Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-67wsf Total loading time: 0.431 Render date: 2022-05-28T07:14:28.090Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

“Close but no Cigar”: the measurement of corruption*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2014

Paul M. Heywood
Affiliation:
School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham, UK E-mail: paul.heywood@nottingham.ac.uk
Jonathan Rose
Affiliation:
School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham, UK E-mail: jonathan.rose@nottingham.ac.uk

Abstract

The financial cost of corruption has recently been estimated at more than 5 per cent of global GDP. Yet, despite the widespread agreement that corruption is one of the most pressing policy challenges facing world leaders, it remains as widespread today, possibly even more so, as it was when concerted international attention began being devoted to the issue following the end of the Cold War. In reality, we still have a relatively weak understanding of how best to measure corruption and how to develop effective guides to action from such measurement. This paper provides a detailed review of existing approaches to measuring corruption, focusing in particular on perception-based and non-perceptual approaches. We highlight a gap between the conceptualisation of corruption and its measurement, and argue that there is a tension between the demands of policy-makers and anti-corruption activists on the one hand, and the motivations of academic researchers on the other. The search for actionable answers on the part of the former sits uncomfortably with the latter’s focus on the inherent complexity of corruption.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Some of the material in this article is from research supported by a grant from the ESRC and the Hong Kong Research Grants Council (RES-000-22-4407).

References

Andersson, S. and Heywood, P. (2009) The Politics of Perception: Use and Abuse of Transparency International’s Approach to Measuring Corruption. Political Studies 57: 746767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andvig, J. (2005) “A House of Straw, Sticks or Bricks”? Some Notes on Corruption Empirics. Oslo: Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt, NUPI Working Paper 678.Google Scholar
Apaza, C. R. (2009) Measuring Governance and Corruption Through the Worldwide Governance Indicators: Critiques, Responses, and Ongoing Scholarly Discussion. Political Science and Politics 42: 139143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arndt, C. and Oman, C. (2006) Uses and Abuses of Governance Indicators. Paris: OECD Development Centre Study.Google Scholar
Beber, B. and Scacco, A. (2012) What the Numbers Say: A Digit Based Test for Election Fraud. Political Analysis 20(2): 211234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breunig, C. and Goerres, A. (2011) Searching for Electoral Irregularities in an Established Democracy: Applying Benford’s Law Tests to Bundestag Elections in Unified Germany. Electoral Studies 30(3): 534545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussell, J. (2011) Explaining Cross-National Variation in Government Adoption of New Technologies. International Studies Quarterly 55(1): 267280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catrinescu, N., Leon-Ledesma, M., Piracha, M. and Quillin, B. (2008) Remitances, Institutions, and Economic Growth. World Development 37(1): 8192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CleanGovBiz (2013) The Rationale for Fighting Corruption, Background Brief, http://www.oecd.org/cleangovbiz/49693613.pdf (accessed 6 March 2014).Google Scholar
Deckert, J., Myagkov, M. and Ordeshook, P. (2011) Benford’s Law and the Detection of Electoral Fraud. Political Analysis 19(3): 245268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Maria, B. (2008) Neo-Colonialism through Measurement: A Critique of the Corruption Perception Index. Critical Perspectives on International Business 4(2/3): 184202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donchev, D. and Ujhelyi, G. (2009) What do Corruption Indices Measure?, working paper, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1124066; http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1124066 (accessed 6 March 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2006) Special Eurobarometer 245: Opinions on Organised, Cross-Border Crime and Corruption, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_245_sum_en.pdf (accessed 7 March 2014).Google Scholar
European Commission (2008) Special Eurobarometer 291: The Attitudes of Europeans Towards Corruption, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_291_sum_en.pdf (accessed 7 March 2014).Google Scholar
European Commission (2009) Special Eurobarometer 325: Attitudes of Europeans Towards Corruption, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_325_en.pdf (accessed 7 March 2014).Google Scholar
European Commission (2012) Special Eurobarometer 374: Corruption, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_374_en.pdf (accessed 7 March 2014).Google Scholar
Foster, J., Horowitz, A. and Mendez, F. (2009) An Axiomatic Approach to the Measurement of Corruption: Theory and Applications, Seminar Paper, Midwest Economic Association Meetings , Walton College of Business.Google Scholar
Glaeser, E. and Saks, R. (2006) Corruption in America. Journal of Public Economics 90: 10531072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Global Integrity (2011) Why We Killed the Global Integrity Index, http://www.globalintegrity.org/node/792 (accessed 3 July 2013).Google Scholar
Goel, R. and Rich, D. (1989) On the Economic Incentives for Taking Bribes. Public Choice 61: 269275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golden, M. and Picci, L. (2005) Proposal for a New Measure of Corruption. Illustrated with Italian Data. Economics and Politics 17(1): 3775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawken, A. and Munck, G. (2009) Do You Know Your Data? Measurement Validity in Corruption Research, working paper, School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University (Malibu: California).Google Scholar
Herzfeld, T. and Weiss, C. (2003) Corruption and Legal (In)effectiveness: An Empirical Investigation. European Journal of Political Economy 19(3): 621632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, M. (2006) Assessing the Progress of Anti-Corruption Efforts: Actionable Indicators of Reform, presentation at Workshop on Governance and Development, Dhaka, 11–12 November.Google Scholar
Kalinin, K. and Mebane, W. (2010) Understanding Electoral Frauds Through Evolution of Russian Federalism: From “Bargaining Loyalty” to “Signaling Loyalty”, paper prepared for the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 2–5 September.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Mastruzzi, M. (2007) Growth and Governance: A Reply. The Journal of Politics 69(2): 555562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Mastruzzi, M. (2008) Governance Matters VII: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators, 1996–2007, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4654, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1148386 (accessed 31 March 2014).Google Scholar
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Mastruzzi, M. (2009) Governance Matters VIII: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators, 1996–2008, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4978, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1424591 (accessed 6 March 2014).Google Scholar
Kenny, C. (2009) Measuring Corruption in Infrastructure: Evidence from Transition and Developing Countries. Journal of Development Studies 45(3): 314332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knack, S. (2006) Measuring Corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: A Critique of the Cross-Country Indicators, World Bank Working Paper 3968, World Bank (Washington D.C.).Google Scholar
Kurtz, M. and Shrank, A. (2007) Growth and Governance: Models, Measures, and Mechanisms. Journal of Politics 69(2): 538554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langbein, L. and Knack, S. (2010) The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Six, One, or None? Journal of Development Studies 46(2): 350370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mebane, W. (2006a) Election Forensics: Vote Counts and Benford’s Law, paper prepared for the 2006 Summer Meeting of the Political Methodology Society, UC-Davis, 20–22 July.Google Scholar
Mebane, W. (2006b) Election Forensics: The Second-Digit Benford’s Law Test and Recent American Presidential Elections, paper prepared for the 2006 Election Fraud Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, 29–30 September.Google Scholar
Mebane, W. (2011) Comment on “Benford’s Law and the Detection of Election Fraud”. Political Analysis 19(3): 269272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olken, B. (2009) Corruption Perceptions vs. Corruption Reality. Journal of Public Economics 93(7–8): 950964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, M. (2006) Corruption Definition and Measurement. In Sampford C., Shacklock A., Carmel C. and F. Gatlung (eds.), Measuring Corruption. London: Ashgate, 4579.Google Scholar
Rauch, B., Göttsche, M., Brähler, G. and Engel, S. (2011) Fact and Fiction in EU-Governmental Economic Data. German Economic Review 12(3): 243255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Razafindrakoto, M. and Roubaud, F. (2006) Are International Databases on Corruption Reliable? A Comparison of Expert Opinion Surveys and Household Surveys in Sub-Saharan Africa, Document de Travail, 2006–2007, Paris: Dial (Unité Mixte de Recherche IRD 225).Google Scholar
Rittel, H. W. J., Webber, M. M. (1973) Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, B. (2011) The Quality of Government. London: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saisana, M. and Saltelli, A. (2012) Corruption Perceptions Index 2012 Statistical Assessment, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, European Commission Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Seligson, M. A. (2006) The Measurement and Impact of Corruption Victimization: Survey Evidence from Latin America. World Development 34(2): 381404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, J. (2005) Eight Questions About Corruption. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(3): 1942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. A. (2010) What do the Worldwide Governance Indicators Measure? European Journal of Development Research 22: 3154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Transparency International (TI) (2007) Persistent Corruption in Low-Income Countries Requires Global Action, Transparency International press release, http://web.archive.org/web/20071011001633/http://www.transparency.org/news_room/latest_news/press_releases/2007/2007_09_26_cpi_2007_en (accessed 6 March 2014).Google Scholar
Transparency International (TI) (2009) Measuring International Trends in Corruption, Transparency International, U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre (Bergen: Norway).Google Scholar
Transparency International (TI) (2010) What is the CPI? http://www.transparency.org/cpi2010/in_detail (accessed 6 March 2014).Google Scholar
Transparency International (TI) (2011a) Frequently Asked Questions About the Corruption Perceptions Index: Can Country/Territory Scores in the 2011 CPI be Compared to Those in Past Indices? http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/in_detail/#myAnchor6 (accessed 6 March 2014).Google Scholar
Transparency International (TI) (2011b) Short Methodological Note, http://www.transparency.org/content/download/64476/1031428 (accessed 6 March 2014).Google Scholar
Transparency International (TI) (2012) Transparency International Full Source Description Corruption Perceptions Index 2012, http://files.transparency.org/content/download/533/2213/file/2012_CPI_DataPackage.zip (accessed 6 March 2014).Google Scholar
Treisman, D. (2007) What Have We Learned About the Causes of Corruption from Ten Yeats of Cross-National Empirical Research? Annual Revue of Political Science 10: 211244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2008) “A Users’ Guide to Measuring Corruption” United Nations Development Program, Norway: UNDP Oslo Governance Centre.Google Scholar
Urra, F.-J. (2007) Assessing Corruption: An Analytical Review of Corruption Measurement and its Problems: Perception, Error and Utility, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan028792.pdf (accessed 6 March 2014).Google Scholar
van der Vleuten, V. and Verloo, M. (2012) Ranking and Benchmarking: The Political Logic of New Regulatory Instruments in the Fields of Gender Equality and Anti-Corruption. Policy & Politics 40(1): 7388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber Abramo, C. (2008) How Much Do Perceptions of Corruption Really Tell Us? Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal 2(2008–3).Google Scholar
Zaman, A. and Rahim, F. (2008) Corruption: Measuring the Unmeasurable, MPRA Paper No. 13882, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/13882/1/MPRA_paper_13882.pdf (accessed 6 March 2014).Google Scholar
56
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

“Close but no Cigar”: the measurement of corruption*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

“Close but no Cigar”: the measurement of corruption*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

“Close but no Cigar”: the measurement of corruption*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *