Pocketbook vs. Sociotropic Corruption Voting

Marko Klasnja; Joshua A. Tucker; Kevin Deegan-Krause

doi:10.1017/S0007123414000088

Pocketbook vs. Sociotropic Corruption Voting

Marko Klasnja, Joshua A. Tucker, Kevin Deegan-Krause

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

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 language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	67-94
Number of pages	28
Journal	British Journal of Political Science
Volume	46
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000088
State	Published - Feb 13 2014

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Political Science and International Relations

Access to Document

10.1017/S0007123414000088

Cite this

@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 Tucker, {Joshua A.} and Kevin Deegan-Krause",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2014 Cambridge University Press.",

year = "2014",

month = feb,

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 A.

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

AN - SCOPUS:84949316676

SN - 0007-1234

VL - 46

SP - 67

EP - 94

JO - British Journal of Political Science

JF - British Journal of Political Science

IS - 1

ER -

Pocketbook vs. Sociotropic Corruption Voting

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this