Political Behavior

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 271–287

Politicians, Scandals, and Trust in Government

  • Shaun Bowler
  • Jeffrey A. Karp
Article

Abstract

In this paper we examine the role that political scandals play in eroding regard for government and political institutions in general. We know that scandals can lower regard for individual politicians and government leaders. Yet, less is known about how scandal influences attitudes toward institutions and the political process. It has been widely assumed that such attitudes are influenced by factors that lie largely beyond the control of individual politicians. Using data from the U.S. and the U.K. we show that scandals involving legislators can have a negative influence on their constituent's attitudes toward institutions and the political process. One consequence of this finding is that, instead of looking for scapegoats in Hollywood or among the failings of voters themselves, politicians should first get their own House in order.

scandal discontent political attitudes Congress British politics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Ahuja S, Beavers, SL Berreau, C., Dodson, A., Hourigan, P., Showalter, S., Walz, J., and Hibbing, J. R. (1994). Modern congressional election-theory meets the 1992 House elections. Political Research Quarterly 47: 909–921.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Christopher J., and Tverdova, Yuliya V. (2003). Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science 47: 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banducci, Susan A., and Karp, Jeffrey A. (1994). The electoral consequences of scandal and reapportionment in the 1992 House elections. American Politics Quarterly 22: 3–26.Google Scholar
  4. Caldeira, Gregory A., and Gibson, James L. (1992). The etiology of public support for the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science 36: 635–664.Google Scholar
  5. Caldeira, Gregory A., and Gibson, James L. (1995). The legitimacy of the Court of Justice in the European Union: models of institutional support. American Political Science Review 89: 353–376.Google Scholar
  6. Citrin, Jack. (1974). Comment: the political relevance of trust in Government. The American Political Science Review 68: 973–988.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, Harold D., Feigert, Frank B., Seldon, Barry J., and Stewart, Marianne C. (1999). More time with my money: leaving the house and going home in 1992 and 1994. Political Research Quarterly 62: 67–85.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, Harold D., Stewart, Marianne C., and Whiteley, Paul F. (1998). New models for new labour: the political economy of labour party support, January 1992-April 1997. The American Political Science Review 92: 559–575.Google Scholar
  9. Cowley, Philip. (2002). Revolts & Rebellions-Parliamentary Voting Under Blair. London: Politico.Google Scholar
  10. Craig, Stephen C. (1993). The Malevolent Leaders. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dalton, Russell J. (2002). Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 3rd edition. New York: Chatham House Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dimock, Michael A., and Jacobson, Gary C. (1995). Checks and choices-the house bank scandals impact on voters in 1992. Journal of Politics 57: 1143–1159.Google Scholar
  13. Durr, Robert H., Gilmour, John B., and Wolbrecht, Christina. (1997). Explaining congressional approval. American Journal of Political Science 41: 175–207.Google Scholar
  14. Easton, David. (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Easton, David. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science 5: 435–457.Google Scholar
  16. Farrell, David M., McAllister, Ian, and Studlar, Donley T. (1998). Sex, money and politics: sleaze and conservative incumbency in the 1997 British election. In David Denver et al. (eds.), British Elections and Parties Review, Vol. 8. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  17. Fenno, Richard F., Jr. (1975). If as Ralph Nader says, congress is 'The Broken Branch,' how come we love our congressmen so much? In Norman J. Ornstein (ed.), Congress in Change: Evolution and Reform. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  18. Fenno, Richard F., Jr. (1978). Home Style: House Members in their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  19. Fiorina, Morris. (1981). Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gibson, James L., and Caldeira, Gregory A. (1992). Blacks and the United States Supreme Court: models of diffuse support. Journal of Politics 54: 1120–1145.Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, James L., and Caldeira, Gregory A. (1995). The legitimacy of transnational legal institutions: compliance, support, and the European Court of Justice. American Journal of Political Science 39: 459–489.Google Scholar
  22. Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A. and Baird, Vanessa. (1998). On the legitimacy of National High Courts. American Political Science Review 92: 343–358.Google Scholar
  23. Hetherington, Marc J. (1999). The effect of political trust on the presidential vote, 1968-96. American Political Science Review 93: 311–326.Google Scholar
  24. Hibbing, John R., and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. (1995). Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes Toward American Political Institutions. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Jacobson, Gary C., and Dimock, Michael A. (1994). Checking out: The effect of bank overdrafts on the 1992 House elections. American Journal of Political Science 38: 601–624.Google Scholar
  26. Kaase, Max., and Newton, Kenneth. (1995). Beliefs in Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Klingeman, Hans-Dieter, and Fuchs, Dieter (eds.) (1995). Citizens and the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lanoue, David J., and Headrick, Barbara. (1994). Prime Ministers, parties, and the public: the dynamics of Government popularity in great Britain. Public Opinion Quarterly 58: 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McAllister, Ian. (2000). Keeping them honest: public and elite perception of ethical conduct among Australian legislators. Political Studies 48: 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller, Arthur H. (1974a). Political issues and trust in Government: 1964-1970. The American Political Science Review 68: 951–972.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, Arthur H. (1974b). Rejoinder to 'Comment' by Jack Citrin: political discontent or ritualism? The American Political Science Review 68: 989–1001.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, Arthur H. (1999). Sex, politics, and public opinion: what political scientists really learned from the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. PS: Political Science and Politics 32: 721–729.Google Scholar
  33. Mueller, John. (1973). War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: John Wiley. Norris, Pippa (ed.) (1999). Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. oct99_owens.html}.Google Scholar
  35. Parker, Glenn R., and Davidson, Roger H. (1979). Why do Americans love their congressmen so much more than their Congress? Legislative Studies Quarterly 4: 53–61.Google Scholar
  36. Peters, John G., and Welch, Susan. (1980). The effect of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections. American Political Review 74: 697–708.Google Scholar
  37. Roberds, Stephen. (2003). The effects of ethics investigations on U.S. Senate careers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 3-6 Chicago IL.Google Scholar
  38. Welch, Susan, and Hibbing, John R. (1997). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections, 1982-1990. Journal of Politics 59: 226–239.Google Scholar
  39. Williams, John. (1985). Systemic influence on political trust: the importance of perceived institutional performance. Political Methodology 125–142.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shaun Bowler
    • 1
  • Jeffrey A. Karp
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUC RiversideRiverside
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceTexas Tech UniversityLubbock

Personalised recommendations