Final Thoughts: Taking Stock and Reflections on Ways Forward

  • Helena Stensöta
Chapter
Part of the Political Corruption and Governance book series (PCG)

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.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Dreber, A., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Gender differences in deception. Economics Letters, 99, 197–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.
  8. Frank, B., Lambsdorff, J. G., & Boehm, F. (2011). Gender and corruption: Lessons from laboratory corruption experiments. European Journal of Development Research, 23, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Goetz, A. M. (2007). Political cleaners: Women as the new anti-corruption force? Development and Change, 38(1), 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hernes, H. M. (1987). Welfare state and woman power: Essays in state feminism. Oslo: Oslo Norwegian Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Rivas, F. M. (2013). An experiment on corruption and gender. Bulletin of Economic Research, 65(1), 10–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schulze, G., & Frank, B. (2003). Deterrence versus intrinsic motivation: Experimental evidence on the determinants of corruptibility. Economics of Governance, 4, 143–160.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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).Google Scholar
  20. Stensöta, H. O., Wängnerud, L., & Svensson, R. (2015). Gender and corruption: The mediating power of institutional logics. Governance, 28(4), 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helena Stensöta
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations