Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Corruption Victimization
by Public Employees1
By Diana Orces, Ph.D. candidate
diana m.orces@Vanderbilt.edu
Vanderbilt University
orruptionhasbecomeoneofthemajorpolicy
issues in emerging democracies around the
worldbecauseofitsdemonstratedsignificant
negative effects on the economy (Elliot 1997; Seyf
2001). That in turn, erodes the belief in the
legitimacy of the political system (Seligson 2002),
while weakening democracy more generally
(Warren 2004) thus, making the consolidation of
emerging democracies even more difficult. For
example,onerecentstudyarguesthatwhenpeople
lose confidence that public decisions are taken for
reasons that are publicly available and justifiable,
they often become cynical about public speech and
deliberation (Warren 2004: 328), two fundamental
determinants of democracy. This paper in the
AmericasBarometerInsightsSeriesisthesecondoneto
examine the impact of corruption, concentrating on
another question on corruption victimization
included in the 2008 round of the Latin American
PublicOpinionProjectSurvey(additionalquestions
in this series will be examined in future Insights
studies).2 This survey involved facetoface
* The Insights Series is coedited by Professors Mitchell A.
Seligson and Elizabeth Zechmeister with administrative,
technical, and intellectual support from the LAPOP group at
Vanderbilt.
1PriorissuesintheInsightsseriescanbefoundat:
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/studiesandpublications.
Thedataonwhichtheyarebasedcanbefoundat
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/datasets
2Fundingforthe2008roundmainlycamefromtheUnitedStates
Agency for International Development (USAID). Important
interviewsconductedinmostofLatinAmericaand
the Caribbean, and a web survey in the United
States, involving national probability samples of 22
nations(thisquestionwasnotaskedinCanada).
Figure1.
PercentageofthePopulationVictimizedbyCorruption
by a Public Employee at least once in the past year in
theAmericas,2008
Bolivia
Peru
Haiti
Paraguay
Mexico
Ecuador
Belize
Argentina
Nicaragua
Dominican Republic
Costa Rica
Honduras
Guatemala
Jamaica
Venezuela
Colombia
El Salvador
Uruguay
Panama
United States
Brazil
Chile
18.0%
12.1%
11.9%
9.5%
9.2%
8.9%
7.4%
7.0%
5.3%
5.2%
5.0%
4.2%
3.8%
3.7%
2.9%
2.7%
2.5%
2.3%
2.3%
2.2%
1.6%
1.2%
10
15
20
2009,LatinAmericanPublicOpinionProject,InsightsSeriesPage1of5
www.AmericasBarometer.org
Figure2.
PercentageofthePopulationVictimizedbyCorruption
by a Public Employee at least once in the past year
after Taking into Account Individual Characteristics in
theAmericas,2008
Bolivia
15.0%
Haiti
14.1%
Peru
11.2%
Paraguay
9.5%
Mexico
8.9%
Ecuador
8.2%
Belize
7.7%
Nicaragua
6.5%
Dominican Republic
6.0%
Guatemala
5.9%
Honduras
5.8%
Argentina
4.9%
Costa Rica
4.2%
Jamaica
4.0%
El Salvador
2.8%
Colombia
2.7%
Brazil
1.8%
Venezuela
1.7%
Uruguay
1.4%
Panama
1.4%
Chile
0%
10
15
95% C.I.
(Results Controlled for Gender, Age, Education, Wealth
and Size of City/Town)
DoContextualFactorsMatter?
Nonresponsewas8%forthesampleasawhole.
To simplify the answer to this question, the United States was
removedfromthesampleinordertoavoidanystatisticalbiases
giventhatthiscasehasanextremelyhighlevelofsocioeconomic
development compared to the other countries, possibly driving
theresultsoftheanalysis.
4
5
2009,LatinAmericanPublicOpinionProject,InsightsSeriesPage2of5
www.AmericasBarometer.org
Figure3.
AMultilevelAnalysisoftheDeterminantsofCorruption
VictimizationbyaPublicEmployeeintheAmericas:The
ImpactofHumanDevelopmentIndex,2008
Eachvariableincludedintheanalysisislistedonthe
vertical (y) axis. The impact of each of those
variables on experience with corruption
victimization by a public employee is shown
graphicallybyadot,whichiflocatedtotherightof
thevertical0lineindicatesapositiveeffect,andif
to the left of the 0 line a negative effect. If the
effectsarestatisticallysignificant,theyareshownby
confidence interval lines stretching to the left and
rightofeachdotthatdonotoverlapthevertical0
line(at.05orbetter).Iftheyoverlaptheverticalline,
theeffectsarestatisticallyinsignificant.Therelative
strength of each variable is indicated by
standardizedcoefficients.
parity). This index goes from zero to one, with higher values
indicatingahigherlevelofdevelopment.
7HaitihasaHumanDevelopmentIndexof.529inscalefrom0to
1,thelowestlevelinthesample.
Small City
N. Obs = 32418
N. Countries = 21
Medium City
Large City
Metropolitan Area
Wealth
Age
Female
Education
Human Development Index
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
95% C.I.
Source: AmericasBarometer by LAPOP and
UNDP (Human Development Report 2007/08)
2009,LatinAmericanPublicOpinionProject,InsightsSeriesPage3of5
www.AmericasBarometer.org
Figure4.
The Impact of Human Development on Corruption
VictimizationbyaPublicEmployeeinLatinAmericaand
theCaribbean,20088
15
Haiti
10
Guatemala
Honduras
Bolivia
Nicaragua
El Salvador Jamaica
Ecuador Paraguay
Peru Belize
Dominican Republic
Colombia Venezuela
Brazil
Panama
Mexico
Costa Rica
Uruguay
Chile
Argentina
0
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
8ThepointestimatedifferencesbetweencountriesinFigure2and
4 are explained partly by the fact that Figure 2 controls for
individual level characteristics while Figure 4 takes into account
theHumanDevelopmentIndex,anationallevelcharacteristic.
9http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources
/lac_wdi.pdf
ProgramandPolicyImplications
Corruptionisoneofthe mostrampantproblemsin
emerging democracies, making it difficult for these
democraciestoachieveconsolidation.Asmentioned
atthebeginningofthisshortreport,corruptionnot
only erodes the belief in the legitimacy of the
political system (Seligson 2002; Seligson 2006), but
also weakens democracy, turning people more
cynical toward its virtues (Warren 2004).
Consequently,itisessentialtoknowwhoarethose
most likely to be victims of corruption. This paper
has found that some individual level characteristics
and at least one national level characteristic are
importantinexplainingcorruptionvictimizationby
a public employee. The results demonstrate that
individuals living in more socioeconomically
developed countries are less likely to be victims of
corruption, whereas the probability is notably
higher for the average citizen in less developed
countries. For instance, when examining carefully
each of the indicators of the Human Development
Index: education, health, and wealth, more
developed countries score consistently higher on
these indicators compared to less developed
countries, as illustrated by the cases of Haiti and
Boliviaatthelowerend,andArgentinaandChileat
theupperend.
2009,LatinAmericanPublicOpinionProject,InsightsSeriesPage4of5
www.AmericasBarometer.org
References
2009,LatinAmericanPublicOpinionProject,InsightsSeriesPage5of5
www.AmericasBarometer.org