Women Politicians, Institutions, and Perceptions of Corruption

Abstract

Why do people assume female politicians are less likely than men to engage in the illegal use of public positions for private gain? We argue that voters may perceive women as marginalized within political institutions, or as more risk averse and consequently more constrained by institutional oversight, which could lead to perceptions of women as less likely to engage in corruption. Using an original survey experiment, we test these mechanisms against conventional wisdom that women are seen as more honest. We find strong support for the risk aversion explanation, as well as heterogeneous effects by respondent sex for both the marginalization and honesty mechanisms. These findings suggest that the institutional contexts in which women are operating can help explain why people perceive them as less likely to engage in corruption. Identifying these mechanisms is critical to understanding the role of women in politics and for improving trust in government.

Determinants of corruption pressures on local government in the E.U.

“…The integrity of local councillors or even their resistance to corruption pressure is as expected, increasing with the level of education attained, and this holds for all European countries. Further, its gender-sensitivity confirms the arguments of women being more corruption risk averse (Barnes & Beaulieu, 2019;Rivas, 2013). In contrast to other studies for transition countries (Luo & Duan, 2016) the new, younger generations of councillors in PTCs seem to have more anti-corruption awareness, regardless of the size of financial capacity of their local community.…”

“…We include the gender of local councillor (GEN) as a variable in the model since some studies indicate women are less prone to bribing (Fi sar et al, 2016), female politicians are more risk averse (Barnes & Beaulieu, 2019) and less corrupt than men (Rivas, 2013) or at least, more aware of corruption (Frank et al, 2011;Swamy et al, 2001). As far as it concerns gendercorruption nexus in political arena, findings are not straightforward.…”

Will Women Executives Reduce Corruption? Marginalization and Network Inclusion

“…Thus, our focus on elected mayors offer an opportunity to study the effects of the exercise of power among women that access it. Finally, our study takes time in office into greater consideration than do previous studies, and suggest that this also contributes towards developing our understanding of why women in office cause reductions in corruption levels Building on the rich body of literature seeking to explain why women representation may cause reductions in corruption levels (see i.e., Barnes, 2016;Barnes & Beaulieu, 2018;Bauhr et al, 2019;Bjarnegård, 2013;Dollar et al, 2001;Esarey & Chirillo, 2013;Esarey & Schwindt-Bayer, 2018;Escobar-Lemmon & Taylor-Robinson, 2009;Heath et al, 2005;O'Brien, 2015;Schwindt-Bayer, 2010;Stensöta & Wängnerud, 2018;Swamy et al, 2001), we propose that theories explaining why women reduce corruption differ in the extent to which they attribute this effect to women on average being socialized or incentivized into having a stronger demand for anticorruption reforms (what we call endogenous theories) or if they, instead are simply prevented from participating in corrupt transaction because of their marginalization and exclusion from elite networks (exogenous theories). Although directly studying why women in executive office reduce corruption is very difficult, the observable implications of these theories are likely to differ.…”

Are Women More Averse to Corruption than Men? The Case of South Korea

“…The opportunity/role hypothesis constitutes a third strain of research on gender and corruption. Advocates of these behavioral arguments contend that women have the same propensities for corruption, but less opportunities to engage in it because they are often excluded from power and patronage as political newcomers (Alhassan-Alolo, 2007;Goetz, 2007;Eggers, Vivyan, and Wagner, 2017;Barnes and Beaulieu, 2018). Since corruption is illicit and high-risk, depending on particularized in-group trust, only those who have proven their mettle and loyalty are granted access to the shadowy networks (Uslaner, 2013).…”