Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T04:29:49.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subject pool effects in a corruption experiment: A comparison of Indonesian public servants and Indonesian students

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Vivi Alatas ,
Lisa Cameron ,
Ananish Chaudhuri ,
Nisvan Erkal  and
Lata Gangadharan
Vivi Alatas*
Affiliation:
World Bank, Jakarta 12190, Indonesia
Lisa Cameron*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
Ananish Chaudhuri*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
Nisvan Erkal*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
Lata Gangadharan*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
*
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report results from a corruption experiment with Indonesian public servants and Indonesian students. Our results suggest that the Indonesian public servant subjects have a significantly lower tolerance of corruption than the Indonesian students. We find no evidence that this is due to a selection effect. The reasons given by the subjects for their behaviour suggest that the differences in behavior across the subject pools are driven by their different real life experiences. For example, when abstaining from corruption, public servants more often cite the need to reduce the social costs of corruption as a reason for their actions, and when engaging in corruption, they cite low government salaries or a belief that corruption is a necessary evil in the current environment. In contrast, students give more simplistic moral reasons. We conclude by emphasizing that results obtained from different subject pools can complement each other in illuminating different aspects of the same problem.

Keywords

CorruptionExperimentsSubject pool effects

JEL classification

D73: Bureaucracy • Administrative Processes in Public Organizations • Corruption O12: Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development K42: Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 113 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Economic Science Association

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

We would like to thank Charles Noussair and the participants of the Experimental Economics Workshop (2006) at the University of Melbourne for their comments. Daniel Piccinin and Revy Sjahrial have provided excellent research assistance. We are grateful to the Australian Research Council and the World Bank for their financial assistance.

References

Abbink, K. (2006). Laboratory experiments on corruption. In Rose-Ackerman, S. (Ed.), International handbook on the economics of corruption. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
Abbink, K. (2002). Fair salaries and the moral costs of corruption. Bonn Econ Discussion Papers.Google Scholar
Abbink, K., Irlenbusch, B., & Renner, E. (2002). An experimental bribery game. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 18(2), 428–454. doi:10.1093/jleo/18.2.428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alatas, V., Cameron, L., Chaudhuri, A., Erkal, N., & Gangadharan, L. (2008). Gender and corruption: Insights from an experimental analysis. Southern Economic Journal (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Alevy, J., Haigh, M., & List, J. (2006). Information cascades: Evidence from a field experiment with financial market professional. The Journal of Finance (forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardhan, P. (2006). The economist's approach to the problem of corruption. World Development, 34(2), 341–348. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.03.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, A., Lindelow, M., & Serneels, P. (2004). To serve the community or oneself: The public servant's dilemma. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 3187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadsby, C. B., & Maynes, E. (1998). Choosing between a socially efficient and free-riding equilibrium: Nurses versus economics and business students. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 37(2), 183–192. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(98)00083-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadsby, C. B., Maynes, E., & Trivedi, V. U. (2006). Tax compliance and obedience to authority at home and in the lab: A new experimental approach. Experimental Economics, 9(4), 343–359. doi:10.1007/s10683-006-7053-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L. (1999). Raising the stakes in the ultimatum game: Experimental evidence from Indonesia. Economic Inquiry, 37, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L., Chaudhuri, A., Erkal, N., & Gangadharan, L. (2006). Propensities to engage in and punish corrupt behavior: Experimental evidence from Australia, India, Indonesia, and Singapore. University of Melbourne, Department of Economics, mimeo.Google Scholar
Carbone, E. (2005). Demographics and behaviour. Experimental Economics, 8, 217–232. doi:10.1007/s10683-005-1464-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, T., Gangadharan, L., & Duke, C. (2003). A laboratory testbed for emissions trading in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Ecological Economics, 46, 469–491. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00187-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, T., & Noussair, C. (2007). A market with frictions in the matching process: An experimental study. International Economic Review, 48(2), 665–691. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2354.2007.00441.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817–869. doi:10.1162/003355302760193904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D., Kagel, J., Lo, W., & Gu, Q. (1999). Gaming against managers in incentive systems: Experimental results with Chinese students and Chinese managers. The American Economic Review, 89(4), 781–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2004). Gender differences in preferences: A review of economics experiments. opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~crosonr/publications.html.Google Scholar
Davis, D. D., & Holt, C. A. (1993). Experimental economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., & List, J. (2004). The hidden costs and returns of incentives—trust and trustworthiness among CEOs. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(5), 743–771. doi:10.1162/1542476042782297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306–355. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G., & List, J. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1013–1059. doi:10.1257/0022051043004577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G., & List, J. (2005). Naturally occurring markets and exogenous laboratory experiments: A case study of the Winner's curse. www.bus.ucf.edu/wp/content/archives/03-14Glenn.pdf.Google Scholar
Kaufman, D. (2005). 10 myths about governance and coruption. Finance and Development, 42(3), 41–43.Google Scholar
Kovalchik, S., Camerer, C., Grether, D., Plott, C., & Allman, J. (2004). Aging and decision making: A comparison between neurologically healthy elderly and young individuals. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58, 79–94. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2003.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S., & List, J. (2006). What do laboratory experiments tell us about the real world? pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/LevittCV.html.Google Scholar
List, J. (2003). Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 41–71. doi:10.1162/00335530360535144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olken, B. (2006). Corruption perceptions vs. corruption reality. http://www.nber.org/~bolken/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, D., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 22–32.Google Scholar
Potters, J., & van Winden, F. (1996). The performance of professionals and students in an experimental study of lobbying. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2067.Google Scholar
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2402_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, P. M. (2004). On perceptions of fairness: The role of valuations, outside options, and information in ultimatum bargaining games. Experimental Economics, 7, 49–73. doi:10.1023/A:1026210021955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar