I Don’t Like It Unless It’s for Me: Voters’ Perceptions of Pork-Barrel Politics in Central and Eastern Europe

References

• Anderson, Christopher J., and Yuliya V. Tverdova. 2003. “Corruption, Political Allegiances, and Attitudes toward Government in Contemporary Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (1): 91–109. doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder Jr., and Michiko Ueda. 2004. “Campaign Finance Regulations and the Return on Investment from Campaign Contributions.” https://scholar.harvard.edu/jsnyder/files/8._cf.return.regs__0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bartolini, Stefano, and Peter Mair. 1990. Identity, Competition, and Electoral Availability: The Stabilization of European Electorates 1885–1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bayer, Lili. 2020. “4 Big Fights in Europe’s Budget Battle.” Politico, February 19. Accessed December 07, 2020. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-budget-battle-big-fights-cohesion-funding-agriculture/?fbclid=IwAR0PNcvdDrHhf-K6VohBtNGFS8JKVayzBAKpWc-vsHdtNTpDD9oPJhd9y1M
   Google Scholar
• Bhatti, Yosef, Kasper M Hansen, and Asmus Leth Olsen. 2013. “Political Hypocrisy: The Effect of Political Scandals on Candidate Evaluations.” Acta Politica 48 (4): 408–428. doi:10.1057/ap.2013.6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch, Sarah. 1997. “Nomenklatura Democratization: Electoral Clientelism in Post‐Soviet Ukraine.” Democratization 4 (4): 40–62. doi:10.1080/13510349708403535.
   Google Scholar
• Bøggild, Troels. 2016. “How Politicians’ Reelection Efforts Can Reduce Public Trust, Electoral Support, and Policy Approval.” Political Psychology 37 (6): 901–919. doi:10.1111/pops.12303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowler, Shaun, Todd Donovan, and Jeffrey A. Karp. 2006. “Why Politicians like Electoral Institutions: Self-Interest, Values, or Ideology?” The Journal of Politics 68 (2): 434–446. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00418.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowler, Shaun, and Jeffrey A. Karp. 2004. “Politicians, Scandals, and Trust in Government.” Political Behavior 26 (3): 271–287. doi:10.1023/B:POBE.0000043456.87303.3a.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braidwood, Travis. 2015. “Desirable Pork: Do Voters Reward for Earmark Acquisition?” Research & Politics 2 (4): 1–9. doi:10.1177/2053168015612247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brockner, Joel, and Batia M. Wiesenfeld. 1996. “An Integrative Framework for Explaining Reactions to Decisions: Interactive Effects of Outcomes and Procedures.” Psychological Bulletin 120 (2): 189–208. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa-i-Font, Joan, Eduardo Rodriguez-Oreggia, and Dario Lunapla. 2003. “Political Competition and Pork-Barrel Politics in the Allocation of Public Investment in Mexico.” Public Choice 116 (1/2): 185–204. doi:10.1023/A:1024263208736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, Matz, and Eva Johansson. 2002. “On the Vote-Purchasing Behavior of Incumbent Governments.” American Political Science Review 96 (1): 27–40. doi:10.1017/S0003055402004215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, Stefan, and Sören Holmberg. 2014. “Democracy and Bureaucracy: How Their Quality Matters for Popular Satisfaction.” West European Politics 37 (3): 515–537. doi:10.1080/01402382.2013.830468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalton, Russell J., and Martin P. Wattenberg. 2000. Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Cremer, David. 2004. “The Influence of Accuracy as a Function of Leader’s Bias: The Role of Trustworthiness in the Psychology of Procedural Justice.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (3): 293–304. doi:10.1177/0146167203256969.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Wilde, Pieter. 2012. “Politicisation of the EU Budget: Conflict and the Constraining Dissensus.” West European Politics 35 (5): 1075–1094. doi:10.1080/01402382.2012.706411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denemark, David. 2000. “Partisan Pork Barrel in Parliamentary Systems: Australian Constiuency-Level Grants.” The Journal of Politics 62 (3): 896–915. doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00039.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denemark, David. 2014. “Partisan Pork-Barrel, Independents and Electoral Advantage: Australia’s Regional Partnerships Program in 2004.” Australian Journal of Politics & History 60 (4): 564–579. doi:10.1111/ajph.12076.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixit, Avinash, and John Londregan. 1996. “The Determinants of Success of Special Interests in Redistributive Politics.” The Journal of Politics 58 (4): 1132–1155. doi:10.2307/2960152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
   Google Scholar
• Esaiasson, Peter, and Patrik Öhberg. 2020. “The Moment You Decide, You Divide: How Politicians Assess Procedural Fairness.” European Journal of Political Research 59 (3): 714–730. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falk, Armin, Ernst Fehr, and Urs Fischbacher. 2008. “Testing Theories of Fairness—Intentions Matter.” Games and Economic Behavior 62 (1): 287–303. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2007.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gherghina, Sergiu. 2013. “Going for a Safe Vote: Electoral Bribes in Post-Communist Romania.” Debatte: Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe 21 (2–3): 143–164.
   Google Scholar
• Gherghina, Sergiu, and Clara Volintiru. 2017. “A New Model of Clientelism: Political Parties, Public Resources, and Private Contributors.” European Political Science Review 9 (1): 115–137. doi:10.1017/S1755773915000326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilley, Bruce. 2006. “The Determinants of State Legitimacy: Results for 72 Countries.” International Political Science Review 27 (1): 47–71. doi:10.1177/0192512106058634.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasen, Richard L. 2000. “Vote Buying.” California Law Review 88 (5): 1323–1371. doi:10.2307/3481262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haughton, Tim, and Marek Rybář. 2009. “A Tool in the Toolbox: Assessing the Impact of EU Membership on Party Politics in Slovakia.” Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 25 (4): 540–563. doi:10.1080/13523270903310928.
   Google Scholar
• Hibbing, John R., and John R. Alford. 2004. “Accepting Authoritative Decisions: Humans as Wary Cooperators.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (1): 62–76. doi:10.2307/1519897.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hibbing, John R., and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hoare, Anthony G. 1992. “Transport Investment and the Political Pork Barrel: A Review and the Case of Nelson, New Zealand.” Transport Reviews 12 (2): 133–151. doi:10.1080/01441649208716810.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooghe, Marc, Dietlind Stolle, Valérie-Anne Mahéo, and Sara Vissers. 2010. “Why Can’t a Student Be More like an Average Person?: Sampling and Attrition Effects in Social Science Field and Laboratory Experiments.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 628 (1): 85–96. doi:10.1177/0002716209351516.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, Richard S., and Peter Mair. 1995. “Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party.” Party Politics 1 (1): 5–28. doi:10.1177/1354068895001001001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, Richard S., and Peter Mair. 2009. “The Cartel Party Thesis: A Restatement.” Perspectives on Politics 7 (4): 753. doi:10.1017/S1537592709991782.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khemani, Stuti. 2003. “Partisan Politics and Intergovernmental Transfers in India.” 3016. Policy Research Working Papers. The World Bank. doi:10.1596/1813-9450-3016.
   Google Scholar
• Kitschelt, Herbert. 2000. “Linkages between Citizens and Politicians in Democratic Polities.” Comparative Political Studies 33 (6–7): 845–879. doi:10.1177/001041400003300607.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leventhal, Gerald S. 1980. “What Should Be Done with Equity Theory?” In New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships, edited by Kenneth J. Gergen, Martin S. Greenberg, and Richard H. Willis, 27–55. Boston: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lind, E. Allan, and Tom R. Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacCoun, Robert J. 2005. “Voice, Control, and Belonging: The Double-Edged Sword of Procedural Fairness.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1 (1): 171–201. doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.1.041604.115958.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magalhães, Pedro C. 2016. “Economic Evaluations, Procedural Fairness, and Satisfaction with Democracy.” Political Research Quarterly 69 (3): 522–534. doi:10.1177/1065912916652238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milligan, Kevin, and Michael Smart. 2005. “Regional Grants as Pork Barrel Politics.” 1453. CESifo Working Papers. http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/page/portal/DocBase_Content/WP/WP-CESifo_Working_Papers/wp-cesifo-2005/wp-cesifo-2005-04/cesifo1_wp1453.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mjelde, James W., Alicia A. Israel Schwarzlose, Rebekka M. Dudensing, Yanhong Jin, Linda K. Cherrington, and Junyi Chen. 2016. “Subject Pool Effects among the General Population and Students: A Choice Experiment Example.” Applied Economics Letters 23 (14): 1018–1021. doi:10.1080/13504851.2015.1128071.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavlović, Zoran. 2015. “Individual and Country Level Determinants of (Post)materialist Values in Eastern Europe.” European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities 4 (2): 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, Robert A., and Dwight R. Merunka. 2014. “Convenience Samples of College Students and Research Reproducibility.” Journal of Business Research 67 (5): 1035–1041. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramirez, Mark D. 2008. “Procedural Perceptions and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Psychology 29 (5): 675–698. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00660.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, Vivien A. 2013. “Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput.’” Political Studies 61 (1): 2–22. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1943. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Spáč, Peter. 2016a. “For the Game, for the Loyal Partisans: Distribution of Sport Grants in Slovakia.” Central European Journal of Public Policy 10 (1): 12–21. doi:10.1515/cejpp-2016-0020.
   Google Scholar
• Spáč, Peter. 2016b. “Pork Barrel Politics in a Coalition Government Environment and the Effect of Grants on the Reelection of Local Incumbents: Evidence from Slovakia.” Politologický Časopis - Czech Journal of Political Science 23 (3): 251–271. doi:10.5817/PC2016-3-251.
   Google Scholar
• “Special Eurobarometer 470: Corruption.” 2017. doi:10.2837/513267.
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, Susan C. 2005. “Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina.” American Political Science Review 99 (3): 315–325. doi:10.1017/S0003055405051683.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokes, Susan C., Thad Dunning, Marcelo Nazareno, and Valeria Brusco. 2013. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107324909.
   Google Scholar
• Stratmann, Thomas. 1995. “Campaign Contributions and Congressional Voting: Does the Timing of Contributions Matter?” The Review of Economics and Statistics 77 (1): 127–136. doi:10.2307/2109998.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thibaut, John, and Laurens Walker. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Transparency International. 2019. “Corruption Perceptions Index 2019.” https://www.transparency.org/cpi2019
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, Tom R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, Tom R. 1994. “Governing amid Diversity: The Effect of Fair Decisionmaking Procedures on the Legitimacy of Government.” Law & Society Review 28 (4): 809–832. doi:10.2307/3053998.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulbig, Stacey G. 2002. “Policies, Procedures, and People: Sources of Support for Government?” Social Science Quarterly 83 (3): 789–809. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulbig, Stacey G. 2008. “Voice Is Not Enough: The Importance of Influence in Political Trust and Policy Assessments.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (3): 523–539. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulbig, Stacey G., and Nancy Martorano Miller. 2012. “The Coingate Effect: The Impact of Scandal on Attitudes Toward, State and Federal Political Actors.” The Social Science Journal 49 (1): 61–71. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2011.07.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Biezen, Ingrid, and Petr Kopecky. 2007. “The State and the Parties: Public Funding, Public Regulation and Rent-Seeking in Contemporary Democracies.” Party Politics 13 (2): 235–254. doi:10.1177/1354068807073875.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Biezen, Ingrid, and Petr Kopecky. 2014. “The Cartel Party and the State: Party-State Linkages in European Democracies.” Party Politics 20 (2): 170–182. doi:10.1177/1354068813519961.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varju, Marton, ed. 2019. Between Compliance and Particularism. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-05782-4.
   Google Scholar
• Walsch, Christopher. 2018. “An East‑West Divide in the European Union? The Visegrad Four States in Search of the Historical Self in National Discourses on European Integration.” Politics in Central Europe 14 (2): 181–191. doi:10.2478/pce-2018-0015.
   Google Scholar
• Wolchik, Sharon L., and Jane Leftwich Curry. 2018. “Democracy, the Market, and the Return to Europe: From Communism to the European Union and NATO.” In Central and East European Politics: From Communism to Democracy, edited by Sharon L. Wolchik and Jane Leftwich Curry, 3–29. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar