How polarization influences corruption and anti-corruption: A comparative case study

Various forms of polarization have been surging in many countries worldwide, yielding diverse socio-economic and political consequences (Iyengar et al., 2019). Although both mass and elite polarization has been demonstrated to influence corruption, the evidence pertaining to the nature of these links remains fragmented and contradictory (Hajnal, 2024). Firstly, the literature on the effect of ideological polarization on corruption is mixed. Some studies found that ideological polarization contributes to effective corruption control (Melki and Pickering, 2020), whereas others arrived at the opposite conclusion (Eggers, 2014). Secondly, while the literature on the erosive effect of affective polarization on various outcomes is abundant (e.g., McCoy and Somer, 2019), research on its impact on corruption is scarce. Finally, although contextual factors (such as regime type, historical cleavages, and socio-economic structures) can arguably influence these mechanisms, research in this domain is limited. Against this background, the main ambition of the proposed research is to assess how (different types of) polarization affect corruption control and corruption and examine the role of potential mitigating factors. To that end, a comparative case study will be elaborated, focusing on two Eastern and Central European countries. The qualitative analysis will employ different qualitative explanatory methods (such as process tracing and/or congruence analysis) and will rely on a broad array of secondary quantitative and qualitative data (e.g., academic research, NGO reports, and surveys such as the Chapel Hill Expert Survey and the European Social Survey). The qualitative approach enables studying the intricate causal mechanisms involving distinct types of political polarization and various mitigating contextual factors that would be hard to analyze using large-n quantitative methods. References Eggers AC (2014) Partisanship and Electoral Accountability: Evidence from the UK Expenses Scandal. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9(4). Hanover: Now Publishers Inc: 441–472. Hajnal Á (2024) Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review. Intersections 10(2): 21–33. Iyengar S, Lelkes Y, Levendusky M, et al. (2019) The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science 22(1): 129–146. McCoy J and Somer M (2019) Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 681(1). SAGE Publications Inc: 234–271. Melki M and Pickering A (2020) Polarization and corruption in America. European Economic Review 124: 103397. Patkós V (2022) Measuring partisan polarization with partisan differences in satisfaction with the government: the introduction of a new comparative approach. Quality & Quantity. Epub ahead of print 27 February 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-022-01350-8.