Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:45:59.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

See No Evil: Heterogeneity in Public Perceptions of Corruption

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2011

Yuliya V. Tverdova
Yuliya V. Tverdova*
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
*
Yuliya V. Tverdova, Department of Political Science, 3151 Social Science Plaza, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697-5100, email: tverdova@uci.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. This paper investigates how people form perceptions about corruption. By combining survey data with system-level indicators in 30 countries, the author first explores the relationship between elite and mass evaluations of corruption. Furthermore, the author tests a series of hypotheses pertaining to how individual-level factors, such as political allegiances, personal economic conditions and education may influence people's perceptions. The findings reveal that mass assessments of corruption track closely those of the elites. In addition, more economically fortunate individuals and those who supported the government in the previous election tend to be less critical of corruption. The effect of education is contingent on a country's level of corruption. Specifically, more educated citizens in “cleaner” countries do not see as much corruption as their less educated counterparts. However, this difference is substantively modest.

Résumé. Cet article étudie la façon dont le public établit sa perception de la corruption. En utilisant conjointement les informations données par les enquêtes d'opinion et par les indicateurs de pointage de 30 pays, l'auteur va d'abord explorer les évaluations de la corruption des élites et celles de la masse populaire. De plus, l'auteur va tester une série d'hypothèses concernant la façon dont la perception du public est influencée par des facteurs personnels, l'appartenance politique par exemple, ou par la situation économique personnelle ou l'éducation. Les résultats révèlent que les jugements de la masse sur la corruption suivent de près ceux des élites. De plus, les individus plus fortunés ou ceux qui ont voté pour le gouvernement aux dernières élections ont tendance à se montrer moins critiques au sujet de la corruption. L'effet de l'éducation est aléatoire quant au niveau de corruption d' un pays. En particulier, dans les pays considérés comme les plus « propres », les citoyens plus éduqués constatent moins la corruption que ceux qui sont moins éduqués. La différence cependant est extrêmement modeste.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 1 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2011

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.)

References

Aidt, Toke S. 2009. “Corruption, Institutions, and Economic Development.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 25 (2): 271–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, Daniel and Kage, Rieko. 2003. “Mars and Venus at Twilight: A Critical Investigation of Moralism, Age Effects, and Sex Differences.” Political Psychology 24 (1): 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J. André Blais, Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd and Listhaug, Ola. 2005. Losers' Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J. and Guillory, Christine A.. 1997. “Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems.” American Political Science Review 91 (1): 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J. and Tverdova, Yuliya V.. 2003. “Corruption and Attitudes toward Government.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (1): 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 (4): 746–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apaza, Carmen R. 2009. “Measuring Governance and Corruption through the Worldwide Governance Indicators: Critiques, Responses, and Ongoing Scholarly Discussion.” Political Science 42 (1): 139–43.Google Scholar
Azfar, Omar, Lee, Young and Swamy, Anand. 2001. “The Causes and Consequences of Corruption.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 573 (1): 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, John and Paras, Pablo. 2006. “Perceptions and Attitudes about Corruption and Democracy in Mexico.” Mexican Studies 22 (1): 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohara, Alok K., Mitchell, Neil J. and Mittendorff, Carl F.. 2004. “Compound Democracy and the Control of Corruption: A Cross-Country Investigation.” The Policy Studies Journal 32 (4): 481–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun and Karp, Jeffrey A.. 2004. “Politicians, Scandals, and Trust in Government.” Political Behavior 26 (3): 271–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunce, Valerie. 1999. Subversive Institutions: The Design and the Destruction of Socialism and the State. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Eric C.C. and Chu, Yun-han. 2006. “Corruption and Trust: Exceptionalism in Asian Democracies?” The Journal of Politics 68 (2): 259–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Charles L., Camp, Roderic Ai and Coleman, Kenneth M.. 2004. “The Influence of Party Systems on Citizens' Perceptions of Corruption and Electoral Response in Latin America.” Comparative Political Studies 37 (6): 677–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duch, Raymond M., Palmer, Harvey D. and Anderson, Christopher J.. 2000. “Heterogeneity in Perceptions of National Economic Conditions.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (4): 635–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingerich, Daniel W. 2009. “Corruption and Political Decay: Evidence from Bolivia.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 4 (1): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorodnichenko, Yuriy and Peter, Klara Sabirianova. 2007. “Public Sector Pay and Corruption: Measuring Bribery from Micro Data.” Journal of Public Economics 91 (5–6): 963–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidenheimer, Arnold J. 1970. Political Corruption. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Holmes, Leslie. 2006. Rotten States? Corruption, Post-Communism, and Neoliberalism. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, Michael. 2005. Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karklins, Rasma. 2005. The System Made Me Do It: Corruption in Post-Communist Societies. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel, Kraay, Aart, and Mastruzzi, Massimo. 2006. “Measuring Corruption: Myths and Realities.” The World Bank (December).Google Scholar
Kunicová, Jana and Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 2005. “Electoral and Constitutional Structures as Constraints on Corruption.” British Journal of Political Science 35 (4): 573–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurer, Oskar. 2005. “Corruption: An Alternative Approach to Its Definition and Measurement.” Political Studies 53 (1): 232–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, Thomas D. and Montinola, Gabriella R.. 1997. “Toward a Methodology for the Comparative Study of Political Corruption.” Crime, Law & Social Change 27 (3–4): 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, Thomas D. and Montinola, Gabriella R.. 2001. “Comparative Political Corruption: Issues of Operationalization and Measurement.” Studies in Comparative International Development 36 (3): 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavigne, Marie. 1999. The Economics of Transition: From Socialist Economy to Market Economy. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leff, Nathaniel .H. 1964. “Economic Development through Bureaucratic Corruption.” American Behavioral Scientist 8 (3): 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, James A. and Dominguez, Jorge I.. 1998. “Mexicans React to Electoral Fraud and Political Corruption: An Assessment of Public Opinion and Voting Behavior.” Electoral Studies 17 (4): 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, James A. and Redlawsk, David P.. 2006. “As Voters Head to the Polls, Will They Perceive a ‘Culture of Corruption’?” PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (4): 797–802.Google Scholar
Miller, William L., Grødeland, Åse B. and Koshechkina, Tatyana Y.. 2001. A Culture of Corruption: Coping with Government in Post-communist Europe. New York: Central European University Press.Google Scholar
Montinola, Gabriella R. and Jackman, Robert W.. 2002. “Sources of Corruption: A Cross-Country Study.” British Journal of Political Science 32 (1): 147–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, J.S. 1967. “Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis.” American Political Science Review 61 (2): 417–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olken, Benjamin A. 2009. “Corruption Perceptions vs. Corruption Reality.” Journal of Public Economics 93 (7–8): 950–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persily, Nathaniel and Lammie, Kelli. 2004. “Perceptions of corruption and campaign finance: When public opinion determines constitutional law.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 153 (1): 119–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pharr, Susan J. 2000. “Officials' Misconduct and Public Distrust: Japan and the Trilateral Democracies.” In Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the Trilateral Countries? ed. Phar, S.J. and Putnam, R.D.. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam and Teune, Henry. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia, Skrondal, Anders and Pickles, Andrew. 2004. GLLAMM Manual. Working paper 160. Berkeley CA: UC Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, David P. and McCann, James A.. 2005. “Popular Interpretations of ‘Corruption’ and Their Partisan Consequences.” Political Behavior 27 (3): 261–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinikka, Ritva and Svensson, Jakob. 2003. Survey Techniques to Measure and Explain Corruption. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3071. Washington DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1999. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seligson, Mitchell A. 2002. “The Impact of Corruption on Regime Legitimacy: A Comparative Study of Four Latin American Countries.” Journal of Politics 64 (2): 408–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seligson, Mitchell A. 2006. “The Measurement and Impact of Corruption Victimization: Survey Evidence from Latin America.” World Development 34 (2): 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shlapentokh, Vladimir. 2001. A Normal Totalitarian Society: How the Soviet Union Functioned and How It Collapsed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Stefes, Christoph H. 2006. Understanding Post-Soviet Transitions: Corruption, Collusion and Clientelism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treisman, Daniel. 2000. “The Causes of Corruption: A Cross-National Study.” Journal of Public Economics 76 (3): 399–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2004. “What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy?” American Journal of Political Science 48 (2): 328–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2006. “Political Corruption as Duplicitous Exclusion.” PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (4): 803–07.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, Paul G. 2002. “International Validation of Corruption Perception Index: Implications for Business Ethics and Entrepreneurship Education.” Journal of Business Ethics 35 (3): 177–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar