How much of a nuisance is greasing the palms? A study on job dedication and attitudes towards corruption reports under answer bias control

Friesenbichler, Klaus S. and Selenko, Eva and Clarke, George R.G. (2015): How much of a nuisance is greasing the palms? A study on job dedication and attitudes towards corruption reports under answer bias control.

Abstract

This article studies how prior exposure and individual respondent’s work attitudes affect the degree to which corruption is perceived as an obstacle to business operations. Survey questions about sensitive topics like corruption are susceptible to answer bias, for which we control by implementing a randomised response technique. The results suggest that corruption tends to be under-reported. Individuals who are more dedicated to their work report corruption as a bigger obstacle. So did respondents who were previously exposed to corruption. This effect becomes significantly stronger once we control for endogeneity issues related to answer bias that affects past experiences with corruption over and above answer bias that affects reports of corruption as an obstacle to business operations. We find that individual experiences, in addition to contextual variables, shape corruption data available from surveys.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: corruption, work dedication, reticence, random response, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C8 - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology ; Computer Programs > C83 - Survey Methods ; Sampling Methods; D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D03 - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles; D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D73 - Bureaucracy ; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations ; Corruption; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O12 - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development

References

Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., and Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. Leadersh. Q. 21, 1086–1120.

Azfar, O., and Murrell, P. (2009). Identifying Reticent Respondents: Assessing the Quality of Survey Data on Corruption and Values. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 57, 387–411.

Bendahan, S., Zehnder, C., Pralong, F.P., and Antonakis, J. (2014). Leader corruption depends on power and testosterone. Leadersh. Q., in press.

Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., and Slaughter, J.E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Pers. Psychol. 64, 89–136.

Clarke, G.R.G. (2011a). How Petty is Petty Corruption? Evidence from Firm Surveys in Africa. World Dev. 39, 1122–1132.

Clarke, G.R.G. (2011b). Lying about firm performance: Evidence from a survey in Nigeria.

Clarke, G.R.G. (2012). Do reticent managers lie during firm surveys? Available SSRN 2028725.

Clausen, B., Kraay, A., and Murrell, P. (2010). Does respondent reticence affect the results of corruption surveys? evidence from the world bank enterprise survey for Nigeria. Evid. World Bank Enterp. Surv. Niger. Sept. 1 2010 World Bank Policy Res. Work. Pap. Ser. Vol.

Clausen, T., Fagerberg, J., and Gulbrandsen, M. (2012). Mobilizing for change: A study of research units in emerging scientific fields. Res. Policy 41, 1249–1261.

Coutts, E., and Jann, B. (2008). Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT).

Edgell, S.E., Himmelfarb, S., and Duchan, K.L. (1982). Validity of Forced Responses in a Randomized Response Model. Sociol. Methods Res. 11, 89–100.

Elbahnasawy, N.G., and Revier, C.F. (2012). The Determinants of Corruption: Cross-Country-Panel-Data Analysis: The Determinants of Corruption. Dev. Econ. 50, 311–333.

Friesenbichler, K.S., Clarke, G., and Wong, M. (2014). Price competition and market transparency: evidence from a random response technique. Empirica 41, 5–21.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., and Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 268–279.

Holland, R.W., Verplanken, B., and Van Knippenberg, A. (2002). On the nature of attitude-behavior relations: the strong guide, the weak follow. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 869–876.

Jain, A.K. (2002). Corruption: A Review. J. Econ. Surv. 15, 71–121.

Jensen, N.M., and Rahman, A. (2011). The Silence of Corruption. Identifying Underreporting of Business Corruption through Randomized Response Techniques. Policy Res. Work. Pap. 5696, 1–36.

Jensen, N.M., Li, Q., and Rahman, A. (2010). Understanding corruption and firm responses in cross-national firm-level surveys. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 41, 1481–1504.

Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. Acad. Manage. J. 33, 692–724.

Kish-Gephart, J.J., Harrison, D.A., and Treviño, L.K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 95, 1–31.

Kundt, T.C., Misch, F., and Nerré, B. (2013). Re-Assessing the Merits of Measuring Tax Evasions through Surveys: Evidence from Serbian Firms. ZEW Discuss. Pap. 1–31.

Lee, W.-S., and Guven, C. (2013). Engaging in corruption: The influence of cultural values and contagion effects at the microlevel. J. Econ. Psychol. 39, 287–300.

Lensvelt-Mulders, G.J.L.M. (2005). Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research: Thirty-Five Years of Validation. Sociol. Methods Res. 33, 319–348.

Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A., and Crawford, E.R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Acad. Manage. J. 53, 617–635.

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., and Salanova, M. (2006). The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 66, 701–716.

Serra, D. (2006). Empirical determinants of corruption: A sensitivity analysis. Public Choice 126, 225–256.

Svensson, J. (2003). Who must pay bribes and how much? Evidence from a cross section of firms. Q. J. Econ. 207–230.

Thau, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Pitesa, M., Mitchell, M.S., and Pillutla, M.M. (2014). Unethical for the sake of the group: Risk of social exclusion and pro-group unethical behavior. J. Appl. Psychol.

Umphress, E.E., Bingham, J.B., and Mitchell, M.S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 95, 769–780.

Warner, S.L. (1965). Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 60, 63–69.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 82, 183–200.

Zanna, M.P., Olson, J.M., and Fazio, R.H. (1980). Attitude–behavior consistency: An individual difference perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 38, 432.