Regulation and corruption

Abstract

Higher levels of government expenditures and more regulation naturally invite corruption, because they provide the opportunity for government officials to be paid off for regulatory favors, subsidies, and government contracts. Some countries have relatively large governments but lower levels of corruption. Scandinavian countries offer examples. While institutional differences may explain some of the cross-country differences in corruption, the most consistent relationship is that high levels of regulation are associated with more corruption. When looking at the effect of the size of government, it is the regulatory state, rather than the productive or redistributive state, that is associated with corruption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term has a moral connotation to it, but this paper does not consider moral corruption beyond the definition in this sentence. Private sector behavior might also be corrupt if, for example, an employee embezzles funds from his/her employer, but this is fraudulent activity done without the employer’s knowledge and, significantly for present purposes, the costs are borne by the private parties involved. Fraud therefore can be viewed as the private sector analog to public sector corruption. The empirical work, in this paper and in the literature more generally, measures corruption with regard to government activities, rather than private sector fraud or moral depravity.

  2. 2.

    The regulatory component of the EFW index aggregates 15 individual components into three broad areas: credit market regulations, labor market regulations, and business regulations, so it includes regulations on economic activity but not regulations on social or other activity. Construction of the index is described in Gwartney et al. (2014).

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ades, A., & Di Tella, R. (1999). Rents, competition, and corruption. American Economic Review, 89(4), 982–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alesina, A., Devleeschauwer, A., Easterly, W., Kurlat, S., & Wacziarg, R. (2003). Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth, 8(2), 155–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Allison, J. A. (2013). The financial crisis and the free market cure. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. New York and Princeton: Russell Sage Foundation; Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part1), 893–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baumol, W. J. (1993). Entrepreneurship, management, and the structure of payoffs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Buchanan, J. M. (1990). The domain of constitutional economics. Constitutional Political Economy, 1(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fisman, R., & Gatti, R. (1999). Decentralization and corruption: Cross-country and cross-state evidence. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gwartney, J., Lawson, R., & Hall, J. (2014). Economic freedom of the world 2014 annual report. Vancouver, BC: Fraser Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-take-all politics: How Washington made the rich richer—and turned its back on the middle class. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Holcombe, R. G. (2014). What Stiglitz and Stockman have in common. Cato Journal, 34(3), 569–579.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Zoido-Lobaton, P. (2005). Aggregating governance indicators. Working Paper No. 2195, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

  14. Klerman, D., Mahoney, P., Spamann, H., & Weinstein, M. (2009). Legal origin and economic growth. Unpublished manuscript.

  15. Kolko, G. (1977). The triumph of conservatism: A reinterpretation of American history, 1900–1916. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Krueger, A. O. (1974). The political economy of the rent-seeking society. American Economic Review, 64, 291–303.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kunicová, J., & Rose-Ackerman, S. (2005). Electoral rules and constitutional structures as constraints on corruption. British Journal of Political Science, 35(04), 573–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1999). The quality of government. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 15, 222–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lederman, D., Loayza, N. V., & Soares, R. R. (2005). Accountability and corruption: Political institutions matter. Economics and Politics, 17(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Marshall, M. G., & Jaggers, K. (2005). Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2002. http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html. Accessed 4 June 2015.

  21. Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 681–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McChesney, F. S. (1987). Rent extraction and rent creation in the economic theory of regulation. Journal of Legal Studies, 16(1), 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McChesney, F. S. (1997). Money for nothing: Politicians, rent extraction, and political extortion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. E. (2003). The economic effects of constitutions. Cambridge: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rock, M. T. (2009). Corruption and democracy. Journal of Development Studies, 45(1), 55–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schweizer, P. (2013). Extortion. How politicians extract your money, buy votes, and line their own pockets. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Serra, D. (2006). Empirical determinants of corruption: A sensitivity analysis. Public Choice, 126(1–2), 225–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1993). Corruption. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 599–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers the future. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Stockman, D. A. (2013). The great deformation: The corruption of capitalism in America. New York: Public Affairs Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76(3), 399–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tullock, G. (1967). The welfare cost of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Western Economic Journal, 5, 224–232.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments from Russell Sobel, two referees, and the journal’s editor.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Randall G. Holcombe.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 3.

Table 3 Data sources

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Holcombe, R.G., Boudreaux, C.J. Regulation and corruption. Public Choice 164, 75–85 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-015-0263-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Corruption
  • Regulation
  • Size of government
  • Scandinavia