Analysis of the Relationship between Women’s Participation and the Rate of Corruption in the Post-Soviet States
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46507/jcgpp.v1i1.3Keywords:
Women’s Participation, Corruption Rate, Post-Soviet States, Corruption Perception IndexAbstract
Corruption remains one of the main problems of Post-Soviet states. Georgia, Belarus, Lithuania, and Latvia are doing relatively well compared to other Post-Soviet states. Popular explanations for high corruption rates are underdevelopment of democratic institutions and the limitation of human rights. However, the lack of women’s participation can be also another factor that could explain the widespread corruption level. According to popular stereotypes, women are considered as more honest and “fairer” gender, which has an impact on the decrease in corruption rate. There is a belief that women have a perception of risk aversion which makes them less likely to engage in corrupt activities. There is no consensus regarding whether women’s participation has an effect on reducing corruption. The purpose of this paper is to test to what extent women’s participation in parliament, school and or with tertiary education, labor force affects corruption rate in Post-Soviet states. The SPSS software was used to assess a relationship between aforementioned variables. According to findings, there is a strong, positive, and statistically significant impact of women enrollment in school and/or with tertiary education on a country’s score in the Corruption Perception Index. I argue that promoting women’s education is the best way to lower corruption in the post-Soviet states.References
Azattyq. (2019). Ryadom s Gabonom i Dzhibuti. Kazakhstan na 124-m meste v Indekse vospriyatiya korruptsii. Retrieved March 12, 2020, from Azattyq website: https://rus.azattyq.org/a/kazakhstan-corruption-perceptions-index-transparency/29738036.html
Bauhr, M., Charron, N., & Wängnerud, L. (2019). Exclusion or interests? Why females in elected office reduce petty and grand corruption. European Journal of Political Research, 58(4), 1043–1065.
Branisa, B., Klasen, S., & Ziegler, M. (2013). Gender Inequality in Social Institutions and Gendered Development Outcomes. World Development, 45, 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.12.003
Debski, J., Jetter, M., Mösle, S., & Stadelmann, D. (2018). Gender and corruption: The neglected role of culture. European Journal of Political Economy, 55, 526–537.
Esarey, J., & Schwindt-Bayer, L. A. (2019). Estimating causal relationships between women’s representation in government and corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 52(11), 1713–1741.
Golos Ameriki. (2019). Transparency International otmechayet uspekh Gruzii v bor’be s korruptsiyey. Retrieved April 25, 2020, from Golos Ameriki website: https://www.golos-ameriki.ru/a/georgia-transparency-internation-corruption-index/4763692.html
Jha, C. K., & Sarangi, S. (2018). Women and corruption: What positions must they hold to make a difference? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 151, 219–233.
Melgar, N., Rossi, M., & Smith, T. W. (2010). The Perception of Corruption. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(1), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edp058
Neudorfer, N. S. (2016). Gender and Graft: A Political Economy Argument about the Influence of Working Women on Political Corruption. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 37(2), 190–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2016.1153337
Pelizzo. (2013). Women do it better! A key lesson in the study of legislative oversight. Retrieved January 20, 2020, from Agora Parl website: https://agora-parl.org/interact/blog/women-do-it-better-key-lesson-study-legislative-oversight
Samimi, A., & Hosseinmardi, H. (2011). Gender and corruption: Evidence from selected developing countries. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 9(6), 718–727.
Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64(1), 25–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(00)00123-1
The World Bank. (2019). World development indicators. Retrieved January 23, 2020, from The World Bank website: http://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/
Transparency International. (2019). Eastern Europe & Central Asia: weak checks and balances threaten anti-corruption efforts. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from Transparency International website: https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/weak_checks_and_balances_threaten_anti_corruption_efforts_across_eastern_eu
Uslaner, E. M., & Rothstein, B. (2016). The Historical Roots of Corruption: State Building, Economic Inequality, and Mass Education. Comparative Politics, 48(2), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041516817037736
Wängnerud, L. (2012). Why women are less corrupt than men. In Good Government. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Please find rights and licences in Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy. By submitting articles or article manuscripts, the author agrees to this policy. No special documents are required.
1. Licence
Use of articles will be governed by the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence as currently displayed on the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-SA).
2. Author(s)' Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by the stated author(s), has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third-party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author(s).
3. User Rights
The spirit of Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy is to disseminate articles published as freely as possible. Under the Creative Commons licence, Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy permits users to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. Users will also need to attribute authors and Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy for distributing works in journal and other media of publication.
4. Rights of Authors
Authors retain all their rights to the published works, such as (but not limited to) the following rights:
1. Copyright and other proprietary rights relating to the article, such as patent rights,
2. The right to use the substance of the article in future works, including lectures and books,
3. The right to reproduce the article for own purposes,
4. The right to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the article's published version (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal (Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy).
5. Co-Authorship
If the article was jointly prepared by more than one author, any author submitting the manuscript warrants that he or she has been authorised by all co-authors to agree on this copyright and licence notice (agreement) on their behalf and agrees to inform his or her co-authors of the terms of this policy. Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy will not be held liable for anything that may arise due to the author's internal dispute. Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy will only communicate with the corresponding author.
6. Royalties
Being an open-access journal and disseminating articles for free under the Creative Commons licence term mentioned, the author(s) are aware that Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy entitles the author(s) to no royalties or other fees.
7. Miscellaneous
Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy will publish the article (or have it published) if the editorial process is successfully completed and the Journal or its sublicensee is obliged to proceed with its publication. The Journal also reserves the right to conform the article to its preferred style of punctuation, spelling, capitalisation, and usage.
