European Journal of Law and Economics

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 1–14 | Cite as

Can corruption constrain the size of governments?

Article

Abstract

This paper analyzes the relationship between government size and the level of corruption. We propose a theoretical model where production decisions and corrupt behavior are endogenously determined. We model corruption assuming production in the formal sector is regulated by public officials who can use their public power for private gain. In this context, the underground economy emerges as an outside option that allows entrepreneurs to avoid dealing with bureaucrats. The fact that investments in the informal sector may influence public finances, introduces the possibility of multiple equilibria with different levels of corruption. Consistent with previous theoretical works and recent empirical evidence, we find out that corruption and the shadow economy are complements as they positively correlate across equilibria, which implies that corruption may limit the size of the public sector.

Keywords

Tax revenue Corruption Underground economy 

JEL Classifications

H20 K42 

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., & Verdier, T. (2000). The choice between market failures and corruption. American Economic Review, 90(1), 194–211.Google Scholar
  2. Choi, J., & Thum, M. (2003). The dynamics of corruption with the ratchet effect. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choi, J., & Thum, M. (2005). Corruption and the shadow economy. International Economic Review, 46(3), 817–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Soto, H. (1989). The other path. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  5. Dreher, A., Kotsogiannis, C., & McCorriston, S. (2009). How do institutions affect corruption and the shadow economy? International Tax and Public Finance, 16, 773–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dreher, A., & Schneider, F. (2010). Corruption and the shadow economy: an empirical analysis. Public Choice, 144, 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ehrlich, I., & Lui, T. (1999). Bureaucratic corruption and endogenous economic growth. Journal of Political Economy, 107(6), 270–293.Google Scholar
  8. Friedman, E., Johnson, S., Kaufmann, D., & Zoido-Lobaton, P. (2000). Dodging the grabbing hand: The determinants of unofficial activity in 69 countries. Journal of Public Economics, 76, 459–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hibbs, D., & Piculescu, V. (2005). Institutions, corruption and tax evasion in the unofficial economy. Göteborg: Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  10. Jain, K. (2001). Corruption: A review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(1), 71–121.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, S., Kaufmann, D., & Shleifer, A. (1997). The unofficial economy in transition. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, 159–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, S., Kaufmann, D., & Zoido-Lobatón, P. (1998). Corruption, public finances and the unofficial economy. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series 2169.Google Scholar
  13. Loayza, N. V. (1996). The economics of the informal sector. A simple model and some empirical evidence from Latin America. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 45, 129–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tanzi, V. (1998). Corruption around the world—causes, scope, and cures. IMF Staff Papers, 45, 559–594.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.STICERD-London School of Economics & Universidade de VigoLondonEngland, UK

Personalised recommendations