Crime and punishment the British way: Accountability channels following the MPs' expenses scandal

- We provide an empirical study of democratic accountability by using data from the 2009 UK expenses scandal.
- Corrupt politicians are mostly removed at the pre-election stage: this explains why elections seem to have little effect.
- Information availability is crucial for democratic accountability. Partisanship, however, also matters.
- The British press did not display any particular partisan bias in covering the scandal.
- Female MPs attracted more press coverage and, for the same amount of coverage, were more likely to stand down.

Does democracy make politicians accountable? And which role does information play in the accountability process? There are several reasons making the 2009 UK expenses scandal an ideal setting to answer these questions. Our study of the scandal reaches two main conclusions: 1) the removal of corrupt politicians happens mostly at the pre-election stage; 2) information availability is a crucial ingredient in the accountability process. We also show that punishment was directed to individual MPs rather than their parties and that voters displayed a substantial partisan bias, not only at the voting stage but also by perceiving co-partisan MPs to be less involved in the scandal. Ceteris paribus, female MPs attracted more press coverage and, for the same amount of coverage, were more likely to stand down. Finally, we show that press coverage was ideologically balanced, i.e., newspapers with different ideological leaning devoted similar amount of news to each MP.