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, Oxford University Press, 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. 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.
    5. Clarke, George, 2011. "Lying about firm performance: Evidence from a survey in Nigeria," MPRA Paper 35382, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Elisabeth Coutts & Ben Jann, 2008. "Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT)," ETH Zurich Sociology Working Papers 3, ETH Zurich, Chair of Sociology.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Danila Serra, 2006. "Empirical determinants of corruption: A sensitivity analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 225-256, January.
    15. 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)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    corruption; work dedication; reticence; random response; Bangladesh; Sri Lanka;

    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.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.