Abstract
This final chapter deepens how the two main contributions of the volume, the importance of gender equality and the usefulness of institutional theory, may forward our understanding of the link between gender and corruption, and exemplifies these points with the help of the preceding chapters. Beyond these conclusions, it further reflects on notions of individual-level mechanisms and calls for increased carefulness in transferring ideas of mechanisms from one context or problem to another; possible pitfalls of this are highlighted. It is further proposed to distinguish broadly between “refraining from” and “actively protecting” as two equally valid mechanisms that may enhance good government. A final reflection on how gender and power is connected in the field ends the chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alexander, A. C., & Ravlik, M. (2015, September). 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.
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383.
De Cremer, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2001). Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: The roles of social responsibility and reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 15, S5–S18. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.418.
Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Dreber, A., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Gender differences in deception. Economics Letters, 99, 197–199.
Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and her of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64(8), 644–658.
Esarey, J., & Schwindt-Bayer, L. (2017). Women’s representation, accountability and corruption in democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000478.
Frank, B., Lambsdorff, J. G., & Boehm, F. (2011). Gender and corruption: Lessons from laboratory corruption experiments. European Journal of Development Research, 23, 59–71.
Fraser, N. (2000). After the family wage: A postindustrial thought experiment. In B. Hobson (Ed.), Gender and citizenship in transition (pp. 1–33). New York: Routledge.
Goetz, A. M. (2007). Political cleaners: Women as the new anti-corruption force? Development and Change, 38(1), 87–105.
Hernes, H. M. (1987). Welfare state and woman power: Essays in state feminism. Oslo: Oslo Norwegian Press.
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Ledyard, J. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In J. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (pp. 111–194). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Persson, A., & Rothstein, B. (2011). Why big government is good government. Paper presented at the American political science association annual meeting. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1902612
Rivas, F. M. (2013). An experiment on corruption and gender. Bulletin of Economic Research, 65(1), 10–42.
Schulze, G., & Frank, B. (2003). Deterrence versus intrinsic motivation: Experimental evidence on the determinants of corruptibility. Economics of Governance, 4, 143–160.
Stack, C. B. (1997). Different voices, different visions: Gender, culture and moral reasoning. In M. BacaZinn, P. Hondagneu-Sotelo, & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Through the prism of difference: Readings on sex and gender (pp. 42–48). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Stensöta, H. (2004). Den empatiska staten. Daghemspolitik och polispolitik 1950–2000 [The empathetic state. Childcare and law enforcement policy 1950–2000]. Doctoral dissertation. Gothenburg studies in political science no 80. Livrena (p. 250).
Stensöta, H. O., Wängnerud, L., & Svensson, R. (2015). Gender and corruption: The mediating power of institutional logics. Governance, 28(4), 475–496.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stensöta, H. (2018). Final Thoughts: Taking Stock and Reflections on Ways Forward. In: Stensöta, H., Wängnerud, L. (eds) Gender and Corruption. Political Corruption and Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70929-1_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70929-1_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70928-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70929-1
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)