Abstract
Although in mainstream discussion bureaucratic quality is considered a major factor in curbing corruption, the relationship between corruption and women in the administration has been less well studied. This chapter discusses how institutional theory can be used to make sense of how the relationship between gender and corruption varies between contexts, and suggests that a suppressing logic within bureaucracy limits the impact of gender on corruption, whereas an enforcing logic of the legislature enhances it. This idea comprehends gender as “raw material” to institutions, rather than created by them. However, the discretion used within frontline bureaucracy suggests that gender may matter more on this level. The chapter outlines how the qualities of the raw material are mediated by institutional logics to affect corruption.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This selection of controls is based on controls used in previous research, above all, three studies: First, the work of Hung -En Sung (2003), who found the relationship between women and corruption to be spurious, while using as controls GDP per capita, poverty, illiteracy, and rule of law (including freedom of the press and electoral democracy). Second, the work of Swamy et al. (2001), who found that the share of women curbs levels of corruption, applying the following controls: logged GDP per capita, average years of schooling, Catholic proportion, Muslim proportion, former British colony, never colonized, largest ethnic group in percentage, and political freedoms. Third, the initial study by Dollar et al. (2001), who used the controls logged GDP per capita, civil liberties, schooling, openness, ethnic fractionalization, and colonial dummies.
References
Agerberg, M., Gustavsson, M., Sundström, A., & Wängnerud, L. (2018). Gender aspects of government auditing. In H. Stensöta & L. Wängnerud (Eds.), Gender and corruption. Historical roots and new avenues for research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Alhassan-Alolo, N. (2007). Gender and corruption: Testing the new consensus. Public Administration and Development, 27, 227–237.
Barnes, T. D., Beaulieu, E., & Saxton, G. W. (2017). Restoring trust in the police: Why female officers reduce suspicions of corruption. Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12281. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
Coverdale, H. B. (2014). Punishing with care: Treating offenders as equal persons in criminal punishment. London: Department of Law, London School of Economics & Political Science.
Dollar, D., Fishman, R., & Gatti, R. (2001). Are women really the fairer sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 26(4), 423–429.
European Commission. (2005). Database on women and men in decision-making. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-decision-making/database/public-administration/national-administrations/index_en.htm. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
Hankivsky, O. (2014). Rethinking care ethics: On the promise and potential of an intersectional analysis. American Political Science Review, 108(2), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000094.
Krook, M. L., & Mackay, F. (2011). Gender, politics and institutions: Towards a feminist institutionalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage.
Manin, B. (2007). The principles of representative government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
March, J., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.
Meyers, M. K., & Lehman Nielsen, V. (2012). Street-level bureaucrats and the implementation of public policy. In J. Pierre & B. G. Peters (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public administration (pp. 305–318). London: SAGE.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Østergaard, M. M., & Stensöta, H. O. (2017). Welfare state regimes and caseworkers’ problem explanation. Administration & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399717700224. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
Peters, B. G. (2008). The Napoleonic tradition. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(2), 118–132.
Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G., & Lavena C. F. (2014). Representative bureaucracy in policing: Does it increase perceived legitimacy? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 537–551. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu006.
Rothstein, B., & Holmberg, S. (2012). Good government. The relevance of political science. Cheltenham: Edward Edgar.
Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance, 21, 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00391.x.
Sevenhuijsen, S. (1998). Citizenship and the ethics of care: Feminist considerations on justice, morality and care. New York: Routledge.
Stensöta, H. (2018). Final thoughts: Taking stock and reflections on ways forward. In H. Stensöta & L. Wängnerud (Eds.), Gender and corruption. Historical roots and new avenues for research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stensöta, H. O. (2004). Den empatiska staten: Jämställdhetens inverkan på daghem och Polis 1950–2000 [The empathetic state: The impact of equality on child care and law enforcement in Sweden, 1950–2000]. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
Stensöta, H. O. (2015). Public ethics of care: A general public ethics. Ethics and Social Welfare, 9(2), 183–200.
Stensöta, H. O. (2017, April). Accounting for convergence and persisting differences along gender: Actors and institutions in extra political and intra political institutions. Paper presented at the conference Gender, Institutions and Change: Feminist Institutionalism after 10 Years, Manchester.
Stensöta, H. O., Wängnerud, L., & Svensson, R. (2015). Gender and corruption: The mediating power of institutional logics. Governance, 28, 475–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12120.
Sung, H.-E. (2003). Fairer sex of fairer system? Gender and corruption revisited. Social Forces, 82(2), 703–723.
Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64(1), 25–55.
Teorell, J., Samanni, M., Holmberg, S., & Rothstein, B. (2011). The quality of government dataset, version 6 April 2011. Gothenburg: University of The Quality of Government Institute. http://www.qog.pol.gu.se. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
Thomson, J. (2017). Resisting gendered change: Feminist institutionalism and critical actors. International Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512116677844.
Tronto, J. C. (1994). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. London: Routledge.
Wagner, N., Rieger, M., Bedi, A., & Hout. W. (2016). Are women better police officers? Evidence from a survey experiment in Uganda. Working paper no. 615. The Hague, Netherlands: International Institute of Social Studies.
Watson, K., & Close, E. (2016, November 24). 100 women 2016: Are Mexican women less corrupt than men? BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38077422. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wilkins, V. M. (2007). Exploring the causal story: Gender, active representation, and bureaucratic priorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 77–94.
Young, I. M. (2002). Lived body vs gender: Reflections on social structure and subjectivity. Ratio, 15(4), 410–428.
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). Corruption and Female Representation in the Bureaucracy. 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_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70929-1_7
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)