IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/67331.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How much of a nuisance is greasing the palms? A study on job dedication and attitudes towards corruption reports under answer bias control

Author

Listed:
  • Friesenbichler, Klaus S.
  • Selenko, Eva
  • Clarke, George R.G.

Abstract

This article studies how prior exposure and individual respondent’s work attitudes affect the degree to which corruption is perceived as an obstacle to business operations. Survey questions about sensitive topics like corruption are susceptible to answer bias, for which we control by implementing a randomised response technique. The results suggest that corruption tends to be under-reported. Individuals who are more dedicated to their work report corruption as a bigger obstacle. So did respondents who were previously exposed to corruption. This effect becomes significantly stronger once we control for endogeneity issues related to answer bias that affects past experiences with corruption over and above answer bias that affects reports of corruption as an obstacle to business operations. We find that individual experiences, in addition to contextual variables, shape corruption data available from surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Friesenbichler, Klaus S. & Selenko, Eva & Clarke, George R.G., 2015. "How much of a nuisance is greasing the palms? A study on job dedication and attitudes towards corruption reports under answer bias control," MPRA Paper 67331, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:67331
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/67331/1/MPRA_paper_67331.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clausen, Tommy & Fagerberg, Jan & Gulbrandsen, Magnus, 2012. "Mobilizing for change: A study of research units in emerging scientific fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1249-1261.
    2. Jakob Svensson, 2003. "Who Must Pay Bribes and How Much? Evidence from a Cross Section of Firms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 207-230.
    3. Clarke, George, 2012. "Do reticent managers lie during firm surveys?," MPRA Paper 37634, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. John Antonakis & Samuel Bendahan & Philippe Jacquart & Rafael Lalive, 2010. "On making causal claims : A review and recommendations," Post-Print hal-02313119, HAL.
    5. Elisabeth Coutts & Ben Jann, 2011. "Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT)," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(1), pages 169-193, February.
    6. Omar Azfar & Peter Murrell, 2009. "Identifying Reticent Respondents: Assessing the Quality of Survey Data on Corruption and Values," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(2), pages 387-411, January.
    7. Clarke, George, 2011. "Lying about firm performance: Evidence from a survey in Nigeria," MPRA Paper 35382, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Clarke, George R.G., 2011. "How Petty is Petty Corruption? Evidence from Firm Surveys in Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 1122-1132, July.
    9. Nasr G. Elbahnasawy & Charles F. Revier, 2012. "The Determinants of Corruption: Cross-Country-Panel-Data Analysis," The Developing Economies, Institute of Developing Economies, vol. 50(4), pages 311-333, December.
    10. Klaus Friesenbichler & George Clarke & Michael Wong, 2014. "Price competition and market transparency: evidence from a random response technique," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 41(1), pages 5-21, February.
    11. Jensen, Nathan M & Rahman, Aminur, 2011. "The silence of corruption : identifying underreporting of business corruption through randomized response techniques," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5696, The World Bank.
    12. Nathan M Jensen & Quan Li & Aminur Rahman, 2010. "Understanding corruption and firm responses in cross-national firm-level surveys," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 41(9), pages 1481-1504, December.
    13. Bianca Clausen & Aart Kraay & Peter Murrell, 2011. "Does Respondent Reticence Affect the Results of Corruption Surveys? Evidence from the World Bank Enterprise Survey for Nigeria," Chapters, in: Susan Rose-Ackerman & Tina Søreide (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, Volume Two, chapter 15, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Lee, Wang-Sheng & Guven, Cahit, 2013. "Engaging in corruption: The influence of cultural values and contagion effects at the microlevel," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 287-300.
    15. Danila Serra, 2006. "Empirical determinants of corruption: A sensitivity analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 225-256, January.
    16. Kundt, Thorben C. & Misch, Florian & Nerré, Birger, 2013. "Re-assessing the merits of measuring tax evasions through surveys: Evidence from Serbian firms," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-047, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bernard GAUTHIER & Frédéric LESNÉ, 2017. "Measuring corruption in presence of reticent respondents: Theory and Application," Working Papers P207, FERDI.
    2. Michael Breen & Robert Gillanders & Gemma Mcnulty & Akisato Suzuki, 2017. "Gender and Corruption in Business," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(9), pages 1486-1501, September.
    3. Klaus Friesenbichler & George Clarke & Michael Wong, 2014. "Price competition and market transparency: evidence from a random response technique," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 41(1), pages 5-21, February.
    4. Krisztina Kis-Katos & Günther G. Schulze, 2013. "Corruption in Southeast Asia: a survey of recent research," Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, The Crawford School, The Australian National University, vol. 27(1), pages 79-109, May.
    5. Bernard GAUTHIER & Frédéric LESNÉ, 2018. "Reported Corruption vs. Experience of Corruption in Public Procurement Contracts," Working Papers P242, FERDI.
    6. Clarke, George, 2012. "Do reticent managers lie during firm surveys?," MPRA Paper 37634, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Thorben C. Kundt & Florian Misch & Birger Nerré, 2017. "Re-assessing the merits of measuring tax evasion through business surveys: an application of the crosswise model," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(1), pages 112-133, February.
    8. Clarke, George, 2011. "Lying about firm performance: Evidence from a survey in Nigeria," MPRA Paper 35382, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. George R. G. Clarke, 2021. "How Do Women Managers Avoid Paying Bribes?," Economies, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, February.
    10. Aart Kraay & Peter Murrell, 2016. "Misunderestimating Corruption," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(3), pages 455-466, July.
    11. Jensen, Nathan M & Rahman, Aminur, 2011. "The silence of corruption : identifying underreporting of business corruption through randomized response techniques," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5696, The World Bank.
    12. Clarke, George R.G., 2011. "How Petty is Petty Corruption? Evidence from Firm Surveys in Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 1122-1132, July.
    13. Gans-Morse, Jordan & Borges, Mariana & Makarin, Alexey & Mannah-Blankson, Theresa & Nickow, Andre & Zhang, Dong, 2018. "Reducing bureaucratic corruption: Interdisciplinary perspectives on what works," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 171-188.
    14. Wellalage, Nirosha Hewa & Fernandez, Viviana & Thrikawala, Sujani, 2020. "Corruption and innovation in private firms: Does gender matter?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    15. Lambsdorff Johann Graf & Schulze Günther G., 2015. "Guest Editorial: Special Issue on Corruption at the Grassroots-level: What Can We Know About Corruption?," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 235(2), pages 100-114, April.
    16. Goel, Rajeev K. & Mazhar, Ummad & Sayan, Serdar, 2021. "Strategic location of firms: Does it empower bribe givers or bribe takers?," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 45(3).
    17. Asiedu, Edward, 2016. "Coming home without supplies: Impact of household needs on bribe involvement and gender gaps," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 229587, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    18. Elisa Gamberoni & Christine Gartner & Claire Giordano & Paloma Lopez-Garcia, 2016. "Is corruption efficiency-enhancing? A case study of nine Central and Eastern European countries," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 331, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    19. Michele Manna, 2022. "The bonfire of banknotes," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 25, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    20. Jian Zhang, 2018. "Public Governance and Corporate Fraud: Evidence from the Recent Anti-corruption Campaign in China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 375-396, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    corruption; work dedication; reticence; random response; Bangladesh; Sri Lanka;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D73 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
    • O12 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development

    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:pra:mprapa:67331. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.