IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Does Corruption Pay in Indonesia? If So, Who are Benefited the Most?

  • Pradiptyo, Rimawan

This paper aims to assess the discrepancies in sentencing corruptors by judges in Indonesia’s judicial system. The data are based on the Supreme Court’s decisions during the period of 2001-2009 which available in public domain in The data comprise of 549 cases, which involved 831 defendants. The defendants have been classified into five groups depending on their alleged scales of corruptions (i.e. petty, small, medium, large and grand scale of corruptions). The explicit cost of corruption during the period of 2001-2009 was Rp73.1 trillion (about US $7.86 billion). In this paper, total financial punishment was estimated as the summation of the value of fines, seizure of assets (monetary only), and the compensation order sentenced by judges. The total financial punishment sentenced by the supreme judges during the period of 2001-2009 was Rp5.33 trillion (about US$573.12 million), therefore Rp67.77 trillion (US$7.28 billion) gap between the explicit cost of corruption and total financial punishment sentenced shall be borne by the tax payers. Logistic and Tobin’s logistic (TOBIT) regressions have been used to analyse both the likelihood and the intensity of sentencing offenders, respectively, with particular punishments (i.e. imprisonment, fines, compensation order, etc.). The results show that the probability and the intensity of sentencing across various types of punishment do not correspond to the scale of corruptions. Offenders who committed petty and small scales corruption tend to be punished more severely than their medium, large and grand corruptors.

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:
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 41384.

in new window

Date of creation: 17 Sep 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:41384
Contact details of provider: Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page:

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. Rasmusen, Eric, 1996. "Stigma and Self-Fulfilling Expectations of Criminality," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(2), pages 519-43, October.
  2. S. Illeris & G. Akehurst, 2001. "Introduction," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 1-4, January.
  3. Nuno Garoupa & Daniel Klerman, 2002. "Optimal Law Enforcement with a Rent-Seeking Government," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 116-140, January.
  4. Garoupa, Nuno, 1997. " The Theory of Optimal Law Enforcement," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(3), pages 267-95, September.
  5. A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, 1999. "The Economic Theory of Public Enforcement of Law," NBER Working Papers 6993, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  6. Gary S. Becker, 1974. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," NBER Chapters, in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. Garoupa, Nuno & Klerman, Daniel, 2004. "Corruption and the optimal use of nonmonetary sanctions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 219-225, June.
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:pra:mprapa:41384. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)

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.