Cited by 91Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationCorruption and Economic DevelopmentPolitical Theory and Democracy

Partisanship and Electoral Accountability: Evidence from the UK Expenses Scandal

Eggers, Andrew C.·2014·Quarterly Journal of Political Science

Abstract

Why do voters support corrupt politicians? One reason is that voters care about both corruption and partisan control of government; the more voters care about which party wins, the less they can deter individual wrongdoing. I highlight this tradeoff in the 2009 UK expenses scandal, showing that electoral accountability was less effective in constituencies where the partisan stakes of the local contest were higher: not only did corrupt MPs in these constituencies suffer smaller punishments, but these MPs were also more likely to be implicated in the scandal in the first place. The findings point to an under-appreciated consequence of partisanship (and underlying causes such as strong party systems and polarization at the elite or mass level) for the electoral control of politicians.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1561/100.00013140

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Eggers (2014) found that corrupt MPs were punished to a lesser extent in more polarized constituencies, and these MPs were more likely to be involved in the scandal.

    “Using constituencylevel data from the 2010 election in the United Kingdom following the Expenses Scandal, in which corrupt practices of many members of Parliament (MPs) were exposed, Eggers found that not only were corrupt MPs punished to a lesser extent in more polarized constituencies, but these MPs -anticipating the former effect -were also more likely to be involved in the scandal.”

    From Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review (2024) · cites this paper as Eggers (2014)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eggers, A. C.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Eggers, Andrew C.
Venue
Quarterly Journal of Political Science
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2014-12-22
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
441-472
ISSN
  • 1554-0626 (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-0634
OpenAlex
W2010647209
Cited by
91
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3
FWCI
43.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Quarterly Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Corruption and Economic Development
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
partisanship, electoral accountability, political corruption, party system, political polarization, electoral control

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review