Why Do Corrupt Governments Maintain Public Support?

Abstract

This article addresses an issue often neglected by the current literature on political corruption: Why do citizens support corrupt governments? The authors argue that people in countries where government institutions are weak and patron-client relationships strong are more likely to support a corrupt leader from whom they expect to receive tangible benefits. Using a cross-national analysis of citizens in 14 countries, the authors find statistical evidence consistent with the hypothesis, which also complements some of the recent works on clientelism and institutional development. This has important implications for scholars and practitioners working on accountability and good governance issues because its shows that as long as corrupt leaders can satisfy their clientelistic networks by manipulating government resources, they are likely to retain political support. This, in turn, questions the assumption that a few administrative reforms can weed out corruption in countries where formal and informal institutions provide opportunities for this phenomenon to thrive.

Does Corporate Governance Influence Earnings Management in Latin American Markets?

“…The presence of corruption, the lack of confidence, and respect of the agents in the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, courts, as well as the ineffectiveness of governments in the implementation and formulation of policies, increase the risks of the entrepreneur, because people from outside the value chain may have opportunistic behavior and take advantage of their profits, a situation that is feasible due to the relatively high levels of asymmetry information that characterize the economic activity (Anokhin and Schulze 2008). In addition, corruption, inefficiency of governments and a weak rule of law as well as other weaknesses in the country infrastructure, increase transaction and agency costs, thus limiting the income of the firms (Manzetti and Wilson 2007) and, in consequence, increase the opportunistic behavior of firms. By contrast, control of corruption, a strong rule of law and an effectiveness of government (a high index value) increase the chance of entrepreneurs capturing a larger portion of the revenues that they generate by increasing the reliability of cash flows (Rose-Ackerman 2001) and, consequently, they reduce the opportunistic behavior in firms.…”

Voter reaction to government incompetence and corruption related to the 1999 earthquakes in Turkey

“…For example, Costas et al (2011), Freille et al (2007, Lederman et al (2005), Adsera et al (2003), Brunetti and Weder (2003), and Besley, and Burgess (2002) provide evidence on the importance of free press, and Schleiter and Voznaya (2014) examples, that such corruption usually makes very little difference in the reelection fortunes of politicians even when it is public knowledge. Welch and Hibbing (1997), Dimock and Jacobson (1995), and Peters and Welch (1980) provide similar evidence in the case of U.S. Chang et al (2010), Fernández-Vázquez andRivero (2010), Manzetti and Wilson (2007) and Golden (2006) offer some explanations as to why the re-election chances of politicians known to be corrupt are affected only marginally. They argue that voters may doubt the information or dismiss it as partisan, especially if the accusations are leveled predominantly against the members of one party.…”

Turkish Voter Response to Government Incompetence and Corruption Related to the 1999 Earthquakes

“…Worse yet, Costas et al (2011), Fernández-Vázquez andRivero (2010), Chang et al (2010), and Reed (2005) show, through Spanish, Italian, and Japanese examples, that such corruption usually makes very little difference in the reelection fortunes of politicians even when it is public knowledge. Welch and Hibbing (1997), Dimock and Jacobson (1995), and Peters and Welch (1980) provide similar evidence in the case of U.S. Chang et al (2010), Fernández-Vázquez and Rivero (2010), Manzetti and Wilson (2007) and Golden (2006) offer some explanations as to why this is so. They argue that voters may doubt the information or dismiss it as partisan, especially if the accusations are leveled predominantly against the members of one party.…”

“…Only 11 percent of the legislators elected in 1999 made it to the 2002 parliament. Interestingly, the conditions listed by Chang et al (2010), Manzetti and Wilson (2007) and Golden (2006) as necessary for such a dramatic voter reaction to occur, materialized before the 2002 election. Two major earthquakes in 1999 and a severe economic crisis in 2001 played crucial roles in that regard.…”

“…In doing so, we hope to accomplish three goals. First, we would like to bring the case at hand to the attention of researchers investigating voter response to corruption, and to provide some supporting evidence for the assertions made by Chang et al (2010), Manzetti and Wilson (2007), and Golden (2006). We think that this case has not received the attention it deserves, even in Turkey.…”