CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Corruption and Economic DevelopmentElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationMedia Influence and Politics

Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review

Open access
Hajnal, Áron·2024·Intersections
DOI 10.17356/ieejsp.v10i2.1310
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Notwithstanding the considerable scholarly and public attention that political polarization and corruption have attracted in recent years and the important mechanisms through which the former may influence the latter, research in this area remains limited and inconclusive. This article offers a comprehensive theoretical and empirical synthesis of the current state of research in this domain. It finds that a large fraction of the apparent contradictions can be attributed to the conceptual inconsistencies and ambiguity surrounding political polarization. The types of polarization that have an inherently hostile and uncivil element (usually referred to as affective or pernicious polarization) undermine democratic accountability, which leads to more corruption. The role of ideological polarization among parties and the general population is more complex: it may boost accountability and decrease corruption but can also contribute to the aforementioned harmful forms of polarization and enhance the role of partisan bias in public opinion formation, thereby increasing corruption. The overall effect of ideological polarization on corruption may depend on the nature and the degree of the former, as well as on mitigating contextual factors. The two may create a vicious circle as corruption also increases political polarization via various channels.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review synthesizes theoretical and empirical research on how political polarization affects corruption, arguing that many apparent contradictions stem from conflating different types of polarization. It concludes that affective/pernicious polarization increases corruption by undermining democratic accountability, while ideological polarization has ambiguous effects that may be U-shaped depending on context and degree.

Key findings

  • Affective and pernicious polarization undermine democratic accountability and thereby increase corruption. Orhan’s (2022) analysis of 53 countries between 1996 and 2020 found that affective polarization deteriorated democracy and accountability; however, Broockman et al. (2023) found no relationship between affective polarization and democratic attitudes in a survey experiment.
  • Ideological polarization has contradictory effects: it may reduce corruption by enhancing accountability and raising the ideological costs of corruption, but it may also increase corruption by raising partisan stakes, strengthening partisan cues, and making compromise harder. Eggers (2014), using UK constituency-level data from the 2010 election after the Expenses Scandal, found corrupt MPs were punished less in more polarized constituencies and were more likely to be involved in the scandal. The review hypothesizes a U-shaped relationship between ideological polarization and corruption.
  • Partisan bias shapes corruption perceptions: citizens are more forgiving of co-partisan politicians’ corruption and more condemning of other-party corruption (Anduiza et al., 2013; Cornejo, 2023). Polarization increases partisanship and the weight of partisan cues relative to substantive arguments (Druckman et al., 2013), reducing the electoral costs of corruption.
  • Corruption may also increase polarization: new parties may emerge to challenge corrupt elites, and corruption fuels anti-establishment and populist sentiments, creating a vicious circle between polarization and corruption.

Methods

  • Design: an “extensive, but not systematic” theoretical and empirical review that synthesizes mechanisms and evidence across three streams: ideological polarization and corruption, affective/pernicious polarization and democracy/accountability, and partisan bias and corruption perceptions.
  • Data/sample: no original data; the review draws on existing country-level panel analyses, a US state-level panel analysis, an interview-based cross-sectional analysis of Latin American countries, UK constituency-level data from the 2010 election, survey experiments, qualitative accounts, and game-theoretic models. Table 1 summarizes empirical articles focused specifically on the polarization–corruption relationship.
  • Analysis: narrative conceptual synthesis and discussion of proposed causal mechanisms, empirical support and contradictions, and research gaps; it proposes a U-shaped hypothesis for ideological polarization but does not test it empirically.

Limitations

  • The paper explicitly states that it is an extensive but not systematic review, so it lacks a formal systematic search and selection protocol.
  • The paper states that reviewed studies often use simple, one-dimensional corruption indices, that most polarization–corruption contributions rely on large-N quantitative methods, and that evidence remains contradictory and inconclusive; it also notes Broockman et al.’s (2023) null finding on affective polarization and democratic attitudes.
  • Evident from the text: as a narrative review, it conducts no meta-analysis or formal quality appraisal, and the proposed U-shaped relationship between ideological polarization and corruption is not empirically tested in the article.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17356/ieejsp.v10i2.1310

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

12 of 44 cited sources checked · 10 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § 3.1 The effect of ideological polarization on corruption

    Higher levels of ideological polarization increase the ideological costs of corruption and thus decrease the prevalence of corruption.

    “Secondly, supposing that politicians care about both rents from corruption and ideology and that engaging in corruption reduces their chances for reelection, higher levels of ideological polarization increase the (ideological) costs of corruption and thus decrease the prevalence of corruption (Melki & Pickering, 2020;Testa, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Melki & Pickering, 2020 source
    • cites Testa, 2012 source
  • Premisecitation
    § 3.3 The effect of partisan bias on corruption perceptions

    Partisan-motivated reasoning decreases the relative weight of substantive arguments vis-à-vis partisan cues in citizens' political opinion formation.

    “Partisanmotivated reasoning undermines decisionmaking as it decreases the relative weight of substantive arguments visávis partisan cues in citizens' political opinion formation (Bolsen et al., 2014;Druckman et al., 2013)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bolsen et al., 2014 source
    • cites Druckman et al., 2013 source
  • Premisecitation
    § 3.1 The effect of ideological polarization on corruption

    Ideological polarization increases the role of partisan cues vis-à-vis substantive arguments in individuals' opinion formation.

    “Furthermore, a survey experiment found that ideological polarization increases the role of partisan cues visávis substantive arguments in the opinion formation of individuals (Druckman et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Druckman et al., 2013 source
  • Interpretationcitation
    § Abstract

    Ideological polarization can enhance the role of partisan bias in public opinion formation.

    “enhance the role of partisan bias in public opinion formation”
    • Also stated in: § 4 Discussion · plain
      “ideological polarization also increases the weight of partisan cues in public opinion formation (Druckman et al., 2013)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Druckman et al., 2013 source
  • Premisecitation
    § 3.3 The effect of partisan bias on corruption perceptions

    Ideological polarization enhances the effect of partisan cues relative to substantive arguments on political opinion formation.

    “and to enhance the effect of partisan cues (relative to substantive arguments) on political opinion formation (Druckman et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Druckman et al., 2013 source
  • May combine two claims. 19
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 5
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1 The effect of ideological polarization on corruption

    If the ideological distance between parties is large, it is less likely that they will be in a coalition in the future, so politicians are more incentivized to expose the corrupt practices of opposing parties.

    “If the ideological distance between parties is large, it is less likely that they will be in a coalition in the future.Therefore, politicians are more incentivized to expose the corrupt practices of the opposing parties (Brown et al., 2011;Melki & Pickering, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Brown et al., 2011 source
    • cites Melki & Pickering, 2020 source

      Section 2 (“Hypothesis”; page unavailable) says that ideologically distinct opposition politicians more readily hold incumbents to account and that ideological proximity can facilitate collusion in corruption. It does not give the claimed explanation that distant parties are less likely to form a future coalition, or specifically say that politicians are more likely to expose opponents’ corrupt practices. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation
    § 2 Conceptual framework

    Conceptual proliferation and inconsistency in polarization research have resulted in significant confusion in public discourse and academia.

    “Given that distinct manifestations of polarization exhibit different patterns and induce distinct, often opposite causal mechanisms, this conceptual proliferation and inconsistency have resulted in significant confusion both in public discourse and academia (Fiorina & Abrams, 2008;Lelkes, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Fiorina & Abrams, 2008 source
    • cites Lelkes, 2016 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 3.1 The effect of ideological polarization on corruption

    The mechanisms by which ideological polarization may reduce corruption received broad empirical support from country-level panel analyses, a state-level panel analysis from the United States, and an interview-based cross-sectional analysis focusing on Latin American countries.

    “These mechanisms received broad empirical support from countrylevel panel analyses (Brown et al., 2011;Testa, 2010), a statelevel panel analysis from the United States (Melki & Pickering, 2020), and an interviewbased crosssectional analysis focusing on Latin American countries (Davis et al., 2004).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Brown et al., 2011 source
    • cites Testa, 2010 source
    • cites Melki & Pickering, 2020 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 5 Summary and conclusions

    A growing number of scholars highlight the importance of discerning different types of corruption.

    “By contrast, a growing number of scholars highlight the importance of discerning different types of corruption (e.g.Ang, 2020;Graycar, 2015;Hajnal, 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Ang, 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Graycar, 2015 source
    • cites Hajnal, 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 5 Summary and conclusions

    As new political parties may emerge seeking to challenge the corrupt elite, the political arena becomes more fragmented and polarized.

    “As new political parties may emerge, seeking to challenge the corrupt elite, the political arena becomes more fragmented and polarized (Apergis & Pinar, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Apergis & Pinar, 2023 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1 The effect of ideological polarization on corruption

    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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Eggers (2014) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted).

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1 The effect of ideological polarization on corruption

    Higher ideological polarization is associated with more corruption.

    “Other authors argue in favour of the opposite effect, that is, higher ideological polarization is associated with more corruption.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1 Introduction

    Severe divisions within societies can undermine democratic processes and subvert democratic accountability and thus increase corruption.

    “However, severe divisions within societies can also undermine democratic processes and subvert democratic accountability (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018;McCoy et al., 2018) and thus increase corruption.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites McCoy et al., 2018 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1 The effect of ideological polarization on corruption

    Ideological polarization may yield adverse effects on the legislative process, as large ideological distances between MPs or members of congress make compromises harder and may result in gridlocks.

    “Finally, ideological polarization may yield adverse effects on the legislative process, as large ideological distances between MPs or members of congress make compromises harder and may hence result in gridlocks (Barber & McCarty, 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Barber & McCarty, 2015 source

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Abstract

    Ideological polarization among parties and the general population may boost accountability and decrease corruption.

    “The role of ideological polarization among parties and the general population is more complex: it may boost accountability and decrease corruption but can also contribute to the aforementioned harmful forms of polarization and enhance the role of partisan bias in public opinion formation, thereby increasing corruption.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.2 The effect of affective and pernicious polarization on democracy and accountability

    Severe affective or pernicious polarization inflates animosity between opposing groups and the perceived stakes of political rivalry.

    “animosity between opposing groups and the perceived stakes of the political rivalry inflate”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites McCoy et al., 2018 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.1 The effect of ideological polarization on corruption

    Ideological polarization makes people less responsive to corruption, which reduces the electoral costs of corruption.

    “the outlined mechanism arguably applies to corruption as well: ideological polarization makes people less responsive to corruption, which in turn reduces the electoral costs of corruption.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1 Introduction

    Ideological differences boost political competition and may thereby contribute to accountability and lower corruption.

    “Ideological differences boost political competition and may thereby also contribute to accountability and lower corruption (Brown et al., 2011;Testa, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Brown et al., 2011 source
    • cites Testa, 2012 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Abstract

    Affective or pernicious polarization (types with an inherently hostile and uncivil element) undermines democratic accountability, which leads to more corruption.

    “The types of polarization that have an inherently hostile and uncivil element (usually referred to as affective or pernicious polarization) undermine democratic accountability, which leads to more corruption.”
    • Also stated in: § 4 Discussion · plain
      “affective/pernicious polarization undermines democratic accountability and paves the way for more corruption”
    • Also stated in: § 5 Summary and conclusions · plain
      “The types of polarization that involve a hostile and uncivil element (i.e.affective and pernicious polarization) increase corruption by loosening democratic accountability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Lower democratic accountability leads to more corruption.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 3.2 The effect of affective and pernicious polarization on democracy and accountability

    A recent survey experiment found no relationship between affective polarization and democratic attitudes.

    “Notably, the evidence is not completely unequivocal: a recent survey experiment found no relationship between affective polarization and democratic attitudes (Broockman et al., 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Broockman et al., 2023 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Abstract

    Research on the relationship between political polarization and corruption remains limited and inconclusive.

    “research in this area remains li mited and inconclusive”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 4 Discussion

    If the extent and nature of ideological divisions are such that the norm of mutual toleration erodes and societal divisions turn antagonistic, democratic accountability deteriorates and corruption increases.

    “By contrast, if the extent and the nature of ideological divisions are such that the norm of mutual toleration (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018) erodes and societal divisions turn antagonistic, democratic accountability deteriorates and corruption increases.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4 Discussion

    Evidence on the effect of ideological polarization on corruption is contradictory: some studies present mechanisms and evidence of a negative link, while others argue in favour of the opposite effect.

    “As for the effect of ideological polarization on corruption, evidence is contradictory: some studies present mechanisms and evidence of a negative link (i.e.ideological polarization reduces corruption), while others argue in favour of the opposite effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4 Discussion

    A compelling body of evidence underpins that partisan bias decreases the importance of substantive information in voters' opinion formation, which in turn decreases the electoral cost of corruption.

    “Likewise, a compelling body of evidence underpins that partisan bias decreases the importance of substantive information in voters' opinion formation, which in turn decreases the electoral cost of corruption.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 5 Summary and conclusions

    Corruption fuels anti-establishment sentiments, which are both employed and exacerbated by populist actors.

    “Furthermore, corruption fuels antiestablishment sentiments, which are both employed and exacerbated by populist actors (Engler, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Engler, 2020 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.3 The effect of partisan bias on corruption perceptions

    If due to the increasing role of partisan bias in opinion formation, voters tend to be forgiving towards their politicians' corruption scandals, corruption is likely to increase.

    “If due to the increasing role of partisan bias in opinion formation, voters tend to be forgiving towards their politicians' corruption scandals, corruption is likely to increase.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In democratic contexts, citizens' opinions on corrupt acts translate into de facto corrupt actions or electoral consequences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5 Summary and conclusions

    Polarization and corruption exhibit a circular causal relationship, creating a vicious circle.

    “Therefore, polarization and corruption exhibit a circular causal relationship, thereby creating a vicious circle.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.3 The effect of partisan bias on corruption perceptions

    Citizens evaluate corrupt actions differently depending on the partisan affiliation of the involved politician: they tend to be more forgiving with co-partisan politicians and more condemning towards members of other parties.

    “Citizens evaluate corrupt actions differently depending on the partisan affiliation of the involved politician: they tend to be more forgiving with copartisan politicians and more condemning towards members of other parties (Anduiza et al., 2013;Cornejo, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Anduiza et al., 2013 source
    • cites Cornejo, 2023 source
23 of 23

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Lower democratic accountability leads to more corruption.

    “Clearly, lower accountability paves the way for more corruption.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In democratic contexts, citizens' opinions on corrupt acts translate into de facto corrupt actions or electoral consequences.

    “Although citizens' opinions on corrupt acts do not directly translate into defacto corrupt actions, in democratic contexts a relatively straightforward relationship exists.”
2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Carothers, T. & O'Donohue, A. (2019). Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization. Brookings Institution Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctvbd8j2p · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hajnal, Á.
Affiliations
Corvinus University of Budapest (HU)
Corresponding author
Hajnal, Áron
ORCID
Hajnal, Áron
Venue
Intersections
Publisher
Intersections
Published
2024-10-16
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
21-33
ISSN
2416-089X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.17356/ieejsp.v10i2.1310
OpenAlex
W4403640323
Semantic Scholar
c123b6656117f34e40f575b8f700a2e3f475dd40
Cited by
3
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Intersections (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) (acceptedVersion)
  • Corvinus Research Archive (Corvinus University of Budapest) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Corruption and Economic Development
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
political polarization, corruption, affective polarization, ideological polarization, democratic accountability, partisan bias, public opinion formation, vicious circle

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-13.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-13.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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