Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 126, Issue 1–2, pp 225–256 | Cite as

Empirical determinants of corruption: A sensitivity analysis

  • Danila Serra
Article

Abstract

Many variables have been proposed by past studies as significant determinants of corruption. This paper asks if their estimated impact on corruption is robust to alteration of the information set. A “Global Sensitivity Analysis”, based on the Leamer's Extreme-Bounds Analysis gives a clear answer: five variables are robustly related to corruption. Corruption is lower in richer countries, where democratic institutions have been preserved for a long continuous period, and the population is mainly Protestant. Corruption is instead higher where political instability is a major problem. Finally, a country's colonial heritage appears to be a significant determinant of present corruption.

Keywords

Sensitivity Analysis Public Finance Past Study Significant Determinant Rich Country 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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 andcorruption. American Economic Review, 89, 982–993.Google Scholar
  2. Adserá, A., Boix, C., & Payne, M. (2000). Are you beingserved? Political accountability and quality of government. IADPworking paper 438.Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez, C. J. A., Limongi, F., & Przeworski (1996). Classifying political regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development, 31(2), 3–36.Google Scholar
  4. Barro, R., & Lee, J. (1993). International comparisons of educational attainment. Journal ofMonetary Economics, December, 363–394.Google Scholar
  5. Besley, T., Burgess, R., & Prat, A. (2002). Mass media andpolitical accountability. Department of economics working paper,London School of Economics, February.Google Scholar
  6. Brunetti, A., & Weder, B. (2003). A free press is bad news forcorruption, Journal of Public. Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  7. Djankov, S., McLiesh, C., Nenova, T., & Shleifer, A. (2003).Whoowns the media? Journal of Law and Economics, 46(2), 341–382.Google Scholar
  8. Fisman, R., & Gatti, R. (2002). Decentralization and corruption:Cross-country and cross-state evidence. Journal of PublicEconomics, 83(3), 325–345.Google Scholar
  9. Freedom House (2001). Press Freedom Survey 2001.Google Scholar
  10. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Loido-Zobatòn, P. (1999a). Aggregatinggovernance indicators. World Bank working paper 2195.Google Scholar
  11. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Loido-Zobatòn, P. (1999b).Governance matters. World Bank working paper 2196.Google Scholar
  12. Knack, S., & Azfar, O. (2000). Are larger countries really morecorrupt? World Bank working paper 2470.Google Scholar
  13. Kornai, J. (1992). The Socialist System the Political Economy of Communism, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.Google Scholar
  14. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W.(1997). Trust in large organisations. The American EconomicReview, Papers and Proceedings, 87(2), 333–338.Google Scholar
  15. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W.(1999). The quality of government. The Journal of Law,Economics and Organization, 15, 222–279.Google Scholar
  16. Leamer, E. E. (1978). Specification Searches: Ad HocInference from Non-Experimental Data, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Leamer, E. E. (1983). Let's take the con out of econometrics. American Economic Review, 73(3), 31–43.Google Scholar
  18. Leamer, E. E. (1985). Sensitivity analysis would help. American Economic Review, 75(5), 31–43.Google Scholar
  19. Leite, C., & Weidmann, J. (1999). Does mother nature corrupt? Natural Resources, Corruption and Economic Growth. IMF workingpaper, 99(85).Google Scholar
  20. Levine, R., & Renelt, D. (1992). A sensitivity analysis ofcross-country growth regressions. American Economic Review, 82(4), 942–963.Google Scholar
  21. Levine, R., & Zervos, S. (1993). Looking at the facts: What we know about policy and growth from cross-country analysis. World Bank working paper 1115.Google Scholar
  22. Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and Growth. Quarterly Journal ofEconomics, 110, 681–712.Google Scholar
  23. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2000). Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Persson, T., Tabellini, G., & Trebbi, F. (2003). Electoral rulesand corruption. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 958–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Quain, A. (ed). (1999). The Political Reference Almanac, 1999/2000 Edition, Keynote Publishing Co. US. Available at http://www.polisci.com.
  26. Sachs, J., & Warner, A. (1995). Economic reforms and the process of global integration. BrookingsPapers on Economic Activity, 1, 1–118.Google Scholar
  27. Sala-i-Martin, Xavier. (1997). I just run four million regressions.NBER working paper 6252.Google Scholar
  28. Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: A cross-nationalstudy. Journal of Public Economics, 76, 399–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wacziarg, R. (1996). Information to Create Colonization Dummies, mimeo, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  30. World Bank (1997–1999). World Development Report. New York,Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSAE, Department of EconomicsUniversity of OxfordU.K.

Personalised recommendations