Skip to main content
×
Home

Attitudes to Moonlighting Politicians: Evidence from the United Kingdom

  • Rosie Campbell (a1) and Philip Cowley (a2)
Abstract
Abstract

Research has explored the impact of politicians holding second jobs, or moonlighting, on their performance and recruitment, but less is known about how citizens respond to such behavior. Citizens may react negatively to Members of Parliament (MPs) moonlighting, viewing outside earnings as a conflict of interest or a distraction, or instead they might view MPs with second incomes positively, seeing them as a connection with the “real world” beyond politics. Utilizing a series of survey experiments, we assess how British citizens respond to MPs moonlighting. We demonstrate preferences more complex than those revealed by traditional survey instruments. Citizens respond to both size and source of income. They do not respond negatively to all second incomes; they are more sympathetic to the entrepreneur who continues to draw an income than medical doctors or lawyers who continue to practice. They are most hostile to politicians who take on part-time company directorships.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Attitudes to Moonlighting Politicians: Evidence from the United Kingdom
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Attitudes to Moonlighting Politicians: Evidence from the United Kingdom
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Attitudes to Moonlighting Politicians: Evidence from the United Kingdom
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All
Allen Nicholas. 2008. “A New Ethical World of British MPs?Journal of Legislative Studies 14 (3): 297314.
Allen Nicholas. 2011a. “Dishonourable Members? Exploring Patterns of Misconduct in the Contemporary House of Commons.” British Politics 6: 210–40.
Allen Nicholas. 2011b. “Ethics Regulation at Westminster: Mapping Long-Term Institutional Change.” Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics 13 (1): 3547.
Campbell Rosie, and Cowley Philip. 2014. “What Voters Want: Reactions to Candidate Characteristics in a Survey Experiment.” Political Studies 62 (4): 745–65.
Caselli Francesco and Morelli Massimo. 2004. “Bad Politicians.” Journal of Public Economics 88 (3–4): 759–82.
Djankov Simeon, La Porta Rafael, Lopez-de-Silanes Florencio, and Shleifer Andrei. 2010. “Disclosure by Politicians.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2 (2): 179209.
Galiarducci Stefano, Nannicini Tommaso, and Naticchioni Paolo. 2010. “Moonlighting Politicians.” Journal of Public Economics 94 (9–10): 688–99.
Geys Benny and Mause Karsten. 2013. “Moonlighting Politicians: A Survey and Research Agenda.” Journal of Legislative Studies 19 (1): 7697.
Geys Benny and Mause Karsten. 2014. “Are Female Legislators Different? Exploring Sex Differences in German MPs’ Outside Interests.” Parliamentary Affairs 67 (4): 841–65.
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). 2013. MPs’ Pay and Pensions. A New Package. London: IPSA.
Mutz Diana. 2011. Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rush Michael. 1997. “Damming the Sleaze: The New Code of Conduct and the Outside Interests of MPs in the British House of Commons.” Journal of Legislative Studies 3 (2): 1028.
Sanbonmatsu Kira. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 2034.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Experimental Political Science
  • ISSN: 2052-2630
  • EISSN: 2052-2649
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 26
Total number of PDF views: 106 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 844 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.