D. (2009). Political corruption and social trust—an experimental approach. Rationality and Society, 21(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rydgren, J. (2007). The sociology of the radical right. Annual Review of Sociology. (33):241–261.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Selb, P. (2009). A deeper look at the proportionality turnout nexus. Comparative Political Studies, 42(4), 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Seligson, M. A. (2006). The measurement and impact of corruption victimization: survey evidence from Latin America. World Development, 34(2), 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shaffer, S. D. (1981). A multivariate explanation of decreasing turnout in presidential elections, 1960–1976. American Journal of Political Science, 25(1), 68–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Simpser, A. (2005). Making votes not count: Strategic incentives for electoral corruption. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stockemer, D., LaMontagne, B., Scruggs, L. (2012). Bribes and ballots: The impact of corruption on voter turnout in democracies. International Political Science Review (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Transparency International. (2012). Corruption perception index 2011. From Accessed 24 May.
  49. 49.
    Tucker, J. A. (2007). Enough! Electoral fraud, collective action problems, and post-communist coloured revolutions. Perspectives on Politics, 5(3), 537–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wagner, A. F., Schneider, F., & Halla, M. (2009). The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe—a panel analysis. European Journal of Political Economy, 25(1), 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wlezien, C., & Erikson, R. S. (2001). Campaign effects in theory and practice. American Politics Research, 29, 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Political StudiesUniversity of OttawaOttawaUSA
  2. 2.ICSLisbon UniversityLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations