Corruption and satisfaction with democracy: the conditional role of electoral disproportionality and ballot control

Abstract

Existing literature has analysed the relationship between electoral systems and either corruption or satisfaction with democracy (SWD) focussing on the traditional distinction between majoritarian and proportional systems. This paper, instead, investigates if and how specific aspects of electoral systems moderate the negative effects of corruption perceptions on SWD. We argue that two mechanisms act simultaneously but at different levels. The first mechanism is the relationship between voters and the national government, while the second links single representatives to their constituents. We advance conditional hypotheses that postulate an attenuating effect of disproportionality and a reinforcing impact of personal vote. Empirical results from 35 elections in 33 democracies, using both individual and aggregate-level data, confirm the research hypotheses. More disproportional electoral systems weaken the impact of citizens’ perceived corruption on their democratic satisfaction, while this is strengthened by systems in which the ballot control is mostly in the hand of the voters.

Public support of transport policy instruments, perceived transport quality and satisfaction with democracy. What is the relationship?

“…There have also been fierce discussions about future policies for light rail and whether the municipality should introduce congestion charging. SeePellegata and Memoli (2018). Corruption and satisfaction with democracy: the conditional role of electoral disproportionality and ballot control.…”

The Effect of Parties on Voters’ Satisfaction with Democracy

“…This modifying effect of the electoral system on the satisfaction gap presented by Anderson and Guillory (1997) has found supportive (e.g., Farrell & McAllister, 2006;Klingemann, 1999), albeit mixed evidence (e.g., Aarts & Thomassen, 2008;Berggren, Fugate, Preuhs, & Still, 2004;McAllister, 2005). The latter studies pointed towards other factors possibly influencing the winnerloser gap, such as economic inequality (Han & Chang, 2016), voters' degree of control over the resulting political representation (Bosch & Orriols, 2014;Pellegata & Memoli, 2018), ideological proximity (Curini et al, 2012;Ezrow & Xezonakis, 2011), the intertemporal dimension of winning (Chang, Chu, & Wu, 2014), strategic voting (Singh, 2014), the availability of direct political participation for losers (Bernauer & Vatter, 2012), and electoral margins (Howell & Justwan, 2013).…”

Citizens’ Satisfaction with Government in a Highly Corrupt Public Life: Role of Trust in Democracy and Civil Society Participation in Somalia

“…But at the micro level, it rests on citizens’ belief system towards free and fair elections, correct use of power for major policy decisions and also adherence to rule of law, accountability, and openness. A fair number of literatures are available linking perceived corruption and satisfaction with democracy (SWD) (Anderson and Tverdova, 2003; Pellegata and Memoli, 2018). But the relation between satisfaction and trust has already been empirically established (Liang et al, 2018).…”

“…Regarding the relationship of perceived corruption and citizens’ satisfaction, many scholars have previously tested the moderating or mediating role of trust in government and transparency (Jahansoozi, 2006; Park and Blenkinsopp, 2011; Pathak et al, 2008; Rawlins, 2008). On the other hand, many studies have linked corruption with satisfaction with democracy (SWD) (Dahlberg and Holmberg, 2014; Dahlberg and Linde, 2016; Dahlberg et al, 2015; Pellegata and Memoli, 2018). Scholars including Neshkova and Kalesnikaite (2019) and Olsson (2014) have studied the effect of corruption on participation, while Zakaria (2013), in the context of Central and Eastern Europe, established that corruption alters the domain of civil society and trust.…”