Abstract
We analyse policymakers’ incentives to fight corruption under different institutional qualities. We find that ‘public officials’ even when non-corrupt, significantly distort anti-corruption institutions by choosing a lower detection probability when this probability applies to their own actions (legal equality), compared to a setting where it does not (legal inequality). More surprising perhaps is the finding that policy-makers do not choose a zero level of detection on average, even when it applies to them too. Finally, corruption is significantly lower when the detection probability is exogenously set, suggesting that the institutional power to choose detection can itself be corruptive.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 314-327 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization |
| Volume | 152 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Aug 2018 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Anti-corruption policy making, discretionary power and institutional quality: An experimental analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver