SpringerLink
Log in

Honesty above all else? Expectations and perceptions of political conduct in three established democracies

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Comparative European Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

Many citizens across the liberal democratic world are highly critical of their elected representatives’ conduct. Drawing on original survey data from Britain, France and Germany, this paper offers a unique insight into prevailing attitudes across Europe’s three largest democracies. It finds remarkable consistencies in the ethical priorities of British, French and German citizens: although there is some individual-level variation, respondents in all three countries overwhelmingly prioritise having honest representatives. It also finds differences in the types of behaviour that cause most concern in each country. The paper then examines how individuals’ preferences shape their concerns about prevailing standards. The findings are consistent with the idea that citizens’ predispositions have an ‘anchoring’ effect on perceptions of political integrity. Finally, the paper considers whether established democracies are susceptible to an ‘expectations gap’ between citizens’ expectations of conduct and what ‘normal’ politics can realistically deliver.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Note: ‘Don’t knows’ are excluded.

Figure 2

Note: ‘Don’t knows’ are excluded.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, N. and Birch, S. (2011) Political conduct and misconduct: Probing public opinion. Parliamentary Affairs 64(1): 61–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, N. and Birch, S. (2012) On either side of a moat? Elite and mass attitudes towards right and wrong. European Journal of Political Research 51(1): 89–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, N. and Birch, S. (2015) Ethics and Integrity in British Politics: How Citizens Judge their Politicians’ Conduct and Why It Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C.J. and Tverdova, Y.V. (2003) Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science 47(1): 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, M.M. and Bierling, G. (2005) Politicians, the public and political ethics: Worlds apart. Canadian Journal of Political Science 38(4): 1003–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, G. (2015) Is Britain facing a crisis of democracy? Political Quarterly 86(4): 540–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becquart-Leclercq, J. (1989) Paradoxes of political corruption: A French view. In: A. Heidenheimer, M. Johnston and V. LeVine (eds.) Political Corruption: A Handbook. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, pp. 191–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T. (2005) Political selection. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(3): 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, S. (2010) Perceptions of electoral fairness and voter turnout. Comparative Political Studies 43(12): 1601–1622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, S. and Allen, N. (2012) “There will be burning and a-looting tonight”: The social and political correlates of law-breaking. The Political Quarterly 83(1): 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S. and Karp, J. (2004) Politicians, scandals, and trust in government. Political Behavior 26(3): 271–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Standards in Public Life (2011) Survey of Public Attitudes Towards Conduct in Public Life 2010. London: Committee on Standards in Public Life.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, P.E. (1995) Foreword. In: R.E. Petty and J.A. Krosnick (eds.) Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 11–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, J. (2015) Diagnosing the problem of anti-politicians: A review and an agenda. Political Studies Review. doi:10.1111/1478-9302.12076.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, J. (2016) Democratic gaps, traps and tricks. Comment on: Flinders, M. (2015) The problem with democracy. Parliamentary Affairs 69(1): 204–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtice, J. and Heath, O. (2012) Does choice deliver? Public satisfaction with the health service. Political Studies 60(3): 484–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, C.L., Camp, R.A. and Coleman, K.M. (2004) The influence of party systems on citizens’ perceptions of corruption and electoral response in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies 37(6): 677–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimock, M. and Jacobson, G.C. (1995) Checks and choices: The House bank scandal’s impact on voters in 1992. The Journal of Politics 57(4): 1143–1159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dommett, K. and Flinders, M. (2014) The politics and management of public expectations: Gaps, vacuums, clouding and the 2012 mayoral referenda. British Politics 9(1): 29–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fay, C. (1995) Political sleaze in France: Forms and issues. Parliamentary Affairs 48(4): 663–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flinders, M. (2012) Defending Politics: Why Democracy Matters in the Twenty-First Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Flinders, M. (2016) The problem with democracy. Parliamentary Affairs 69(1): 181–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flinders, M. and Dommett, K. (2013) Gap analysis: Participatory democracy, public expectations and community assemblies in Sheffield. Local Government Studies 39(4): 488–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flinders, M. and Kelso, A. (2011) Mind the gap: Political analysis, public expectations and the parliamentary decline thesis. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 13(2): 249–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J.C. and Schnell, S.V. (1985) Moral development “versus” socialization: A critique. American Psychologist 40(1): 1071–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grødeland, Å.B., Miller, W.L. and Koshechkina, T.Y. (2000) The ethnic dimension to bureaucratic encounters in postcommunist Europe: Perceptions and experience. Nations and Nationalism 6(1): 43–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampshire, S. (ed.) (1978) Public and Private Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, C. (2007) Why We Hate Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, O. (2011) The great divide: Voters, parties, MPs and expenses. In: N. Allen and J. Bartle (eds.) Britain at the Polls 2010. London: Sage, pp. 129–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidenheimer, A. (1970) The context of analysis: Introduction. In: A. Heidenheimer (ed.) Political Corruption: Readings in Comparative Analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, pp. 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. and Smith, R. (1996) Inside moves and outside views: An Australian case study of elite and public perceptions of political corruption. Governance 9(1): 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, O. (2009) Evaluating the expectations disconfirmation and expectations anchoring approaches to citizen satisfaction with local public services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(1): 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, M. (1986) Right and wrong in American politics: Popular conceptions of corruption. Polity 18(3): 367–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, M. (1991) Right and wrong in British politics: “Fits of morality” in comparative perspective. Polity 24(1): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jong-sung, Y. and Khagram, S. (2005) A comparative study of inequality and corruption. American Sociological Review 70(1): 136–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, D.C. and Patterson, S.C. (1997) Living up to expectations: Public attitudes toward Congress. The Journal of Politics 59(3): 701–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klašnja, M., Tucker, J.A. and Deegan-Krause, K. (2016) Pocketbook vs. sociotropic corruption voting. British Journal of Political Science 46(1): 67–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1984) Essays in Moral Development, Vol. 2: The Psychology of Moral Development. San Francisco: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacsoumes, P. (ed.) (2010) Favoritisme et Corruption à la Française: Petits Arrangements Avec la Probité. Paris: Presses Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavine, H. (2002) On-line versus memory-based process models of political evaluation. In: K.R. Monroe (ed.) Political Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 225–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M.D., Schreiber, D. and Ochsner, K.N. (2003) Is political cognition like riding a bicycle? How cognitive neuroscience can inform research on political thinking. Political Psychology 24(4): 681–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linde, J. and Erlingsson, G.Ó. (2013) The eroding effect of corruption on system support in Sweden. Governance 26(4): 585–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M. and Taber, C.S. (2013) The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mancuso, M., Atkinson, M.M., Blais, A., Greene, I. and Nevitte, N. (1998) A Question of Ethics: Canadians Speak Out. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, N. (2010) Entre morale et politique: une approche expérimentale des jugements sur la corruption. In: P. Lacsoumes (ed.) Favoritisme et Corruption à la Française: Petits Arrangements Avec la Probité. Paris: Presses Sciences Po, pp. 125–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, I. (2000) Kee** them honest: Public and elite perceptions of ethical conduct among Australian legislators. Political Studies 48(1): 22–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCurley, C. and Mondak, J.J. (1995) Inspected by #1184063113: The influence of incumbents’ competence and integrity in US House elections. American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 864–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McManus-Czubińska, C., Miller, W.L., Markowski, R. and Wasilewski, J. (2004) Why is corruption in Poland “a serious cause for concern”? Crime, Law and Social Change 41(2): 107–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mény, Y. (1996) Corruption French style. In: W. Little and E. Posada-Carbó (eds.) Political corruption in Europe and Latin America. London: Macmillan, pp. 159–172.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mondak, J.J. (1995) Competence, integrity, and the electoral success of congressional incumbents. The Journal of Politics 57(4): 1043–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muxel, A. (2010) Familles politiques et jugements sur la probité. In: P. Lacsoumes (ed.) Favoritisme et Corruption à la Française: Petits Arrangements Avec la Probité. Paris: Presses Sciences Po, pp. 169–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naurin, E. (2011) Election Promises, Party Behaviour and Voter Perceptions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Naurin, E. (2014) Is a promise a promise? Election pledge fulfilment in comparative perspective using Sweden as an example. West European Politics 37(5): 1046–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (ed.) (1999) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2011) Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pharr, S.J. and Putnam, R.D. (eds.) (2000) Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redlawsk, D.P. and McCann, J. (2005) Popular interpretations of ‘corruption’ and their partisan consequences. Political Behavior 27(3): 261–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riddell, P. (2011) In Defence of Politicians (In Spite of Themselves). London: Biteback.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royed, T.J. (1996) Testing the mandate model in Britain and the United States: Evidence from the Reagan and Thatcher eras. British Journal of Political Science 26(1): 45–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runciman, D. (2008) Political Hypocrisy: The Mask of Power, from Hobbes to Orwell and Beyond. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runciman, D. (2013) The Confidence Trap: A History of Democracy in Crisis from World War I to the Present. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rundquist, B.S., Strom, G. and Peters, J.G. (1977) Corrupt politicians and their electoral support: Some experimental observations. American Political Science Review 71(3): 954–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saalfeld, T. (2000) Court and parties: Evolution and problems of political funding in Germany. In: R. Williams (ed.) Party Finance and Political Corruption in Europe. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 89–122.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, D., Clarke, H.D., Stewart, M.C. and Whiteley, P. (2007) Does mode matter for modeling political choice? Evidence from the 2005 British election study. Political Analysis 15(3): 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarrow, S.E. (2003) Party finance scandals and their consequences in the 2002 election: Paying for mistakes? German Politics & Society 21(1): 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seibel, W. (1997) Corruption in the Federal Republic of Germany before and in the wake of reunification. In: D. della Porta and Y. Mény (eds.) Democracy and Corruption in Europe. London: Pinter, pp. 85–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyd, B. (2015) How do citizens evaluate public officials? The role of performance and expectations on political trust. Political Studies 63(S1): 73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slomczynski, K. and Shabad, G. (2011) Perceptions of political party corruption and voting behaviour in Poland. Party Politics 18(6): 897–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P.M. (1975) Personality and Democratic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoker, G. (2006) Why Politics Matters: Making Democracy Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D.F. (1987) Political Ethics and Public Office. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D.F. (1995) Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torcal, M. and Montero, J.R. (eds.) (2006) Political Disaffection in Contemporary Democracies: Social Capital, Institutions, and Politics. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974) Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157): 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twyman, J. (2008) Getting it right: YouGov and online survey research in Britain. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 18(4): 343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vivyan, N., Wagner, M. and Tarlov, J. (2012) Representative misconduct, voter perceptions and accountability: Evidence from the 2009 House of Commons expenses scandal. Electoral Studies 31(4): 750–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M., Tarlov, J. and Vivyan, N. (2014) Partisan bias in opinion formation on episodes of political controversy: Evidence from Great Britain. Political Studies 62(1): 136–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (1973) Political action: The problem of dirty hands. Philosophy & Public Affairs 2(2): 160–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M.E. (2004) What does corruption mean in a democracy? American Journal of Political Science 48(3): 328–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winters, M.S. and Weitz-Shapiro, R. (2013) Lacking information or condoning corruption: When do voters support corrupt politicians? Comparative Politics 45(4): 418–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaller, J.R. (1998) Monica Lewinsky’s contribution to political science. PS: Political Science & Politics 31(2): 182–189.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the ESRC (Grant Number RES-000-22-3459) and British Academy (Grant Numbers SG-101785 and SG-52322). They would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK

    Nicholas Allen

  2. King’s College London, London, UK

    Sarah Birch

  3. Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK

    Katja Sarmiento-Mirwaldt

Authors
  1. Nicholas Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Birch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katja Sarmiento-Mirwaldt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas Allen.

Appendix

Appendix

The data employed here were collected as part of the British, German and French Cooperative Campaign Analysis Projects (BCCAP, DECCAP and FRCCAP respectively) led by Ray Duch at Nuffield College, Oxford.

BCCAP was a multi-wave panel study carried out over the internet with participants drawn from the adult British population in collaboration with YouGov. A baseline survey was fielded in December of 2008, with subsequent panel waves taking place at 6-month intervals. Most of the data in this paper come from the third wave, fielded in September 2009, although the personal ethics questions were asked of respondents in the April 2009 wave. The number of respondents who took part in both waves was 809.

DECCAP was also a multi-wave panel study carried out over the internet with participants drawn from the adult German population in collaboration with YouGovPsychonomics. A baseline survey was fielded in June of 2009. Three subsequent waves took place, with the questions in this paper being fielded in the third wave in September 2009 before the Federal election. The respondents numbered 2341 in total. All the survey items were translated by native speakers and checked, via back-translation, by the researchers.

FRCCAP was a single survey administered online in January 2013. Respondents were recruited by Survey Sampling International (SSI) using a sample frame based on quotas for gender, age, education and region of residence. SSI rewards respondents in points, based on how long the survey takes, which they can then convert to vouchers of their choice. Respondents selected for the survey received non-specific email invites and were then redirected to a webpage administered by the Nuffield Centre for Experimental Social Sciences. The achieved sample was 1073. All the survey items were translated by native speakers and checked, via back-translation, by the researchers.

Dependent Variables

NB The variable names are in bold. All questions are provide in English.


Honesty over delivery This variable was constructed by reversing responses, still using a 0–10 scale, to the following question:

People want competent and honest politicians, but they disagree over which trait is more important. Some people say that it is more important to have politicians who can deliver the goods for people, even if they aren’t always very honest and trustworthy. Other people say that it’s more important to have politicians who are very honest and trustworthy, even if they can’t always deliver the goods. What do you think? Using the 0–10 scale below, where 0 means it’s more important to have politicians who can deliver the goods and 10 means it’s more important to have very honest and trustworthy politicians, where would you place yourself?

10 = most willing to compromise on honesty

0 = not at all willing to compromise on honesty.

Accepting bribes, abusing expenses, empty promises and straight answers These variables were based on responses to the following questions:

How much of a problem is the following behaviour by elected politicians in [Britain/France/Germany] today? Please use the 0–10 scale, where 0 mean it is not a problem at all and 10 means it is a very big problem.… [Not giving straight answers to questions] [Accepting bribes] [Misusing official expenses and allowances] [Making promises they know they can’t keep].

10 = it is a very big problem

0 = it is a not a big problem.

Independent Variables

Age Age in years.


Gender (male) coded 0 = female, 1 = male.


Income The BCCAP asked the following question: ‘What is your gross household income?’ The FRCCAP and DECCAP asked respondents to indicate their monthly net income. The BCCAP income measure was a 1–15 scale ranging from ‘under £5000 per year’ to ‘£150,000 per year and over’; the FRCCAP income measure was a 1–11 scale ranging from ‘less than €300 per month’ to ‘€8001 per month or more’; and the DECCAP income measure was a 1–8 scale ranging from ‘less than €1000 per month’ to ‘more than €4000 per month’. Comparable dummy variables were constructed from these scales:


Income: lower band (1 = less than £15,000 per year [gross] OR €1000 per month [net]).

Income: middle (1 = £15,000–£49,999 per year [gross] OR €1000–€3000 per month [net]).

Income: upper band (1 = more than £50,000 per year [gross] OR €3000 per month [net]).


Tertiary education coded 0 = non-graduate, 1 = graduate.


Party identification The BCCAP, FRCCAP and DECCAP fielded a standard question about partisanship, e.g. ‘Generally speaking do you think of yourself as Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat or what?’ Responses to these questions were used to create simple dummy variables, where 0 = no and 1 = yes, for the following objects of identification:


Centre-right parties: British Conservative Party; French Union for a Popular Movement; German Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union of Bavaria.

Governing parties: British Labour Party; French Union for a Popular Movement; German Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union of Bavaria and Social Democratic Party.

Opposition parties: British Conservative Party, Liberal Democrats and others; French Socialist Party, National Front and others; German Free Democrats, Greens, The Left and others.

No party identification: none.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Allen, N., Birch, S. & Sarmiento-Mirwaldt, K. Honesty above all else? Expectations and perceptions of political conduct in three established democracies. Comp Eur Polit 16, 511–534 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-016-0084-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-016-0084-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation