Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T21:50:23.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corruption and the Disparty in Levels of Political Support by Winners and Losers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2007

Francisco Herreros  and
Henar Criado
Francisco Herreros
Affiliation:
Unidad de Políticas Comparadas, CSIC
Henar Criado
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Recent analyses of the determinants of levels of political support have stressed the role of institutions in producing the disparity in support by the winners and losers of an election. The authors claim that it is not only the countries' institutional structures that matter in determining this disparity but also how the institutions work. Specifically, they claim that the disparity between winners and losers is greater in countries with a high level of political corruption. They test this hypothesis in a cross-national sample from the European Social Survey Database.

Résumé. Des analyses récentes des déterminants de l'appui politique ont souligné le rôle des institutions dans la dynamique de l'écart entre l'appui politique accordé aux vainqueurs et aux perdants d'une élection. Les auteurs avancent que la structure institutionelle du pays n'est pas l'unique variable d'importance pour expliquer l'écart entre vainqueurs et perdants, mais que le fonctionnement des institutions est aussi un facteur déterminant. Ils soutiennent plus précisément que l'écart entre vainqueurs et perdants sera plus grand dans les pays où la corruption est fortement ancrée dans les milieux politiques. Ils vérifient leur hypothèse à l'aide d'un échantillon de la base de données de l'enquête sociale européenne (European Social Survey).

Type
RESEARCH NOTE
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 507 - 518
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

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

Alford, John R. 2001. “'We're all in this together.' The Decline of Trust in Government, 1958–1996.” In What is it about Government that Americans Dislike? ed. John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Teiss-Morse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, C.J. and C.A. Guillory. 1997. “Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems.” American Political Science Review 91(1): 66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J. and Yuliya V. Tverdova. 2003. “Corruption, Political Alliegances, and Attitudes toward Government in Contemporary Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 47(1): 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J., André Blais, Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan and Ola Listhaug. 2005. Losers' Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brehm, J. and W. Rahn. 1997. “Individual-level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital.” American Journal of Political Science 41(3): 999–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, Bert C. 1980. “Chicano Community Control, Political Cynicism and the Validity of Political Trust Measures.” The Western Political Quarterly 33(1): 108–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colomer, Josep M. 2001. Political Institutions: Democracy and Social Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Easton, D. 1975. A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support. British Journal of Political Science 5, 435–457.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H. 1995. Multi-level Statistical Models. London: Edward Arnold.
Hetherington, M.J. 2005. Why Trust Matters. Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hodess, Robin. 2004. “Introduction.” In Global Corruption Report 2004. London: Pluto Press.
Holmberg, S. 1999. “Down and Down We Go: Political Trust in Sweden”. In Critical Citizens. Global Support for Democratic Governance, ed. P. Norris. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jennings, M. Kent. 1998. “Political Trust and the Roots of Devolution.” In Trust and Governance, ed. Valerie Braithwaite and Margaret Levi. New York: Russell Sage.
Jones, K. and N. Bullen. 1994. “Contextual Models of Urban House Prices: A Comparison of Fixed and Random Coefficients Models Developed by Expansions.” Economic Geography 70, 252–270.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Miller, A.H. and O. Listhaug. 1990. “Political Parties and Confidence in Government: A Comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States.” British Journal of Political Science 20(3): 357–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neustadt, Richard E. 1997. “The Politics of Mistrust.” In Why People Don't Trust Government, ed. Joseph S. Nye, Philip D. Zelikow, and David C. King. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Norris, P. 1999. “Institutional Explanations for Political Support.” In Critical Citizens. Global Support for Democratic Governance, ed. P. Norris. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Orren, Gary. 1997. “Fall from Grace: The Public's Loss of Faith in Government.” In Why People Don't Trust Government, ed. Joseph S. Nye, Philip D. Zelikow, and David C. King. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1999. Corruption and Government. Causes, Consequences and Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stoker, L. and J. Bowers. 2002. “Designing Multi-level Studies: Sampling Voters and Electoral Contexts.” Electoral Studies 21: 235–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2004. “What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy?” American Journal of Political Science 48(2): 328–343.Google Scholar