This article investigates the relationships between corruption, democracy and trust in government, emphasizing the effect of societal norms that support corruption on these relationships. The empirical analysis uses data collected by the World Value Survey (Round 7) about citizens’ evaluations and perceptions about these issues. The findings show that social norms that see corruption as legitimate weaken the negative effect of actual institutional corruption on institutional trust. Furthermore, a weakening of democracy encourages institutional corruption that then reduces institutional trust. These moderating–mediating relationships also hold when including individual and country-level factors. Thus, the view that corruption is destructive to trust and to the quality of government is conditioned by people’s norms and beliefs. Our findings can help explain popular support for and the public legitimacy of politicians who engage in corrupt behavior in various countries, and more generally, the weakening of democratic systems and values all over the world.
AguinisHGottfredsonRKCulpepperSA (2013) Best-Practice Recommendations for Estimating Cross-Level Interaction Effects Using Multilevel Modeling. Journal of Management39 (6): 1490–1528.
2.
AndersonCJTverdovaYV (2003) Corruption, Political Allegiances, and Attitudes Toward Government in Contemporary Democracies. American Journal of Political Science47 (1): 91–109.
3.
BoteroJPonceAShleiferA (2013) Education, Complaints, and Accountability. Washington, DC: World Justice Project.
4.
BouckaertGVan de WalleSMaddensB, et al. (2002) Identity vs Performance: An Overview of Theories Explaining Trust in Government (Second report). Leuven: Public Management Institute.
5.
ChangECC (2013) A Comparative Analysis of How Corruption Erodes Institutional Trust. Taiwan Journal of Democracy9 (1): 73–92.
6.
ChangECCChuY-H (2006) Corruption and Trust: Exceptionalism in Asian Democracies?Journal of Politics68 (2): 259–271.
7.
CharronNRothsteinB (2016) Does Education Lead to Higher Generalized Trust? The Importance of Quality of Government. International Journal of Educational Development50: 59–73.
8.
CitrinJMusteC (1999) Trust in Government. In: RobinsonJPShaverPRWrightsmanLS (eds) Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp.465–532.
9.
CitrinJStokerL (2018) Political Trust in a Cynical Age. Annual Review of Political Science21: 49–70.
10.
ClearyMRStokesSC (2009) Trust and Democracy in Comparative Perspective. In: CookKSLeviMHurdinR (eds) Whom Can We Trust. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp.308–338.
11.
CoulsonA (1998) Trust and Contract in Public Sector Management. In: CoulsonA (ed.) Trust and Contracts: Relationships in Local Government, Health and Public Services. Bristol: The Policy Press, pp.9–34.
12.
Della PortaD (2000) Social Capital, Beliefs in Government and Political Corruption. In: PharrSJPutnamRD (eds) Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.202–229.
13.
deMelloLBarensteinM (2002) Fiscal Decentralization and Governance: A Cross-Country Analysis. In: AbedGTGuptaS (eds) Corruption and Economic Performance. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund (IMF), pp. 333–365.
14.
FerejohnJ (1999) Accountability and Authority: Toward a Theory of Political Accountability. In: PrzeworskiAStokesSCManinB (eds) Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp.131–153.
15.
FismanRGattiR (2000) Decentralization and Corruption: Evidence Across Countries. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
16.
GraeffPSvendsenGT (2013) Trust and Corruption: The Influence of Positive and Negative Social Capital on the Economic Development in the European Union. Quality & Quantity47: 2829–2846.
17.
GrimmelikhuijsenSKniesE (2017) Validating a Scale for Citizen Trust in Government Organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences83 (3): 583–601.
18.
GrönlundKSetäläM (2012) In Honest Officials We Trust: Institutional Confidence in Europe. American Review of Public Administration42 (5): 523–542.
19.
HaerpferCInglehartRMorenoA, et al. (2022a) World Values Survey Wave 7 (2017-2022) Cross-National Data-Set (version 4.0.0). Stockholm: The World Values Survey (WVS) Association.
HakhverdianAMayneQ (2012) Institutional Trust, Education, and Corruption: A Micro-Macro Interactive Approach. Journal of Politics74 (3): 739–750.
24.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
25.
HeidenheimerA (2002) Perspectives on the Perception of Corruption. In: HeidenheimerAJohnstonM (eds) Political Corruption. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, pp. 141–154.
26.
HetheringtonMJRudolphTJ (2015) Why Washington Won’t Work: Polarization, Political Trust, and the Governing Crisis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
27.
JohnstonM (2005) Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
KarklinsR (2005) The System Made Me Do It: Corruption in Post-Communist Societies. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
29.
KlitgaardR (1988) Controlling Corruption. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
30.
KubbeI (2014) Corruption and Trust: A Model Design. In: DebielTGawrichA (eds) (Dys-) Functionalities of Corruption. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp.117–135.
KunicovaJRose-AckermanS (2005) Electoral Rules and Constitutional Structures as Constraints on Corruption. British Journal of Political Science35 (4): 573–606.
33.
KurerO (2003) Corruption: An Alternative Approach to Its Definition and Measurement. Political Studies53 (1): 222–239.
34.
LedermanDLoayzaNVSoaresRR (2005) Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matter. Economics & Politics17 (1): 1–35.
35.
LevanonA (2011) Ethnic Social Capital: Individual and Group Level Sources and Their Economic Consequences. Social Science Research40 (1): 77–86.
36.
LeviM (1997) Consent, Dissent, and Patriotism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
LiHTangMHuheN (2016) How Does Democracy Influence Citizens’ Perceptions of Government Corruption? A Cross-National Study. Democratization23 (5): 892–918.
39.
LindeJ (2012) Why Feed the Hand That Bites You? Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and System Support in Post-Communist Democracies. European Journal of Political Research51 (3): 410–434.
40.
MarienSWernerH (2019) Fair Treatment, Fair Play? The Relationship Between Fair Treatment Perceptions, Political Trust and Compliant and Cooperative Attitudes Cross-Nationally. European Journal of Political Research58 (1): 72–95.
41.
MeierKJO’TooleLG (2013) Subjective Organizational Performance and Measurement Error: Common Source Bias and Spurious Relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory23 (2): 429–456.
42.
MizrahiS (2012) Self-Provision of Public Services: Its Evolution and Impact. Public Administration Review72 (2): 285–291.
43.
MorrisS (2008) Disaggregating Corruption: A Comparison of Participation and Perceptions in Latin America with a Focus on Mexico. Bulletin of Latin American Research27 (3): 388–409.
44.
NannestadP (2008) What Have We Learned About Generalized Trust, If Anything?Annual Review of Political Science11: 413–436.
45.
OskarssonS (2010) Generalized Trust and Political Support: A Cross-National Investigation. Acta Politica45 (4): 423–443.
46.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008) Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models. Behavior Research Methods40 (3): 879–891.
47.
RainerHSiedlerT (June, 2006) Does Democracy Foster Trust? ISER Working Paper Series, No. 2006-31. Colchester: Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), University of Essex.
48.
Rose-AckermanS (1978) Corruption: A Study in Political Economy. New York: Academic Press.
RothsteinB (2005) Social Traps and the Problem of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
RothsteinB (2019) Epistemic Democracy and the Quality of Government. European Politics and Society20 (1): 16–31.
52.
RothsteinB (2021) Controlling Corruption. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
RothsteinBTeorellJ (2005) What Is Quality of Government? A Theory of Impartial Institutions. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September. Available at: https://www.gu.se/sites/default/files/2020-05/2005_6%20Rothstein_Teorell.pdf (accessed 10 June 2022).
54.
SacksALarizzaM (2012) Why Quality Matters: Rebuilding Trustworthy Local Government in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone. Policy Research Working Paper No. 6021, 1 April. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
SztompkaP (2003) Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
TangMHuheN (2016) Does Decentralization Bring the People Back to the Government? An Empirical Analysis of the Effect of Decentralization on Political Trust. Policy & Politics44 (3): 403–426.
58.
TankardMEPaluckEL (2016) Norm Perception as a Vehicle for Social Change. Social Issues and Policy Review10: 181–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12022
59.
TorcalMChristmannP (2021) Responsiveness, Performance and Corruption: Reasons for the Decline of Political Trust. Frontiers in Political Science3: 676672.
60.
UslanerEM (2002) The Moral Foundations of Trust. New York: Cambridge University Press.
61.
UslanerEM (2005) Trust and Corruption. In: LambsdorffJGTaubeMSchrammM (eds) The New Institutional Economics of Corruption. London: Routledge, pp.76–92.
62.
UslanerEM (2008) Corruption, Inequality, and the Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63.
UslanerEM (2011) Corruption, the Inequality Trap, and Trust in Government. In: ZmerliSHoogheM (eds) Political Trust: Why Context Matters. Colchester: ECPR Press, pp.141–162.
64.
UslanerEM (2013) Trust and Corruption Revisited: How and Why Trust and Corruption Shape Each Other. Quality & Quantity47: 3603–3608.
65.
UslanerEM (2017) Political Trust, Corruption, and Inequality. In: ZmerliSVan der MeerTW (eds) Handbook on Political Trust. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.302–315.
66.
Van de WalleSMigchelbrinkK (2022) Institutional Quality, Corruption, and Impartiality: The Role of Process and Outcome for Citizen Trust in Public Administration in 173 European Regions. Journal of Economic Policy Reform25 (1): 9–27.
67.
Van der MeerTW (2010) In What We Trust? A Multi-Level Study into Trust in Parliament as an Evaluation of State Characteristics. International Review of Administrative Sciences76 (3): 517–536.
68.
Van der MeerTW (2017) Democratic Input, Macroeconomic Output and Political Trust. In: ZmerliSVan der MeerTW (eds) Handbook of Political Trust. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.270–284.
69.
Van der MeerTWHakhverdianA (2017) Political Trust as the Evaluation of Process and Performance: A Cross-National Study of 42 European Countries. Political Studies65 (1): 81–102.
70.
Vigoda-GadotEMizrahiS (2014) Managing Democracies in Turbulent Times. New York: Springer.
71.
WangC-H (2016) Government Performance, Corruption, and Political Trust in East Asia. Social Science Quarterly97 (2): 211–231.
72.
WarrenME (2001) Democracy and Association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
73.
WarrenME (2004) What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy?American Journal of Political Science48 (2): 328–343.
74.
YouJ-SKhagramS (2005) A Comparative Study of Inequality and Corruption. American Sociological Review70 (1): 136–157.
75.
ZhangJLiHYangK (2022) A Meta-Analysis of the Government Performance—Trust Link: Taking Cultural and Methodological Factors into Account. Public Administration Review82 (1): 39–58.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
