IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

The Optimal Combination of Corruption Reforms: Is a Comprehensive Approach a Good Idea?

  • Nobuo Yoshida

    (Boston University)

Registered author(s):

    The earlier work on corruption reform often argues that a broader set of reforms be implemented. The main purpose of the paper is to examine the validity of this argument by formalizing the analysis of the interactions of procurement reforms. The model not only supports well-known interaction effects but also shows a new interaction effect: even if two reforms are substitute, they may be complementary if combined further with another reform. It also shows that it is optimal to carry out a reform alone in certain conditions although it is optimal to combine all reforms in other conditions. More specifically, we examine the single and combination effects of different kinds of possible reform policies: delegation (delegating authority on contracting with the firm to the agency), administrative reforms (improving the agency's monitoring ability), incentive reforms (introducing incentive contracts with the agency) and legal reforms (enhancing legal systems). The following is our results: i) Incentive reforms are anti-corruption policies while administrative reforms and delegation are corruption-accommodating policies, if they are implemented singly. ii) Incentive reforms are complementary to delegation but substitute with administrative reforms. iii) The substitution effect between incentive and administrative reforms disappears if they are further combined with delegation. It follows that if delegation is not costly to implement, it is optimal to combine all reform policies. On the other hand, if delegation is too costly to implement and administrative reforms are not costly, it is optimal to implement them singly. This paper has some implications for the optimal sequence of reforms. It can also account for the persistence and deepening of corruption in some societies over time even if those societies continue to implement optimal reform policy (combination).

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/RePEc/es2000/1335.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/RePEc/es2000/1335b.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Econometric Society in its series Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers with number 1335.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 01 Aug 2000
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ecm:wc2000:1335
    Contact details of provider: Phone: 1 212 998 3820
    Fax: 1 212 995 4487
    Web page: http://www.econometricsociety.org/pastmeetings.asp
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Politics of Government Decision-Making: A Theory of Regulatory Capture," Working papers 506, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
    2. Kofman, F. & Lawarree, J., 1993. "On the Optimality of Allowing Collusion," Working Papers 93-02, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    3. Klitgaard, R., 1995. "Institutional Adjustment and Adjusting to Institutions," World Bank - Discussion Papers 303, World Bank.
    4. Nahum D. Melumad & Dilip Mookherjee, 1989. "Delegation as Commitment: The Case of Income Tax Audits," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 20(2), pages 139-163, Summer.
    5. Alberto Ades & Rafael Di Tella, 1997. "The New Economics of Corruption: a Survey and Some New Results," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 45(3), pages 496-515.
    6. Besley, Timothy & McLaren, John, 1993. "Taxes and Bribery: The Role of Wage Incentives," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(416), pages 119-41, January.
    7. Murphy, Kevin M & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1992. "The Transition to a Market Economy: Pitfalls of Partial Reform," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 107(3), pages 889-906, August.
    8. Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky, 1998. "On optimality of illegal collusion in contracts," Review of Economic Design, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328.
    9. Strausz, R.G., 1995. "Collusion and Renegotiation in a Principal-Supervisor-Agent Relationship," Discussion Paper 1995-48, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    10. Melamad, N. & Mookherjee, D. & Reichelstein, S., 1996. "Contract Complexity, Incentives and the Value of Delegation," Papers 70, Boston University - Industry Studies Programme.
    11. Johnson, Simon & Kaufmann, Daniel & Zoido-Lobaton, Pablo, 1998. "Regulatory Discretion and the Unofficial Economy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 387-92, May.
    12. Laffont, Jean-Jacques & N'Guessan, Tchetche, 1999. "Competition and corruption in an agency relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 271-295, December.
    13. Mookherjee, Dilip & Png, I P L, 1995. "Corruptible Law Enforcers: How Should They Be Compensated?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(428), pages 145-59, January.
    14. Spiller, Pablo T, 1996. "Institutions and Commitment," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 421-52.
    15. Mathias Dewatripont & Gérard Roland, 1997. "Transition as a process of large-scale institutional change," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9659, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecm:wc2000:1335. 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: (Christopher F. Baum)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.