Of all political officials in the U.S., governors seem to dirty their hands at a relatively rate. Just last month, former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell (pictured above) was sentenced to two years in prison for receiving gifts in exchange for preferential treatment while in office. McDonnell is the 12th governor in U.S. history to be indicted on corruption charges, while many more have resigned under clouds of suspicion. Moreover, the trend of corruption among governors seems to be growing; just last week, Oregon governor John Kitzhaber resigned amid a scandal involving his fiance, adding his name to a list that includes the likes of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, former Missouri governor Roger Wilson and former North Carolina governor Mike Easley.
So what makes governors so seemingly susceptible to corruption? Moreover, is corruption a systemic weakness of the governor's office and/or political system in certain states, or a result of individual incompetence? Circumstantial evidence would point to the former - just direct your eyes to Illinois, whose politicians have long been notorious for their corruption.
So what makes governors so seemingly susceptible to corruption? Moreover, is corruption a systemic weakness of the governor's office and/or political system in certain states, or a result of individual incompetence? Circumstantial evidence would point to the former - just direct your eyes to Illinois, whose politicians have long been notorious for their corruption.
Specifically, I was interested if the level of power a governor holds is a factor in the presence of corruption. Are governors more likely to engage in corrupt behavior if they have more or less power? I took two measures of power in this case:
Another measure - the Ranney Index, named for political scientist Austin Ranney - helps us account for the second measure of power. The Ranney Index measures the partisan levels of a state's political system on a scale of 0 to 1 (states with scores closer to 0 are more heavily controlled by the Republican party, while states with scores closer to 1 lean more Democrat). The Ranney Index and GIPI are the two most important tools I used to measure any potential relationship between power and corruption.
I chose to look at cases since 2004 in which a governor was indicted for charges pertaining to corruption, such as money laundering and general power abuses that directly stemmed from political status. There were eight such cases that fit these criteria, and they are outlined in the table below:
- The institutional power with which a state imbues its governor's office, which varies significantly from state to state
- The political power available to a governor, primarily decided by the political makeup of a state's legislature
Another measure - the Ranney Index, named for political scientist Austin Ranney - helps us account for the second measure of power. The Ranney Index measures the partisan levels of a state's political system on a scale of 0 to 1 (states with scores closer to 0 are more heavily controlled by the Republican party, while states with scores closer to 1 lean more Democrat). The Ranney Index and GIPI are the two most important tools I used to measure any potential relationship between power and corruption.
I chose to look at cases since 2004 in which a governor was indicted for charges pertaining to corruption, such as money laundering and general power abuses that directly stemmed from political status. There were eight such cases that fit these criteria, and they are outlined in the table below:
First, let us take a look at institutional power, using the GIPI values. It should be noted that in 2010, the average GIPI value for all 50 states was 3.3. In our case study, four of the eight cases occurred in states in which governors held a greater-than-average amount of power; two cases occurred in states in which governors held an average amount of power; and two cases occurred in states in which governors held a lesser-than-average amount of power. The GIPI values from our case study average 3.36 - essentially the same average as that of all states. Therefore, it appears that at least in this case study, a governor's level of institutional power did not play a significant role in corrupt behavior.
Now let us evaluate whether political power had any impact on corrupt behavior. The furthest-right column of the table, "Ranney Difference," indicates the difference between a governor's political value (0 for Democratic governors and 1 for Republican governors) and the political value of the rest of the state's political system, denoted by the Ranney Index value in the column to its left. Theoretically, a Ranney difference of above 0.5 should indicate a high level of discord between a governor and the political establishment and thus little political backing. However, in our case study, four of our cases had differences of above 0.5, suggesting that governors had below-average amounts of political support and power derived from their parties, and four of our cases had differences of below 0.5, suggesting that those governors had above-average amounts of support and political backing from their parties. Therefore, it appears that the level of political support for a governor does not strongly influence corrupt behavior.
Although intuition may suggest that a governor may resort to corrupt behavior when he is either relatively powerless or relatively powerful, our case study does not support this claim. Sorry to have failed you, whistleblowers - if you want to apprehend the next Blagojevich or McDonnell, you might have to look elsewhere.
Now let us evaluate whether political power had any impact on corrupt behavior. The furthest-right column of the table, "Ranney Difference," indicates the difference between a governor's political value (0 for Democratic governors and 1 for Republican governors) and the political value of the rest of the state's political system, denoted by the Ranney Index value in the column to its left. Theoretically, a Ranney difference of above 0.5 should indicate a high level of discord between a governor and the political establishment and thus little political backing. However, in our case study, four of our cases had differences of above 0.5, suggesting that governors had below-average amounts of political support and power derived from their parties, and four of our cases had differences of below 0.5, suggesting that those governors had above-average amounts of support and political backing from their parties. Therefore, it appears that the level of political support for a governor does not strongly influence corrupt behavior.
Although intuition may suggest that a governor may resort to corrupt behavior when he is either relatively powerless or relatively powerful, our case study does not support this claim. Sorry to have failed you, whistleblowers - if you want to apprehend the next Blagojevich or McDonnell, you might have to look elsewhere.