Why Women in Encompassing Welfare States Punish Corrupt Political Parties

  • Helena Olofsdotter Stensöta
  • Lena Wängnerud
  • Mattias Agerberg
Part of the Executive Politics and Governance book series (EXPOLGOV)


Citizens punish corrupt political parties; that is the microfoundation for the theory that electoral accountability acts as a mechanism to curb corruption. Empirical research, however, shows that the link is weaker than anticipated in theory. Citizens do not always and everywhere “vote the rascals out,” and it is hard to underpin the notion that perceptions of corruption play an important role when voters decide which party to vote for (see Xezonakis et al., Chapter 16 in this volume). This does not mean that electoral accountability can be neglected in studies on corruption and good governance—it only means that we need to find new ways to analyze how this mechanism works in different settings.


Welfare State Corruption Perception Index Social Spending Accountability Mechanism Prefer Party 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bettio, F. and J. Plantenga. 2004. “Comparing Care Regimes in Europe.” Feminist Economics, 10 (1): 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bormann, N-C., and M. Golder. 2013. “Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946–2011.” Electoral Studies, 24 (1): 103–121.Google Scholar
  3. Charron, N., and A. Bågenholm. 2014. “Voter Ideology, Party Systems and Corruption Voting in European Democracies.” Paper prepared for the ANTICORRP meeting, Berlin.Google Scholar
  4. Charron, N., L. Dijkstra, and V. Lapuente. 2013. “Regional Governance Matters: Quality of Government Within European Union Member States.” Regional Studies, 48 (1): 68–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charron, N., V. Lapuente, and B. Rothstein. 2011. Measuring Quality of Government and Sub-national Variation. Brussels: European Commission, Commission of Regional Development, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy.Google Scholar
  6. Charron, N., V. Lapuente, and B. Rothstein. 2013. Quality of Government and Corruption from a European Perspective: A Comparative Study of Good Government in EU Regions. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daly, M., and J. Lewis. 2000. “The Concept of Social Care and the Analysis of Contemporary Welfare States.” British Journal of Sociology, 51 (2): 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dollar, D., R. Fishman, and R. Gatti. 2001. “Are Women Really the Fairer Sex? Corruption and Women in Government.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 26 (4): 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Esarey, J., and G. Chirillo. 2013. “‘Fairer Sex’ or Purity Myth? Corruption, Gender and Institutional Context.” Politics & Gender, 9 (4): 361–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Esarey, J., and L. Schwindt-Bayer. 2014. “Women’s Representation, Accountability, and Corruption in Democracies.” November 20, 2014. Available at jee3.web.rice.edu/gender (paper invited for revision and resubmission by American Political Science Review).Google Scholar
  11. Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ferrarini, T. 2006. Families, States and Labour Markets: Institutions, Causes and Consequences of Family Policy in Post-War Welfare States. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freedom House. 2013. “Freedom of the World and Freedom of the Press.” Available at http://freedomhouse.org/reports#.VN37sfmG84c
  14. Gornick, J., and M. Meyers. 2003. Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. Hernes, H. M. 1987. Welfare State and Woman Power: Essays in State Feminism. Oslo: Oslo Norwegian Press.Google Scholar
  16. IPU. 2013. Women in Parliament. Inter-Parliamentary Union. Available at http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htmGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis, J. 1992. “Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes.” Journal of European Social Policy, 2 (3): 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. OECD. 2007. “The Social Expenditure Database. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.” Available at http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/default.aspx?datasetcode=SOCX_AGG
  19. Orloff, A. S. 1993. “Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States.” American Sociological Review, 58: 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sainsbury, D. 1996. Gender, Equality, and Welfare States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stensöta Olofsdotter, H., L. Wängnerud, and R. Svensson. 2014. “Gender and Corruption: The Mediating Power of Institutional Logics” Governance, Epub ahead of print. Available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gove.12120/abstract
  22. Sung, H.-E. 2003. “Fairer Sex or Fairer System? Gender and Corruption Revisited.” Social Forces, 82 (2): 703–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sung, H.-E. 2012. “Women in Government, Public Corruption, and Liberal Democracy: A Panel Analysis.” Crime, Law and Social Change, 58: 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Svallfors, S. 2013. “Government Quality, Egalitarianism, and Attitudes to Taxes and Social Spending: A European Comparison.” European Political Science Review, 5: 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Swamy, A., S. Knack, Y. Lee, and O. Azfar. 2001. “Gender and Corruption.” Journal of Development Economics, 64 (1): 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. UNDP. 2013. “The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World.” Human Development Report 2013. Available at hdr.undp.org/en/2013-report
  27. Young, I. M. 2002. “Lived Body vs Gender: Reflections on Social Structure and Subjectivity.” Ratio, 15 (4): 410–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Helena Olofsdotter Stensöta, Lena Wängnerud, and Mattias Agerberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helena Olofsdotter Stensöta
  • Lena Wängnerud
  • Mattias Agerberg

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations