Who Sees Corruption? The Bases of Mass Perceptions of Political Corruption in Latin America

Abstract

The capacity of citizens to see political corruption where it exists and to link such perceptions to evaluations of public officials constitutes an important test of political accountability. Although past research has established that perceived corruption influences political judgments, much less is known regarding the critical prefatory matter of who sees corruption. This article develops a multifaceted theoretical framework regarding the possible bases of perceived corruption. Experiential factors – personal experience and vicarious experience with bribery – mark the starting point for our account. We then incorporate psychological dispositions that may colour judgments about corruption and that may strengthen or weaken the links between experiences and perceptions. Expectations derived from this framework are tested in a series of multi-level models, with data from over 30,000 survey respondents from 17 nations and 84 regions in the Americas.

What factors are associated with public corruption perception? Evidence from Canada

“…However, de Lancer Julnes and Villoria (2014) work does not support such an assumption. Similar results were also obtained in the studies done by Tverdova (2011) and Canache et al (2019), as government supporters/incumbent voters were less likely to perceive corruption of the elected government. If people are members of the elected party, they perceive less corruption than those who are not (Blais et al , 2017).…”

“…By studying the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP), Navia et al (2020) found that, in Guatemala, political ideology influence the perception of corruption, as people who were right-wing tended to perceive the country as more corrupt. Similarly, people’s political preferences could influence their perception of corruption – they may tend to believe that the opposite party is more corrupt or the government they like is less corrupt (Canache et al , 2019; de Lancer Julnes and Villoria, 2014; Navia et al , 2020; Tverdova, 2011). However, de Lancer Julnes and Villoria (2014) work does not support such an assumption.…”

Corruption victimization and anti‐incumbent voting

“…Personal experience of petty corruption may also generate political consequences through an indirect effect. Individuals who are victims of bureaucratic corruption may update their beliefs about political corruption more generally (Canache et al, 2019, 136; Klašnja et al, 2016, 75). Given the often‐politicized nature of allegations of political corruption (e.g., Anduiza et al, 2013; Weitz‐Shapiro & Winters, 2017), citizens may view their own direct experience of bureaucratic corruption as a more reliable indicator of grand, elite‐level corruption than media reports or allegations from opposition politicians.…”

Antecedents of Corruption Perception in Guyana

“…Corruption has devastating consequences for economies and development, particularly for the well-being of ordinary people in the lower strata in society (Ariely and Uslaner, 2017). Over the years, numerous high-profile corruption scandals have engulfed prominent political figures worldwide, including heads of state, some of whom faced criminal charges and incarceration (Canache et al, 2019; Canache and Allison, 2005). It is noteworthy that corruption is often identified as one of the foremost challenges in Latin American countries (Arnold, 2012).…”