Partisanship and Electoral Accountability: Evidence from the UK Expenses Scandal
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Lights on the shadows of public procurement: Transparency as an antidote to corruption
Bauhr, M., Czibik, Á., de Fine Licht, J., & Fazekas, M. (2020) · Governance · doi:10.1111/gove.12432 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review
Hajnal, Á. (2024) · Intersections · doi:10.17356/ieejsp.v10i2.1310 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Eggers (2014) presents a model in which voters consider both the ideology and the integrity of candidates at elections.”
Background
- Authors
- Eggers, A. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Eggers, Andrew C.
- ORCID
- 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