Too crooked to be good? Trade-offs in the electoral punishment of malfeasance and corruption

Breitenstein, Sofia; Hernández, Enrique

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S175577392400016X

Too crooked to be good? Trade-offs in the electoral punishment of malfeasance and corruption

License

Citation

Breitenstein S, Hernández E. Too crooked to be good? Trade-offs in the electoral punishment of malfeasance and corruption. Eur J Polit Sci Rev. 2025 Feb;17(1):61-79. DOI: 10.1017/S175577392400016X

Abstract

While elections are an instrument to hold politicians accountable, corrupt politicians are often re-elected. A potential explanation for this paradox is that citizens trade-off integrity for competence. Voters may forgive corruption if corrupt politicians manage to deliver desirable outcomes. While previous studies have examined whether politicians’ competence moderates the negative effect of corruption, this paper focuses on voters’ priorities and directly assesses what citizens value more: integrity or favourable outcomes. Using a survey experiment, we assess citizens’ support for politicians who violate the law in order to improve the welfare of their community and, in some cases, benefit personally from these violations. The results indicate that citizens prefer a politician who follows the law, even if this leads to a suboptimal outcome. However, voters are more likely to overlook violations of the law that benefit the community if these do not result in a personal gain for politicians (i.e., in the absence of corruption). These findings suggest that the mild electoral punishment of corruption may be due to the public’s unawareness of private gains from malfeasance, or to the delay in these private benefits becoming apparent by election day.