Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T15:53:45.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Uncovering High-Level Corruption: Cross-National Objective Corruption Risk Indicators Using Public Procurement Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2017

Mihály Fazekas  and
Gábor Kocsis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Measuring high-level corruption is subject to extensive scholarly and policy interest, which has achieved moderate progress in the last decade. This article develops two objective proxy measures of high-level corruption in public procurement: single bidding in competitive markets and a composite score of tendering ‘red flags’. Using official government data on 2.8 million contracts in twenty-eight European countries in 2009–14, we directly operationalize a common definition of corruption: unjustified restriction of access to public contracts to favour a selected bidder. Corruption indicators are calculated at the contract level, but produce aggregate indices consistent with well-established country-level indicators, and are also validated by micro-level tests. Data are published at http://digiwhist.eu/resources/data/.

Keywords

European Unioncorruptionmeasurementpublic procurementCRI
Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 155 - 164
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Sociology, University of Cambridge (email: mf436@cam.ac.uk); Government Transparency Institute (email: gaborkoxis@gmail.com). The authors would like to express their gratitude to generous funding from the European Union 7th Framework program (grant title: ANTICORRP; grant agreement no: 290529) and the Dutch Presidency of the European Union (project title: Public Integrity and Trust in Europe). They also thank the anonymous reviewers and numerous people commenting on earlier drafts of this article and database, in particular, Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, István János Tóth, Carl Dahström, Johannes Wachs, Luciana Cingolani, Nicholas Charron and Viktor Lapuente. Replication data sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.7910/DVN/6XYZOD and online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000461.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andersson, Staffan, and Heywood, Paul M.. 2009. The Politics of Perception: Use and Abuse of Transparency International’s Approach to Measuring Corruption. Political Studies 57:746–767.Google Scholar
Arndt, Christiane, and Oman, Charles. 2006. Uses and Abuses of Governance Indicators. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Auriol, Emmanuelle, Flochel, Thomas, and Straub, Stephane. 2016. Public Procurement and Rent-Seeking: The Case of Paraguay. World Development 77:395–407.Google Scholar
Charron, Nicholas, Dahlström, Carl, Fazekas, Mihály, and Lapuente, Victor. 2017. Careers, Connections, and Corruption Risks: Investigating the Impact of Bureaucratic Meritocracy on Public Procurement Processes. Journal of Politics 79 (1):89–103.Google Scholar
Charron, Nicholas, Dijkstra, Lewis, and Lapuente, Victor. 2014. Regional Governance Matters: Quality of Government Within European Union Member States. Regional Studies 48 (1):68–90.Google Scholar
Coviello, Decio, and Mariniello, Mario. 2014. Publicity Requirements in Public Procurement: Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design. Journal of Public Economics 109:76–100.Google Scholar
DG GROWTH. 2015. TED Structured Dataset (2009–2014), Tenders Electronic Daily, Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Escresa, Laarni, and Picci, Lucio. 2016. Trends in Corruptions Around the World. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 22 (3):543–564.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2014. Public Procurement Indicators 2012. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Fazekas, Mihály, and Kocsis, Gábor. 2017. Replication Data for: Uncovering High-Level Corruption: Cross-National Objective Corruption Risk Indicators Using Public Procurement Data. doi:10.7910/DVN/6XYZOD, Harvard Dataverse, V1.Google Scholar
Fazekas, Mihály, Tóth, István János, and King, Larry P.. 2016. An Objective Corruption Risk Index Using Public Procurement Data. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research 22 (3):369–397.Google Scholar
Golden, Miriam A., and Picci, Lucio. 2005. Proposal for a New Measure of Corruption, Illustrated with Italian Data. Economics & Politics 17 (1):37–75.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Daniel, Mastruzzi, Massimo, and Kraay, Aart. 2010. The Worldwide Governance Indicators. Methodology and Analytical Issues. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Klasnja, Marko. 2016. Corruption and the Incumbency Disadvantage: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Politics 77 (4):928–942.Google Scholar
Knack, Stephen, Kugler, Mark, and Manning, Nick. 2003. Second-Generation Governance Indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences 69:345–364.Google Scholar
Kurtz, Marcus J., and Schrank, Andrew. 2007. Growth and Governance: Models, Measures, and Mechanisms. The Journal of Politics 69 (2):538–554.Google Scholar
Lambsdorff, Johann Graf. 2006. Measuring Corruption – The Validity and Precision of Subjective Indicators (CPI). In Measuring Corruption, edited by Charles Sampford, Arthur Shacklock, Carmel Connors, and Fredrik Galtung, 81–100. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina. 2006. Corruption: Diagnosis and Treatment. Journal of Democracy 17 (3):86–99.Google Scholar
North, Douglass C., Wallis, John Joseph, and Weingast, Barry R.. 2009. Violence and Social Orders. A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard, and Peiffer, Caryn. 2015. Paying Bribes for Public Services. A Global Guide to Grass-Roots Corruption. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Bo, and Teorell, Jan. 2008. What Is Quality of Government? A Theory of Impartial Government Institutions. Governance 21 (2):165–190.Google Scholar
Sequeira, Sandra. 2012. Advances in Measuring Corruption in the Field. In New Advances in Experimental Research on Corruption , edited by Danila Serra and Leonard Wantchekon, 145–176. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Shaxson, Nicholas, and Christensen, John. 2014. The Finance Curse. How Oversized Financial Centres Attack Democracy and Corrupt Economies. Chesham: Tax Justice Network.Google Scholar
Transparency International. 2012. Corruption Perceptions Index 2012. Berlin: Transparency International.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2009. Fraud and Corruption. Awareness Handbook. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Fazekas and Kocsis Dataset

Dataset

https://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/6XYZOD
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Fazekas and Kocsis supplementary material

Appendix

Download Fazekas and Kocsis supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 768.7 KB