Does increasing the representation of women in government lead to less corruption, or does corruption prevent the election of women? Are these effects large enough to be substantively meaningful? Some research suggests that having women in legislatures reduces corruption levels, with a variety of theoretical rationales offered to explain the finding. Other research suggests that corruption is a deterrent to women’s representation because it reinforces clientelistic networks that privilege men. Using instrumental variables, we find strong evidence that women’s representation decreases corruption and that corruption decreases women’s participation in government; both effects are substantively significant.
AcemogluD.JohnsonS.RobinsonJ. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. The American Economic Review, 91, 1369-1401.
2.
AlatasV.CameronL.ChaudhuriA.ErkalN.GangadharanL. (2009). Gender, culture, and corruption: Insights from an experimental analysis. Southern Economic Journal, 75, 663-680.
3.
Alhassan-AloloN. (2007). Gender and corruption: Testing the new consensus. Public Administration and Development, 237, 227-237.
4.
AngristJ. D.ImbensG. W. (1995). Two-stage least squares estimation of average causal effects in models with variable treatment intensity. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 431-442.
5.
AngristJ. D.ImbensG. W.RubinD. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 444-455.
6.
AngristJ. D.PischkeJ.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion (1st ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
ArriolaL. R.JohnsonM. C. (2014). Ethnic politics and women’s empowerment in Africa: Ministerial appointments to executive cabinets. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 495-510.
8.
BarnesT. D. (2016). Gendering legislative behavior: Institutional constraints and collaboration. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BarnesT. D.BeaulieuE. (2014). Gender stereotypes and corruption: How candidates affect perceptions of election fraud. Politics & Gender, 10, 365-391.
10.
BarnesT. D.BeaulieuE. (2019). Women politicians, institutions, and perceptions of corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 52, 134-167.
11.
BaumC. F.SchafferM. E.StillmanS. (2003). Instrumental variables and GMM: Estimation and testing. Stata Journal, 3(1), 1-31.
12.
BaumC. F.SchafferM. E.StillmanS. (2007). Enhanced routines for instrumental variables/GMM estimation and testing. Stata Journal, 7, 465-506.
13.
BeckL. J. (2003). Democratization and the hidden public: The impact of patronage networks on Senegalese women. Comparative Politics, 35, 147-169.
14.
BensteadL. J.JamalA. A.LustE. (2015). Is it gender, religiosity or both? A role congruity theory of candidate electability in transitional Tunisia. Perspectives on Politics, 13, 74-94.
15.
BensteadL. J.LustE. (2018). Why do some voters prefer female candidates? The role of perceived incorruptibility in Arab elections. In StensötaH.WängnerudL. (Eds.), Gender and corruption, political corruption and governance (Chapter 5, pp. 83-104). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
BernasekA.ShwiffS. (2001). Gender, risk, and retirement. Journal of Economic Issues, 35, 345-356.
17.
BjarnegårdE. (2013). Gender, informal institutions and political recruitment: Explaining male dominance in parliamentary representation. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
BranisaB.ZieglerM. (2011). Reexamining the link between gender and corruption: The role of social institutions. In Proceedings of the German development economics conference. Berlin. Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/gdec11/15.html
19.
ByrnesJ. P.MillerD. C.SchaferW. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk-taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367-383.
20.
CameronA. C.GelbachJ. B.MillerD. L. (2008). Bootstrap-based improvements for inference with clustered errors. Review of Economics and Statistics, 90, 414-427.
21.
ChiebubJ. A.GandhiJ.VreelandJ. R. (2010). Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice, 143, 67-101.
22.
Correa MartinezW.JetterM. (2016). Isolating causality between gender and corruption: An IV approach (Working Papers No. 16-07). Center for Research in Economics and Finance. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2756794
23.
CraggJ. G.DonaldS. G. (1993). Testing identifiability and specification in instrumental variable models. Econometric Theory, 9, 222-240.
24.
CrosonR.GneezyU. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 448-474.
25.
DollarD.FismanR.GattiR. (2001). Are women really the “fairer” sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 46, 423-429.
26.
EckelC. C.GrossmanP. J. (2008). Men, women, and risk aversion: Experimental evidence. In PlottC.SmithV. (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economic results (Vol. 1, pp. 1061-1073). New York, NY: Elsevier.
27.
EggersA. C.VivyanN.WagnerM. (2018). Corruption, accountability, and gender: Do female politicians face higher standards in public life?Journal of Politics, 80, 321-326.
28.
EsareyJ. (2017). Causal inference with observational data. In BachnerJ.GinsbergB.HillK. W. W (Eds.), Analytics, policy, and governance (pp. 40-66). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
EsareyJ.ChirilloG. (2013). “Fairer sex” or purity myth? Corruption, gender, and institutional context. Politics & Gender, 9, 390-413.
30.
EsareyJ.MengerA. (2018). Practical and effective approaches to dealing with clustered data. Political Science Research and Methods. 1–19. doi:10.1017/psrm.2017.42
31.
EsareyJ.Schwindt-BayerL. (2018). Women’s representation, accountability, and corruption in democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 48, 659-690. doi:10.1017/S0007123416000478
32.
FallonK. M.SwissL.ViternaJ. (2012). Resolving the democracy paradox: Democratization and women’s legislative representation in developing nations, 1975 to 2009. American Sociological Review, 77, 380-408.
33.
GoetzA. M. (2007). Political cleaners: Women as the new anti-corruption. Development and Change, 38, 87-105.
34.
GrimesM.WängnerudL. (2012). Good government in Mexico: The relevance of the gender perspective (QoG Working Paper Series). Retrieved from https://goo.gl/WsKzyY
35.
HadeniusA.TeorellJ. (2007). Pathways from authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 18, 143-157.
36.
HeathR. M.Schwindt-BayerL. A.Taylor-RobinsonM. M. (2005). Women on the sidelines: Women’s representation on committees in Latin American legislatures. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 420-436.
37.
HughesM. M. (2009). Armed conflict, international linkages, and women’s parliamentary representation in developing nations. Social Problems, 56, 174-204.
38.
HughesM. M.TrippA. M. (2015). Civil war and trajectories of change in women’s political representation in Africa, 1985–2010. Social Forces, 93, 1513-1540.
JhaC. K.SarangiS. (2018). Women and corruption: What positions must they hold to make a difference?Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 151, 219-233.
41.
JudsonR. A.OwenA. L. (1999). Estimating dynamic panel data models: A guide for macroeconomists. Economics Letters, 65, 9-15.
KaufmannD.KraayA.MastruzziM. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/paper=1682130
45.
KeeleL.KellyN. J. (2006). Dynamic models for dynamic theories: The ins and outs of lagged dependent variables. Political Analysis, 14, 186-205.
46.
KenworthyL.MalamiM. (1999). Gender inequality in political representation: A worldwide comparative analysis. Social Forces, 78, 235-268.
47.
KleibergenF.PaapR. (2006). Generalized reduced rank tests using the singular value decomposition. Journal of Econometrics, 133, 97-126.
48.
LindbergS. I. (2004). Democratization and women’s empowerment: The effects of electoral systems, participation and repetition in Africa. Studies in Comparative International Development, 39, 28-53.
49.
MarshallM.GurrT. R.JaggersK. (2014). Polity IV project political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800-2013: Dataset users’ manual.
50.
MauroP. (1995). Corruption and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 681-712.
51.
McDermottJ. (1999, July31). International: Women police ride in on a ticket of honesty. The Daily Telegraph.
RuleW. (1981). Why women don’t run: The critical contextual factors in women’s legislative recruitment. Political Research Quarterly, 34, 60-77.
62.
Schwindt-BayerL. A. (2005). The incumbency disadvantage and women’s election to legislative office. Electoral Studies, 24, 227-244.
63.
Schwindt-BayerL. A. (2010). Political power and women’s representation in Latin America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
64.
Schwindt-BayerL. A. (Ed.). (2018). Gender and representation in Latin America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
65.
Schwindt-BayerL. A.EsareyJ.SchumacherE. (2018). Gender and citizen responses to corruption among politicians: The US and Brazil. In StensötaH.WängnerudL. (Eds.), Gender and corruption, political corruption and governance (Chapter 4, pp. 59-82). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
66.
Schwindt-BayerL. A.TavitsM. (2016). Clarity of responsibility, accountability and corruption. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
67.
ShleiferA.VishnyR. W. (1993). Corruption. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 599-617.
68.
StaigerD.StockJ. H. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica, 65, 557-586.
69.
StockJ. H.YogoM. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In AndrewsD. W.StockJ. H. (Eds.), Identification and inference for econometric models: Essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg (Chapter 5, pp. 80-108). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
70.
StockemerD. (2011). Women’s parliamentary representation in Africa: The impact of democracy and corruption on the number of female deputies in national parliaments. Political Studies, 59, 693-712.
71.
SundénA. E.SuretteB. J. (1998). Gender differences in the allocation of assets in retirement savings plans. The American Economic Review, 88, 207-211.
72.
SundströmA.WängnerudL. (2014). Corruption as an obstacle to women’s political representation: Evidence from local councils in 18 European countries. Party Politics, 22, 354-369.
73.
SungH.-E. (2003). Fairer sex or fairer system? Gender and corruption revisited. Social Forces, 82, 703-723.
74.
SwamyA.KnackS.LeeY.AzfarO. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64, 25-55.
75.
TeorellJ.CharronN.SamanniM.HolmbergS.RothsteinB. (2015). The quality of government dataset. Retrieved from http://www.qog.pol.gu.se
76.
TorglerB.ValevN. T. (2010). Gender and public attitudes toward corruption and tax evasion. Contemporary Economic Policy, 28, 554-568.
77.
TrippA. (2001). Women’s movements and challenges to neopatrimonial rule: Preliminary observations from Africa. Development and Change, 32, 33-54.
UslanerE. M.RothsteinB. (2016). The historical roots of corruption: State building, economic inequality, and mass education. Comparative Politics, 48, 227-248.
80.
WängnerudL. (2012). Why women are less corrupt than men. In HolmbergS.RothsteinB. (Eds.), Good government: The relevance of political science (Chapter 12, pp. 230-250). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
81.
WatsonD.MorelandA. (2014). Perceptions of corruption and the dynamics of women’s representation. Politics & Gender, 10, 392-412.
82.
WatsonJ.McNaughtonM. (2007). Gender differences in risk aversion and expected retirement benefits. Financial Analysts Journal, 63(4), 52-62.
YoonM. Y. (2004). Explaining women’s legislative representation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29, 447-468.
86.
Żemojtel-PiotrowskaM. A.MarganskiA.BaranT.PiotrowskiJ. (2016). Corruption and sexual scandal: The importance of politician gender. Anales de Psicologì/Annals of Psychology, 33, 133-141.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
