Pocketbook vs. Sociotropic Corruption Voting

Marko Klasnja, Joshua Tucker, Kevin Deegan-Krause

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    The article examines the relationship between corruption and voting behavior by defining two distinct channels: pocketbook corruption voting, i.e. how personal experiences with corruption affect voting behavior; and sociotropic corruption voting, i.e. how perceptions of corruption in society do so. Individual and aggregate data from Slovakia fail to support hypotheses that corruption is an undifferentiated valence issue, that it depends on the presence of a viable anti-corruption party, or that voters tolerate (or even prefer) corruption, and support the hypothesis that the importance of each channel depends on the salience of each source of corruption and that pocketbook corruption voting prevails unless a credible anti-corruption party shifts media coverage of corruption and activates sociotropic corruption voting. Previous studies may have underestimated the prevalence of corruption voting by not accounting for both channels.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)67-94
    Number of pages28
    JournalBritish Journal of Political Science
    Volume46
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Feb 13 2014

    Fingerprint

    corruption
    voting
    voting behavior
    aggregate data
    Slovakia
    coverage

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Sociology and Political Science

    Cite this

    Pocketbook vs. Sociotropic Corruption Voting. / Klasnja, Marko; Tucker, Joshua; Deegan-Krause, Kevin.

    In: British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, No. 1, 13.02.2014, p. 67-94.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Klasnja, Marko ; Tucker, Joshua ; Deegan-Krause, Kevin. / Pocketbook vs. Sociotropic Corruption Voting. In: British Journal of Political Science. 2014 ; Vol. 46, No. 1. pp. 67-94.
    @article{49fab92e548d427cb62e1eaa7832d8fd,
    title = "Pocketbook vs. Sociotropic Corruption Voting",
    abstract = "The article examines the relationship between corruption and voting behavior by defining two distinct channels: pocketbook corruption voting, i.e. how personal experiences with corruption affect voting behavior; and sociotropic corruption voting, i.e. how perceptions of corruption in society do so. Individual and aggregate data from Slovakia fail to support hypotheses that corruption is an undifferentiated valence issue, that it depends on the presence of a viable anti-corruption party, or that voters tolerate (or even prefer) corruption, and support the hypothesis that the importance of each channel depends on the salience of each source of corruption and that pocketbook corruption voting prevails unless a credible anti-corruption party shifts media coverage of corruption and activates sociotropic corruption voting. Previous studies may have underestimated the prevalence of corruption voting by not accounting for both channels.",
    author = "Marko Klasnja and Joshua Tucker and Kevin Deegan-Krause",
    year = "2014",
    month = "2",
    day = "13",
    doi = "10.1017/S0007123414000088",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "46",
    pages = "67--94",
    journal = "British Journal of Political Science",
    issn = "0007-1234",
    publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
    number = "1",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Pocketbook vs. Sociotropic Corruption Voting

    AU - Klasnja, Marko

    AU - Tucker, Joshua

    AU - Deegan-Krause, Kevin

    PY - 2014/2/13

    Y1 - 2014/2/13

    N2 - The article examines the relationship between corruption and voting behavior by defining two distinct channels: pocketbook corruption voting, i.e. how personal experiences with corruption affect voting behavior; and sociotropic corruption voting, i.e. how perceptions of corruption in society do so. Individual and aggregate data from Slovakia fail to support hypotheses that corruption is an undifferentiated valence issue, that it depends on the presence of a viable anti-corruption party, or that voters tolerate (or even prefer) corruption, and support the hypothesis that the importance of each channel depends on the salience of each source of corruption and that pocketbook corruption voting prevails unless a credible anti-corruption party shifts media coverage of corruption and activates sociotropic corruption voting. Previous studies may have underestimated the prevalence of corruption voting by not accounting for both channels.

    AB - The article examines the relationship between corruption and voting behavior by defining two distinct channels: pocketbook corruption voting, i.e. how personal experiences with corruption affect voting behavior; and sociotropic corruption voting, i.e. how perceptions of corruption in society do so. Individual and aggregate data from Slovakia fail to support hypotheses that corruption is an undifferentiated valence issue, that it depends on the presence of a viable anti-corruption party, or that voters tolerate (or even prefer) corruption, and support the hypothesis that the importance of each channel depends on the salience of each source of corruption and that pocketbook corruption voting prevails unless a credible anti-corruption party shifts media coverage of corruption and activates sociotropic corruption voting. Previous studies may have underestimated the prevalence of corruption voting by not accounting for both channels.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84949316676&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84949316676&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1017/S0007123414000088

    DO - 10.1017/S0007123414000088

    M3 - Article

    VL - 46

    SP - 67

    EP - 94

    JO - British Journal of Political Science

    JF - British Journal of Political Science

    SN - 0007-1234

    IS - 1

    ER -