Corruption and Political Interest: Empirical Evidence at the Micro Level

Abstract

Abstract:In recent years the topic of corruption has attracted a great deal of attention. However, there is still a lack of empirical evidence about the determinants of corruption at the micro level. Therefore we explore in detail the impact of political interest using three different proxies. Furthermore, investigation of the effects of political interest on corruption has been neglected in the present literature. We address this deficiency by analyzing a cross-section of individuals, using the World Values Survey to explore the determinants of corruption using not only perceived corruption as a dependent variable, but also the justifiability of corruption. In addition, we present empirical evidence at both the cross-country level and at the within country level. The results of the multivariate analysis suggest that political interest has an impact on corruption, when controlling for additional significant factors such as institutional conditions (e.g., voice and accountability).JEL classification: K420, D720, O170, J240

Corruption and Social Values: Do Postmaterialists Justify Bribery?

“…Older people justify bribe-taking less than younger ones do. This evidence corroborates findings by Torgler and Dong (2008) (for the 3 rd wave of WVS) and supports the idea that factors associated with aging restrict individuals' corrupt behavior (see Torgler and Valev, 2006). Third, married people and people with more children justify bribery more than do unmarried people and people with fewer or no children.…”

“…11 We are not aware of studies which have examined the correlation between corruption and postmaterialist values at the individual level. There is a small but growing body of papers that analyze factors determining individual willingness to engage in corruption or propensity to justify it (e.g., Sawamy et al, 2001;Mocan, 2008;Torgler and Dong, 2008), but they do not pay much attention to social values. active civic position create a demand for fair and transparent elections and the independence of courts.…”

Unpacking the link between gender and injunctive norms on corruption using survey data: a multilevel analysis of 30 European countries

“…The results are mixed, largely dependent on the specific sample investigated or the measurement adopted. Moreover, socio-demographic predictors of involvement in corruption and the perception of the extent of corruption in the country do not necessarily overlap with the factors determining the justifiability of corruption (Mocan, 2004) (Torgler and Dong, 2008).…”

“…Moreover, marginalization reduces the opportunity to be part of a network of trust, a necessary condition to achieve corrupt objectives (Uribe, 2014;Pena López and Sánchez Santos, 2014;Bjarnegård, 2013;Goetz, 2007). There is evidence that highly educated/politically sophisticated people tend to be more able to discern corruption (Weitz-Shapiro and Winters, 2017), to react more strongly to illicit behaviour (Anduiza, Gallego and Muñoz, 2013;Truex, 2011) and to display negative attitudes towards corruption (Torgler and Dong, 2008;Dong and Torgler, 2009). Nevertheless, these relationships depend on contextual factors, such as the level of corruption (Agerberg, 2019) or social capital/trust (Bäck and Christensen, 2016;Rose-Ackerman, 2001;Rothstein and Uslaner, 2005).…”

“…However, it is worth noting that social desirability response bias could affect subjective measures of corruption. It is a problem well known to scholars analysing sensitive data in survey research (Jann et al, 2018) and generally taken into account by scholars investigating attitudes towards/perception of corruption (Torgler and Dong, 2008;Hunady, 2017;Agerberg, 2020). However, it is a particularly tricky matter for the topic investigated here.…”