Corruption, Ideology, and Populism:

The Rise of Valence Political

Campaigning 1st Edition Luigi Curini
(Auth.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/corruption-ideology-and-populism-the-rise-of-valence-
political-campaigning-1st-edition-luigi-curini-auth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

https://textbookfull.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-
loucas/

The SAGE Handbook of Research Methods in Political

Science and International Relations 1st Edition Luigi
Curini (Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-sage-handbook-of-research-
methods-in-political-science-and-international-relations-1st-
edition-luigi-curini-editor/

Political Correctness in the Era of Trump 1st Edition

Luigi Esposito

https://textbookfull.com/product/political-correctness-in-the-
era-of-trump-1st-edition-luigi-esposito/

Knowledge and Ideology The Epistemology of Social and

Political Critique 1st Edition Michael Morris

https://textbookfull.com/product/knowledge-and-ideology-the-
epistemology-of-social-and-political-critique-1st-edition-
michael-morris/
American demagogue the Great Awakening and the rise and
fall of populism First Pegasus Books Edition Dickey

https://textbookfull.com/product/american-demagogue-the-great-
awakening-and-the-rise-and-fall-of-populism-first-pegasus-books-
edition-dickey/

The Rise of Right Populism Pauline Hanson s One Nation

and Australian Politics Bligh Grant

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-rise-of-right-populism-
pauline-hanson-s-one-nation-and-australian-politics-bligh-grant/

Diploma democracy : the rise of political meritocracy

1st Edition Mark Bovens

https://textbookfull.com/product/diploma-democracy-the-rise-of-
political-meritocracy-1st-edition-mark-bovens/

Election Posters Around the Globe: Political

Campaigning in the Public Space 1st Edition Christina
Holtz-Bacha

https://textbookfull.com/product/election-posters-around-the-
globe-political-campaigning-in-the-public-space-1st-edition-
christina-holtz-bacha/

Political Communication in Britain: Polling,

Campaigning and Media in the 2015 General Election 1st
Edition Dominic Wring

https://textbookfull.com/product/political-communication-in-
britain-polling-campaigning-and-media-in-the-2015-general-
election-1st-edition-dominic-wring/
the rise of valence political campaigning

LUIGI CURINI
Corruption, Ideology, and Populism
 Luigi Curini

Corruption, Ideology,
and Populism
The Rise of Valence Political Campaigning
Luigi Curini
Department of Social and Political Sciences
The University of Milan
Milan, Italy

ISBN 978-3-319-56734-1    ISBN 978-3-319-56735-8 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56735-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017946849

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu-
tional affiliations.

Cover image: magann/Getty Images

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Contents

1 Political Corruption and Valence Issues   1

2 The Ideological Incentive for Campaigning on

Corruption Issues: The Two-Party Case  29

3 The Ideological Incentive to Campaign on

Corruption Issues: The Multi-party Case  81

4 The Direction of Valence Campaigning in

Two Dimensions 117

5 What Implications? 147

References 183

Index 205

v
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Number of books and articles referring to corruption in

either the text or title per 100 books and articles on politics 2
Fig. 1.2 Average emphasis on CORRUPTION in parties’ manifestoes
over decades 7
Fig. 1.3 Contrasting the CPI index with CORRUPTION across
country-year elections 10
Fig. 1.4 Policy vs. valence issues in terms of voters’ distribution
of preferences with respect to such issues 13
Fig. 2.1 Electors’ utility and parties’ votes in a left-to-right policy space 35
Fig. 2.2 Valence superiority of party L k is responsible for its increased
support (z* − z´)36
Fig. 2.3 Greater importance of non-policy valence issues on votes
(left) when party ideal points are close to one another, lesser
importance when parties are distant (right) 38
Fig. 2.4 Party L’s incentive to campaign on non-policy valence issues
grows hyperbolically as the distance between parties decreases 39
Fig. 2.5 Relationship between SPATIAL PRESSURE and
CORRUPTION in US parties’ manifestoes (1920–2012) 43
Fig. 2.6 Italy: emphasis on CORRUPTION by PCI/PDS and the
evolution of SPATIAL PRESSURE: 1948–1992 (left panel);
Japan: emphasis on CORRUPTION by JSP and the evolution
of SPATIAL PRESSURE: 1960–1993 (right panel) 51
Fig. 2.7 Emphasis on CORRUPTION by PCI/PDS and the
Evolution of SPATIAL PRESSURE between PCI/PDS
and DC (DC-PSI since 1983) over the Italian post-war
period—using legislative speeches 57

vii
viii List of Figures

Fig. 2.8 Party L’s incentive to compete on valence depends on the

variable d and on the parameter a68
Fig. 3.1 Small k values (with respect to d1 and d2) reduce party C’s
support and leaves party R’s (left) unchanged. Larger k values
completely extinguish party C’s support and reduce party
R’s (right) (dashed curves: voters’ utility for L when k > 0)84
Fig. 3.2 Votes obtained by the centrist party C before (left panel)
and after (right panel) successful positive valence campaigning 85
Fig. 3.3 Party C’s incentive to campaign on non-policy valence issues
is a function of two variables d1 and d2 (where d1 + d2 =
constant)86
Fig. 3.4 How to estimate the value of SPATIAL PRESSURE:
a five-party system example 92
Fig. 3.5 Box plots of the emphasis on CORRUPTION in parties’
manifestos over party status (incumbent vs. opposition
parties (left panel), mainstream vs. new parties (right panel))93
Fig. 3.6 The impact of POSITION on the expected value of
CORRUPTION (left panel) and its marginal effect
(right panel)99
Fig. 3.7 Marginal impact of increasing SPATIAL PRESSURE from
its median to its 90th percentile on the relative value of
CORRUPTION for different values of VOTE at STAKE 102
Fig. 3.8 The average emphasis on COMPETENCE in the Italian
Legislative speeches over time 107
Fig. 3.9 The ideological space during the Fanfani III investiture
debate (1960) 107
Fig. 3.10 Contrasting CPI index with country fixed-effects coefficients
(as they arise from Model 1, Table 3.2) 112
Fig. 4.1 The two-dimensional German policy space for the 2014
European election. 119
Fig. 4.2 A two-party system in which party K displays the same
valence advantage: party J and K distant from each other
(left panel) or closer to each other (right panel)122
Fig. 4.3 Share of NVC, PVC, and OVC tweets: overall (left panel)
and by country (right panel)128
Fig. 4.4 The spatial position of parties in the 2014 European
elections131
Fig. 4.5 Plot of (1/d1 + 1/d2) for party C132
Fig. 5.1 The overall trend of POLARIZATION, SPATIAL
PRESSURE, and CORRUPTION by elections over decades 150
 List of Figures 
   ix

Fig. 5.2 The ideological-valence loop 169

Fig. 5.3 Tag-clouds of the tweets posted in the official Twitter
account of Hillary Clinton (left panel) and Donald Trump
(right panel) during the last 2 months of the electoral
campaign 2016 171
 List of Tables

Table 1.1 A typology of campaign issues 17

Table 2.1 Explaining CORRUPTION in the US cases according to
SPATIAL PRESSURE 45
Table 2.2 Explaining the incentives of the largest opposition party to
emphasize CORRUPTION using the Italian and Japanese
CMP data 53
Table 2.3 Explaining the incentives of the PCI/PDS to emphasize
CORRUPTION (1946–1994) 59
Table 2.4 The 26 CMP categories used to estimate a left and a
right position 69
Table 2.5 Explaining CORRUPTION in the US case according
to SPATIAL PRESSURE (using alternative estimations
of party left-right scores from CMP data) 71
Table 3.1 Countries, number of elections, and electoral manifestos
included in the analysis, temporal range, average value of
CORRUPTION, and corresponding standard deviation 89
Table 3.2 The determinants of the emphasis on CORRUPTION in
party manifestos 96
Table 3.3 Average percentage emphasis per Italian party on
COMPETENCE (1946–2014) 106
Table 3.4 The determinants of the emphasis on COMPETENCE
in Italian legislative speeches 109
Table 4.1 Explaining the share of NVC and PVC in the 2014
European elections 134
Table 4.2 Explaining the share of NVC and PVC in the 2014
European elections—robustness checks 135

xi
xii List of Tables

Table 4.3 List of parties and Twitter accounts, number of tweets

downloaded, and date of election 139
Table 4.4 Percentage of (positive and negative) tweets related to
non-policy valence issues (first column) and either positional
or non-positional policy issues (second column) in the 2014
European elections 140
Table 5.1 Summarizing the impact of SPATIAL PRESSURE on
non-policy valence issues 148
Table 5.2 The impact of DECADES on the average value of SPATIAL
PRESSURE over elections 151
Table 5.3 Comparison between actual and expected values
according to Table 2.3 results (in brackets the 95%
confidence interval): the Oil scandal, Clean hands, and
three counterfactual scenarios in the Italian First Republic 158
Table 5.4 Explaining the choice of ANTI ESTABLISHMENT 163
 Introduction

A large body of analysis published in recent decades has shown that politi-
cal campaigns are important (Farrell and Schmitt-Beck 2002; Sides 2007).
This is not surprising: political campaigns have the power to arouse atten-
tion, shape and reframe ideas, activate citizens, and, eventually, place con-
testants ahead in the electoral race (Nai and Walter 2015). But campaigns
are also about positioning and highlighting issues on the political agenda.
Political corruption, as will be discussed at length throughout this book,
is one of the issues that parties can put forward during such electoral
events. Broadly defined as the use of political power for illegal personal
gains, corruption is a phenomenon that has been frequently investigated
in the literature. Many researchers have attributed it to various causes.
Most studies show, for example, that established democracies are greatly
affected by political corruption, but they are so to a lesser extent than non-
or proto-democratic states, while rules and traditions matter in determin-
ing the level of political corruption. However, these studies do not identify
the conditions under which political corruption can be expected to play
a significant role in political confrontation. Do parties talk about corrup-
tion only as a by-product of occasional exogenous factors (i.e. scandals
reported in the press) or are they induced to do so by systemic regularities?
And what are the broad consequences?
These are the research questions addressed by the present book. To
deal with them, I shall link political corruption to the growing literature
on valence issues (Stokes 1963), given that political corruption and hon-
esty are possibly the most prominent examples of what are commonly
understood to be non-policy valence issues (Stokes 1992) (Chap. 1).

xiii
xiv INTRODUCTION

Then, from a theoretical point of view, I shall use a straightforward spatial

model to link the incentives of parties to highlight corruption issues in
their electoral confrontation with ideological considerations.
Almost 60 years ago, Daniel Bell (1960) made the provocative claim
that ideological polarization was diminishing in Western democracies: ‘in
the Western world there is a rough consensus among intellectuals on polit-
ical issues: the acceptance of a Welfare State; the desirability of decentral-
ized power; a system of mixed economy and of political pluralism. In that
sense, the ideological age has ended’ (Bell 1960: 373). Forty years later,
Francis Fukuyama (1989) pushed the ‘end of ideology’ mantra even fur-
ther by talking explicitly about the ‘end of history’. With the demise of the
Cold War, he argued all large ideological conflicts had been resolved. The
contest was over, and history had produced a winner: Western-style lib-
eral democracy. Since then, other far-reaching processes such as European
integration and globalization, with the connected erosion of domestic
sovereignty and reduced policy options available to national leaders, have
worked in the same direction, further restricting the ideological menu
from which parties can choose their positions vis-à-vis each other and the
voters during an electoral campaign.
According to the model presented in this book, these macro trends are
likely to have a major impact on the motivations of parties to discuss (or
not) political corruption. It will be shown, in fact, that the incentives of
political actors to highlight the valence issue of corruption increase as the
spatial distance separating a party from its ideologically adjacent competi-
tors decreases. Intuitively, this happens because when parties are adjacent
from a spatial point of view, praising one’s own policy position or criticiz-
ing that of the other party is tantamount to praising the other’s position
and criticizing one’s own because the two positions are so similar. Thus, a
higher degree of ideological party similarity incentivizes parties to find dif-
ferent means to distinguish themselves before the electorate so that voters
are induced to support them (and not the others). Investing in a valence
campaign based on a non-policy valence issue such as corruption provides
parties with that opportunity.
This result applies, with relatively small qualitative differences, in
both a two-party system (Chap. 2) and a multi-party one (Chap. 3) on
considering one or two dimensions of political confrontation (Chap. 4)
and regardless (with some caveats) of the direction of valence campaign-
ing (i.e. purely negative, as occurs when a party accuses other parties of
being corrupt, or positive, as when a party praises itself for being honest).
 INTRODUCTION
   xv

Finally, what is true for a particular non-policy valence issue like corrup-
tion applies in principle to any other non-policy valence issue, as will be
discussed below.
In what follows, the hypothesis of an inverse relationship between the
distance of a party from its ideologically adjacent competitors (i.e. its
‘neighbours’) and its incentive to campaign on political corruption will
be tested in a variety of contexts (ranging from a longitudinal case study
centred on Italy to a comparative study focused on both national and
European elections) while drawing on various sources of data (such as leg-
islative speeches, party manifestoes, and social media tweets). This will be
done by following an incremental pathway that adds a layer of complexity
in each successive chapter compared to the previous one.
In the final chapter (Chap. 5), the general consequences of the previous
findings will be discussed by connecting them to three main topics. First,
it will be shown how these results can be directly related to the litera-
ture on political (and electoral) accountability. Second, the model based
on ideological considerations will be extended to illustrate how it helps
explain the anti-elite rhetoric of parties generally connected to what can be
identified as a ‘populist strategy’. Third, and finally, the theoretical points
discussed will be related to well-established theorizing on parties and party
systems, in particular with the cartel party theory. The book will finish
by highlighting an unfortunate trade-off: while a long list of works have
thoroughly discussed the risks of a wide ideological polarization for the
everyday life of a polity, the possible negative externalities of an extreme
valence campaign generated by a short ideological distance among parties
have been generally underestimated. However, it will be argued, this is an
important issue for contemporary democracies.
This book would have been impossible to write without my frequent
discussions with Paolo Martelli over the years. What I have learnt about the
‘power of valence issues’ is entirely due to his guidance. I have discussed
earlier versions of some of the chapters of this book at several conferences
and seminars: among others, the annual meeting of the Italian Political
Science Association (SISP), Rome, September 2009; the congress of the
European Political Science Association (EPSA), Berlin, June 2012; the
New Developments in Modeling Party Competition Conference, Berlin,
July 2012; GLOPE2 Tuesday Seminars, Waseda University (Tokyo), 2012
and 2013; and the 8th ECPR General Conference, Glasgow, September
2014. I acknowledge all the helpful comments made by seminars’ partici-
pants and in particular by Luca Verzichelli, Willy Jou, Susumu Shikano,
xvi INTRODUCTION

Róbert Veszteg, and Aiji Tanaka. I am grateful to Samuel Merrill III for
some very useful suggestions with respect to the theoretical model pre-
sented in Chap. 3. Andrea Ceron and Stefano Iacus have been extremely
helpful for several reasons, just too many to count them. The month that
I spent in the United States in the summer of 2016 for the International
Visiting Leadership Program, as well as the two following months at
Waseda University in Tokyo, helped me greatly in drafting the present
book. I thank the US Department of State and the US Consulate of Milan
for the former opportunity, and the support (and the friendship) of Airo
Hino for the latter. Finally, my special thanks go to my parents (Carla and
Germano) as well as to my family: Masha, Davide, and Alice were just
fantastic during the months I spent with my laptop rather than with them.
They showed a lot of patience to me. This book is dedicated to them.
I also acknowledge the following sources of financial support: the
Italian Ministry for Research and Higher Education, Prin 2007, prot.
2007 scrwt4, and Prin 2009, prot. 2009 TPW4NL_002; the Japan Society
for the Promotion of Science, grant numbers S-09131 and S-12123; the
Waseda Institute for Advanced Study (WIAS) fellowship, Tokyo, 2014; and
the Global COE (Center of Excellence) Program for Political Economy
of Institutional Construction (GLOPE II) (Waseda University) fellowship
(both in 2009 and 2011).
All data and scripts to replicate the analyses reported in each chapter
of the present book are available online at: http://www.luigicurini.com/
scientific-publications.html.

References

Bell, D. (1960). The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in

the Fifties. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Farrell, D. M., & Schmitt-Beck, R. (Eds.). (2002). Do Political Campaigns
Matter? Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums. New York:
Routledge.
Fukuyama, F. (1989). The End of History? National Interest, 16(Summer),
3–18.
Nai, A., & Walter, A. S. (Eds.). (2015). New Perspectives on Negative
Campaigning: Why Attack Politics Matters. Colchester: ECPR Press.
 INTRODUCTION
   xvii

Sides, J. (2007). The Consequences of Campaign Agendas. American

Politics Research, 35(4), 465–488.
Stokes, D. E. (1963). Spatial Models of Party Competition. American
Political Science Review, 57, 368–377.
Stokes, D. E. (1992). Valence Politics. In: D. Kavanagh (Ed.), Electoral
Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
 CHAPTER 1

Political Corruption and Valence Issues

This chapter links the literature on political corruption with that on valence
issues. It will discuss how the former literature has generally sought to
understand the consequences of political corruption, as well as the rea-
sons for its diffusion in different countries, while discarding (with few
exceptions) the factors that could explain why political actors may have an
incentive to campaign (in a stronger or weaker way) on political corrup-
tion issues. By doing so, the possibility of investigating the outcomes of
the choice to ‘invest in corruption’ is precluded. I will argue that looking
at political corruption using the framework provided by the valence issues
literature helps fill this gap.
In this regard, I will present the different interpretation of the concept
of valence issues first introduced into the literature by Stokes’s seminal
article (1963), focusing in particular on the distinction between non-­
positional policy-based valence issues (e.g. issues such as reducing crime
or increasing economic growth) and non-policy-based ones (e.g. credibil-
ity, integrity) (Clark 2014). In contrast to positional policy issues, which
involve a clear conflict of interest among groups of electors (being in
favour of or against the welfare state, gay marriage, and so on), when deal-
ing with either policy or non-policy valence issues, voters hold identical
positions (preferring more to less or less to more, depending on the issue).
Corruption (honesty) is a typical example of a non-policy valence issue.
I will then highlight how the aforementioned types of valence issues,
together with positional policy issues, can be viewed and analysed
within a common theoretical framework that differentiates the possible

© The Author(s) 2018 1

L. Curini, Corruption, Ideology, and Populism,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56735-8_1
2 1 POLITICAL CORRUPTION AND VALENCE ISSUES

c­ ampaigning moves available to political actors (candidates and/or par-

ties) according to two simple criteria.
This latter point leads directly to the connection between political cor-
ruption and valence issues that will be theoretically and empirically investi-
gated in the following chapters. To anticipate an aspect thoroughly discussed
below, if political corruption is treated as a valence issue, it becomes pos-
sible to focus on how parties’ relative ideological positions and electoral
considerations affect their emphasis on campaigning on corruption.

1.1   The Growing Interest in Corruption

Since the mid-1990s, from leading international organizations, such as the
EU and OECD, to international media and individual governments, the
topic of corruption has become almost ubiquitous in policy circles. The
debate on corruption has not taken place only in the public domain, how-
ever, because also academic attention to it has grown considerably over
the years. This becomes apparent on conducting a simple ­bibliometric
check. The scores reported in Fig. 1.1 are based, respectively, on a Google

Number of articles referring to corruption

in either the text or title by 100 articles on politics
% of articles referring to corruption
.05 .1
0 .15 .2

1950–60 1961–70 1971–80 1981–90 1991–00 2001–10 2011–16

Jstor: references to corruption in the text

Google Scholar: references to corruption in the title
Data source: Jstor & Google Scholar

Fig. 1.1 Number of books and articles referring to corruption in either the text
or title per 100 books and articles on politics
 1.1 THE GROWING INTEREST IN CORRUPTION 3

Scholar and a Jstor search query. The number of books and articles refer-
ring to corruption among all political science publications grown linearly
over time, rising from 2% in the 1950s to 10.8% in the past 5 years (source:
Jstor).1 The same significant growth is found when focusing on the pro-
portion of books and articles with the word ‘corruption’ in their title
among all publications on politics: from 0.5% in the 1950s to 15% once
again in the last 5 years (source Google Scholar).2
This growing interest is not surprising: corruption directly impacts on
such important matters as fairness in the institutional and economic pro-
cess, political accountability, responsiveness, etc. According to well-known
definitions, corruption is ‘the misuse of public office for private gains’
(Treisman 2000: 399) or, also, ‘an act by (or with acquiescence of) a pub-
lic official’ that violates legal or social norms for private or particularist
gain (Gerring and Thacker 2004: 300). In both definitions, public officials
are the main actors, while the extent and type of corruption are not speci-
fied (Ecker et al. 2016). Moreover, political elites may be held accountable
not just for their own abuse of power and money but also for failing to
limit corrupt behaviour in general (Tavits 2007).
Della Porta and Vannucci’s (1997: 231–232) definition of corrup-
tion centres on another recurrent theme in the literature: the breach of a
principal-­agent relationship. For Della Porta and Vannucci, political cor-
ruption involves a secret violation of a contract that, implicitly or explic-
itly, delegates responsibility and the exercise of discretionary power to an
agent (i.e. the politicians) who, against the interests or preferences of the
principal (i.e. the citizens), acts in favour of a third party, from which it
receives a reward.
The literature on corruption has mainly focused on two sub-topics.
The first concerns the consequences of corruption. A wide-ranging and
multi-disciplinary literature has shown that contexts which suffer from
higher levels of corruption are associated with, for example, poorer health
(Holmberg and Rothstein 2012) and environmental outcomes (Welsch
2004), lower economic development (Mauro 1995; Shleifer and Vishny
1993), and greater income inequality (Gupta et al. 2002). Moreover, it
has also been underlined that corruption is a problem that plagues both
developing and more economically developed regions such as Europe
(Charron et al. 2014).
The political consequences of corruption have also been well-
documented. Corruption undermines legitimacy in a variety of institutional
settings (Mishler and Rose 2001; Seligson 2002). In particular, corruption
destabilizes the democratic rules by favouring some groups—especially
4 1 POLITICAL CORRUPTION AND VALENCE ISSUES

the wealthy—over others (Engler 2016; Anderson and Tverdova 2003),

thereby generating mistrust between the majority of citizens and their
political leaders. Similarly, Rothstein and Uslaner (2005) have shown that
corruption exacerbates social inequality, which in turn reduces people’s
social trust, while Kostadinova (2012) found that corruption lowers
trust not only in the government and public administration but also in
parliament and political parties in general. Widespread corruption also
depresses electoral turnout, because high levels of perceived corruption
lead to more negative evaluations of political authorities and the
political system in general (Anderson and Tverdova 2003; McCann and
Dominguez 1998).3
Finally, corruption has a possible impact on the vote-choice of citi-
zens. According to democratic theory, one key mechanism through
which citizens can combat corrupt elite behaviour is electoral choice.
Given pervasive corruption among incumbents, or if a corruption scan-
dal breaks prior to an election, voters who understand the costs of
corruption should turn against the government in favour of a cleaner
challenger and ‘throw the rascals out’ (Charron and Bågenholm 2016).
In this respect, recent findings demonstrate that if corruption is per-
ceived to be high, the electoral support for governing parties decreases
(Klašnja et al. 2016; Krause and Méndez 2009). Similarly, several stud-
ies have found that the electorate actually punishes politicians and par-
ties involved in corruption scandals (Clark 2009), while corruption
allegations appear to harm the electoral prospects of the accused politi-
cians (Peters and Welch 1980; Ferraz and Finan 2008). However, there
is no lack of exceptions to this rule, since many voters still remain
loyal to their preferred parties. For example, recent empirical stud-
ies have shown that the accountability mechanisms are less decisive in
their impact, because corrupt officials in many cases are re-elected or
punished only marginally by voters (Chang et al. 2010; Reed 1999;
Bågenholm 2013). This may be because at least some voters personally
benefit from the corrupt activities, for example in the form of clien-
telism (Fernández-Vázquez et al. 2016; Manzetti and Wilson 2007),
or because citizens have strong loyalties to certain politicians or par-
ties, so that a corruption scandal is not enough to change their voting
behaviour (de Sousa and Moriconi 2013). Moreover, what really mat-
ters in some instances is not how corrupt a given party is perceived to
be, but whether it is deemed to be more corrupt than the other parties
(Cordero and Blais 2017).
 1.1 THE GROWING INTEREST IN CORRUPTION 5

Because the corruption issue is so important for its economic and polit-
ical consequences, it is no surprise that understanding the causes of the
phenomenon has garnered a great deal of recent scholarly attention as
well. Most analyses of the causes of corruption start from the presumption
that the abuse of public office for private gain stems from voters’ inability
to rein in their representatives. In the face of government malfeasance,
scholars ask whether and how political institutions (but also political cul-
ture and the level of economic development: see Lipset and Lenz 2000;
Montinola and Jackman 2002) affect it. Answers in the literature generally
agree that corruption is lowest where political institutions give voters the
ability to punish politicians who fail to perform according to expectations.
In regard to the already-discussed principal-agent perspective, researchers
often highlight the role and the importance of political competition (Alt
and Lassen 2003) as measured through the existence of partisan and insti-
tutional checks in limiting agents’ (i.e. politicians’) discretion to act on
their own behalf. However, given that with no reliable information about
whom to check and when, the ability to keep agents in check (and thereby
avoid a moral hazard problem) is hugely hampered; good government
requires also that those who would like to see corruption punished are in
a position to observe, report, or block undesirable behaviour (Brown et al.
2011). These elements—effective monitoring and institutional checks—
are in fact fundamental to well-designed principal-agent relationships
(Heller et al. 2016).
Montinola and Jackman (2002) and Charron and Lapuente (2010) have
looked at how the level of democracy affects this principal-agent problem.
Most studies show that established democracies are greatly affected by
political corruption, but they are so to a lesser extent than non- or proto-­
democratic states, while also rules and traditions matter in determining the
level of political corruption. Chang (2005), Kunicova and Rose-Ackerman
(2005), and Chang and Golden (2006) examine how electoral rules affect
how political candidates can be held accountable to voters. Tavits (2007)
shows that the principle-agent relationship is tightened in the presence
of clear lines of responsibility for enacting anti-corruption policies. The
same happens if institutions such as parliaments, press freedom, and a free
economy are in place (Bohara et al. 2004; Gerring and Thacker 2004).
Finally, Andrews and Montinola (2004) suggest that increasing the total
number of veto players in a democracy makes collusion more difficult and
reduces actors’ capacity to collude to accept bribes, which in turn should
reduce corruption, at least in some given circumstances.4
6 1 POLITICAL CORRUPTION AND VALENCE ISSUES

1.2   Politicizing Corruption

As just seen, the topic of corruption has generated a massive amount of
literature, both in and outside the academic field. However, with very few
exceptions, analysing the reasons that could explain why political actors
may have an incentive to campaign on political corruption issues has not
received similar attention. This is surprising, since many new political par-
ties which outperformed the political establishment in the past prominently
politicised corruption (Hanley and Sikk 2014). For example, Bågenholm
and Charron (2014) have shown in a study covering both Western and
Eastern European countries that new political parties that do politicise
corruption are more successful than new parties that do not. In terms of
the electoral effects of politicising corruption, the two authors find that,
even when controlling for a country’s level of corruption, unemployment,
inflation, electoral institutions, and history of democracy, when this tactic
is used by new parties or parties in the main opposition, it leads to greater
vote gains compared with the previous election than for the same type of
party that refrains from this strategy. On average, politicising corruption
increases a party’s vote share by about 5.6% compared with the previous
election. Such evidence suggests that there is ample opportunity to politi-
cise corruption as a campaign issue.
However, the degree of attention paid to corruption by both main-
stream as well as new parties is something that changes over time in a
quite striking manner. To anticipate some data that will be discussed at
length in the next chapters, Fig. 1.2 reports the average degree of atten-
tion to corruption issues (which I label CORRUPTION) paid by parties
in their electoral manifestos since 1945 until today in 42 democracies and
554 elections as recorded by the Comparative Manifesto Project (CMP)
dataset.5
Before beginning discussion of Fig. 1.2, it is important to point out
that emphasizing corruption in a political confrontation (i.e. politicizing
it) can be done in two different ways (see Bågenholm and Charron 2014).
First, it can be addressed in general terms, so that parties raise the issue
and suggest ways to deal with the problem, without making any explicit
references to the other parties or politicians. Second, corruption may be
politicised in more specific terms by accusing one’s political adversaries
of being corrupt. However, by focusing on manifestoes as codified by
CMP in Fig. 1.2, the two types of politicization are not distinguished,
which means that all forms of corruption rhetoric by parties in the election
 1.2 POLITICIZING CORRUPTION 7

.017
Emphasis on Corruption
.006

40s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s 10s

Decades
avg. Corruption emphasis mean +/- half sd Linear fit

Data source: CMP (version 2016a)

Fig. 1.2 Average emphasis on CORRUPTION in parties’ manifestoes over

decades

c­ ampaign are counted as politicisation of the issue (see Chaps. 2 and 3 for
more details on this aspect).
In the CMP dataset, electoral programmes are coded by content analy-
sis, i.e. by manually computing all occurrences of expressions with com-
municative meaning chosen among a predetermined list of topics. In other
words, the coding procedures used by CMP involve sorting all politically
meaningful expressions in each party’s manifesto into a group of categories
(welfare, defence, law and order, etc.), and then taking the percentages in
each category as a measure of the party’s priorities (Budge et al. 2001).
Among these categories, ‘political corruption’ (per304 to use the CMP
denomination) explicitly includes all references to the need to eliminate cor-
ruption and associated abuse in political and public life. Accordingly, only
campaigns carried forward by parties with respect to ‘grand corruption’—
that is, corruption involving politicians and political parties—are anal-
ysed. CMP data do not enable a distinction to be drawn between ‘grand’
and ‘petty’ bureaucratic corruption cases, so that this difference, possibly
important in some cases, is inevitably overlooked in the analysis.
8 1 POLITICAL CORRUPTION AND VALENCE ISSUES

There follow some examples of sentences dealing explicitly with cor-

ruption in party manifestoes and that show the large variety of political
references to the phenomenon6: ‘Corporations and governments must
behave ethically in all transactions and work to prevent corruption’ (a sen-
tence included in the Australian Green Party manifesto of 2010); ‘We
will support partner Governments and civil societies in their fight against
corruption’ (Fine Gael 2007 manifesto); ‘Transparency International
has observed that the numerous agencies in government responsible for
minimising corruption represent a problem’ (New Zealand Māori party
2011 manifesto); ‘Money has been used on a racial basis and squandered
in corruption and bureaucracy’ (African National Congress 1994 party
manifesto); ‘Reforms must protect consumers from abuse and reflect a
global commitment to end corruption’ (American Democratic Party 2012
manifesto); and ‘Yet censorship and self-censorship are still rife, and the
threat of prosecution can have a chilling effect on the willingness of people
to speak out against injustice and corruption’ (British Liberal Democratic
party 2015 manifesto).
Let us return to Fig. 1.2. As can be seen, corruption as a campaign
issue has increased in use over decades: the correlation over time between
CORRUPTION and decades is, in fact, .81 (significant at the .01 level).
Focusing on a different data source (information on politicisation of cor-
ruption collected from election reports in political science journals) and
on a smaller sample concerning only European democracies from 1981 to
2011, the already-mentioned paper by Bågenholm and Charron (2014)
finds a similar result. This is reassuring about the robustness of what is
reported in Fig. 1.2.
In substantive terms, the emphasis placed by parties on corruption in
their manifestos is also far from being negligible. The overall average value
of CORRUPTION in the entire sample on which Fig. 1.2 is based is
.017 (i.e. 1.17% of all quasi-sentences in manifestoes are devoted to politi-
cal corruption). On comparing this value with other politically relevant
categories included in the CMP dataset, it can be concluded that parties
discuss corruption in their manifestoes more frequently than, for example,
economic planning (per404 referring to the CMP denomination), nation-
alization (per412), controlled economy (per413), criticizing the military
(per105), praising constitutionalism (per203), attacking multiculturalism
(per608), or discussing peace (per106).
Figure 1.2, moreover, conveys a second important piece of information:
if, as just noted, parties tend to highlight CORRUPTION to an ­increasing
 1.2 POLITICIZING CORRUPTION 9

extent over time, the significant variance of attention to that issue remains
quite substantial throughout the time period considered, meaning that
there are always some parties that tend to talk substantially more (or
substantially less) about corruption than the average. This prompts the
following question: given the considerable variance in the emphasis on
corruption just observed, under what conditions is the electoral strategy
of politicizing corruption more easily employed? For example, do parties
talk about corruption as a by-product of contextual exogenous factors
(such as a higher level of corruption in a given country)?
To investigate this possibility further, I need a measure able to estimate
the severity of corruption in each country over time. Until the 1990s,
empirical research in the field of corruption consisted primarily of case
studies. Since then, however, a number of corruption indices have been
developed by different sources and institutions. They have transformed
the study of corruption and enabled social scientists to test a num-
ber of hypotheses on both its causes and its consequences. One of the
most commonly used indicators of political corruption is Transparency
International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).
This index represents a ‘poll of polls’ constructed by a team of research-
ers at Göttingen University using information from a number of individual
surveys of businesspersons or local populations of the relevant countries,
as well as several ratings by economic risk analysts and country experts.7
It has been produced annually since 1995, with country coverage varying
as available data sources have changed: for the 2015 index, for example,
167 countries were rated.8 The rankings from each of these sources are
standardized and then averaged to derive a composite country rating out
of 10. Averaging should reduce the impact of idiosyncratic coding by indi-
vidual ratings of organizations. The CPI is generally considered the most
valid and reliable cross-national estimate of corruption, and it is there-
fore widely used in comparative studies (see Treisman 2000; Krause and
Mendez 2009; Choi and Woo 2010).9
In this regard, Fig. 1.3 contrasts the average emphasis on
CORRUPTION by parties running in the elections held from 1995 to
2015 with the corresponding country-CPI score in that same electoral
year (note that only the pool of democracies included in the CMP dataset
have been considered in this comparison). For example, in the case of the
Irish election held in June 1997, I consider the Irish CPI score in 1997.
As discussed, the CPI scale ranges between a maximum score (10), which
corresponds to low corruption levels, and a minimum score (0) i­ndicating
10 1 POLITICAL CORRUPTION AND VALENCE ISSUES

.13
Japan 1996
.1
Emphasis on Corruption

Canada 2006
.05

Poland 2005
0

2 4 6 8 10
CPI
Country year-election Linear fit

Data source: CMP (version 2016a)

Fig. 1.3 Contrasting the CPI index with CORRUPTION across country-year
elections

high levels of corruption. The overall correlation between the two mea-
sures is significant but not impressively strong: −.48, i.e. as the level of
corruption in a given country-year is perceived to decrease according to
the CPI, so does CORRUPTION. One of the reasons for this limited cor-
relation is the different degree of ‘stickiness’ of the two variables. The CPI
is a measure relative stable over time in each country, contrary to what
happens with the emphasis on corruption by parties.10 For example, in the
case of the CPI, the intra-class correlation in the data (a measure stating
how much of the total variation in the CPI variable can be explained solely
by differences between countries) is .94. Hence almost 94% of the entire
variance in the CPI is explained by differences between countries alone. By
contrast, the intra-class correlation in the case of CORRUPION is .29. In
this case, in other words, more than 70% of the total variance in the vari-
able under scrutiny is due to overtime dynamics within the same country,
rather than simply to differences across countries.11
It therefore appears difficult to relate something that is relatively stable
within a country (the severity of corruption in each single country-year as
captured by the CPI) with the large variation over time within the same
 1.2 POLITICIZING CORRUPTION 11

country of CORRUPTION. In Fig. 1.3, for example, several cases present

a country year-election value of CORRUPTION that is larger than the
one expected according to the country-CPI value in that same year (i.e.
the Canadian election of 2006) or, vice versa, considerably smaller (i.e.
the Polish election of 2005: in a country that experiences major problems
in terms of corruption according to the CPI but wherein parties do not
discuss the topic to any great extent).
Corruption can therefore exist, also at an apparently high rate, in a soci-
ety without being politicized (see the above case of Poland in 2005). Vice
versa, even in societies where politics are perceived to be ‘clean’, parties
can politicize this issue, and the tactic has been used by parties in countries
like Canada, as just seen. This apparent contrast can be explained on
acknowledging that the choice of emphasizing corruption is taken delib-
erately by political actors, and not simply as an automatic product of con-
textual factors, such as media revealing corruption scandals, for example
(I will return to this point at length below).
There are in fact also some drawbacks to stressing political corruption
(see Bågenholm and Charron 2014). First, for this tactic to be effective,
it must be delivered by a credible messenger. For example, in a situa-
tion where all major parties are deeply corrupt and all of them benefit
from the system while taking turns in office, the likelihood that any one
of them would challenge the current order by highlighting corruption is
quite small. Politicians may turn a blind eye to the problem, knowing that
they all benefit from it or that they cannot do anything about it even if
they tried.
Moreover, as has been recently demonstrated (Kumlin and Esaiasson
2012), the overuse of scandals centred on the intentional exploitation of
corruption to collect votes can lead to what has been called a kind of
‘scandal fatigue’, whereby voters do not react to scandals in a meaningful
way. To make things even more complex in this regard, anti-corruption
rhetoric may also backfire in the sense that parties emphasising morality
and honesty will be more severely evaluated by the voters and, if they
fail to improve the situation or, even worse, engage in the same corrupt
behaviour once in office, the public’s judgement will most likely be puni-
tive. In short, there may be short-term electoral gains from politicising
corruption, but also some major drawbacks.
So when does the politicization of corruption apply? Under what condi-
tions are parties willing to campaign on corruption? The lack of attention
to determining the reasons why parties may have a stronger (or weaker)
12 1 POLITICAL CORRUPTION AND VALENCE ISSUES

incentive to highlight corruption issues in their public confrontation is

unfortunate because it precludes the possibility of investigating the impor-
tant, and as we will see in Chap. 5, quite far-reaching consequences of that
choice. Consideration of political corruption using the framework pro-
vided by the valence issues literature helps to fill this apparent void.

1.3   What Is Meant by ‘Valence Issues’?

Spatial theory was launched by Anthony Downs in his now classic book
(Downs 1957) and today comprises a large body of literature. The exam-
ples that Downs provides of party competition refer to conflicts of inter-
est among groups of electors, as represented by their different positions
in the policy space. Stated informally (but see Chap. 2 on this), spatial
theory asserts that each voter’s utility decreases with the distance between
his/her preferred programme (his/her ideal point) and the locations of
parties’ (candidates’) proposals; accordingly, people vote for the party (or
candidate) with which they most agree on the issues of the day. Issues that
matter are those on which voters have differing opinions, i.e. the issues
have a ‘pro-con quality’ that divides the electorate. Taxation is the arche-
typal spatial issue, since some voters prefer to pay lower taxes even if this
means cuts in public services, whereas others are willing to accept higher
taxation if it produces better public services. Since the political parties
take differing stances on what constitutes an optimal mix of taxation and
public spending, the tax-­spend trade­off is a classic spatial issue. Similarly,
issues such as foreign policy, immigration controls, abortion, and gay and
lesbian marriage are positional policy issues upon which public opinion is
deeply divided and ‘parties or leaders are differentiated by their advocacy
of alternative positions’ (Stokes 1992: 143).
However, positional policy issues by no means exhaust all the aspects
of electoral competition. Over the years, this has been well established
by studies underlining the importance of factors such as ‘party identifica-
tion’ (Campbell et al. 1960; Budge et al. 1976), and ‘personalisation of
politics’ (Kaase 1994; Mughan 2000). One way to manage the complexity
of electoral competition is to point out that electors not only assess candi-
dates and parties’ positions in the policy space, but also judge candidates
and parties’ qualities (faults) corresponding to commonly shared values
(disvalues). In Stokes (1963: 373), a distinction is drawn between ‘posi-
tion issues’, which involve support of government actions from a set of
alternatives over which a distribution of voter preferences is defined, and
 1.3 WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘VALENCE ISSUES’? 13

‘valence issues’, defined as ‘those that merely involve the linking of the
parties with some condition that is positively or negatively valued by the
electorate’. Valence issues are those where there is (virtually) no disagree-
ment, on which parties ‘are differentiated not by what they advocate but
by the degree to which they are linked in the public’s mind with condi-
tions or goals or symbols of which almost everyone approves or disap-
proves’ (Stokes 1992: 143). In the language of spatial models, valence
issues are ones with very widely shared ‘ideal points’: everyone has the
same preference with respect to them (Evans and Chzhen 2016; Whiteley
et al. 2016). Figure 1.4 gives a graphical representation of the distinc-
tion. The figure reports two possible examples of voters’ distribution with
respect to (positional) policy issues (unimodal or bimodal), together with
the expected distribution for a ‘valence’ issue, that is, an issue that is uni-
formly liked or disliked among the electorate, as opposed to a ‘position
issue’ on which opinion is divided.
Valence issues can be either policy-based or non-policy-based. For
example, increasing economic growth is a classic non-positional policy-­
based valence issue since virtually everyone wants vigorous, sustainable
.4
.3
Density
.2
.1
0

Unimodal Policy Issue Bimodal Policy Issue

Valence Issue

Fig. 1.4 Policy vs. valence issues in terms of voters’ distribution of preferences
with respect to such issues
14 1 POLITICAL CORRUPTION AND VALENCE ISSUES

economic growth, preferring prosperity to stagnation. Hence they will

all support the party which they think can best deliver economic ‘good
times’, without presenting any distribution of preferences with respect to
that issue. Similarly, almost everyone wants affordable and effective public
services in areas such as education, health, transportation, and environ-
mental protection. Large majorities also demand protection from threats
to national and personal security posed by terrorists or common criminals.
The same applies to issues such as low rates of inflation or low unemploy-
ment (Whiteley et al. 2016).
The voluminous literature on the saliency theory approach (Budge and
Farlie 1983), as well on issue ownership (Petrocik 1996), focuses on such
policy-based valence issues. According to such studies, voters evaluate,
and parties/candidates compete, on the basis of which party/candidate
is considered ‘best able’ to handle a given issue (or set of issues), rather
than which of them has presented the policy position most proximate to
voters’ preferred policy positions (Clarke et al. 2004, 2009; Green 2007;
Green and Hobolt 2008; Pardos-Prado 2011). In this situation, debate is
about who is best able to deliver what everyone wants, rather than what
should be delivered. For all of these (policy-based) valence issues, there-
fore, what matters is ‘who can do it’, not ‘what should be done’ (Clarke
et al. 2010).12
Yet, in developing his original argument, Stokes (1963: 372) focuses
on a different set of valence issues, that is on non-policy-related factors
that can provide parties (or candidates) with an electoral advantage (or
disadvantage) independently of their policy positions (see Clark 2014
for a discussion in this regard). Among the examples that Stokes consid-
ers to explain the meaning of such non-policy valence issues (or ‘charac-
ter valence’ attributes, to use the terminology employed in Adams et al.
2011), political corruption stands out as one of the most prominent: ‘if
we are to speak of a dimension at all, both parties and all voters were
located at a single point: the position of virtue in government’ (Stokes
1963: 372).
The idea that political corruption epitomizes valence issues may be
challenged by claiming that voters in some cases make corrupt politicians
win elections (see the previous section on this point). This does not imply,
however, that a majority of voters prefer corrupt politicians to honest
ones. Rather, it means that voters generally compare candidates and par-
ties not only on corruption (as well as on other valence issues, such as
competence or charisma) but also on their proposed policy programme.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Yu
yuen
Yugor
Yukon
Yukoners
Yule
Yun
Yung
Yungan
Yungtsin
Yunnan
yuyu
Yü
yüan
Yünnan
Z
zaggi
Zambales
Zambesi
Zambesia
Zambezi
Zamboanga
Zanardelli
Zangwill
Zanjon
Zanzibar
Zanzibarian
Zaragoza
zariba
Zavala
zeal
ZEALAND
Zealander
Zealanders
zealous
zealously
Zeebrugge
Zeitoun
Zeitung
Zelaya
Zembla
Zenta
zero
zest
Zeus
Zeyla
Ziegler
zigzag
Zina
Zinc
Zion
Zionism
Zionist
Zionists
Zionwards
Zirpanit
Zlatoust
Zola
ZONA
Zone
zones
Zoology
Zoshan
Zoutpansberg
Zukunft
Zulfikar
Zulu
ZULULAND
ZULUS
zum
Zurich
Zurlinden
Zygnema
zygote
zygotes
É
Éclair
Éclaireur
Émile
Étienne
à
æolipile
æsthetic
ça
ébranlait
écrit
élite
état
êng
être
üan
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY FOR
READY REFERENCE, VOLUME 6 ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™

electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™

electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the

Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
 almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
 s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of

electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
 Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit

501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary

Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without

widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where
we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic

works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project

Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.