IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp10426.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Plough, Gender Roles, and Corruption

Author

Listed:
  • Hazarika, Gautam

    (The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley)

Abstract

Cross-national empirical studies of corruption commonly find that nations in which women play a greater role in economic and public life suffer less corruption. This finding has been controversial in that measures of women's participation in the labour force and politics are potentially endogenous. This study uses an aspect of national ancestral geography as an instrumental variable towards estimating the true causal effect of gender upon corruption. The ensuing estimates indicate that ordinary least squares estimates of the coefficients of regressors measuring women's economic and political influ-ence, in regressions in which measured corruption is the dependent variable, are substantially biased.

Suggested Citation

  • Hazarika, Gautam, 2016. "The Plough, Gender Roles, and Corruption," IZA Discussion Papers 10426, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp10426
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp10426.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alberto Alesina & Paola Giuliano & Nathan Nunn, 2013. "On the Origins of Gender Roles: Women and the Plough," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 128(2), pages 469-530.
    2. Barro, Robert J. & Lee, Jong Wha, 2013. "A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 184-198.
    3. Nathan Nunn & Diego Puga, 2012. "Ruggedness: The Blessing of Bad Geography in Africa," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(1), pages 20-36, February.
    4. Debski, Julia & Jetter, Michael, 2015. "Gender and Corruption: A Reassessment," IZA Discussion Papers 9447, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Günther G. Schulze & Björn Frank, 2003. "Deterrence versus intrinsic motivation: Experimental evidence on the determinants of corruptibility," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 143-160, August.
    6. Dollar, David & Fisman, Raymond & Gatti, Roberta, 2001. "Are women really the "fairer" sex? Corruption and women in government," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 423-429, December.
    7. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    8. Björn Frank & Johann Graf Lambsdorff & Frédéric Boehm, 2011. "Gender and Corruption: Lessons from Laboratory Corruption Experiments," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 23(1), pages 59-71, February.
    9. Rachel M. McCleary & Robert J. Barro, 2006. "Religion and Economy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 49-72, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gautam Hazarika, 2018. "The plough, gender roles, and corruption," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-163, May.
    2. Debski, Julia & Jetter, Michael & Mösle, Saskia & Stadelmann, David, 2018. "Gender and corruption: The neglected role of culture," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 526-537.
    3. Jha, Chandan Kumar & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2018. "Women and corruption: What positions must they hold to make a difference?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 219-233.
    4. Alice Guerra & Tatyana Zhuravleva, 2022. "Do women always behave as corruption cleaners?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 173-192, April.
    5. Fahr, René & Djawadi, Behnud Mir, 2012. "The impact of risk perception and risk attitudes on corrupt behavior: Evidence from a petty corruption experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2012 (Goettingen): New Approaches and Challenges for the Labor Market of the 21st Century 62022, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Wagner, N. & Rieger, M. & Bedi, A.S. & Hout, W., 2016. "Are women better police officers? Evidence from survey experiments in Uganda," ISS Working Papers - General Series 615, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    7. Ananish Chaudhuri & Vegard Iversen & Francesca R. Jensenius & Pushkar Maitra, 2020. "Time in Office and the Changing Gender Gap in Dishonesty: Evidence from Local Politics in India," CESifo Working Paper Series 8217, CESifo.
    8. Wellalage, Nirosha Hewa & Fernandez, Viviana & Thrikawala, Sujani, 2020. "Corruption and innovation in private firms: Does gender matter?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    9. Audretsch, David B. & Belitski, Maksim & Chowdhury, Farzana & Desai, Sameeksha, 2022. "CEO gender, institutional context and firm exports," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(5).
    10. Ang, James B. & Fredriksson, Per G., 2017. "Wheat agriculture and family ties," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 236-256.
    11. James B. Ang, 2015. "Agricultural Legacy, Individualistic Culture, and Techology Adoption," Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series 1506, Nanyang Technological University, School of Social Sciences, Economic Growth Centre.
    12. Voigt, Stefan, 2022. "Determinant of Social Norms," ILE Working Paper Series 58, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
    13. Nhat Minh Tran & Thu Thuy Nguyen & Thi Phuong Linh Nguyen & Anh Trong Vu & Thi Thanh Hoa Phan & Thi Hong Tham Nguyen & Ngoc Diep Do & Anh Tuan Phan, 2022. "Female Managers and Corruption in SMEs: A Comparison Between Family and Nonfamily SMEs in Vietnam," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    14. Björn Frank & Johann Graf Lambsdorff & Frédéric Boehm, 2011. "Gender and Corruption: Lessons from Laboratory Corruption Experiments," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 23(1), pages 59-71, February.
    15. Michael Breen & Robert Gillanders & Gemma Mcnulty & Akisato Suzuki, 2017. "Gender and Corruption in Business," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(9), pages 1486-1501, September.
    16. M. Fernanda Rivas, 2013. "An Experiment On Corruption And Gender," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 10-42, January.
    17. Stimpfle, Alexander & Stadelmann, David, 2016. "Marriage Age Affects Educational Gender Inequality: International Evidence," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145492, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Rieger, Matthias & Voorvelt, Katherine, 2016. "Gender, ethnicity and teaching evaluations: Evidence from mixed teaching teamsAuthor-Name: Wagner, Natascha," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 79-94.
    19. Boly, Amadou & Gillanders, Robert, 2018. "Anti-corruption policy making, discretionary power and institutional quality: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 314-327.
    20. Detkova, Polina & Tkachenko, Andrey & Yakovlev, Andrei, 2021. "Gender heterogeneity of bureaucrats in attitude to corruption: Evidence from list experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 217-233.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    gender; corruption;

    JEL classification:

    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • D73 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp10426. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.