Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The article examines the relationship between corruption and voting behavior by defining two distinct channels: pocketbook corruption voting , i.e. how personal experiences with corruption affect voting behavior; and sociotropic corruption voting , i.e. how perceptions of corruption in society do so. Individual and aggregate data from Slovakia fail to support hypotheses that corruption is an undifferentiated valence issue, that it depends on the presence of a viable anti-corruption party, or that voters tolerate (or even prefer) corruption, and support the hypothesis that the importance of each channel depends on the salience of each source of corruption and that pocketbook corruption voting prevails unless a credible anti-corruption party shifts media coverage of corruption and activates sociotropic corruption voting. Previous studies may have underestimated the prevalence of corruption voting by not accounting for both channels.
Klašnja et al. (Thu,) studied this question.