Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-lrvh5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T06:57:21.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Exclusion or interests? Why females in elected office reduce petty and grand corruption

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Monika Bauhr*
Affiliation:
Quality of Government Institute, Gothenburg, Sweden
Nicholas Charron
Affiliation:
Quality of Government Institute, Gothenburg, Sweden
Lena Wängnerud
Affiliation:
Quality of Government Institute, Gothenburg, Sweden
*
Address for correspondence: Monika Bauhr, Quality of Government Institute, Department of Political Science, Box 711, University of Gothenburg, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden. Email: monika.bauhr@pol.gu.se
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Disappointed by the numerous failures of anticorruption reforms, international organisations, scholars and policy makers increasingly place their hopes on measures aimed at enhancing gender equality and in particular increasing the inclusion of female representatives in elected assemblies. Yet most studies to date focus on aggregate measures of corruption and fail to explain why the correlation between women's representation and levels of corruption occurs. Using newly collected regional‐level, non‐perception‐based measures of corruption, this study distinguishes between different forms of corruption and shows that the inclusion of women in local councils is strongly negatively associated with the prevalence of both petty and grand forms of corruption. However, the reduction in corruption is primarily experienced among women. This suggests that female representatives seek to further two separate political agendas once they attain public office: the improvement of public service delivery in sectors that tend to primarily benefit women; and the breakup of male‐dominated collusive networks.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Political Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. on behalf of European Consortium for Political Research
Figure 0

Table 1. Female representation and grand versus petty corruption in EU regions

Figure 1

Figure 1. The association between female representation and regional‐level petty and grand corruption.Notes: Summary of predicted effects from models 2 and 4, respectively. Y‐axis (right side) is predicted level of corruption risk (grand) and predicted proportion of regional petty corruption experience (petty). Y‐axis (left side) is the percentage of the sample with respect to the histogram representing the percentage of women in local parliaments. Dashed lines represent a 95 per cent confidence interval. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 2

Table 2. Gendered effects of the inclusion of women in local councils: Petty corruption

Figure 3

Figure 2. Petty corruption experience by gender and political gender equality.Notes: Summary of results from cross‐level interaction in Table 2, model 2. The black line represents probability of experience with petty corruption for women, while the grey line represents men's experience. Grey bars show a histogram distribution of the share of women in local councils for the sample.

Figure 4

Figure 3. Estimated probability of experience with petty corruption by sector.Notes: Results from models 4, 6 and 8, respectively. Black lines represent estimates for women, while grey represent men. Y‐axes (right side) are the estimated probability of petty corruption in a given sector, while Y‐axes (left side) show the percentage of the sample with respect to local women councilors (shown in histogram). X‐axes are the share of women in local councils. Also, 95 per cent confidence intervals are shown. [Correction added on 4 April, 2019, after first online publication: Figure 3 has been corrected.]

Figure 5

Table 3. Testing the ‘interest mechanism’

Supplementary material: File

Bauhr et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix
Download Bauhr et al. supplementary material(File)
File 172.2 KB