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

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.

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

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)

  2. Andvig, J.C.: A house of straw, sticks or bricks? Some notes on corruption empirics. nUPI working paper, no. 678 (2005)

  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)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Birch, A.H.: The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracies. Routledge, London, New York (1993)

  7. Cameron, L., Chaudhuri, A., Erkal, N., Gangadharan, L.: Do attitudes to corruption differ across cultures? Research paper No. 943, Melbourne (2005)

  8. Campbell D.T., Fiske D.W.: Convergent and discriminant validity by the mutitrait- multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56, 81–105 (1959)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Coenders, G., Saris,W.: Testing Additive and Multiplicative MTMM models. Struct. Equ. Model. 7, 219–250 (2000)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Douglas, J.D. and Johnson, J.M. (eds): Official Deviance: Readings in Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Other Forms of Corruption. Lippincott, Philadelphia (1977)

  13. Dreher, A., Schneider, F.: Corruption and the shadow economy: an empirical analysis. CESifo working paper no. 1653 (2006)

  14. Dreher A., Kotsogiannis C., McCorriston S.: Corruption around the world: evidence from a structural model. J. Comp. Econ. 35(3), 443–466 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dunn, G., Everit, B., Pickles, A.: Modelling Covariances and Latent Variables using EQS. Chapman and Hall, London (1993)

  16. Eid M.: A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika 65, 241–261 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Frank B.: Zehn Jahre empirische Korruptionsforschung. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 73(2), 184–199 (2004)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google 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)

  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)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., Zoido-Lobaton, P.: Governance matters. Policy research working paper 2196. The World Bank, Washington, (1999)

  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)

  28. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., Mastruzzi, M.: Governance Indicators: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators for 1996–2005. The World Bank, Washington, (2006)

  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)

  30. Lancaster T.D., Montinola G.R.: Comparative political corruption: issues of operationalization and measurement. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 36(3), 3–28 (2001)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Loehlin, J. C.: Latent Variable Modeling—An Introduction to Factor, Path and Structural Equation Analysis, vol. 4. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (2004)

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Marsh H.W.: Confirmatory factor analyses of multitrait- multimethod data: many problems and few solutions. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 13, 335–361 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mocan, N.: What determines corruption? International evidence from micro data, nBER working paper no. 10460 (2004)

  36. Mueller, R.O.: Basic Principles in Structural Equation Modeling: An Introduction to LISREL and EQS. Springer texts in statistics (1996)

  37. Nye, J.S.: Corruption and political development: a cost-benefit analysis. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 61(2) (1967)

  38. OECD: Measuring the Non-Observed Economy—A Handbook. (OECD Publications, Paris 2002)

  39. Philip, M. : Defining political corruption. In: Heywood, P. (ed.) Political Corruption, pp. 20–46. Blackwell, Oxford (1997)

  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)

  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)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schneider F.: Shadow economies around the world: what do we really know? Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 21, 598–642 (2005)

    Article  Google 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)

  46. Tanzi V.: Uses and abuses of estimates of the underground economy. Econ. J. 109(456), 338–347 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Thum M., Choi J.P.: Corruption and the shadow economy. Int. Econ. Rev. 46, 817–836 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Transparency-International: Corruption Perception Index 2002 Press Release. Press Release (2002)

  49. Treisman D.: The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. J. Public Econ. 76(3), 399–457 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Widaman K.F.: Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 9, 1–26 (1985)

    Article  Google 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)

  52. Zimring F.E., Johnson D.T.: On the comparative study of corruption. Br. J. Criminol. 26, 1–17 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Neumann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Neumann, R., Graeff, P. A Multitrait-Multimethod approach to pinpoint the validity of aggregated governance indicators. Qual Quant 44, 849–864 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-009-9238-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Multitrait-Multimethod
  • Corruption
  • Democracy
  • Validity
  • Confirmatory Factor Analysis
  • Dimensionality