Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T21:14:02.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Law, Economics and Politics

Corruption and the Voter's Decision

Experimental Evidence from Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2025

Miguel F. P. de Figueiredo
Miguel F. P. de Figueiredo
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut

Summary

Despite voters' distaste for corruption, corrupt politicians frequently get reelected. This Element provides a framework for understanding when corrupt politicians are reelected. One unexplored source of electoral accountability is court rulings on candidate malfeasance, which are increasingly determining politicians' electoral prospects. The findings suggest that (1) low-income voters – in contrast to higher-income voters – are responsive to such rulings. Unlike earlier studies, we explore multiple trade-offs voters weigh when confronting corrupt candidates, including the candidate's party, policy positions, and personal attributes. The results also surprisingly show (2) low-income voters, like higher-income voters, weigh corruption allegations and policy positions similarly, and are slightly more responsive to candidate attributes. Moreover, irrespective of voter income, (3) party labels insulate candidates from corruption, and (4) candidate attributes like gender have little effect. The results have implications for when voters punish corrupt politicians, the success of anti-corruption campaigns, and the design and legitimacy of electoral institutions.
Get access

Keywords

corruptionvoting behaviorelectionsaccountabilityconjoint analysissurvey experimentBrazilLatin America
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Law, Economics and Politics
Online ISBN: 9781009499736
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 28 February 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, C. H. (2016). Grupo protesta em SP contra Temer e a favor de Dilma. Globo. http://g1.globo.com/sao-paulo/noticia/2016/05/grupo-protesta-em-sp-contra-presidente-em-exercicio-michel-temer.html.Google Scholar
Achen, C. H. (2002). Parental Socialization and Rational Party Identification. Political Behavior, 24(2), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adserà, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguilar, R. et al. (2015). Ballot Structure, Candidate Race, and Vote Choice in Brazil. Latin American Research Review, 50(3), 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almeida, A. C. (2008). A cabeça do eleitor: Estratégia de campanha, pesquisa e vitória eleitoral. Editor Record.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. M. (1998). Information and Elections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
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
Anduiza, E., Gallego, A., & Muñoz, J. (2013, February). Turning a Blind Eye: Experimental Evidence of Partisan Bias in Attitudes toward Corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 46(12), 1664–1692. Retrieved 2021-03-09, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010414013489081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, S., & SnyderJr., J. M. (2000). Valence Politics and Equilibrium in Spatial Election Models. Public Choice, 103(3/4), 327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, K. (2007). I’m Asking for Your Support: The Effects of Personally Delivered Campaign Messages on Voting Decisions and Opinion Formation. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(1), 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auyero, J. (2001). Poor People’s Politics: Peronist Survival Networks and the Legacy of Evita. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Bardhan, P. (1997). Corruption and Development: A Review of Issues. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(3), 1320–1346. www.jstor.org/stable/2729979.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A., Green, D., Green, J., & Pande, R. (2010). Can Voters be Primed to Choose Better Legislators? Experimental Evidence from Rural India. Working Paper 105.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A. V., Kumar, S., Pande, R., & Su, F. (2011). Do Informed Voters Make Better Choices? Experimental Evidence from Urban India. Working Paper 142.Google Scholar
Barros, L., Goldszmidt, R., & Pereira, C. (2019). Why Do Voters Choose Corrupt Candidates? The Role of Ideology on Cognitive Mechanisms. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, (edz041), 1–18.Google Scholar
Bartolini, S., & Mair, P. (1990). Identity, Competition and Electoral Availability: The Stabilisation of European Electorates, 1885–1985. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauhr, M. & Grimes, M. (2014). Indignation or Resignation: The Implications of Transparency for Societal Accountability. Governance, 27(2), 291–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, T., & Burgess, R. (2002). The Political Economy of Government Responsiveness: Theory and Evidence from India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(4), 1415–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, T., & Prat, A. (2006). Handcuffs for the Grabbing Hand? The Role of the Media in Political Accountability. American Economic Review, 96(3), 720–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, D. (1958). The Theory of Committees and Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Botero, S., Cornejo, R. C., Gamboa, L., Pavão, N., & Nickerson, D. W. (2015). Says Who? An Experiment on Allegations of Corruption and Credibility of Sources. Political Research Quarterly, 68(3), 493–504. www.jstor.org/stable/24637789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botero, S., Cornejo, R. C., Gamboa, L., Pavão, N., & Nickerson, D. W. (2021). Are All Types of Corruption Created Equal in the Eyes of Voters? Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 31(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2019.1651322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, D. E., Carnes, N., Crowder-Meyer, M., & Skovron, C. (2021). Why Local Party Leaders Don’t Support Nominating Centrists. British Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 724–749. doi: 10.1017/S0007123419000309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, D. J. & Murov, M. (2012). Assessing Accountability in a Post-Citizens United Era: The Effects of Attack Ad Sponsorship by Unknown Independent Groups. American Politics Research, 40(3), 383–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X11414791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunetti, A., & Weder, B. (2003). A Free Press Is Bad News for Corruption. Journal of Public Economics, 87(7), 1801–1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucureasa, C. (2016). Romanian Mayors Re-Elected Despite Corruption Probes. Balkan Insight. www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/romanian-politicians-investigated-for-corruption-re-elected-mayors-06-06-2016.Google Scholar
Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, B. E., Ferejohn, J. A., & Fiorina, M. P. (1987). The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American Voter. New York. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chang, E. C. C., & Golden, M. A. (2004). Does Corruption Pay? The Survival of Politicians Changed with Malfeasance in the Postwar Intalian Chamber of Deputies. Working Paper, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 2–5.Google Scholar
Chang, E. C. C., & Golden, M. A. (2007). Electoral Systems, District Magnitude and Corruption. British Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chayes, S. (2018). Fighting the Hydra: Lessons Learned from Worldwide Protests against Corruption. https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/04/12/fighting-hydra-lessons-from-worldwide-rotests-against-corruption-pub-76036.Google Scholar
Chong, A., De La, O, A. L., Karlan, D., & Wantchekon, L. (2015). Does Corruption Information Inspire the Fight or Quash the Hope? A Field Experiment in Mexico on Voter Turnout, Choice, and Party Identification. Journal of Politics, 77(1), 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. (2009). Valence and Electoral Outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998. Electoral Studies, 28(1), 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, P. E. (1969). Of Time and Partisan Stability. Comparative Political Studies, 2(2), 139–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrales, B., Adrogué, G., & Armesto, M. (2011). ’Você decide!’ Usando a Conjoint Analysis para entender o voto dos eleitores do Brasil e Argentina. Working Paper, paper presented at the 4th congresso Latino americano de Opinião Pública da Wapor.Google Scholar
Craig, S., Rashbaum, W. K., & Kaplan, T. (2016). The Many Faces of New York’s Political Scandals. New York Times.Google Scholar
Curini, L. (2015). The Conditional Ideological Inducement to Campaign on Character Valence Issues in Multiparty Systems: The Case of Corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 48(2), 168–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curini, L., & Martelli, P. (2010). Ideological Proximity and Valence Competition: Negative Campaigning through Allegation of Corruption in the Italian Legislative Arena from 1946 to 1994. Electoral Studies, 29(4), 636–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, R. A. (1973). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
de Figueiredo, M. F. P., Hidalgo, F. D., & Kasahara, Y. (2023). When Do Voters Punish Corrupt Politicians? Experimental Evidence from a Field and Survey Experiment. British Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 728–739. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123421000727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Sousa, L., & Moriconi, M. (2013). Why Voters Do Not Throw the Rascals Out? A Conceptual Framework for Analysing Electoral Punishment of Corruption. Crime, Law and Social Change, 60(5), 471–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewan, T., & Shepsle, K. (2011). Political Economy Models of Elections. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, E. S., Gordon, S.C. & Huber, G. A. (2015). Institutional Sources of Legitimate Authority: An Experimental Investigation. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domingo, P. (2004). Judicialization of Politics or Politicization of the Judiciary? Recent Trends in Latin America. Democratization, 11(1), 104–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Dunning, T. et al. (eds.) 2019, Information, Accountability, and Cumulative Learning: Lessons from Metaketa I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esarey, J., & Chirillo, G. (2013). “Fairer Sex” or Purity Myth? Corruption, Gender and Institutional Context. Politics and Gender, 9, 361–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feddersen, T. J., & Pesendorfer, W. (1996). The Swing Voter’s Curse. American Economic Review, 86(3), 408–424.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, J. (2002). Judicializing Politics, Politicizing Law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 65(3), 41–68. www.jstor.org/stable/1192402?origin=crossref, https://doi.org/10.2307/1192402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueiredo, A. C., & Limongi, F. (2000). Presidential Power, Legislative Organization, and Party Behavior in Brazil. Comparative Politics, 32(2), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, E. F. & Ridout, T. N. (2009). Local Television and Newspaper Coverage of Advertising. Political Communication, 26, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Funk, C. L. (1996). The Impact of Scandal on Candidate Evaluations: An Experi- mental Test of the Role of Candidate Traits. Political Behavior, 18(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fávero, B. (2016). Movimentos feministas fazem ato anti-Cunha e pró-Dilma em São Paulo. Folha de São Paulo. www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2016/03/1747762-movimentos-feministas-fazem-ato-anti-cunha-e-pro-dilma-em-sao-paulo.shtml.Google Scholar
Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially Contested Concepts. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56, pp. 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gans-Morse, J., Mazzuca, S. & Nichter, S. (2014). Varieties of Clientelism: Machine Politics during Elections. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 415–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingerich, D. W. (2009). Corruption and Political Decay: Evidence from Bolivia. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 4(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, S. C. (2009). Assessing Partisan Bias in Federal Public Corruption Prosecutions. American Political Science Review, 103(4), 534–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, S. C. & Huber, G. A. (2009). The Political Economy of Prosecution. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5, 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. (2007). When Voters and Parties Agree: Valence Issues and Party Competition. Political Studies, 55(3), 629–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Guerriero, C. (2020). Endogenous Institutions and Economic Outcomes. Economica, 87, 364–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2015). The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 529–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, D. (2005). Candidate Qualities through a Partisan Lens: A Theory of Trait Ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 908–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2004). Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 725–740. www.jstor.org/stable/3688540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horiuchi, Y., Smith, D. M., & Yamamoto, T. (2018). Measuring Voters’ Multidimensional Policy Preferences with Conjoint Analysis: Application to Japan’s 2014 Election. Political Analysis, 26(2), 190–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in Competition. Economic Journal, 39(153), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, M., & Weinstein, J. M. (2012). Policing Politicians: Citizen Empowerment and Accountability in Uganda – Preliminary Analysis. Working Paper, unpublished.Google Scholar
Jackson, M., & Smith, R. (1996). Inside Moves and Outside Views: An Australian Case Study of Elite and Public Perceptions of Political Corruption. Governance, 9(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, S., & Sniderman, P. M. (2002). Institutional Organization of Choice Spaces: A Political Conception of Political Psychology. In Monroe, K. R. (Eds.), Political Psychology (pp. 209–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Jana, K. & Rose-Ackerman, S. (2005). Electoral Rules and Constitutional Structures as Constraints on Corruption. British Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 573–606.Google Scholar
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1981). Generations and Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KeyJr., V. O. (1966). The Responsible Electorate Rationality in Presidential Voting 1936–1960. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, H., Hawkins, K. A., Luna, J. P., Rosas, G., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2010). Latin American Party Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, D. R. (1986). Presidential character revisited. In Lau, R. R. and Sears, D. O. (Eds.), Political Cognition (pp. 233–255). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Klašjna, M., & Tucker, J. A. (2013). The Economy, Corruption, and the Vote: Evidence from Experiments in Sweden and Moldova. Electoral Studies, 32, 536–543.Google Scholar
Klašjna, M., Tucker, J. A., & Deegan–Krause, K. (2016). Pocketbook vs Sociotropic Corruption Voting. British Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 67–94.Google Scholar
Klašnja, M., Lupu, N., & Tucker, J. A. (2021). When Do Voters Sanction Corrupt Politicians? Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8(2),161-171. doi:10.1017/XPS.2020.13, https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2020.13.Google Scholar
Kunicova, J. & Rose-Ackerman, S. (2005). Electoral Rules and Constitutional Structures as Constraints on Corruption. British Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 573–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurer, O. (2005). Corruption: An Alternative Approach to Its Definition and Measurement. Political Studies, 53(1), 222–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawless, J. L., & Pearson, K. (2008). The Primary Reason for Women’s Underrepresentation? Reevaluating the Conventional Wisdom. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, S. (2003). Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, S. (1999). Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, S., & Torcal, M. (2006). Party System Institutionalization and Party System Theory after the Third Wave of Democratization. In Katz, R. S. & Crotty, W. (Eds.), Handbook of Political Parties (pp. 204–227). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malesky, E., Schuler, P., & Tran, A. (2012). The Adverse Effects of Sunshine: A Field Experiment on Legislative Transparency in an Authoritarian Assembly. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 762–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malhotra, N., & Kuo, A. G. (2008). Attributing Blame: The Public’s Response to Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 120–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mancuso, M. et al. (1998). A Question of Ethics: Canadians Speak Out. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Markus, G. B. (1982). Political Attitudes during an Election Year: A Report on the 1980 NES Panel Study. American Political Science Review, 76(3), 538–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, W. E., & Shanks, J. M. (1996). The New American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McCann, J. A., & Dominguez, J. I. (1998). Mexicans React to Electoral Fraud and Political Corruption: An Assessment of Public Opinion and Voting Behavior. Electoral Studies, 17(4), 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, J. A., & Lawson, C. (2003). An Electorate Adrift? Public Opinion and the Quality of Democracy in Mexico. Latin American Research Review, 38(3), 60–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, R. B. (1993). Effectiveness of Electoral Systems for Reducing Government Corruption: A Game-Theoretic Analysis. Games and Economic Behavior, 5(1), 118–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nannicini, T., Stella, A., Tabellini, G., & Troiano, U. (2013). Social Capital and Political Accountability. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(2), 222–250. www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.5.2.222.Google Scholar
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, Joseph S. (1967). Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. American Political Science Review, 61(2), 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCullough, A. (2015). The Legitimacy of States and Armed Non-State Actors ( Tech. Rep.). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Palfrey, T. R., & Poole, K. T. (1987). The Relationship between Information, Ideology, and Voting Behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 31(3), 511–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pande, R. (2011). Can Informed Voters Enforce Better Governance? Experiments in Low Income Democracies. Annual Review of Economics, 3, 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavão, N. (2018). Corruption as the Only Option: The Limits to Electoral Accountability. Journal of Politics, 80(3), 996–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavão, N. (2019). Corruption, Courts, and Public Opinion in Brazil. In Robert, I. Rotberg (Ed), Corruption in Latin America: How Politicians and Corporations Steal from Citizens (pp. 93–107). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, C., Melo, M. A., & Figueiredo, C. M. (2009). The Corruption-Enhancing Role of Re-election Incentives? Counterintuitive Evidence from Brazil’s Audit Reports. Political Research Quarterly, 62(4), 731–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, T., Tabellini, G., & Trebbi, F. (2003). Electoral Rules and Corruption. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 958–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. B. (2007). Aggregating and Representing Political Preferences. In Boix, C. & Stokes, S. C. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (pp. 653–677). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Power, T. J., & Taylor, M. M. (2011). Corruption and Democracy in Brazil: The Struggle for Accountability. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A. (2003). Freedom to Choose and Democracy. Economics and Philosophy, 19, 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267103001159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, A., Stokes, S. C., , B. (Eds.). (1999). Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rennó, L. R. (2007). Escândalos e voto: As eleições presidenciais brasileiras de 2006. Opinião Pública, 13(2), 260–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rundquist, B. S., Strom, G. S., & Peters, J. G. (1977). Corrupt Politicians and Their Electoral Support: Some Experimental Observations. American Political Science Review, 71(3), 954–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samans, R., Blanke, J., Corrigan, G., & Drzeniek, M. (2015). Is Brazil Making Progress on Inequality? ( Tech. Rep.). www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/09/is-brazil-making-progress-on-inequality.Google Scholar
Samuels, D. J. (2006). Sources of Mass Partisanship in Brazil. Latin American Politics and Society, 48(2), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, D. J., & Zucco, C. (2014). The Power of Partisanship in Brazil: Evidence from Survey Experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 212–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J. C. (1972). Comparative Political Corruption. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Sieder, R., Schjolden, L., & Angell, A. (2005). The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slomczynski, K. M., & Shabad, G. (2012). Perceptions of Political Party Corruption and Voting Behaviour in Poland. Party Politics, 18, 896–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. (2016). Brazil’s Congress – A Den of Corruption. Agence France Presse (AFP). www.yahoo.com/news/brazils-congress-den-corruption-173041998.html.Google Scholar
Stephenson, M. C. (2015). Corruption and Democratic Institutions: A Review and Synthesis, In Rose-Ackerman, Susan & Lagunes, Paul (eds.), Greed, Corruption, and the Modern State, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 92–133.Google Scholar
Stokes, D. E. (1963). Spatial Models of Party Competition. American Political Science Review, 57(2), 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone Sweet, A. (2000). Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Susan C. et al. (2013). Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szwarcberg, M. (2012). Uncertainty, Political Clientelism, and Voter Turnout in Latin America: Why Parties Conduct Rallies in Argentina. Comparative Politics, 45(1), 88–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teele, D. L., Kalla, J., & Rosenbluth, F. (2018). The Ties that Double Bind: Social Roles and Women’s Underrepresentation in Politics. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 525–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treisman, D. (2000). The Causes of Corruption: A Cross-National Study. Journal of Public Economics, 76(3), 399–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truex, R. (2011). Corruption, Attitudes, and Education: Survey Evidence from Nepal. World Development, 39(7), 1133–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varghese, J. (2014). 186 Indian Members of Parliament Have Criminal Cases Including Murder and Rape. International Business Times. www.ibtimes.co.in/186-indian-members-parliament-have-criminal-cases-including-murder-rape-600584.Google Scholar
Weitz-Shapiro, R., & Winters, M. S. (2017). Can Citizens Discern? Information, Credibility, Sophistication, and the Punishment of Corruption in Brazil. Journal of Politics, 79(1), 60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, S., & Hibbing, J. R. (1997). The Effects of Charges of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections, 1982–1990. Journal of Politics, 59(1), 226–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weschle, S. (2016). Punishing Personal and Electoral Corruption: Experimental Evidence from India. Research and Politics, 3(2), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Media Project, Wesleyan. (2016). Eschewing Policy in Advertising? Lessons from 2016. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan Media Project Press.Google Scholar
Winters, M. S., & Weitz–Shapiro, R. (2013). Lacking Information or Con- doning Corruption: When Do Voters Support Corrupt Politicians? Comparative Politics, 45(4), 418–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, M. S., & Weitz–Shapiro, R. (2015). Political Corruption and Partisan Engagement: Evidence from Brazil. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 7(1), 45–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, J. (1992). The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarazaga, R. (2014). Brokers Beyond Clientelism: A New Perspective Through the Argentine Case. Latin American Politics and Society, 56(3), 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Corruption and the Voter's Decision
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Corruption and the Voter's Decision
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Corruption and the Voter's Decision
Available formats
×