Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:01:31.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corruption and Inequality at the Crossroad: A Multimethod Study of Bribery and Discrimination in Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2022

Brian J. Fried ,
Paul Lagunes  and
Atheendar Venkataramani
Brian J. Fried
Affiliation:
Yale University
Paul Lagunes
Affiliation:
Yale University
Atheendar Venkataramani
Affiliation:
Yale University, Washington University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

How does corruption interact with inequality? To answer this question, we employ a field experiment that examines the manner in which police officers in a major Latin American city respond to socioeconomic distinctions when requiring a bribe. In this experiment, four automobile drivers commit identical traffic violations across a randomized sequence of crossroads, which are monitored by transit police. We identify the effect of citizens' perceived wealth on officers' propensity to solicit bribes and on the size of the bribes that they solicit. We complement our experimental results with qualitative findings from interviews with police officers. Our core finding is that officers are more likely to target lower class individuals and let more affluent drivers off with warnings. The qualitative results suggest that officers associate wealth with the capacity to exact retribution and therefore are more likely to demand bribes from poorer individuals. We conclude that a multimethod approach provides a richer account of corrupt behavior than that found in most contemporary research.

Resumen

Resumen

La corrupción y la desigualdad socioeconómica mantienen una relación. Buscando entender cómo es que interactúan ambos fenómenos, realizamos un experimento de campo en una de las capitales más importantes de América Latina. En este estudio aleatorio cuatro participantes repitieron la misma infracción de tránsito en cruces monitoreados por agentes de la policía. De esta manera identificamos la probabilidad de que un oficial solicite un soborno en respuesta a la clase socioeconómica de quien comete el ilícito. Descubrimos que las autoridades de tránsito tienden a pedirle dinero con mayor frecuencia a los de menores recursos. A las personas más adinerada se les deja ir con una advertencia. Las entrevistas que realizamos señalan que nuestros resultados se podrían deber a que los agentes temen pedirle dinero a las personas de clase socioeconómica alta, ya que estos pueden usar sus conexiones para vengarse. Concluimos, además, que la estrategia de métodos de investigación mixtos es muy efectiva para estudiar temas como la corrupción.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , 2010 , pp. 76 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by the Latin American Studies Association

Footnotes

We would first like to thank Donald Green, who offered invaluable support through all stages of this process. We would also like to thank Susan Rose-Ackerman, Susan Stokes, Alan Gerber, Ana De La O, Nicholas Sambanis, Andira Hernández-Monzoy, Sigrid Arzt, and Mark Axelrod, the participants of Yale University's Comparative Politics Workshop, and the three anonymous LARR reviewers for many helpful comments. Xavier Ruiz de Rio, Daniel Navarro, and Elias Badui provided invaluable assistance in the field. Yale University's Institute for Social Policy Studies and the MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies provided research funding.

References

Ałatorre, Adriana 2007 “Padecen pobreza 44.7 millones.” La Reforma.Google Scholar
Ayres, Ian 1991 “Fair Driving: Gender and Race Discrimination in Retail Car Negotiations.” Harvard Law Review 104 (4): 817–872.10.2307/1341506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azaola, Elena G. 2006 Imagen y autoimagen de la policia de la Ciudad de México. Mexico: Ediciones Coyoacán.Google Scholar
Becker, Gary S. 1968 “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach.” Journal of Political Economy 76 (2): 169–217.10.1086/259394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Gary S., and Stigler, George J. 1974 “Law Enforcement, Malfeasance, and Compensation of Enforcers.” Journal of Legal Studies 3 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, Marianne, and Mullainathan, Sendhil 2004 “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” American Economic Review 94 (4): 991–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, Marianne, Djankov, Simeon, Hanna, Rema, and Mullainathan, Sendhil 2007 “Obtaining a Driver's License in India: An Experimental Approach to Studying Corruption.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 122 (4): 1639–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Ferranti, David, Perry, Guillermo E., Ferreira, Francisco, and Walton, Michael 2004 Inequality in Latin America: Breaking with History? Washington, DC.: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fadahunsi, Akin, and Rosa, Peter 2002 “Entrepreneurship and Illegality: Insights from the Nigerian Cross-Border Trade.” Journal of Business Venturing 17 (5): 397–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, Leticia 2006 “Lidera SSP-DF en corrupción.” La Reforma, Justicia, October 3.Google Scholar
Gatti, Roberta, Paternostro, Stefano, and Jámele, Rigolini 2003 “Individual Attitudes towards Corruption: Do Social Effects Matter?” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
Glaeser, Edward L., Scheinkman, Jose, and Shleifer, Andrei 2003 “The Injustice of Inequality.” Journal of Monetary Economics 50:199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, Manuel Alejandro, and Rodríguez-Oreggia., Eduardo 2005 “On the Individual Decisions to Commit Corruption: A Methodological Complement.” Working paper, Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City. Accessed April 23, 2006, at http://wwwtest.aup.edu/lacea2005/system/step2_php/papers/rodriguez_edua.pdf.Google Scholar
Hebl, Michelle R., Foster, Jessica Bigazzi, Mannix, Laura M., and Dovidio, John F. 2002 “Formal and Interpersonal Discrimination: A Field Study of Bias toward Homosexual Applicants.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (6): 815–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, Joel S., and Kaufman, Daniel 2002 “The Inequality of Influence.” Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Accessed February 13, 2007, at http://ideas.repec.Org/p/wpa/wuwpdc/0308005.html.Google Scholar
Hunt, Jennifer 2007 “How Corruption Hits People When They Are Down.” Journal of Development Economics 84 (2): 574–589.10.1016/j.jdeveco.2007.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, Jennifer, and Laszlo, Sophia 2006 “Bribery: Who Pays, Who Refuses, What Are the Payoffs?” Working paper, National Bureau of Economics, McGill University, Montreal.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Michael 1989 “Corruption, Inequality, and Change.” In Corruption, Development and Inequality: Soft Touch or Hard Graft? edited by Ward, Peter M., 13–37. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Daniel 1997 “Corruption: The Facts.” Foreign Policy 107:114–131.10.2307/1149337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Eden B., Hebl, Michelle R., Singletary, Sarah L., and Turner, Stacey 2006 “The Stigma of Obesity in Customer Service: A Mechanism for Remediation and Bottom-Line Consequences of Interpersonal Discrimination.” Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (3): 579–593.10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.579CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krauze, Enrique 1997 Mexico: Biography of Power. New York: First Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Lagunes, Paul 2009 “Irregular Transparency? An Experiment Involving Mexico's Freedom of Information Law.” Working paper, Department of Political Science, Yale University. Accessed September 10, 2009, at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1398025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, Ajit 2006 “Corruption, Hierarchies, and Bureaucratic Structures.” In International Hand-hook on the Economics of Corruption, edited by Rose-Ackerman, Susan. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Vibeke L. 2006 “Are Street-Level Bureaucrats Compelled or Enticed to Cope?” Public Administration 84 (4): 861–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, Joseph S. 1967 “Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis.” American Political Science Review 61 (2): 417–427.10.2307/1953254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olken, Benjamin 2007 “Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia.” Journal of Political Economy 115 (2): 200–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peisakhin, Leonid, and Pinto, Paul 2009 Quantifying Corruption and Assessing Anti-Corruption Initiatives: Evidence from a Field Experiment in India. Working paper, Department of Political Science, Yale University.Google Scholar
Rodriguez J., Israel 2006 “Revela INEGI profunda brecha entre ingresos de hogares ricos y pobres.” La Jornada, Economía, September 30.Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, Susan 1978 Corruption: A Study in Political Economy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, Susan 1999 Corruption and Government. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, James C. 1969 “Corruption, Machine Politics, and Political Change.” American Political Science Review 63:1142–1158.10.2307/1955076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, Jakob 2003 “Who Must Pay Bribes and How Much? Evidence from a Cross Section of Firms.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (1): 207–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weichselbaumer, Doris 2003 “Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Hiring.” Labor Economics 10:629–642.10.1016/S0927-5371(03)00074-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You, Jong-Sung, and Khagram, Sanjeev 2005 “A Comparative Study of Inequality and Corruption.” American Sociological Review 70:136–157.Google Scholar