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

Assessing Corruption: Expert Surveys versus Household Surveys, Filling the Gap

  • Thomas Roca

    (GED, Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV)

Registered author(s):

    La mesure de la gouvernance est une source d’occupation relativement nouvelle pour les économistes. Le World Bank Institute a ouvert la voie à la fin des années 90 avec la désormais célèbre suite “Governance Matters”, I, II, III, IV… Le peu d’imagination de KKZ1 dans le choix du titre de leurs publications cache, en réalité, les plus populaires des indicateurs de gouvernance. L’accent mis sur la corruption pourrait, lui aussi, revendiquer la paternité de la Banque mondiale dans la mesure où l’on doit la création de Transparency International à Peter Eigen ancien cadre de la Banque, mais également, à James Wolfensohn, premier directeur de la Banque à s’intéresser au fléau de la corruption, dans un contexte de « de-géopolitisation » de l’aide au développement. Avec les prémices de la systématisation des enquêtes ménages, une nouvelle manière de mesurer la gouvernance voit le jour. Si les enquêtes menées auprès de la population peuvent constituer un outil intéressant pour évaluer la qualité des institutions, cette prise en compte de l’opinion des populations introduit de nouveaux écueils. Cette étude vise à analyser l’écart de perception entre experts et populations, en matière de corruption. En effet, les enquêtes d’experts et les enquêtes ménages s’accordent difficilement dans leurs estimations de l’étendue de la corruption. Nous suggérons que la liberté de la presse, la culture, la tolérance et la confiance envers les dirigeants puissent venir fausser les pistes. Governance measurement is a relatively new source of entertainment for economists. The World Bank Institute paved the way in the late 90`s with the now famous suite “Governance Matters”, I, II, III, IV… The little imagination of KKZ, regarding the choice of their publications title, hides the most popular aggregated governance indicators. Corruption focus could also claim World Bank parenthood since Transparency International birth was the fruit of a former “affair” between James Wolfensohn and Peter Eigen. With the prelude to household surveys systematization, a new way to measure governance and corruption saw the day. If household surveys may stand for an interesting tool for institutional assessment, populations’ opinions also introduce new pitfalls. This study aims to investigate the gap between expert and household surveys regarding corruption measurement. Indeed, experts and populations barely agree on their estimations of corruption extent. We suggest that press freedom, culture, permissiveness and leadership approval may cover one’s track.(Full text in french)

    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://ged.u-bordeaux4.fr/ceddt160.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Groupe d'Economie du Développement de l'Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV in its series Documents de travail with number 160.

    as
    in new window

    Length: 36 pages
    Date of creation: Nov 2010
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:mon:ceddtr:160
    Contact details of provider:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    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:mon:ceddtr:160. 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: ()

    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.