Corruption and turnout in Portugal—a municipal level study

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    To illustrate, in a country with high levels of corruption and low turnout, those individuals, who turn out at elections might, in fact, be concentrated in highly corrupt districts. While a national level study would conclude that high corruption leads to low turnout, the reality in the respective country may be that high corruption leads to high turnout.

  2. 2.

    For example, Anderson and Tverdova [1] find in their study on the effect of corruption on peoples’ attitudes toward governments in 16 major and new democracies that citizens in countries with higher levels of corruption express more negative evaluations of the political system, and exhibit lower levels of trust in civil servants than citizens in countries with lower levels of corruption.

  3. 3.

    In fact, right after Switzerland, Portugal had the second lowest turnout rate in its 2009 legislative election. In 2009, actually less than 60 % of the registered voters cast their ballot. In 2004, national level turnout reached 64.3 % and was thus slightly higher.

  4. 4.

    As a robustness check, we run our first model as a generalized least square model with clustered robust standard errors. The model yields the same results pertaining to our main variable of interest, corruption.

References

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    DCIAP-PGR/CIES-ISCTE. (2009). A Corrupção Participada em Portugal, 2004–2008: Resultados de uma Pesquisa em Curso. Final Report, 2009.

  8. 8.

    DCIAP-PGR/CIES-ISCTE. (2009). A Corrupcão Participada em Portugal, 2004–2008: Resultados de uma Pesquisa em Curso. Data-Base, 2009.

  9. 9.

    De Sousa, L. (2001). Political parties and corruption in Portugal. West European Politics, 24(1), 157–180.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    De Sousa, L. (2004). The regulation of political financing in Portugal. West European Politics, 27(1), 124–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Dharmapala, D., & Hines, J. R., Jr. (2009). Which countries become tax havens? Journal of Public Economics, 93, 1058–1068.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Flanagan, C. A. (2003). Developmental roots of political engagement. PS: Political Science and Politics, 36(2), 257–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Franklin, M. (2004). Voter turnout and the dynamics of electoral competition in established democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  22. 22.

    Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU). (2012). Parline database on national parliaments. From http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/parlinesearch.asp. 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 http://www.legislativas2009.mj.pt/legislativas2009/territorio-nacional.html. 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 http://www.legislativas2009.mj.pt/legislativas2005/IS/D23/index.htm. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kostadinova, T. (2003). Voter turnout dynamics in post-communist Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 42(6), 741–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Kostadinova, T. (2009). Abstain or rebel: Corruption perceptions and voting in east European elections. Politics and Policy, 37(4), 691–714.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Rydgren, J. (2007). The sociology of the radical right. Annual Review of Sociology. (33):241–261.

  43. 43.

    Selb, P. (2009). A deeper look at the proportionality turnout nexus. Comparative Political Studies, 42(4), 527–548.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Simpser, A. (2005). Making votes not count: Strategic incentives for electoral corruption. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.

  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).

  48. 48.

    Transparency International. (2012). Corruption perception index 2011. From http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/. 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Wlezien, C., & Erikson, R. S. (2001). Campaign effects in theory and practice. American Politics Research, 29, 419–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia Calca.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stockemer, D., Calca, P. Corruption and turnout in Portugal—a municipal level study. Crime Law Soc Change 60, 535–548 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-013-9481-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Senior Citizen
  • Municipal Level
  • High Turnout
  • Southern European Country
  • Political Corruption