Disaggregating Corruption: A Comparison of Participation and Perceptions in Latin America with a Focus on Mexico¹

Abstract

An abundant empirical literature on corruption relying on survey research has emerged since the mid‐1990s. The predominant line of inquiry concerns perceptions of corruption with respect to institutions and processes. Another, separate line of inquiry that has enjoyed less attention concerns reports about individuals’ participation in corruption. These two dimensions of corruption, however, are typically conflated, leading to error and confusion. This article explores the relationship between the two and seeks to differentiate the two. Using data at the country and individual levels, analysis shows how the two may be only weakly related to one another – though causality remains unclear – and respond to distinct sets of determinants and generate distinct outcomes. The analysis underlines the need to specify the findings in the literature: that the causes and consequences of corruption relate more to ‘perceived’ corruption rather than actual corruption.

Corruption and citizen participation in local government: Evidence from Latin America

“…Our analysis reveals that perceptions of corruption held by local people do not necessarily reflect the instances of corruption experienced by them. In line with prior research, we hypothesized that experience measures may more adequately capture the breadth of petty bureaucratic corruption than perceptional measures (Morris, 2008;Seligson, 2006). Prior research (Canache & Allison, 2005;Morris, 2008;Morris & Klesner, 2010;Olken, 2009) has already established that individual perceptions of corruption are influenced by a host of factors, including economic situation in the country, levels of interpersonal and institutional trust, political interest, gender, and education.…”

“…Realizing that politicians use public office for personal enrichment, while they themselves struggle to survive, leads citizens to resent politicians as well as the political regime facilitating such corrupt advances. As Uslaner (, p. 17) explains, “Petty corruption doesn't cause people to lose faith in their fellow citizens or become envious as grand corruption does.” If perceptual and experiential measures capture different dimensions of corruption—high‐level and low‐level corruption—and if these two types of corruption trigger different sets of sentiments and behaviors (Morris, ), then perceived and experienced corruption might prompt different actions by citizens. In other words, the existence of petty corruption does not prevent citizens from action, while grand corruption signals that the system is inherently broken and nothing can be done to fix it.…”

“…The consequences of corruption affect a larger number of people than just the bribe taker or the bribe giver (Shleifer & Vishny, 1993). According to prior research, corruption undermines citizen trust in the legitimacy of their government (Canache & Allison, 2005;Morris, 2008;Morris & Blake, 2009;Morris & Klesner, 2010). Corruption also deepens social inequality (Uslaner, 2008).…”

“…Next, we discuss control variables for individual-level analysis. Prior research (e.g., Canache & Allison, 2005;Morris, 2008;Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1980) shows that various personal characteristics, such as education, age, place of residence, income, and interest in politics can affect citizen participation rates. Higher level of education translates into higher political participation rates because the key skills and resources increase with education .…”

The Resource Curse Reversed? Remittances and Corruption in Mexico1

“…At the same time, this definition may not differentiate adequately between petty and grand corruption (see Del Castillo 2003). Another issue articulated by Morris (2007) distinguishes between measures of actual and perceived corruption. The concepts correlate, but should be considered separate because perceptions are necessarily subjective and may systematically overstate actual occurrences.…”