Economics of Governance

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 211–227 | Cite as

No Pretense to Honesty: County Government Corruption in Mississippi

  • Gökhan R. Karahan
  • Laura Razzolini
  • William F. ShughartII
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper explores the determinants of governmental corruption exploiting a unique dataset generated by “Operation Pretense”, an FBI investigation of county purchasing activities that ultimately led to the conviction of 55 of Mississippi’s 410 county supervisors, one county road foreman, two state highway commissioners and 13 vendors on bribery, extortion and other felony charges. Evidence is reported that corruption occurs more frequently in rural counties where voter-taxpayers have fewer years of schooling. Corruption is also more likely in counties where supervisors are paid more, ceteris paribus, casting doubt on the proposition that efficiency wages purchase honest public officials.

Keywords

Corruption Rent seeking County governments Operation Pretense 

JEL Classification Numbers

D73 K42 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ades A, Di Tella R (1999) Rents, competition, and corruption. Am Econ Rev 89(4):982–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aidt TS (2003) Economic analysis of corruption: a survey. Econ J 113(491):632–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison P (1999) Logistic regression using the SAS® system: theory and application. SAS Institute, Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson KE, Couch JF, Shughart WF II (1992) Ethics laws and the outside earnings of politicians: the case of Alabama’s “educator-legislators”. Public Choice 73(2):135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bardhan P (1997) Corruption and development: a review of issues. J Econ Lit 35(3):1320–1346Google Scholar
  6. Basu K, Bhattacharya S, Mishra A (1992) Notes on bribery and the control of corruption. J Public Econ 48(3):349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 76(2):169–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker GS, Stigler GJ (1974) Law enforcement, malfeasance, and compensation of enforcers. J Legal Stud 3(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Besley T, McLaren J (1993) Taxes and bribery: the role of wage incentives. Econ J 103(416):119–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhagwati JN (1982) Directly unproductive, profit-seeking (DUP) activities. J Polit Econ 90(5):988–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crockett JR (2003) Operation pretense: the FBI’s sting on county corruption in Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson (MS)Google Scholar
  12. Di Tella R, Schargrodsky E (2003) The role of wages and auditing during a crackdown on corruption in the City of Buenos Aires. J Law Econ 46(1):269–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elliott KA (ed) (1997) Corruption and the global economy. Institute for International Economics,WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Goel RK, Nelson MA (1998) Corruption and government size: a disaggregated analysis. Public Choice 97(1–2):107–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jain AK (2001) Corruption: a review. J Econ Surv 15(1):71–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karahan GR, Razzolini L, Shughart WF II (2002) Centralized versus decentralized decision-making in a county government setting. Econ Gov 3(2):101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krueger AO (1974) The political economy of the rent-seeking society. Am Econ Rev 64(3):291–303Google Scholar
  18. Mauro P (1997) The effects of corruption on growth, investment, and government expenditure. In: Elliot KA (ed) Corruption and the global economy. Institute for International Economics, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. Mississippi State Highway Department (1982, 1993) Miles and vehicle miles of travel in Mississippi by functional classification. Mississippi State Highway Department, Transportation Planning Division, Jackson, in cooperation with US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. Mookherjee D, Png IPL (1995) Corruptible law enforcers: how should they be compensated? Econ J 105(428):145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Office of External Affairs, Division of Research (various years) Mississippi statistical abstract. Mississippi State University, StarkvilleGoogle Scholar
  22. Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Rose-Ackerman S (1978) Corruption: a study in political economy. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Rose-Ackerman S (1999) Corruption and government: causes, consequences, and reform. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Schneider F, Enste DH (2000) Shadow economies: size, causes, and consequences. J Econ Lit 38(1):77–114Google Scholar
  26. Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1993) Corruption. Q J Econ 108(3):599–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stigler GJ (1964) A theory of oligopoly. J Polit Econ 72(1):44–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tollison RD (1982) Rent seeking: a survey. Kyklos 35(4):575–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Treisman D (2000) The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. J Public Econ 76(3):399–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tullock G (1967) The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. West Econ J 5(June):379–392Google Scholar
  31. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (various years):County and city data book. U.S.Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Rijckeghem C, Weder B (2001) Bureaucratic corruption and the rate of temptation: do wages in the civil service affect corruption, and by how much? J Dev Econ 65(2):307–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gökhan R. Karahan
    • 1
  • Laura Razzolini
    • 2
  • William F. ShughartII
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Finance and EconomicsNicholls State UniversityThibodauxUSA
  2. 2.Department of Economics, School of BusinessVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of MississippiUniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations