![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
We examine the effect of democracy as an institutional context on individuals’ perceptions of government corruption. To do so, we compile an integrated dataset from the Asian, Afro, and Latino Barometer Surveys and use a hierarchical linear regression model. Our primary finding is that the effect of democracy has different effects on ordinary citizens’ perceptions of corruption in different contexts. In general, people in countries with higher levels of democracy tend to perceive their governments to be more corrupt. However, more importantly, conditional models show that in countries with more developed democratic institutions, individuals with stronger democratic values are less likely to perceive the government to be corrupt. Moreover, people in such countries are less likely to assess their government based on their perceptions of economic situation.
Notes on contributors
Hui Li received his PhD degree in political science from Fudan University. Currently he is an assistant professor at Fudan University. His research interests include political corruption and comparative democratization. His recent publications will appear in Social Indicators Research.
Min Tang is an associate professor at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. His research interests include political support, political communication, and comparative democratization. His recent publications appear or will appear in British Journal of Political Science, Political Studies, and Democratization.
Narisong Huhe received his PhD in political science from Old Dominion University. Currently he is an assistant professor at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. His recent publications (will) appear in Social Science Quarterly, International Political Science Review, and Journal of Chinese Political Science.
Notes
1 Bäck and Hadenius, “Democracy and State Capacity”; Charron and Lapuente, “Does Democracy Produce Quality?”; Montinola and Jackman, “Sources of Corruption”; Rose-Ackerman, Corruption and Government; Rose-Ackerman, “Political Corruption and Democratic Structures”; Rock, “Corruption and Democracy”; Sun and Johnston, “Does Democracy Check Corruption?”; Treisman, “The Causes of Corruption”; Treisman, “What Have We Learned?”
2 Corruption Perception Index. For the measurement details, see: http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/in_detail/.
3 World Governance Indicators. For the measurement details, see: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home.
4 Svensson, “Eight Questions about Corruption”; Wedeman, “China's War on Corruption.”
5 Kurtz and Schrank, “Growth and Governance”; Montinola and Jackman, “Sources of Corruption.”
6 Treisman, “What Have We Learned,” 215.
7 Chang and Chu, “Corruption and Trust”; Pharr and Putnam, Disaffected Democracies; Seligson, “The Impact of Corruption”; Canache and Allison, “Perceptions of Political Corruption.”
8 Rothstein and Uslaner, “All for All.”
9 Warren, “What Does Corruption Mean?”
10 Davis et al., “The Influence of Party Systems.”
11 Maria, “Measurements and Markets.”
12 Anderson and Singer, “The Sensitive Left and the Impervious Right”; Gingrich and Ansell, “Preferences in Context”; Kedar, “How Diffusion of Power.”
13 Anderson and Singer, “The Sensitive Left and the Impervious Right,” 568.
14 Bäck and Hadenius, “Democracy and State Capacity”; Charron and Lapuente, “Does Democracy Produce Quality?”; Montinola and Jackman, “Sources of Corruption”; Rock, “Corruption and Democracy”; Treisman,“The Causes of Corruption”; Treisman, “What Have We Learned.”
15 Heywood, “Political Corruption.”
16 Rose-Ackerman, 2000, ibid.
17 Johnston, Syndromes of Corruption.
18 Fisman and Gatti, “Decentralization and Corruption.”
19 Ades and Di Tella, “Rents, Competition and Corruption.”
20 Sun and Johnston, “Does Democracy Check Corruption?”
21 Mohtadi and Roe, “Democracy, Rent Seeking, Public Spending.”
22 Keefer, “Clientelism, Credibility, and Policy Choices.”
23 Ibid.
24 Ansolabehere and Iyengar, Going Negative.
25 Weyland, “The Politics of Corruption in Latin American.”
26 Sharafutdinova, “What Explains Corruption Perceptions?”
27 Yu et al., “Corruption Perception in Taiwan.”
28 Zhu et al., “When Grapevine News Meets Mass Media.”
29 Bratton and Mattes, “Support for Democracy in Africa”; Citrin, “Comment”; Easton, “A Re-Assessment of the Concept”; Finkel et al., “Economic Crisis, Incumbent Performance”; Lipset and Schneider, The Confidence Gap; Miller, “Political Issues and Trust in Government”; Muller and Jukam, “On the Meaning of Political Support”; Norris, “Introduction”; Rose et al., Popular Support for an Undemocratic Regime.
30 Winters and Weitz-Shapiro, “Lacking Information or Condoning Corruption?”
31 Konstantinidis and Georgios, “Sources of Tolerance towards Corrupted Politicians in Greece.”
32 Zechmeister and Zizumbo-Colunga, “The Varying Political Toll.”
33 Remmer, “The Sustainability of Political Democracy.”
34 Duch, “Economic Chaos and the Fragility of Democratic Transition”; Remmer, “The Sustainability of Political Democracy”; White, “Economic Performance and Communist Legitimacy.”
35 Chen, Popular Political Support in Urban China; Wang, “Before the Emergence of Critical Citizens.”
36 Rose-Ackerman, Corruption and Government, 91.
37 Philp, “Defining Political Corruption.”
38 Robertson-Snape, “Corruption, Collusion, and Nepotism in Indonesia.”
39 Moi was involved in the Goldenberg scandal and was found to have taken a bribe from a Pakistani businessman to award a monopoly on duty-free shops at the country's international airports.
40 Brown, “Authoritarian Leaders and Multiparty Elections in Africa.”
41 Diamond and Morlino, Assessing the Quality of Democracy; Levine and Molina, The Quality of Democracy in Latin America; Morlino, “Legitimacy and the Quality of Democracy.”
42 Data can be accessed at http://www.asianbarometer.org/.
43 Data can be accessed at http://www.afrobarometer-online-analysis.com/aj/AJBrowserAB.jsp.
44 Data can be accessed at http://www.latinobarometro.org/.
45 Przeworski et al., Democracy and Development.
46 Detailed information is available at http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm.
47 In the ABS, the questions are as follows: “We should get rid of parliament and elections and have a strong leader decide things.” “Only one political party is allowed to stand for election and hold office.” “The army (military) should come in to govern the country.” Answers are given on a 4-point ordinal scale: strongly approve, approve, disapprove, and strongly disapprove. In the FBS, the questions are as follows: “There are many ways to govern a country. Would you disapprove or approve of the following alternatives: Only one political party is allowed to stand for election and hold office?” “The army comes in to govern the country?” “Elections and Parliament/National Assembly are abolished so that the President/Prime Minister can decide everything?” Answers are given on a 5-point ordinal scale: strongly approve, approve, neither approve nor disapprove, disapprove, and strongly disapprove.
48 The questions are as follows: “Some people say that without a National Congress, there can be no democracy, while others say that democracy can work without a National Congress. Which is closer to your view?” Answers are dichotomous: Without a National Congress, there can be no democracy versus Democracy can work without a National Congress. “Some people say that without political parties there can be no democracy, while others say that democracy can work without parties. Which is closer to your view?” Answers are also dichotomous: Without political parties, there can be no democracy versus Democracy can work without parties.
49 In the ABS, the question is as follows: “How often do you use the Internet?” Answers are given on a 6-point ordinal scale: almost daily, at least once a week, at least once a month, several times a year, hardly ever, and never. In the FBS, the question is as follows: “How often do you use the Internet?” Answers are given on a 5-point ordinal scale: never, less than once a month, a few times a month, a few times a week, and every day. In the LBS, the question is as follows: “Have you ever used email or connected to the Internet?” Answers are given on a 4-point ordinal scale: every day, occasionally, rarely, and never.
50 In the ABS, the question is as follows: “Generally speaking, would you say that ‘Most people can be trusted’ or that ‘You must be very careful in dealing with people’?” Answers are dichotomous: most people can be trusted versus you must be very careful in dealing with people. In the FBS, the question is as follows: “How much do you trust each of the following types of people: Other?” Answers are given on a 4-point ordinal scale: not at all, just a little, I trust them somewhat, and I trust them a lot. In the FBS, the question is as follows: “Generally speaking, would you say that you can trust most people or that you can never be too careful when dealing with others?” Answers are dichotomous: one can trust most people versus one can never be too careful when dealing with others.
51 Canache and Allison, “Perceptions of Political Corruption”; Zhu et al., “When Grapevine News Meets Mass Media.”
52 Data can be accessed at http://www.worldbank.org/.
53 Data can be accessed at http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/.
54 Kurtz and Schrank Citation2007, ibid.