Popular Interpretations of ‘Corruption’ and their Partisan Consequences
Popular Interpretations of ‘Corruption’ and their
Partisan Consequences
复制标题
对“腐败”及其影响的流行解读
DOI：
10.1007/s11109-005-4469-3
复制
发表时间：
2005
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
James A. McCann
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
David P. Redlawsk;James A. McCann
使用一个大型的六个城市的出口民调从2000年开始，我们研究了流行的判断是什么构成了“政治腐败”在美国。我们发现两个不同的评价维度：腐败被理解为违法，腐败作为偏袒。这些判断在很大程度上取决于选民的社会经济背景，并具有政治后果。对“腐败”的主观理解塑造了人们对政府中实际存在多少腐败的看法。此外，更重要的是，这些规范性评估在投票决定中发挥着重要作用。在2000年，那些认为受贿等非法活动是“腐败”的人更倾向于支持一位主要政党候选人;那些认为政治上的偏袒是“腐败”的人（例如，一位官员推荐一位失业的朋友在政府工作）更有可能投票给阿尔戈尔或拉尔夫纳德。
Using a large six-city exit poll from 2000, we examine popular judgments of what constitutes “political corruption” in the United States. We find two distinct evaluative dimensions: corruption understood as lawbreaking, and corruption as favoritism. These judgments are heavily conditioned by the voter’s socioeconomic background and are politically consequential. Subjective understandings of “corruption” shape perceptions of how much corruption actually exists in government. Furthermore, and more importantly, these normative assessments play a significant part in voting decisions. Individuals who judged illegal activities such as bribe-taking to be “corrupt” were more inclined to back one of the major party candidates in 2000; those who believed that favoritism in politics was “corrupt” (e.g., an official recommending an unemployed friend for a government job) were more likely to vote for Al Gore or Ralph Nader.