Gender Aspects of Government Auditing

  • Mattias Agerberg
  • Maria Gustavson
  • Aksel Sundström
  • Lena Wängnerud
Chapter
Part of the Political Corruption and Governance book series (PCG)

Abstract

In this chapter, we examine to what extent government auditing agencies mediates the effect from proportions of women in parliament on national levels of corruption; thus, we test, using a cross-country comparative design, whether higher proportions of women are associated with well-functioning auditing agencies, which further down the road is associated with lower levels of corruption. A related question is whether women in national parliaments have extra incentives to push for a state on track. One such incentive may be that those areas affecting the everyday lives of women citizens are particularly vulnerable when monitoring of the state is weak. The results suggest that initial relationships between the proportion of women in parliament and levels of corruption become insignificant when mediating variables are introduced.

References

  1. Alexander, A. C. and Ravlik, M. (2015, September 3–6). Responsiveness to women’s interests as a quality of government mechanism: A global analysis of women’s presence in national legislatures and anti-trafficking enforcement. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Meeting, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  2. Alhassan-Alolo, N. (2007). Gender and corruption: Testing the new consensus. Public Administration, 27(1), 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aneshensel, C. S. (2013). Theory-based data analysis for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategical, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaman, L., Duflo, E., Pande, R., & Topalova, P. (2011). Political reservation and substantive representation: Evidence from Indian village councils. In S. Bery, B. Bosworth, & A. Panagariya (Eds.), India policy forum 2010–11 (Vol. 7). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Bergqvist, C., et al. (2000). Equal democracies? In Gender and politics in the Nordic countries. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bhalotra, S., & Clots-Figueras, I. (2011). Health and the political agency of women. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6, 164–197.Google Scholar
  8. Boyne, G. A., Day, P., & Walker, R. (2002). The evaluation of public service inspection: A theoretical framework. Urban Studies, 39, 1197–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandsma, G. J., & Schillemans, T. (2013). The accountability cube: Measuring accountability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 953–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chattopadhyay, R., & Duflo, E. (2004). Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica, 72(5), 1409–1443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahlström, C., Teorell, J., Dahlberg, S., Hartmann, F., & Lindberg, A. (2015). The quality of government expert survey—A report. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute.Google Scholar
  12. Diaz, M. M. (2005). Representing women? Female legislators in West European parliaments. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dodson, D. L. (2006). The impact of women in congress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dollar, D., Fisman, R., & Gatti, R. (2001). Are women really the fairer sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 46, 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duflo, E., Hanna, R., & Ryan, S. P. (2012). Incentives work: Getting teachers to come to school. American Economic Review, 102, 1241–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duflo, E., Greenstone, M., Pande, R., & Ryan, N. (2013). Truth-telling by third-party auditors and the response of polluting firms: Experimental evidence from India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(4), 1499–1545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Electoral System Design Database. (2014). Electoral system design. Available at: http://www.idea.int/esd. Accessed 13 Oct 2015.
  18. Esarey, J., & Chirillo, G. (2013). “Fairer sex” or purity myth? Corruption, gender, and institutional context. Gender and Politics, 9(4), 390–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flint, D. (1988). Philosophy and principles of auditing: An introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Goetz, A. M., & Jenkins, R. (2005). Reinventing accountability: Making democracy work for human development. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gustavson, M. (2014). Auditing good government in Africa: Public sector reform, professional norms and the development discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Gustavson, M. and Sundström, A. (2016). Organizing the audit society: Does good auditing generate less public sector corruption? Administration & Society, published online October 16.Google Scholar
  23. Hadenius, A., & Teorell, J. (2005, August). Assessing alternative indices of democracy. C&M working papers 6. IPSA. Available at: www.conceptsmethods.org/working_papers/20050812_16_PC%206%20Hadenius%20&%20Teorell.pdf
  24. Hollingsworth, K., White, F., & Harden, I. (1998). Audit, accountability and independence: The role of the audit commission. Legal Studies, 18, 78–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Inter-Parliamentary Union. (2014). Women in national parliaments. Available at: www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world-arc.htm. Accessed 13 Oct 2015.
  27. Isaksson, A.-S., & Bigsten, A. (2012). Institution building with limited resources: Establishing a supreme audit institution in Rwanda. World Development, 40, 1870–1881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones, M. P. (1997). Legislator gender and legislator policy priorities in the Argentine Chamber of Deputies and the United States House of Representatives. Policy Studies Journal, 25, 613–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3, 220–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kostadinova, T., & Mikulska, A. (2017). The puzzling success of populist parties in promoting women’s political representation. Party Politics, 23(4), 400–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. La Porta, R., López-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1999). The quality of government. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 15(1), 222–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lott, J. R., & Kenny, L. W. (1999). Did women’s suffrage change the size and scope of government? Journal of Political Economy, 107(6), 1163–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lovenduski, J., & Norris, P. (2003). Westminster women: The politics of presence. Political Studies, 51(1), 84–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mallinckrodt, B., Abraham, W. T., Wei, M., & Russell, D. W. (2006). Advances in testing the statistical significance of mediation effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 372–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Manin, B. (2007). The principles of representative government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Mautz, R. K., & Sharaf, H. A. (1961). The philosophy of auditing. Iowa City: American Accounting Association.Google Scholar
  37. Meier, K. J., Winter, S. C., O’Toole, L. J., Jr., Favero, N., & Andersen, S. C. (2015). The validity of subjective performance measures: School principals in Texas and Denmark. Public Administration, 93, 1084–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Normanton, E. L. (1966). The accountability and audit of governments: A comparative study. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pande, R. and Ford, D. (2012). Gender quotas and female leadership: A review. Background paper for the world development report on gender. Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar
  40. Power, M. K. (1999). The audit society: Rituals of verification (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Power, M. K. (2005). The theory of the audit explosion. In E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 326–346). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Reichborn-Kjennerud, K. (2013). Political accountability and performance audit: The case of the auditor general in Norway. Public Administration, 91, 680–695.Google Scholar
  43. Rutherford, A. (2014). Organizational turnaround and educational performance: The impact of performance-based monitoring analysis systems. American Review of Public Administration, 44, 440–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwindt-Bayer, L. A. (2006). Still supermadres? Gender and the policy priorities of Latin American legislators. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sharp, R. (2000). The economics and politics of auditing government budgets for their gender impact. Working paper series no 3. Hawke Institute.Google Scholar
  46. Skjeie H. (1992). Den politiske betydningen av kjønn. En studie av norsk topp-politikk [The political importance of gender: A study of Norwegian top politics]. (Rapport 92:11). (Doctoral dissertation). Oslo: Inst. Samfunnsforskning.Google Scholar
  47. Stensöta, H., Wängnerud, L., & Svensson, R. (2015). Gender and corruption: The mediating power of institutional logics. Governance, 29(4), 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sung, H.-E. (2003). Fairer sex or fairer system? Gender and corruption revisited. Social Forces, 82, 703–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64, 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Teorell, J., Dahlberg, S., Holmberg, S., Rothstein, B., Hartmann, F., & Svensson, R. (2015). The quality of government standard dataset, version January 15. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, The Quality of Government Institute. Available at: www.qog.pol.gu.se.
  51. Thomas, S. (1994). How women legislate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Treisman, D. (2007). What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research? Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 211–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. UNDP. (2012). Seeing beyond the state: Grassroots women’s perspectives on corruption and anti-corruption. Available at: www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Democratic%20Governance/Anti-corruption/Grassroots%20women%20and%20anti-corruption.pdf.
  54. Wängnerud, L. (2009). Women in parliaments: Descriptive and substantive representation. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wängnerud, L. (2015). The principles of gender-sensitive parliaments. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Watson, D., & Moreland, A. (2014). Perceptions of corruption and the dynamics of women’s representation. Politics and Gender, 10, 392–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wildavsky, A. B. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  58. World Bank. (2001). Features and functions of supreme audit institutions (PREM notes, 59). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mattias Agerberg
    • 1
  • Maria Gustavson
    • 1
  • Aksel Sundström
    • 1
  • Lena Wängnerud
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations