IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa15p1055.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How city type, trust and technology affect corruption: a multilevel comparative study

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Korosteleva
  • Tomasz Mickiewicz
  • Paulina Stepien

Abstract

In this study we investigate how both local environment and individual characteristics explain incidence of corruption. More specifically, we explore how city size, and residing in a capital city influence the two aspects of corruption, notably in individuals? contact with officials, and in the use of courts. Building upon Storper?s argument (2013) we further analyse the effects of local institutional trust (bridging), and community embedded trust (bonding), on incidence of corruption. Finally, we also investigate how access to elements of information and communication technology, individually and spatially defined (within the local social neighbourhood), affect corruption. To test our hypotheses, we apply a multilevel Heckman selection probit model to European Bank for Reconstruction and Development survey data. The sample covers over 26,000 of individuals in 35 countries in 2010. While our results suggest that categories of some individuals, business owners in particular, are more likely to face corruption, and therefore need more policy attention, we also find that the differences in environment play a critical role. More specifically our results suggest that larger cities are more prone to officials? corruption than medium and small ones. However, we also show that capital cities are different from larger cities in that they seem to exhibit lower corruption levels for both, courts and officials. We interpret the latter association as related to the structure of social and political connections. Larger cities are often more fragmented than capital cities in terms of power. Larger cities with many small jurisdictions imply localities where consistent expectations are easier to achieve, so individuals more likely to adopt patterns that other individuals practice, including corruptive behaviour, being trapped in a circle of corruption, where corruption becomes a (local) social norm. At the same time, capital cities are typically less fragmented and more centralised in terms of power, having metropolitan governance structures; they have bigger, more internally heterogenous jurisdictions. Importantly, there is less scope for local social process of learning from other individuals to establish corruption as a local norm. We further show that the effect of the size of the city on corruption is mitigated by higher level of local institutional trust (bridging), and inbound trust proxied by trust in friends and acquaintances (bonding). The effect of the former is weaker compared to the effect of the latter. Where bonding and bridging are both present, this reinforces their moderating effect on the impact of city size on corruption. Finally, our results also suggest that in the neighbourhoods where on average individuals have higher access to elements of information and communication technology, corruption of both officials and courts is significantly lower.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Korosteleva & Tomasz Mickiewicz & Paulina Stepien, 2015. "How city type, trust and technology affect corruption: a multilevel comparative study," ERSA conference papers ersa15p1055, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa15p1055
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa15/e150825aFinal01055.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Corruption; Neighbourhood; City size; Capital city; Institutions; ICT;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R10 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - General
    • R23 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Household Analysis - - - Regional Migration; Regional Labor Markets; Population
    • R28 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Household Analysis - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa15p1055. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.