European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 415–438 | Cite as

Measuring Control of Corruption by a New Index of Public Integrity

  • Alina Mungiu-Pippidi
  • Ramin Dadašov


While the last 20 years saw the invention of corruption rankings, allowing comparison between countries and the shaming of corrupt governments, such measurements are largely based on the perceptions of experts, lacking both specificity and transparency. New research, based on a comprehensive theory of governance defined as the set of formal and informal institutions determining who gets what in a given context, allow for more specific and objective, albeit indirect, measurements of control of corruption. Such measurements focus on the institutional framework which empowers public integrity and eliminates many current anti-corruption tools, while validating others. Most importantly, it provides a broader specific context which can empower reforms based on evidence and a clear measure to determine status and progress of corruption control.


Anti-corruption policy Corruption Measurement Public integrity 


  1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J.A. (2012). Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.Google Scholar
  2. Acemoglu, D., & Verdier, T. (2000). The choice between market failures and corruption. American Economic Review, 90, 194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ACR (2013). Controlling corruption in Europe. In A. Mungiu-Pippidi (Ed.), The anticorruption report, Vol. 1. Leverkusen: Budrich. Google Scholar
  4. Ades, A., & Di Tella, R. (1999). Rents, competition and corruption. American Economic Review, 89, 982–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aidt, T. S. (2003). Economic analysis of corruption: a survey. Economic Journal, 113, 632–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aidt, T., Dutta, J., & Sena, V. (2008). Governance regimes, corruption and growth: theory and evidence. Journal of Comparative Economics, 36, 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ali, M. A., & Isse, H. S. (2003). Determinants of economic corruption: a cross-country comparison. Cato Journal, 22, 449–466.Google Scholar
  8. Badinger, H., & Nindl, E. (2014). Globalisation and corruption, revisited. The World Economy, 37, 1424–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bardhan, P. (1997). Corruption and development: a review of issues. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 1320–1346.Google Scholar
  10. Becker, G. (1968). Crime and punishment: an economic approach. The Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brunetti, A., & Weder, B. (2003). A free press is bad news for corruption. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 1801–1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cantens, T., Raballand, G., & Bilangna, S. (2010). Reforming customs by measuring performance: a Cameroon case study. World Customs Journal, 4, 55–74.Google Scholar
  13. Cingranelli, D. L., & Richards, D. L. (1999). Measuring the level, pattern, and sequence of government respect for physical integrity rights. International Studies Quarterly, 43, 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Damania, R., Fredriksson, P., & Muthukumara, M. (2004). The persistence of corruption and regulatory compliance failures: theory and evidence. Public Choice, 121, 363–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiRienzo, C. E., Das, J., Cort, K. T., & Burbridge, J. (2007). Corruption and the role of information. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 320–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doig, A., Watt, D., & Williams, R. (2006). Hands-on or hands-off? anti-corruption agencies in action, donor expectations, and a good enough reality. Public Administration and Development, 26, 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edwards, F., Howard, P. N., & Joyce, M. (2013). Digital activism and non-violent conflict report. Digital activism research project. Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
  18. Elbahnasawy, N. G. (2014). E-government, internet adoption, and corruption: an empirical investigation. World Development, 57, 114–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Escresa, L., & Picci, L. (2015). A new cross-national measure of corruption. The World Bank Economic Review. doi: 10.1093/wber/lhv031.Google Scholar
  20. Fazekas, M., & Tóth, I. J. (2016). From corruption to state capture: a new analytical framework with empirical applications from Hungary. Political Research Quarterly, 69, 320–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fjeldstad, O-H., & Isaksen, J. (2008). Anti-corruption reforms: challenges, effects and limits of World Bank support report in external series. Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), World Bank Working Paper No. 7.Google Scholar
  22. Galtung (2006). Measuring the immeasurable: boundaries and functions of (Macro) corruption indices. In Sampford, C. J., Shacklock, A. H., Connors,C., & Galtung, F. (Eds.). Measuring corruption. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  23. Gurgur, T. & Shah, A. (2005). Localization and corruption: panacea or pandora's box? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3486.Google Scholar
  24. Hawken, A. & Munck, G. L. (2011). Does the evaluator make a difference? Measurement validity in corruption research. IPSA Committee on Concepts and Methods Working Paper Series # 48.Google Scholar
  25. Heidenheimer, A, J., & Johnston, M. (2002). Political corruption: concepts and contexts. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Herzfeld, T., & Weiss, C. (2003). Corruption and legal (In)-effectiveness: an empirical investigation. European Journal of Political Economy, 19, 621–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huther, J., & Shah, A. (2000). Anti-corruption policies and programs: a framework for evaluation. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2501.Google Scholar
  28. Islam, R. (2006). Does more transparency go along with better governance? Economics & Politics, 18, 121–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnsøn, J. Taxell, N., & Zaum, D. (2012). Mapping evidence gaps in anti-corruption. assessing the state of the operationally relevant evidence on donors’ actions and approaches to reducing corruption. U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, U4 Issue, No. 7, CMI, Bergen.Google Scholar
  30. Kalenborn, C., & Lessmann, C. (2013). The impact of democracy and press freedom on corruption: conditionality matters. Journal of Policy Modeling, 35, 857–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Zoido-Lobatón, P. (1999). Aggregating governance indicators. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2195.Google Scholar
  32. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2007). The worldwide governance indicators project: answering the critics. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4149.Google Scholar
  33. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3, 220–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klitgaard, R. (1988). Controlling corruption. Berkley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. Knack, S. (2006). Measuring corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: a critique of the cross-country indicators. World Bank Policy Research Department Working Paper 3968.Google Scholar
  36. Lambsdorff, J. (2008). The organization of anti-corruption: getting incentives right! Passauer Discussion Paper Series No V-57-08.Google Scholar
  37. Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 681–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Melton, J., & Ginsburg, T. (2012). Does De Jure judicial independence really matter? A reevaluation of explanations for judicial independence. Institute for Law and Economics Working Paper No. 612.Google Scholar
  39. Montinola, G. R., & Jackman, R. W. (2002). Sources of corruption: a cross-country study. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2006). Corruption: diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Democracy, 17, 86–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2014). Why control of corruption works – when it does. In Mungiu-Pippidi (Ed.) The anticorruption report Vol 2. Leverkusen: Budrich. Google Scholar
  42. Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2015). The quest for good governance. How societies develop control of corruption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (editor and main author), Loncaric, M., Vaz Mundo, B., et al. (2011). Contextual choices in fighting corruption: lessons learned. NORAD, Report 4/2011.Google Scholar
  44. Norris, P., & Zinnbauer, D. (2002). Giving voice to the voiceless: good governance, human development and mass communications. Human Development Report 2002, Ch. 5.Google Scholar
  45. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  46. OECD. (2016). Fighting the hidden tariff: global trade without corruption. Background document for the 2016 OECD integrity forum. Paris: OECD Publication.Google Scholar
  47. Park, H. (2003). Determinants of corruption: a cross-national analysis. Multinational Business Review, 11, 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. E. (2003). The economic effects of constitutions. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2013). Why anticorruption reforms fail—systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance, 26, 449–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ríos-Figueroa, J., & Staton, J. K. (2014). An evaluation of cross-national measures of judicial independence. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 30, 104–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rothstein, B. (2011). Anti-corruption: the indirect ‘Big Bang’ approach. Review of International Political Economy, 18, 228–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sequeira, S. (2013). Tariffs and corruption: evidence from a tariff liberalization program. London: The London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  53. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1993). Corruption. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 599–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tanzi, V. (1994). Corruption, governmental activities and markets. IMF working paper 94/ 99. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  55. Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76, 399–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Treisman, D. (2007). What have We learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research? Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 211–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. USAID (2006). Anti-corruption agencies (ACAs). Anti-corruption Program Brief, Office of Democracy and Governance, USAID.Google Scholar
  58. Voigt, S. (2009). How (not) to measure institutions. Joint discussion paper series in economics, No. 2009, 37.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hertie School of GovernanceBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations