This article reports the results of a nested analysis conducted to evaluate whether or not electoral donations are considered legal bribes. Introduced by Lieberman, nested analysis brings together the strengths of the regression analysis and the case study research by integrating large-N approaches (LNA) with small-N approaches (SNA). The nested analysis uses a sequential sampling model (QUANTITATIVE → QUALITATIVE) and a nested sampling design (case selection “on/off the line”). Here, Lieberman’s original model was extended to deal with an apparent paradox that emerged from the analysis. This inquiry included a cross-national examination among 78 countries, denoted as LNA, followed by an intranational analysis conducted in Colombia, where an SNA survey with 302 respondents and an SNA case study were carried out.
Administration and Cost of Elections. (2006). Comparative data: Parties and candidates. The Electoral Knowledge Network. Retrieved from http://aceproject.org/epic-en/pc
2.
ApollonioD. E.La RajaR. J. (2004). Who gave soft money? The effect of interest group resources on political contributions. Journal of Politics, 66, 1134-1154.
3.
BarzelayM.GaetaniF.CortázarJ. C.CejudoG. (2003). Research on public management policy change in the Latin America region: A conceptual framework and methodological guide. International Public Management Journal, 4, 20-41.
4.
BennedsenM.FeldmannS.LassenD. (2011). Strong companies lobby, weak companies bribe. A survey-based analysis of the demand for influence and corruption (CESifo Working Paper Series, No. 3496). Copenhagen, Denmark: University of Copenhagen.
5.
Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.BradyH. E.CollierD. (Eds.). (2008). The Oxford handbook of political methodology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
6.
CamposN.GiovannoniF. (2007). Lobbying, corruption and political influence. Public Choice, 131, 1-21.
7.
Casas-ZamoraK. (2005). State funding and campaign finance practices in Uruguay. In Posada-CarbóE.MalamudC. (Eds.), The financing of politics: Latin American and European perspective (pp. 189-236). London, England: Institute for the Study of the Americas.
8.
ClaessensS.FeijenE.LeavenL. (2008). Political connections and preferential access to finance: The role of campaign contributions. Journal of Financial Economics, 88, 554-580.
9.
CollinsK. M. T.OnwuegbuzieA. J.JiaoQ. G. (2007). A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 267-294.
10.
Della PortaD.VannucciA. (1999). Corrupt exchanges. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
11.
DoubletY. M. (2012). Political financing: GRECO’s first 22 evaluations. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
12.
EvertssonN. (2012). Electoral donations as legal bribes: Evidence from a survey of private corporations in Colombia. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 1, 162-175.
13.
EvertssonN. (2013a). Political corruption and electoral funding: A cross-national analysis. International Criminal Justice Review, 23, 75-94.
14.
EvertssonN. (2013b). Corporate donations to electoral campaigns: A case study on white-collar crime. State Crime, 2, 52-71.
15.
FellowesM. C.WolfP. J. (2004). Funding mechanisms and policy instruments: How business campaign contributions influence congressional votes. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 315-324.
16.
FieldingN. G. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods designs: Data integration with new research technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124-136.
17.
FriedrichsD. O. (2004). Trusted criminals: White-collar crime in contemporary society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
18.
GordonS. C.HaferC. (2005). Flexing muscle: Corporate political expenditures as signals to the bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 99, 245-261.
19.
Group of States against Corruption. (2012). Lessons learnt from the three evaluation rounds (2000-2010). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
20.
GutiérrezP.ZobattoD. (2011). Financiamiento de los partidos políticos en América Latina [Financing of political parties in Latin America.]. Mexico City, Mexico: Universidad Autonoma.
21.
HarstadB.SvenssonJ. (2011). Bribes, lobbying and development. American Political Science Review, 105, 46-63.
22.
HartD. M. (2001). Why do some firms give? Why do some give a lot? High-tech PACs, 1977-1996. Journal of Politics, 63, 1230-1249.
23.
HerschP. L.McDougallG. S. (2000). Determinants of automobile PAC contributions to House incumbents: Own versus rival effects. Public Choice, 104, 329-343.
HofnungM. (1996). The public purse and the private campaign: Political finance in Israel. Journal of Law and Society, 23, 132-148.
26.
International IDEA. (2012). Political finance regulations around the world: An overview of the International IDEA database. Stockholm, Sweden: Trydells Forum.
27.
LambsdorffJ. G. (2008). The institutional economics of corruption and reform. Theory, evidence and policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
28.
La PortaR.Lopez-De-SilanesF.ShleiferA.VishnyR. (1999). The quality of government. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 15, 222-279.
29.
LessingL. (2012). Republic, lost. How money corrupts Congress—And a plan to stop it. New York, NY: Twelve.
30.
LiebermanE. S. (2005). Nested analysis as mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99, 435-452.
31.
MarunaS. (2010). Mixed method research in criminology: Why not go both ways? In PiqueroA.WeisburdD. (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 123-140). New York, NY: Springer.
32.
McBarnetD. (2004). Crime, compliance and control. Burlington, VA: Ashgate.
33.
McBarnetD. (2006). After Enron will “Whiter than white collar crime” still wash?British Journal of Criminology, 46, 1091-1109.
34.
McBarnetD. (2007). Corporate social responsibility beyond the law, through law, for law: The new corporate accountability. In McBarnetD.VoiculescuA.CampbellT. (Eds.), The new corporate accountability (pp. 9-56). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
35.
McCartyN. (2000). Coalitional maintenance. Politicians, parties and organized groups. American Politics Quarterly, 28, 291-308.
36.
MorganD. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.
37.
MoroffH. (2009). American and German fund raising fiascos and their aftermaths. In HeidenheimerA. J.LevineV.JohnstonM. (Eds.), Political corruption: A handbook (pp. 687-710). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
38.
NelkenD. (2009). White-collar crime. In MaguireM.MorganR.ReinerR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (pp. 844-877). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
PujasV.RhodesM. (2009). Party finance and political scandal: Comparing Italy, Spain and France. In HeidenheimerA. J.LevineV.JohnstonM. (Eds.), Political corruption: A handbook (pp. 739-760). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
41.
RohlfingI. (2008). What you see and what you get: Pitfalls and principles of nested analysis in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 1492-1514.
42.
SalihM.MohamenA.NordlundP. (2007). Political parties in Africa: Challenges for sustained multiparty democracy. Stockholm, Sweden: Bulls Graphics.
43.
SmithR. A. (1995). Interest group influence in the US Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20, 89-139.
44.
SnyderJ. M. (1992). Long-term investing in politicians: Or, give early, give often. Journal of Law and Economics, 35, 15-43.
45.
StratmannT. (1998). The market for congressional votes: Is timing of contribution everything?Journal of Law and Economics, 41, 85-113.
46.
StratmannT. (2005). Some talk: Money in politics. A (partial) review of the literature. Public Choice, 124, 135-156.
47.
TashakkoriA.CreswellJ. W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3-7.
48.
TaylorA. J. (2003). Conditional party government and campaign contributions: Insights from the tobacco and alcohol beverage industries. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 293-304.
49.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed research methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 1-52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2012). Common “core” characteristics of mixed methods research: A review of critical issues and call for greater convergence. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 774-788.
51.
TreismanD. (2000). The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76, 399-457.
52.
WitkoC. (2006). PACs, issue context, and congressional decision-making. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 283-295.
53.
WolfF. (2010). Enlightened eclecticism or hazardous hotchpotch? Mixed methods and triangulation strategies in comparative public policy research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 144-167.
