IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v215y2023icp74-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Condoning corruption: Who votes for corrupt political parties?

Author

Listed:
  • Jha, Chandan Kumar

Abstract

The election of corrupt politicians remains a crucial global problem, yet our knowledge regarding factors determining electorates' tolerance for corruption remains extremely limited. This paper explores individual characteristics and macroeconomic factors determining an individual's likelihood to (1) vote for her preferred political party even if that party was involved in a corruption scandal, and (2) abstain from voting even when an established non-corrupt party exists. I identify several individual characteristics, such as education and income levels, gender, employment status, political leaning, and trust in local media, and macroeconomic factors, such as income per capita, country-level corruption, and political rights, significantly influencing an individual's voting choice. A few implications emerge. Corruption can be self-sustaining and may undermine democracy by discouraging political participation. While education promotes political participation, it does not reduce citizens' tolerance for corruption by their preferred political parties. Corruption might widen income and gender inequality by lowering the political participation of the poor and women, and extreme political leaning can promote political corruption.

Suggested Citation

  • Jha, Chandan Kumar, 2023. "Condoning corruption: Who votes for corrupt political parties?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 74-88.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:215:y:2023:i:c:p:74-88
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2023.08.026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268123003141
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2023.08.026?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brunetti, Aymo & Weder, Beatrice, 2003. "A free press is bad news for corruption," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(7-8), pages 1801-1824, August.
    2. Naci Mocan, 2008. "What Determines Corruption? International Evidence From Microdata," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 46(4), pages 493-510, October.
    3. Swamy, Anand & Knack, Stephen & Lee, Young & Azfar, Omar, 2001. "Gender and corruption," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 25-55, February.
    4. Myerson Roger B., 1993. "Effectiveness of Electoral Systems for Reducing Government Corruption: A Game-Theoretic Analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 118-132, January.
    5. Fumagalli, Eileen & Narciso, Gaia, 2012. "Political institutions, voter turnout, and policy outcomes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 162-173.
    6. Treisman, Daniel, 2000. "The causes of corruption: a cross-national study," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 399-457, June.
    7. Jha, Chandan Kumar & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2018. "Women and corruption: What positions must they hold to make a difference?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 219-233.
    8. Claudio Ferraz & Frederico Finan, 2008. "Exposing Corrupt Politicians: The Effects of Brazil's Publicly Released Audits on Electoral Outcomes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(2), pages 703-745.
    9. Nicholas Charron & Lewis Dijkstra & Victor Lapuente, 2015. "Erratum to: Mapping the Regional Divide in Europe: A Measure for Assessing Quality of Government in 206 European Regions," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 124(3), pages 1059-1059, December.
    10. George Loewenstein, 2000. "Emotions in Economic Theory and Economic Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 426-432, May.
    11. Mishra, Ajit, 2006. "Persistence of corruption: some theoretical perspectives," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 349-358, February.
    12. M. Keith Chen, 2013. "The Effect of Language on Economic Behavior: Evidence from Savings Rates, Health Behaviors, and Retirement Assets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(2), pages 690-731, April.
    13. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    14. Benjamin A. Olken & Rohini Pande, 2012. "Corruption in Developing Countries," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 479-509, July.
    15. Elbahnasawy, Nasr G., 2014. "E-Government, Internet Adoption, and Corruption: An Empirical Investigation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 114-126.
    16. Nicholas Charron & Lewis Dijkstra & Victor Lapuente, 2015. "Mapping the Regional Divide in Europe: A Measure for Assessing Quality of Government in 206 European Regions," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 122(2), pages 315-346, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Krisztina Kis-Katos & Günther G. Schulze, 2013. "Corruption in Southeast Asia: a survey of recent research," Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, The Crawford School, The Australian National University, vol. 27(1), pages 79-109, May.
    2. Jetter, Michael & Parmeter, Christopher F., 2018. "Sorting through global corruption determinants: Institutions and education matter – Not culture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 279-294.
    3. Gans-Morse, Jordan & Borges, Mariana & Makarin, Alexey & Mannah-Blankson, Theresa & Nickow, Andre & Zhang, Dong, 2018. "Reducing bureaucratic corruption: Interdisciplinary perspectives on what works," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 171-188.
    4. Jha, Chandan Kumar & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2017. "Does social media reduce corruption?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 60-71.
    5. Liu Qijun & Peng Yaping, 2015. "Determinants of Willingness to Bribe: Micro Evidence from the Educational Sector in China," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 235(2), pages 168-183, April.
    6. Kyunga Na & Young-Hee Kang & Yang Sok Kim, 2018. "The Effect of Corporate Governance on the Corruption of Firms in BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India & China)," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-16, May.
    7. Yan Leung Cheung & P. Raghavendra Rau & Aris Stouraitis, 2012. "How much do firms pay as bribes and what benefits do they get? Evidence from corruption cases worldwide," NBER Working Papers 17981, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Pande, Rohini, 2008. "Understanding Political Corruption in Low Income Countries," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 50, pages 3155-3184, Elsevier.
    9. Gbewopo Attila, 2009. "Individual attitudes toward anti-corruption policies in Sub-Saharan Africa: Microeconometric evidence," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(3), pages 1933-1939.
    10. Asiedu, Edward, 2016. "Coming home without supplies: Impact of household needs on bribe involvement and gender gaps," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 229587, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    11. Jha, Chandan Kumar & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2018. "Women and corruption: What positions must they hold to make a difference?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 219-233.
    12. Rajeev K. Goel & Michael A. Nelson, 2021. "Corrupt encounters of the fairer sex: female entrepreneurs and their corruption perceptions/experience," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1973-1994, December.
    13. Alice Guerra & Tatyana Zhuravleva, 2022. "Do women always behave as corruption cleaners?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 173-192, April.
    14. Łukasz Goczek, 2007. "Przyczyny korupcji i skuteczność strategii antykorupcyjnych," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 4, pages 33-48.
    15. Rotondi, Valentina & Stanca, Luca, 2015. "The effect of particularism on corruption: Theory and empirical evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 219-235.
    16. Cintra, Renato Fabiano & Cassol, Alessandra & Ribeiro, Ivano & de Carvalho, Antonio Oliveira, 2018. "Corruption and emerging markets: Systematic review of the most cited," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 607-619.
    17. Khalid Sekkat, 2022. "Have you been served, your honor? Yes, thank you, your excellency: the judiciary and political corruption," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 326-353, September.
    18. Monika Bauhr & Nicholas Charron, 2020. "Do Men and Women Perceive Corruption Differently? Gender Differences in Perception of Need and Greed Corruption," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 92-102.
    19. Kanyam, Daniel A. & Kostandini, Genti & Ferreira, Susana, 2017. "The Mobile Phone Revolution: Have Mobile Phones and the Internet Reduced Corruption in Sub-Saharan Africa?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 271-284.
    20. Akbari, Mahsa & Bahrami-Rad, Duman & Kimbrough, Erik O., 2019. "Kinship, fractionalization and corruption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 493-528.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Corruption tolerance; Voting behavior; Democracy; Politics; Political participation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General
    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:215:y:2023:i:c:p:74-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.