Do corruption and inequality shape sustainable development? Evidence from the post-soviet countries

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to investigate the role of corruption and income inequality in three-dimensional sustainable development in the post-Soviet countries.Design/methodology/approachThe methodology is based on dynamic panel regression with the fixed effects approach.FindingsThe authors' findings depict that increasing corruption and income inequality undermine sustainable development. Specifically, increasing corruption and income inequality negatively affect sustainable development. Moreover, unemployment and trade liberalization negatively impact sustainable development, whereas foreign direct investments (FDIs) positively affect sustainable development.Practical implicationsPolicy implications enclose galvanizing strong institutions and redistributive policy mechanisms that the bottom income groups enjoy in promoting sustainable development to keep away the distressful phase of corruption and income inequality.Originality/valueThis is the first paper on corruption, income inequality and sustainable development in the post-Soviet countries employing a sustainable development index (SDI), which is calculated by considering three factors including economic, social and environmental development.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-01-2023-0065

Does corruption affect development outcomes differently in sub-Saharan Africa? Fresh evidence from Ghana

“…The corruption-economic development nexus is well established at the micro and macro levels [5][6][7]; yet on sustainable development, few empirical studies present country-level evidence. Most studies on the corruption-sustainable development nexus have been explored at the macro level [8][9][10]. It is instructive to point out that, most of these studies that purport to have explored the nexus between corruption and sustainable development failed to incorporate a one-stop measure of sustainability but rather resorted to different measures such as GDP growth rates, food insecurity, poverty outcomes, income inequality, public debt among others without recourse to the environment at the macro level.…”