Democracy, Corruption and Inequality- taking stock and new directions for research on institutional quality
My work addresses the theoretical and empirical challenge of how to reduce economic, political and social inequality. In particular, I study how transparency and different forms of corruption influence political determinants of redistribution, investigated as i.e. support for international development aid, carbon trading systems, EU bailouts, and access to public service delivery. Research on the effects and causes of corruption have for long primarily used aggregate measures in essence capturing how much corruption there is in any particular polity. My research shows that different types of corruption can have radically different effects on political mobilization and economic redistribution. I apply for this grant to fulfill two purposes in particular: a) produce work that synthesizes and deepens my research findings on how institutional quality reduce social and economic inequality b) edit and write chapters for a forthcoming Oxford handbook of Quality of Government, Oxford University Press. I have been accepted as a Visiting Scholar at the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies at Harvard University to fulfill these aims.
Final report
Democracy, Corruption and Inequality
My research project Democracy, Corruption and Inequality investigates the link between good government institutions and social, political and economic inequality and why democratic institutions sometimes fail to reduce corruption and improve public goods provision. The project has thus far resulted in several articles in academic journals as well as a co-edited Oxford Handbook of Quality of Government. The book will be published with Oxford University Press in the summer of 2021.
Recent research demonstrates that the quality of public institutions is crucial for a number of environmental, social, economic, and political outcomes, and thereby human well-being broadly conceived. The 38 chapters in our forthcoming handbook offer a comprehensive, state of the art overview of this rapidly expanding research field and identify viable avenues for future research. The initial chapters focus on theoretical approaches and debates, and the central question of how QoG can be measured. The remaining chapters examine the wealth of empirical research on how QoG relates to democratic accountability, ethnic diversity, human well-being, economic growth, political legitimacy, environmental sustainability, gender equality, social cohesion, and the outbreak of civil conflicts. A third set of chapters turns to the perennial issue of what contextual factors and policy approaches have proven successful (and not so successful) for increasing QoG.
While the corruption-reducing effect of democracy may be seemingly self-evident in light of the theoretical expectations, a wealth of empirical literature suggests that democracies are not always as effective as theories would predict. In one chapter in our forthcoming Handbook of Quality of Government, we introduce and synthesize this research agenda, including many of my own studies in this field of research. This chapter surveys relevant country comparative studies as well as examinations of individual- level mechanisms in terms of voting and vote choice, and takes stock of both the empirical evidence and theorized mechanisms for why some democracies are more successful than others in reducing corruption and improving the quality of government. We suggest that although cross- country studies on the aggregate level link between democracy and corruption have indeed raised a very important research question— i.e. if democracy reduces corruption— answers to this question are better found in adjacent fields of research. In the following, we review literature that seeks to explain the varying performance of democracies, beginning with factors closely related— if not integral to— democracy itself, such as freedoms of expression and association, moving then to voters’ preferences and demands, and ending with a consideration of two major factors that affect the workings of democracy: state organization and economic conditions. The final section summarizes the main findings and points out directions for future research.
One of the factors that may explain the wide variation in the extent to which democracies contain corruption is women representation and gender equality. Several recent studies note that democracies with higher levels of women representation are also more successful at reducing corruption levels. We know less, however, about why this association occurs, despite important theoretical advances. Most studies in this field build on associations, and it is therefore difficult to know if women in office reduce corruption or if low corrupt systems simply facilitate the inclusion of women in politics (by recruiting on merit as opposed to patronage ties for instance). My research uses new data and quasi- experimental design to gain a closer understanding of whether women in office reduce corruption and if so if these effects will last overtime. Building on my previous work on different forms of corruption, I have also studied if men and women perceive corruption to be of different kinds. This shows that it is important to consider that corruption cannot be seen as a single problem, but as many different kinds of problems that sometimes vary rather dramatically in kind.
My time as a visiting scholar at the CES at Harvard University has not only been highly productive, it has also strengthened my research along several dimensions. Theoretically, my project has benefited from the continuous input from leading scholars in both formal and informal settings. This included more formal presentations of my research as well as informal discussions at institutions such as i.e. the CES, Harvard Kennedy School, the Harvard faculty club meetings on corruption etc. Methodologically, my project also benefited in very concrete ways from my work and participation at the Institute of Quantitative Social Science (IQSS). My visit has also inspired my own teaching agenda, and influenced several of my teaching modules. Finally, I have participated in a host of events open to the public and engaging with the wider policy community. This included i.e. moderating a session on “citizens engagement; grass root movement” at the Europe in the World conference as well as other events, such as participating at a webinar on European Covid-19 responses. Participation in these broader events and collaborations have inspired at least two papers that are dealing specifically with international redistribution and the Covid-19 pandemic (see below). I have also worked on several new papers on the link between clientelism and public support for redistribution and access to public services. Taken together, this grant has allowed me to reflect on my research agenda, deepen my analytical skills and provided inspiration for future research and teaching.
My research project Democracy, Corruption and Inequality investigates the link between good government institutions and social, political and economic inequality and why democratic institutions sometimes fail to reduce corruption and improve public goods provision. The project has thus far resulted in several articles in academic journals as well as a co-edited Oxford Handbook of Quality of Government. The book will be published with Oxford University Press in the summer of 2021.
Recent research demonstrates that the quality of public institutions is crucial for a number of environmental, social, economic, and political outcomes, and thereby human well-being broadly conceived. The 38 chapters in our forthcoming handbook offer a comprehensive, state of the art overview of this rapidly expanding research field and identify viable avenues for future research. The initial chapters focus on theoretical approaches and debates, and the central question of how QoG can be measured. The remaining chapters examine the wealth of empirical research on how QoG relates to democratic accountability, ethnic diversity, human well-being, economic growth, political legitimacy, environmental sustainability, gender equality, social cohesion, and the outbreak of civil conflicts. A third set of chapters turns to the perennial issue of what contextual factors and policy approaches have proven successful (and not so successful) for increasing QoG.
While the corruption-reducing effect of democracy may be seemingly self-evident in light of the theoretical expectations, a wealth of empirical literature suggests that democracies are not always as effective as theories would predict. In one chapter in our forthcoming Handbook of Quality of Government, we introduce and synthesize this research agenda, including many of my own studies in this field of research. This chapter surveys relevant country comparative studies as well as examinations of individual- level mechanisms in terms of voting and vote choice, and takes stock of both the empirical evidence and theorized mechanisms for why some democracies are more successful than others in reducing corruption and improving the quality of government. We suggest that although cross- country studies on the aggregate level link between democracy and corruption have indeed raised a very important research question— i.e. if democracy reduces corruption— answers to this question are better found in adjacent fields of research. In the following, we review literature that seeks to explain the varying performance of democracies, beginning with factors closely related— if not integral to— democracy itself, such as freedoms of expression and association, moving then to voters’ preferences and demands, and ending with a consideration of two major factors that affect the workings of democracy: state organization and economic conditions. The final section summarizes the main findings and points out directions for future research.
One of the factors that may explain the wide variation in the extent to which democracies contain corruption is women representation and gender equality. Several recent studies note that democracies with higher levels of women representation are also more successful at reducing corruption levels. We know less, however, about why this association occurs, despite important theoretical advances. Most studies in this field build on associations, and it is therefore difficult to know if women in office reduce corruption or if low corrupt systems simply facilitate the inclusion of women in politics (by recruiting on merit as opposed to patronage ties for instance). My research uses new data and quasi- experimental design to gain a closer understanding of whether women in office reduce corruption and if so if these effects will last overtime. Building on my previous work on different forms of corruption, I have also studied if men and women perceive corruption to be of different kinds. This shows that it is important to consider that corruption cannot be seen as a single problem, but as many different kinds of problems that sometimes vary rather dramatically in kind.
My time as a visiting scholar at the CES at Harvard University has not only been highly productive, it has also strengthened my research along several dimensions. Theoretically, my project has benefited from the continuous input from leading scholars in both formal and informal settings. This included more formal presentations of my research as well as informal discussions at institutions such as i.e. the CES, Harvard Kennedy School, the Harvard faculty club meetings on corruption etc. Methodologically, my project also benefited in very concrete ways from my work and participation at the Institute of Quantitative Social Science (IQSS). My visit has also inspired my own teaching agenda, and influenced several of my teaching modules. Finally, I have participated in a host of events open to the public and engaging with the wider policy community. This included i.e. moderating a session on “citizens engagement; grass root movement” at the Europe in the World conference as well as other events, such as participating at a webinar on European Covid-19 responses. Participation in these broader events and collaborations have inspired at least two papers that are dealing specifically with international redistribution and the Covid-19 pandemic (see below). I have also worked on several new papers on the link between clientelism and public support for redistribution and access to public services. Taken together, this grant has allowed me to reflect on my research agenda, deepen my analytical skills and provided inspiration for future research and teaching.