Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 849–864 | Cite as

A Multitrait-Multimethod approach to pinpoint the validity of aggregated governance indicators

  • Robert NeumannEmail author
  • Peter Graeff
Article

Abstract

This study scrutinizes the construct validity of three corruption indices by assessing their discriminant and convergent validity in reference to democracy and the shadow economy with a Multitrait-Multimethod technique. It turns out that prominent indices of corruption (such as the Corruption Perception Index) do not only measure a country’s level of corrupt activities but also the degree of democracy due to their multidimensionality. While the convergent validity of corruption indices is warranted, discriminant validity must be considered as rather low. This implies problems like collinearity if multidimensional constructs are used for multivariate analysis.

Keywords

Multitrait-Multimethod Corruption Democracy Validity Confirmatory Factor Analysis Dimensionality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Althauser, R.P., Heberlein, T.A., Scott, R.A.: A causal assessment of validity: the augmented multitraitmultimethod matrix. In: Blalock, H.M. Jr. (ed.) Causal Models in the Social Sciences, pp. 374–399. Aldine, Chicago (1971)Google Scholar
  2. Andvig, J.C.: A house of straw, sticks or bricks? Some notes on corruption empirics. nUPI working paper, no. 678 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. Bagozzi R.P.: The construct validity of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of attitude by analysis of covariance structures. Multiv. Behav. Res. 13, 9–31 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bendix R.: Kings or People. Power and the Mandate to Rule. University of California Press, Berkeley (1978)Google Scholar
  5. Bhagwati, J.N.: Democracy and development: cruel dilemma or symbiotic relationship? Rev. Develop. Econ. 6, 151–162 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birch, A.H.: The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracies. Routledge, London, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  7. Cameron, L., Chaudhuri, A., Erkal, N., Gangadharan, L.: Do attitudes to corruption differ across cultures? Research paper No. 943, Melbourne (2005)Google Scholar
  8. Campbell D.T., Fiske D.W.: Convergent and discriminant validity by the mutitrait- multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56, 81–105 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coenders, G., Saris,W.: Testing Additive and Multiplicative MTMM models. Struct. Equ. Model. 7, 219–250 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corten I., Saris W., Coenders G., van der Veld W., Aalberts C., Kornelis C.: Fit of different models for multitrait-multimethod experiments. Struct. Equ. Model. 9(2), 213–232 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doig A., McIvor S., Theobald R.: Numbers, nuances and moving targets: converging the use of corruption indicators or descriptors in assessing state development. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 72(2), 239–252 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Douglas, J.D. and Johnson, J.M. (eds): Official Deviance: Readings in Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Other Forms of Corruption. Lippincott, Philadelphia (1977)Google Scholar
  13. Dreher, A., Schneider, F.: Corruption and the shadow economy: an empirical analysis. CESifo working paper no. 1653 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. Dreher A., Kotsogiannis C., McCorriston S.: Corruption around the world: evidence from a structural model. J. Comp. Econ. 35(3), 443–466 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunn, G., Everit, B., Pickles, A.: Modelling Covariances and Latent Variables using EQS. Chapman and Hall, London (1993)Google Scholar
  16. Eid M.: A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika 65, 241–261 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frank B.: Zehn Jahre empirische Korruptionsforschung. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 73(2), 184–199 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Friedman E., Johnson S., Kaufmann D., Zoido-Lobaton P.: Dodging the grabbing hand: determinants of unofficial activity in 69 countries. J. Public Econ. 76, 459–493 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freedomhouse: Freedom in the world—methodology. http://www.freedomhouse.org (2006)
  20. Graeff, P.: Why should one trust in corruption? The linkage between corruption, trust, norms, and social capital. In: Graf Lambsdorff, J., Taube, M., Schramm, M. (eds.) The New Institutional Economics of Corruption, pp. 21–42. Routledge, London (2005)Google Scholar
  21. Heidenheimer A.: Political Corruption: Readings in Comparative Analysis. Transaction Books, New Brunswick (1978)Google Scholar
  22. Hill K.Q., Hurley P.A.: Convergent and discrimant validity tests for Fitzgibbon-Johnson political scales. Qual. Quant. 15, 433–443 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Joereskog K.J., Soerbom D.: LISREL8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale (1993)Google Scholar
  24. Johnson S., Kaufmann D., Zoido-Lobaton P.: Regulatory discretion and the unofficial economy. Am. Econ. Rev. 88, 387–392 (1998)Google Scholar
  25. Kampen J.K.: The impact of survey methodology and context on central tendency, nonresponse and associations of subjective indicators of government performance. Qual. Quant. 41, 793–813 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., Zoido-Lobaton, P.: Governance matters. Policy research working paper 2196. The World Bank, Washington, (1999)Google Scholar
  27. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., Zoido-Lobaton, P.: Governance matters II—updated indicators for 2000–2001. Policy research working paper 2772. World Bank, Washington, (2002)Google Scholar
  28. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., Mastruzzi, M.: Governance Indicators: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators for 1996–2005. The World Bank, Washington, (2006)Google Scholar
  29. Lambsdorff, J.G.: Consequences and causes of corruption—what do we know from a cross-section of countries? University of Passau Discussion Paper V-34-05 (2005)Google Scholar
  30. Lancaster T.D., Montinola G.R.: Comparative political corruption: issues of operationalization and measurement. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 36(3), 3–28 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Law K. S., Wong C. S.: Multidimensional constructs in structural equation analysis: an illustration using the job perception and job satisfaction constructs. J. Manag. 25, 143–160 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loehlin, J. C.: Latent Variable Modeling—An Introduction to Factor, Path and Structural Equation Analysis, vol. 4. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (2004)Google Scholar
  33. MacKenzie S.B., Podsakoff P.M., Jarvis B.C.: The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioural and organizational research and some recommended solutions. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 710–730 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marsh H.W.: Confirmatory factor analyses of multitrait- multimethod data: many problems and few solutions. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 13, 335–361 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mocan, N.: What determines corruption? International evidence from micro data, nBER working paper no. 10460 (2004)Google Scholar
  36. Mueller, R.O.: Basic Principles in Structural Equation Modeling: An Introduction to LISREL and EQS. Springer texts in statistics (1996)Google Scholar
  37. Nye, J.S.: Corruption and political development: a cost-benefit analysis. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 61(2) (1967)Google Scholar
  38. OECD: Measuring the Non-Observed Economy—A Handbook. (OECD Publications, Paris 2002)Google Scholar
  39. Philip, M. : Defining political corruption. In: Heywood, P. (ed.) Political Corruption, pp. 20–46. Blackwell, Oxford (1997)Google Scholar
  40. PoliticalRiskServices: PRS index 2002. http://www.prsgroup.com (2002)
  41. Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M., Cheibub, J., Limongi, F.: Democracy and Development: Political Regimes and Material Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge University Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  42. Sartori M., Pasini M.: Quality and quantity in test validity: how can we be sure that psychological tests measure what they have to? Qual. Quant. 41, 359–374 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scherpenzeel A.C., Saris W.E.: The validity and reliability of survey questions. A meta-analysis of MTMM studies. Sociol. Methods Res. 25(3), 341–383 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schneider F.: Shadow economies around the world: what do we really know? Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 21, 598–642 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schneider, F.: Shadow economies of 145 countries all over the world: What do we really know? Department of Economics, University of Linz, Discussion Paper (2006)Google Scholar
  46. Tanzi V.: Uses and abuses of estimates of the underground economy. Econ. J. 109(456), 338–347 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thum M., Choi J.P.: Corruption and the shadow economy. Int. Econ. Rev. 46, 817–836 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Transparency-International: Corruption Perception Index 2002 Press Release. Press Release (2002)Google Scholar
  49. Treisman D.: The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. J. Public Econ. 76(3), 399–457 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Widaman K.F.: Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 9, 1–26 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wothke, W.: Nonpositive definit matrices in structural modeling. In: Bollen, K.A., Long J.S. (eds.), Testing Structural Equations Models. Sage, Beverly Hills (1994)Google Scholar
  52. Zimring F.E., Johnson D.T.: On the comparative study of corruption. Br. J. Criminol. 26, 1–17 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Sociology, Department for MacrosociologyDresden University of TechnologyDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversität der BundeswehrNeubibergGermany

Personalised recommendations