Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 60, Issue 5, pp 471–502 | Cite as

Why voters do not throw the rascals out?— A conceptual framework for analysing electoral punishment of corruption

  • Luís de SousaEmail author
  • Marcelo Moriconi


One of the intriguing phenomena in democracy is the fact that politicians involved in, accused of or condemned for corruption in a court of law get re-elected by their constituents. In some cases, corruption does not seem to negatively affect the development of political careers. In this introductory article, we try to develop a multidimensional framework for analysing electoral punishment of corruption. First, we will look into various studies on electoral punishment and highlight their advancements and shortcomings. Then, we will propose a more dynamic account of electoral punishment of corruption that takes into account individual as well as macro level explanations. Finally, we will disaggregate these two analytical dimensions into various explanatory factors.


Party System Liberal Democrat Party Corrupt Practice Political Corruption Moral Cost 
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.
    Adserá, A., Boix, C., & Payne, M. (2003). Are you being served? Political accountability and quality of government. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 19(2), 445–490.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, C. J. (2007). The end of economic voting? Contingency dilemmas and the limits of democratic accountability. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 271–296.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, C., & Tverdova, Y. (2003). Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 91–109.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anduiza, E., Gallego, A. & Muñoz, J. (2012). Turning a blind eye: experimental evidence of partisan bias in attitudes towards corruption. Comparative Political Studies. doi: 10.1177/0010414013489081. Published online before print May 30, 2013.
  5. 5.
    Armah-Attoh, D., Gyimah-Boadi, E., & Chikwanha, A. B. (2007). Corruption and institutional trust in Africa: Implications for democratic development. Afrobarometer Working Papers 81. Available online:
  6. 6.
    Auyero, J., Lapegna, P., & Poma, F. P. (2009). Patronage politics and contentious collective action: a recursive relationship. Latin America Politics and Society, 51(3), 1–31.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Auyero, J. (1999). “From client’s point(s) of view”: how poor people perceive and evaluate political clientelism. Theory and Society, 28, 297–334.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Banfield, E. (1958). The moral basis of a backward society. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barberá, P. & Fernández-Vázquez, P. (2012). Los electores ante la corrupción. En Fundación Alternativas (ed.) Informe sobre la democracia en España, 2012. Available online:
  10. 10.
    Barreiro, B., & Sánchez-Cuenca, I. (2000). Las consecuencias electorales de la corrupción. Historia y política: Ideas, procesos y movimientos sociales, 4, 69–92.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barro, R. J. (1973). The control of politicians: an economic model. Public Choice, 14(1), 19–42.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Becquart-Leclercq, J. (1984). Paradoxes de la corruption politique. Pouvoirs, 31, 19–36.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bågenholm, A. (2009). Politicizing corruption. The electoral impact of anti-corruption discourse in Europe 1983-2007. Quality of Government Working Paper Series, 20019, 10.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bågenholm, A. & Heinö, A. J. (2008). Incentives and disincentives for new parties. On the success of Res Publica in the Estonian 2003 parliamentary elections. Paper presented at the Nordic Political Science Association Conference, Tromsö, August 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bouissou, J. M. (1994). Les elections legislatives au Japon (18 juillet 1993). La chute du parti liberal-démocrate et la recomposition dy système politique. Revue Française de Science Politique, 44(3), 379–423.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brollo, F. (2010). Who is punishing corrupt politiciansvoters of central government? Evidence from the Brazilian Anti-Corruption Program. IGIER - Università Bocconi Working Papers, No. 336. Available online:
  17. 17.
    Caínzos, M., & Jiménez, F. (2000). El impacto de los escándalos de corrupción sobre el voto en las elecciones generales de 1996. Historia y política: Ideas, procesos y movimientos sociales, 4, 69–92.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Canache, D., & Allison, M. E. (2005). Perceptions of political corruption in latin american democracies. Latin American Politics and Society, 47(3), 91–111.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Canovan, M. (2002). The people, the masses, and the mobilization of power: the paradox of Hannah Arendt's ‘Populism’. Social Research, 69(2), 403.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Costas, E., Solé-Ollé, A. & Sorribas-Navarro, P. (2010). Do voters really tolerate corruption? Evidence from Spanish Mayors. unpublished manuscript: Universitat de Barcelona & Institut d’Economia de Barcelona (IEB). Available online:
  21. 21.
    Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (2005). Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. house of representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chang, E. C. (2005). Electoral incentives for political corruption under open-list proportional representation. Journal of Politics, 67(3), 716–730.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chang, E. C., & Chu, Y. (2006). Corruption and trust: exceptionalism in Asian democracies? Journal of Politics, 68, 259–271.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chang, E. C., Golden, M. A., & Seth, J. H. (2010). Legislative malfeasance and political accountability. World Politics, 62(2), 177–220.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chang, E.C., Golden, M.A. & Seth, J. H. (2007). Electoral consequences of political corruption. Paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chang, E. & Kerr, N. (2009). Do voters have different attitudes toward corruption? The sources and implications of popular perceptions and tolerance of political corruption. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of The American Political Science Association, Toronto, September 3–6. Available online:
  27. 27.
    Chong, A., De La O, A. L., Karlan, D. & Wantchekon, L. (2012). Looking beyond the incumbent: The effects of exposing corruption on electoral outcomes. CEPR Discussion Paper, 8790.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Della Porta, D., & Vannucci, A. (1999). Corrupt exchanges: Actors, resources, and mechanisms of political corruption. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters? New Heaven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    De Sousa, L. (2002), Corruption: Assessing ethical standards in political life through control policies. PhD Thesis, European University Institute, Florence.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    De Sousa, L., & Triães, J. (Eds.). (2008). Corrupção e os Portugueses—Atitudes, práticas e valores. Lisboa: RCP Edições.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dimock, M. A., & Jacobson, G. C. (1995). Checks and choices: The House Bank Scandal’s impact on voters in 1992. Journal of Politics, 57(4), 1143–1159.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Duch, R., Palmer, H., & Anderson, C. (2000). Heterogeneity in perceptions of national economic conditions. American Journal of Political Science, 44(4), 635–652.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Durkheim, E. (1950). Les régles de la métode sociologique. Paris: Press Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eggers, A. & Fisher, A.C. (2011). Electoral accountability and the UK parliamentary expenses scandal: Did voters punish corrupt MPs? Working paper. Available online:
  37. 37.
    Fackler, T., & Tse-Min, L. (1995). Political corruption and presidential elections 1929–1992. Journal of Politics, 57(4), 971–993.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Feldman, S., & Conover, P. J. (1983). Candidates, issues, and voters: the role of inference in political perception. Journal of Politics, 45, 810–839.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ferejohn, J. (1986). Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice, 50, 5–25.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ferraz, C., & Finan, F. (2008). Exposing corrupt politicians: the effects of Brazil’s publicly released audits on electoral outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2), 703–745.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fieschi, C., & Heywood, P. (2004). Trust, cynicism and populist anti-politics. Journal of Political Ideologies, 9, 289–310.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Figueiredo, M. (2004). Convite ao ‘Rouba, mas faz’. Insight/Inteligencia, Abril/Maio/Junho, pp. 24–7. Available online:
  43. 43.
    Fiorina, M. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Freire, A. (2004). Second order elections and electoral cycles in democratic Portugal. South European Society and Politics, 9(3), 54–79.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gardiner, J. A. (1970). The politics of corruption: Organized crime in a american city. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Geddes, B. (1994). Politicians’ dilemma: Reforming the state in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gerring, J., & Thacker, S. (2004). Political institutions and corruption: the role of unitarism and parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 295–330.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gibbons, K. M. (1989). Variations in attitudes toward corruption in Canada. In A. J. Heidenheimer, M. Johnston, & V. Levine (Eds.), Political corruption: A handbook (pp. 763–788). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Golden, M.A. (2006). Datasets on charges of malfeasance, preference votes, government portfolios, and characteristics of legislators, chamber of deputies, Republic of Italy, legislatures I-XI (1948–92). Available at
  50. 50.
    Golden, M.A. (2006). Some puzzles of political corruption in modern advanced democracies. Paper presented at the 2005 Annual Meetings of the Japan Political Science Association, Tokyo. On line:
  51. 51.
    Gonzales, M. H., Kovera, M., Sullivan, J., & Chanley. (1995). Private reactions to public transgressions: predictors of evaluative responses to allegations of political misconduct. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(2), 136–148.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Heath, A., McLean, I., Taylor, B., & Curtice, J. (1999). Between first and second order: a comparison of voting behaviour in European and local elections in Britain. European Journal of Political Research, 35, 389–414.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Heidenheimer, A. J. (1989). Perspectives on the perception of corruption. In A. J. Heidenheimer, M. Johnston, & V. Levine (Eds.), Political corruption: A handbook (pp. 149–163). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and european integration. Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Huntington, S. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Husted, B. W. (1999). Wealth, culture, and corruption. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(2), 339–360.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Jackson, M. & Smith, R. (1996). Inside moves and outside views: an Australian case study of elite and public perceptions of political corruption. Governance, 9, 23–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.1996.tb00232.x.
  58. 58.
    Jiménez, F. (2009). Building boom and political corruption in Spain. South European Politics and Society, 14(3), 255–272.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jiménez, F., & Caínzos, M. (2006). How far and why do corruption scandals cost votes? In J. Garrard & J. L. Newell (Eds.), Scandals in past and contemporary politics (pp. 194–212). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jiménez, F., & Caínzos, M. (2004). La repercusión electoral de los escándalos políticos. Alcance y condiciones. Revista Española de Ciencia Política, 10, 141–170.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Johnston, M. (1986). Right and wrong in american politics: popular conceptions of corruption. Polity, 18, 367–391.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27, 163–182.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kitschelt, H., & Wilkinson, S. (Eds.). (2007). Patrons, clients and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Klasnja, M. (2011). Why do malfeasant politicians maintain political support? Testing theUninformed voterargument. Paper presented at the 2011 APSA Annual Meeting. Available online:
  65. 65.
    Kostadinova, T. (2003). Voter turnout dynamics in post-communist Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 42(6), 741–59.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kostadinova, T. (2009). Abstain or rebel: corruption perceptions and voting in East European elections. Politics and Policy, 37(4), 691–714.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Krastev, I. (2007). The populist moment. Eurozine. On line
  68. 68.
    Krause, G. A. (1997). Voters, information heterogeneity, and the dynamics of aggregate economic expectations. American Journal of Political Science, 65, 131–143.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Heuristics, cognition, and mass opinion. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Understanding and expanding the limits of political rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kunicova, J., & Rose-Ackerman, S. (2005). Electoral rules and constitutional structures as constraints on corruption. British Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 573–606.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kurer, O. (2001). Why do voters support corrupt politicians? In A. K. Jain (Ed.), The political economy of corruption (pp. 63–85). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lafay, J., & Servais, M. (2000). The influence of political scandals on popularity and votes. In M. S. Lewis-Beck (Ed.), How france votes. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    LaPalombara, J. (1994). Structural and institutional aspects of corruption. Social Research, 61(2), 325–350.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    La Porta, R., Lopez-De Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). Trust in large organizations. American Economics Review, Papers and Proceedings, 137(2), 333–338.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Leff, N. (1964). Economic development through bureaucratic corruption. American Behavioral Scientist, 8(3), 8–14.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopaedias: information and voting behaviour in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Luskin, R. C. (2002). From denial to extenuation (and finally beyond): Political sophistication and citizen performance. In J. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Thinking about political psychology (pp. 281–305). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Mainwaring, S. P. (1999). Rethinking party systems in the third wave of democratization: The case of Brazil. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Mancuso, M., Atkinson, M. M., Blais, A., Green, I., & Nevitte, N. (1998). A question of ethics: Canadians speak Out. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Manzetti, L., & Wilson, C. (2007). Why do corrupt governments maintain public support? Comparative Political Studies, 40(8), 949–970.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Maravall, J. M., & Fraile, M. (2001). The politics of unemployment: The Spanish experience in comparative perspective. In N. G. Bermeo (Ed.), Unemployment in the new Europe (pp. 291–328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Maravall, J. M. (1997). Surviving accountability. Jean Monnet Chair Paper RSC n° 97/46, EUI Florence. Available online:
  84. 84.
    McCann, J. A., & Domínguez, J. I. (1998). Mexicans react to electoral fraud and political corruption: an assessment of public opinion and voting behavior. Electoral Studies, 17, 483–503.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    McLean, I., Heath, A., & Taylor, B. (1996). Were the 1994 Euro- and local elections in britain really second order? Evidence from the British Election Panel Study. In D. M. Farrell (Ed.), British elections and parties yearbook. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Mény, Y. (1998). The people, the elites and the populist challenge. [Key-note address at the German Political Science AssociationMeeting, Bamberg, October 1997], Jean Monnet Chair Paper RSC No 98/47, EUI Florence. Available online:
  87. 87.
    Mény, Y., & Surel, Y. (2000). Par le Peuple, Pour le Peuple. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Morris, S., & Klesner, J. (2010). Corruption and trust: theoretical considerations and evidence from Mexico. Comparative Political Studies, 43(10), 1258–1285.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Mudde, C. (2004). The populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 542–563.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Myerson, R. B. (1993). Effectiveness of electoral systems for reducing government corruption: a game-theoretic analysis. Games and Economic Behavior, 5, 118–132.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Myrdal, G. (1968). Asian drama. An inquiry into the poverty nations. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    O’Donnell, G. (2004). Why the rule of law matters. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 32–46.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Pallarés, F., & Keating, M. (2006). Multilevel electoral competition: Sub-state elections and party systems in Spain. In D. Hough & C. Jeffery (Eds.), Devolution and electoral politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Pérez Díaz, V. (1996). España puesta a prueba. Madrid: Alianza.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Pérez-Liñán, A. (2007). Presidential Impeachment and the New Political Instability in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Persson, T., Tabellini, G., & Trebbi, F. (2003). Electoral rules and corruption. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, 958–989.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Persson, T., Tabellini, G. & Trebbi, F. (2001). Electoral rules and corruption. NBER Working Papers Series, 8154. Available online:
  99. 99.
    Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2000). Political economics: Explaining economic policy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Peters, J., & Welch, S. (1980). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 74(3), 697–708.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Pharr, S. (1999). Are citizens lax or cynical?—corruption tolerance and one-party dominance. Paper prepared for the conference Political Corruption and Parties organised by Della Porta & Heidenheimer with the collaboration of the Robert Schuman Centre, European University Institute, Florence, 18–20 March.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Golden, M., & Picci, L. (2008). Pork barrel in Postwar Italy (1953–1994). American Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 268–289.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Pizzorno, A. (1992). Introduzione: la corruzione nel sistema politico. In Donatella della Porta. Lo scambio occulto. Casi di corruzione politica in Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Popkin, S. L. (1994). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Popova, O. (2010). Corruption, voting and employment status: Evidence from Russian parliamentary elections. CERGE-EI Working Papers.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Pujas, V. (2006). Understanding the wave of scandals in contemporary Western Europe. In Garrard & Newell (Eds.), Scandals in past and contemporary politics (pp. 30–45). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Rallings, C., & Thrasher, M. (2005). Not all ‘Second-order’ Contests are the same: turnout and party choice at the concurrent 2004 local and European parliament elections in England. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7, 584–597.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Redlawsk, D. P. & McCann, J. A. (2002). How voters see political corruption: Definitions and beliefs, causes and consequences. Paper prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA, March 28–30, 2002. Available online:∼redlawsk/papers/polcorruption.pdf.
  109. 109.
    Reed, S. R. (2005). Japan: Haltingly toward a two-party system. In M. Gallagher & P. Mitchell (Eds.), The politics of electoral systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Reed, S. R. (1999). Punishing corruption: The response of the Japanese electorate to scandals. In O. Feldman (Ed.), Political psychology in Japan. Commark: Nova.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Reif, K., & Schmitt, H. (1980). Nine second-order national elections: a conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research, 8(1), 3–44.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Rennó, L. R. (2008). Rewarding the corrupt? Reelection and scandal involvement in the Brazilian 2006 legislative elections. Colombia Internacional, 68, 98–106.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Rennó, L. R. (2007). Escândalos e voto: as eleições presidenciais brasileiras de 2006. Opinião Publica, 13(2), 260–282.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Richardson, B. (1997). Japanese democracy: Power, coordination and performance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Riley, S. P. (1983). The land of the waving palms. In M. Clarke (Ed.), Corruption: Causes, consequences and control. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Rivero, G. & Fernández-Vázquez, P. (2011). Las consecuencias electorales de los escándalos de corrupción municipal, 20032007. Estudios de Progreso, Fundación Alternativas. Available online:
  117. 117.
    Rogow, A., & Lasswell, H. (1977). Power, corruption and rectitude. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Roniger, L. (2004). Political clientelism, democracy, and market economy. Comparative Politics, 36(3), 353–375.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Rose-Ackerman, S. (1999). Political corruption and democracy. Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 592. Available online:
  120. 120.
    Rothstein, B. (2004). Social capital and institutional legitimacy: The corleone connection. In S. Prakash & P. Selle (Eds.), Investigating social capital: Comparative perspectives on civil society, participation and governance (pp. 113–136). New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Rundquist, B., Storm, G., & Peters, J. (1977). Corrupt politicians and their electoral support: some experimental observations. American Political Science Review, 71, 954–963.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Schleiter, P. & Voznaya, A. M. (2011). Party systems, the selection and control of politicians and corruption. Paper unpublished. Available online:∼schleite/paper2.pdf.
  123. 123.
    Schmitter, P., & Karl, T. (1991). What democracy is.. and is not. Journal of Democracy, 2, 75–89.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Scott, J. C. (1972). Comparative political corruption. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Seligson, M. A. (2006). The measurement and impact of corruption victimization: survey evidence from Latin America. World Development, 34(2), 381–404.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Seligson, M. A. (2002). The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: a comparative study of four latin american countries. The Journal of Politics, 64(2), 408–433.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Shively, W. P. (1979). The development of party identification among adults: exploration of a functional model. American Political Science Review, 73(4), 1039–1054.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Slomczynski, K. M., & Shabad, G. (2011). Perceptions of political party corruption and voting behavior in Poland. Party Politics, 23, 2011. doi: 10.1177/1354068810393266. Published online before print May 23, 2011.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Sniderman, P., Brody, R., & Tetlock, P. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explo-rations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Sniderman, P., Glaser, J., & Griffin, R. (1990). Information and electoral choice. In J. A. Ferejohn & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 117–135). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Sorokin, P. (1991). Social & cultural dynamics: A study of change in major systems of arts, truth, ethics, law, and social relationships. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Stockemer, D., Lamontagne, B., & Scruggs, L. (2013). Bribes and Ballots: the impact of corruption on voter turnout in democracies. International Political Science Review, 34(1), 74–90.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Stoker, L. (1993). Judging presidential character: the demise of Gary Hart. Political Behaviour, 15(2), 193–223.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Strokes, S. (2007). Political clientelism. In B. Charles & S. Susan (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Stokes, S. (2001). Public support for market reforms in new democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Sung, H. E. (2003). Fairer sex or fairer system? Gender and corruption revisited. Social Forces, 82(2), 705–725.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Swamy, A. V., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64(1), 25–55.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76(3), 399–457.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Welch, S., & Hibbing, J. (1997). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections, 1982–1990. The Journal of Politics, 59(1), 226–239.Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Winters, M. S. & Weitz-Shapiro, R. (2010). “Rouba, mas faz” or not? Exploring voter attitudes toward corruption in Brazil. Paper presented to APSA Conference 2010. Available online:
  142. 142.
    Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Zechmeister, E. & Zizumbo-Colunga, D. (2012). The varying political toll of corruption in good versus bad economic times. Paper presented at the LASA conference.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICS-ULLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.CIES-ISCTE/IULLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations