IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/44y2012i25p3215-3227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the evidence on corruption depend on how it is measured? Results from a cross-country study on microdata sets

Author

Listed:
  • I. Chatterjee
  • R. Ray

Abstract

While much of the existing literature on corruption looks at the effect of corruption on macro variables such as growth rates and income distribution, this study provides a departure by focussing on victims of corruption by using microdata to compare civilian and business corruption. This study finds that businesses face a stronger incidence of bribe demands than individuals. Though there are several differences between the determinants of the two forms of bribe victimization, there are also some similarities. Policies to combat corruption need to take into account both the differences and the similarities.

Suggested Citation

  • I. Chatterjee & R. Ray, 2012. "Does the evidence on corruption depend on how it is measured? Results from a cross-country study on microdata sets," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(25), pages 3215-3227, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:44:y:2012:i:25:p:3215-3227
    DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2011.570724
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00036846.2011.570724
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hunt, Jennifer, 2004. "Trust and Bribery: The Role of the Quid Pro Quo and the Link With Crime," CEPR Discussion Papers 4567, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. I. Chatterjee & R. Ray, 2012. "Does the evidence on corruption depend on how it is measured? Results from a cross-country study on microdata sets," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(25), pages 3215-3227, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dimant, Eugen, 2014. "The Antecedents and Effects of Corruption - A Reassessment of Current (Empirical) Findings," MPRA Paper 60947, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. I. Chatterjee & R. Ray, 2012. "Does the evidence on corruption depend on how it is measured? Results from a cross-country study on microdata sets," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(25), pages 3215-3227, September.
    3. Anita K Zonebia & Arief Anshory Yusuf & Heriyaldi, 2015. "Income and Education as the determinants of Anti-Corruption Attitudes: Evidence from Indonesia," Working Papers in Economics and Development Studies (WoPEDS) 201502, Department of Economics, Padjadjaran University, revised Apr 2015.
    4. Ishita Chatterjee & Ranjan Ray, 2013. "The Role of Institutions in the Incidence of Crime and Corruption," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 13-17, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    5. Ishita Chatterjee & Ranjan Ray, 2009. "Crime, Corruption and Institutions," Monash Economics Working Papers 20-09, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    6. You, Jing & Nie, Huihua, 2017. "Who determines Chinese firms' engagement in corruption: Themselves or neighbors?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 29-46.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D73 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation

    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:taf:applec:44:y:2012:i:25:p:3215-3227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.