BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Anik Asif Reza (Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University (BSMRAU), Bangladesh), Bauer Siegfried (Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Germany)
Household Income and Relationships with Different Power Entities as Determinants of Corruption
Contemporary Economics, 2014, vol. 8, nr 3, s. 275-288, tab.,wykr., bibliogr. 23 poz.
Korupcja, Gospodarstwa domowe, Dochody gospodarstw domowych, Sektor usług, Studium przypadku, Wyniki badań
Corruption, Households, Household income, Services sector, Case study, Research results
This article adds to the corruption literature by identifying factors influencing Bangladeshi farm households' probability of experiencing corruption in different service sectors. The econometric results show that households' probability of being exposed to corruption can largely be explained through their income and their relationship with different power entities. The direction of the relationship between income and corruption vary across services. Relatively rich households have a higher probability of experiencing corruption in sectors such as education, health and electricity. These households are less likely to experience corruption in local government and agricultural extension services. The results here are contrary to the common trend in corruption research that addresses households' aggregate corruption experiences. Households with relationships with different power entities have a lower probability of experiencing corruption than their counterparts without these types of relationships.(original abstract)
Full text
  1. Alatas, V., Cameron, L., Chaudhuri, A., Erkal, N. & Gangadharan, L. (2006). Gender and Corruption: Insights from an Experimental Analysis (Research Paper No. 974). The University of Melbourne. Department of Economics.
  2. Anik, A. R., Bauer, S. & Alam, M. J. (2013). Why farm households have differences in corruption experiences? Evidences from Bangladesh. Agricultural Economics, 59 (10), 478-488.
  3. Bascle, G. (2008) Controlling for Endogeneity with Instrumental Variables in Strategic Management Research. Strategic Organization, 6 (3), 285-327.
  4. Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (2012). Rice in Bangladesh. Retrieved from
  5. Čábelková, I., & Hanousek, J. (2004). The power of negative thinking: Corruption perception and willingness to bribe in Ukraine. Applied Economics, 36 (4), 383-397.
  6. Hahn, J., Hausman, J. & Kuersteiner, G. (2004) Estimation with Weak Instruments: Accuracy of Higher- Order Bias and MSE Approximations. Econometrics Journal, 7 (1), 272-306.
  7. Harrison, L.E. (1985). Underdevelopment Is a State of Mind: The Latin American Case. Lanham, MD: Madison Books.
  8. Herrera, J., Razafindrakoto, M., & Roubaud, F. (2007). Governance, Democracy and Poverty Reduction: Lessons drawn from household surveys in sub- Saharan Africa and Latin America. International Statistical Review, 75 (1), 70-95.
  9. Hunt, J. (2004). Trust and bribery: The role of quid pro quo and the link with crime (Working Paper No. 10510). National Bureau of Economic Research.
  10. Hunt, J. & Laszlo, S. (2005). Bribery: Who pays, who refuses, what are the payoffs? (Working Paper No. 11635). National Bureau of Economic Research.
  11. Johnston, M. (2000, August 2). The New Corruption Rankings: Implications for Analysis and Reform. Retrieved from
  12. Kowalewski, O. (2012). Corporate Governance and Pension Fund Performance. Contemporary Economics, 6 (1), 14-44.
  13. Lee, L. (1992). Amemiya's Generalized Least Squares and Tests of Overidenfication in Simultaneous Equation Models with Qualitative or Limited Dependent Variables. Econometric Reviews, 11 (3), 319-328.
  14. Murray, M. P. (2006) Avoiding Invalid Instruments and Coping with Weak Instruments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20 (4), 111-132.
  15. Mocan, N. (2008). What determines corruption? International evidence from micro data. Economic Inquiry, 46 (4), 493-510.
  16. Mocan, N. H. & Rees, D. (2005) Economic Conditions, Deterrence, and Juvenile Crime: Evidence from Micro Data. American Law and Economics Review 7 (2), 319-349.
  17. Shaw, P. (2009). The determinants of educational corruption: The case of Ukraine. University of Hull. Retrieved from
  18. Smith, R. J., & Blundell, R. W. (1986). An exogeneity test for a simultaneous equation Tobit model with an application to labor supply. Econometrica, 54 (4), 679-686.
  19. Svensson, J. (2003). Who Must Pay Bribes and How Much? Evidence from a Cross Section of Firms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (1), 207-230.
  20. Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64 (1), 25-55.
  21. Torgler, B., and Valev, N. T. (2006). Corruption and age. Journal of Bioeconomics, 8 (2), 133-145.
  22. Transparency International Bangladesh (2008). National Household Survey 2007 on Corruption in Bangladesh. TIB, Dhaka. Retrieved from
  23. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (2nd Edition). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cited by
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu