Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Hold your nose and vote: corruption and public decisions in a representative democracy

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyzes how corruption alters policy decisions in democracy, and examines whether this distortion can result in a long-term persistence of corruption even when the voters are well informed and rational. By applying a citizen-candidate model of representative democracy, the paper analyzes how corruption distorts the allocation of resources between public and private consumption, altering the policy preferences of elected and nonelected citizens in opposite directions. The outcome is a reduction in real public expenditure and, if the median voter’s demand for public goods is sufficiently elastic, a reduction in taxes. In this case, some citizens benefit indirectly from corruption. The paper also presents some empirical evidence that, in democratic countries, corruption results in lower tax revenue, and proceeds to show that, when this occurs, citizens anticipating a shift in preferences in favor of public expenditure may support institutions that favor corruption. This result complements the findings of other studies that have attributed the persistence of corruption in democracy to some failure on the part of the voters or the electoral system. It also bears implications for developing effective anticorruption strategies and for redefining the role that can be played by the international community.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, R. G. D., & Lerner, A. P. (1934). The concept of arc elasticity of demand. Review of Economic Studies, 1(3), 226–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & Weder, B. (2002). Do corrupt governments receive less foreign aid? American Economic Review, 92(4), 1126–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barro, R. J. (1973). The control of politicians: an economic model. Public Choice, 14(1), 19–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, K., Bhattacharya, S., & Mishra, A. (1992). Notes on bribery and the control of corruption. Journal of Public Economics, 48(3), 349–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: an economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1983). A theory of competition among pressure groups for political support. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(3), 371–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S., & Stigler, G. J. (1974). Law enforcement. malfeasance, and compensation of enforcers. Journal of Legal Studies, 3(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beenstock, M. (1979). Corruption and development. World Development, 7(1), 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhard, W. (2002). Banking on reform: political parties and central bank independence in the industrial economies. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T., & Coate, S. (1997). An economic model of representative democracy. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(1), 85–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T., & McLaren, J. (1993). Taxes and bribery: the role of wage incentives. Economic Journal, 103(416), 119–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, M., & di Tella, R. (2004). Inflation, inflation variability, and corruption. Economics and Politics, 16(1), 77–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calderon, C., & Chong, A. (2006). Do democracies breed rent-seeking behavior? Journal of Policy Reform, 9(4), 247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chander, P., & Wilde, L. (1992). Corruption in tax administration. Journal of Public Economics, 49(3), 333–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, A., & Calderon, C. (2000a). Institutional quality and poverty measures in a cross-section of countries. Economics of Governance, 1(2), 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, A., & Calderon, C. (2000b). Institutional quality and income distribution. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48(4), 761–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, A., & Gradstein, M. (2008). What determines foreign aid? the donors’ perspective. Journal of Development Economics, 87(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Monte, A., & Papagni, E. (2001). Public expenditure, corruption, and economic growth: the case of Italy. European Journal of Political Economy, 17(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dincer, O. C., & Gunalp, B. (2008). Corruption, income inequality, and poverty in the United States. Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei Working Paper, 54.2008.

  • Dudley, L., & Montmarquette, C. (1987). Bureaucratic corruption as a constraint on voter choice. Public Choice, 55(1–2), 127–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterly, W. (2007). Was development assistance a mistake? American Economic Review, 97(2), 328–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galeotti, G., & Merlo, A. (1994). Political collusion and corruption in a representative democracy. Public Finance–Finances Publiques, 49(Suppl.), 232–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E., Scheinkman, J., & Shleifer, A. (2003). The injustice of inequality. Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(1), 199–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1996). Electoral competition and special interest politics. Review of Economic Studies, 63(2), 265–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S., Davoodi, H. R., & Alonso-Terme, R. (2002). Does corruption affect income inequality and poverty?. Economics of Governance, 3(1), 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindricks, J., Keen, M., & Muthoo, A. (1999). Corruption, extortion, and evasion. Journal of Public Economics, 74(3), 395–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzfeld, T., & Weiss, C. (2003). Corruption and legal (in)effectiveness: an empirical investigation. European Journal of Political Economy, 19(3), 621–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karahan, G. R., Coats, R. M., & Shughart, E. F. II (2006a). Corrupt political jurisdictions and voter participation. Public Choice, 126, 87–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karahan, G. R., Razzolini, L., & Shughart, E. F. II (2006b). No pretense to honesty: county government corruption in Mississippi. Economics of Governance, 7(3), 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knack, S. (2001). Aid dependence and the quality of governance: cross-country empirical tests. Southern Economic Journal, 68(2), 310–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunicová, J., & Rose-Ackerman, S. (2005). Electoral rules and constitutional structures as constraints on corruption. British Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 573–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurer, O. (2001). Why do voters support corrupt politicians? In Jain, A. K. (Ed.), The political economy of corruption (pp. 63–86). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., Xu, L. C., & Zou, H.-F. (2000). Corruption, income distribution, and growth. Economics and Politics, 12(2), 155–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 681–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauro, P. (1998). Corruption and the composition of government expenditure. Journal of Public Economics, 69(2), 263–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, R. R. (2007). Federal reserve transparency: the more things change, the more they stay the same? Public Choice, 133(3–4), 269–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montinola, G. R., & Jackman, R. W. (2002). Sources of corruption: a cross-country study. British Journal of Political Science, 32(1), 147–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mookherjee, D., & Png, I. P. L. (1995). Corruptible law enforcers: how should they be compensated? Economic Journal, 105(428), 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myerson, R. B. (1993). Effectiveness of electoral systems for reducing government corruption: a game theoretic analysis. Games and Economic Behavior, 5(1), 118–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, M. J., & Slivinski, A. (1996). A model of political competition with citizen-candidates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(1), 65–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paldam, M. (2002). The cross-country pattern of corruption: economics, culture and the seesaw dynamics. European Journal of Political Economy, 18(2), 215–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, T., Tabellini, G., & Trebbi, F. (2003). Electoral rules and corruption. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 958–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, J. G., & Welch, S. (1980). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 74(3), 697–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose-Ackerman, S. (1975). The economics of corruption. Journal of Public Economics, 4(2), 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose-Ackerman, S. (1978). Corruption: a study in political economy. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rundquist, B. S., Strom, G. S., & Peters, J. G. (1977). Corrupt politicians and their electoral support: some experimental observations. American Political Science Review, 71(3), 954–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandholtz, W., & Koetzle, W. (2000). Accounting for corruption: economic structure, democracy, and trade. International Studies Quarterly, 44(1), 31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, H.-E. (2004). Democracy and political corruption: a cross-national comparison. Crime, Law and Social Change, 41(2), 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanzi, V., & Davoodi, H. R. (1998). Corruption, public investment and growth. In Shibata, H., & Ihori, T. (Eds.), The welfare state, public investment, and growth: selected papers from the 53rd congress of the International Institute of Public Finance (pp. 41–60). Tokyo: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76(3), 399–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Winden, F. (1999). On the economic theory of interest groups: toward a group frame of reference in political economics. Public Choice, 100(1–2), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • You, J.-S., & Khagram, S. (2005). A comparative study of inequality and corruption. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 136–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Pani.

Additional information

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed herein are those of the author and should not be attributed to the IMF, its Executive Board, or its management.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pani, M. Hold your nose and vote: corruption and public decisions in a representative democracy. Public Choice 148, 163–196 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-010-9651-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-010-9651-4

Keywords

Navigation