Correlation between womens share in parliament and

This preview shows page 94 - 96 out of 177 pages.

correlation between women°s share in parliament and corruption. Moreover,their IV coe¢ cients of women°s share in parliament are always greater thantheir OLS coe¢ cients in absolute terms. Thus, they claim that the OLS co-e¢ cients are biased upwards. In addition, they investigate whether womenbehave as corruptly as men as they gain more equal status by controllingfor the Gender Inequality Index from the United Nations Development Pro-gramme as a measure of status di/erences across gender. They ±nd that aswomen achieve more equal status, increasing women°s share in parliamentstill lowers corruption. As a result, they suggest that gender di/erences instatus does not drive the correlation between women°s share in parliamentand corruption.Nevertheless, there exist a few studies which do not support the ±ndingsof Dollar et al. (2001) and Swamy et al. (2001).For instance, Vijayalak-shmi (2008) studies a local government in India and ±nds no statistically82
signi±cant relationship between female proportion in the government andcorruption. Also, based on an analysis of a sample of developing countries,Branisa and Ziegler (2011) ±nd that there is higher corruption in societiesthat limit women°s freedom from participating in social life, after control-ling for democracy and female representation in parliament and in business.Therefore, policy to reduce corruption may need more than democratic re-forms and increasing female representation in political and economic life.However, this ±nding is contradicted by a recent cross-country study cov-ering 157 countries from 1998 to 2007.Esarey and Chirillo (2013) reportevidence of an interaction between democracy and female participation inthe government in relation to corruption.Speci±cally, they ±nd that thenegative e/ect of female participation in the government on corruption isgreater in democratic states than in autocratic states.Taking into account the weight of evidence to date, there appears to be aconsiderable support for the proposition that increasing female participationin the government reduces corruption.In relation to this, there are manystudies conducted in the attempt to explain why women are less corrupt thanmen. These explanations include gender di/erences in: (i) moral attitudestowards/perceptions of corruption (Swamy et al., 2001; Torgler and Valev,2010; Michailova and Melnykovska, 2009; Rivas, 2013); (ii) access to corruptopportunities/networks (Gºrxhani, 2007; Alhassan-Alolo, 2007; Goetz, 2007;Esarey and Chirillo, 2013); (iii) risk aversion (Schulze and Frank, 2003; Ar-mantier and Boly, 2010); ( iv) resistance towards corruption (Lambsdor/andFrank, 2011); (v) corrupt incentives (W¶ngnerud, 2010). Other explanationsrely more on the institutional context. For instance, Mukherjee and Gokcekus(2004) suggest that gender equality in organisations seems to minimise cor-ruption. Furthermore, Esarey and Chirillo (2013) maintain that women areless corrupt than men in democratic institutions than in autocratic institu-tions. Similarly, Alatas et al. (2009) and Michailova and Melnykovska (2009)suggest that gender di/erences in corrupt behaviour are culture speci±c.

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 177 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Two
Professor
N/A
Tags
Test, Parliament, dollar, Wit, Swamy

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture