Micro-perspectives on the Gender–Corruption Link

Do women always behave as corruption cleaners?

“…Experimental evidence suggests an affirmative answer, showing that females generally are less likely than males to engage in corrupt acts (Alatas et al, 2009;Fisar et al, 2016;Jha & Sarangi, 2018;Rivas, 2013; for excellent surveys, see Abbink, 2006;Frank et al, 2011;Chaudhuri, 2012;Stensöta & Wängnerud, 2018), and that female voters tend to punish corrupt politicians and their parties more harshly than male voters (Eggers et al, 2018). 1 In line with those experimental results, several survey-based studies document a stark, negative correlation between being female and corruption levels or tolerance of corruption (Alexander, 2018;Alexander & Bågenholm, 2018;Bauhr & Charron, 2020;Dollar et al, 2001;Esarey & Chirillo, 2013;Esarey & Schwindt-Bayer, 2018;Lee & Guven, 2013;Sundström & Wängnerud, 2016;Swamy et al, 2001;Torgler & Valev, 2010;Vijayalakshmi, 2008). 2 While the literature suggests a possible gender-corruption link, the mechanisms through which this link evolves remain under-explored.…”

“…No prior research thus far has explored experimentally gender differences in the tolerance of bribery, i.e., in the evaluation of corrupt acts when one is neither involved in, nor directly affected by them. Nonetheless, that aspect of corruption is important since tolerance of illegal behaviors plays a critical role in the proliferation and persistence of those actions (Alatas et al, 2009;Kubbe & Engelbert, 2018) 3 ; and it likely differs across individuals (Alexander, 2018;Alexander et al, 2019;Barr & Serra, 2010;Lee & Guven, 2013). The logic is simple: when individuals are accustomed to corruption and simply treat it as a cost of ordinary business, corruption no is longer a social issue (Banerjee et al, 2021;Chang, 2020;Munger, 2019).…”

Do Women Always Behave As Corruption Cleaners?

“…Experimental evidence suggests an affirmative answer, showing that females generally are less likely than males to engage in corrupt acts (Alatas et al, 2009;Fisar et al, 2016;Jha & Sarangi, 2018;Rivas, 2013; for excellent surveys, see Abbink, 2006;Frank et al, 2011;Chaudhuri, 2012;Stensöta & Wängnerud, 2018), and that female voters tend to punish corrupt politicians and their parties more harshly than male voters (Eggers et al, 2018). 1 In line with those experimental results, several survey-based studies document a stark, negative correlation between being female and corruption levels or tolerance of corruption (Alexander, 2018;Alexander & Bågenholm, 2018;Bauhr & Charron, 2020;Dollar et al, 2001;Esarey & Chirillo, 2013;Esarey & Schwindt-Bayer, 2018;Lee & Guven, 2013;Sundström & Wängnerud, 2016;Swamy et al, 2001;Torgler & Valev, 2010;Vijayalakshmi, 2008). 2 While the literature suggests a possible gender-corruption link, the mechanisms through which this link evolves remain under-explored.…”

“…No prior research thus far has explored experimentally gender differences in the tolerance of bribery, i.e., in the evaluation of corrupt acts when one is neither involved in, nor directly affected by them. Nonetheless, that aspect of corruption is important since tolerance of illegal behaviors plays a critical role in the proliferation and persistence of those actions (Alatas et al, 2009;Kubbe & Engelbert, 2018) 3 ; and it likely differs across individuals (Alexander, 2018;Alexander et al, 2019;Barr & Serra, 2010;Lee & Guven, 2013). The logic is simple: when individuals are accustomed to corruption and simply treat it as a cost of ordinary business, corruption no is longer a social issue (Banerjee et al, 2021;Chang, 2020;Munger, 2019).…”

Are women more likely to throw the rascals out? The mobilizing effect of social service spending on female voters

“…The largely unexplored role of gender in research on corruption and electoral accountability is rather surprising given the vast literature suggesting stark gender differences in the tendency to engage in, as well as the tolerance of, corruption (Alexander 2018;Alexander and Bågenholm 2018;Chaudhuri 2012;Dollar et al 2001;Eggers, et al 2017;Esarey and Chirillo 2013;Esarey and Schwindt-Bayer 2017;Jha and Sarangi 2018;Swamy et al 2001;Sundström and Wängnerud 2014;Torlger and Valev 2010;Vijayalakshmi 2008;World Bank 2001). Within that literature, the work that speaks most strongly to expectations of gender differences in voter accountability offers theory and evidence on an "ethicality" mechanism to understand why women are likely to be more adverse to corruption than men (Cumming et al 2015(Cumming et al , pp.…”