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

Corruption Perceptions: the Trap of Democratization, a Panel Data Analysis

  • Thomas Roca

    (GED, Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV)

  • Eda Alidedeoglu-Buchner

    (Université Paris Dauphine)

Registered author(s):

    L’indice de perception de la corruption de Transparency International (TI) est le plus célèbre des indicateurs de corruption depuis sa première publication, en 1995. Cet indicateur est également considéré comme la plus robuste des mesures de ce fléau. Cependant, puisque il s’agit précisément d’un indicateur basé sur des perceptions, il connait certaines limites. Bien que Transparency International appelle inlassablement à une utilisation plus prudente de ses indicateurs, les décideurs continuent de lui prêter un rôle d’outil d’aide à la prise de décision. Nous avions isolé, dans un article précédent, le rôle joué par les médias dans les perceptions de la corruption. Nous avions suggéré que les jeunes démocraties puissent être pénalisées par l’indicateur phare de Transparency International. En effet, nous avions montré que l’ouverture des médias conduisait à une meilleure couverture des actes de corruption, entrainant avec elle une plus forte perception de la corruption déjà existante, mais non révélée. Notre article précédent utilisait des données en coupe transversale. Dans un souci d’amélioration de la robustesse et de la précision de l’analyse précédemment menée, nous avons collecté des séries temporelles afin d’entreprendre une analyse en données de panel. Dans ce nouvel article, nous analysons le lien entre démocratie et perceptions de la corruption à la lueur d’un possible biais d’ouverture des régimes en place, biais que nous avions qualifié de « réflectif ». The Corruption Perception Index (CPI) is the most famous corruption evaluation since its first publication by Transparency International (TI), in 1995. This index is also considered the most robust measure of corruption perceptions. However, since it precisely refers to perceptions, it inevitably faces some limitations. Although Transparency International continuously advocates for a better use of its indexes, policy makers keep using the CPI as a decision making tool. In a previous article we isolated the role played by the media in corruption perceptions. We previously suggested that young democracies were penalized by Transparency International. Indeed, we showed that media aperture leads to a better coverage of corruption deeds and therefore drives a stronger perception of already existing - but not yet broadcasted - corruption. Our previous paper was using cross-section data. Pursuing more consistent evidence and robustness improvement, we collected time series to perform a panel data analysis, questioning the stability and precision of our earlier findings. In this new paper, we investigate the link between democracy and corruption perceptions, in the light of a possible opening bias, we already called “reflective bias”. (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/ceddt161.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 161.

    as
    in new window

    Length: 14 pages
    Date of creation: Dec 2010
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:mon:ceddtr:161
    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:161. 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.