Female representation in government has long been advocated for promoting good governance, and its potential effect on corruption has attracted sustained scholarly attention. Yet theoretical reasoning and evidence remain fragmented and contested. This preregistered meta-analysis, synthesizing 588 effect sizes from 57 quantitative studies, confirms a statistically significant negative association between female representation and corruption. It further shows that this effect is larger in studies using subjective corruption measures, descriptive representation, only one type of female representation, and excluding country-fixed effects. The results advance our understanding of how and when female representation influences corruption and offer insights for anti-corruption policies.
AbramoC. W. (2008). How much do perceptions of corruption really tell us?Economics, 2(1), Article 20080003.
2.
AfridiF.IversenV.SharanM. R. (2017). Women political leaders, corruption, and learning: Evidence from a large public program in India. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 66(1), 1–30.
3.
ArmstrongB.BarnesT. D.O’BrienD. Z.Taylor-RobinsonM. M. (2022). Corruption, accountability, and women’s access to power. Journal of Politics, 84(2), 1207–1213.
4.
BaniaminH. M.JamilI. (2023). Effects of representative bureaucracy on perceived performance and fairness: Experimental evidence from South Asia. Public Administration, 101(1), 284–302.
5.
BarnesT. D.BeaulieuE. (2019). Women politicians, institutions, and perceptions of corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 52(1), 134–167.
6.
BauerG. (2008). Fifty/Fifty by 2020: Electoral gender quotas for parliament in East and Southern Africa. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 10(3), 348–368.
7.
BauhrM.CharronN. (2021). Will women executives reduce corruption? Marginalization and network inclusion. Comparative Political Studies, 54(7), 1292–1322.
8.
BauhrM.CharronN.WängnerudL. (2019). Exclusion or interests? Why females in elected office reduce petty and grand corruption. European Journal of Political Research, 58(4), 1043–1065.
9.
BirdK. (2003). Who are the women? Where are the women? And what difference can they make? Effects of gender parity in French municipal elections. French Politics, 1(1), 5–38.
10.
BjarnegårdE. (2013). Gender, informal institutions and political recruitment. Explaining male dominance in parliamentary representation. Palgrave Macmillan.
11.
BjarnegårdE.YoonM. Y.ZetterbergP. (2018). Gender quotas and the re(pro)duction of corruption. In StensötaH.WängnerudL. (Eds.), Gender and corruption: Historical roots and new avenues for research (pp. 105–124). Palgrave Macmillan.
12.
BoothA. L.NolenP. (2012). Gender differences in risk behaviour: Does nurture matter?The Economic Journal, 122(558), 56–78.
13.
BozemanB.MolinaA. L.KaufmannW. (2018). Angling for sharks, not pilot fish: Deep corruption, venal corruption, and public values failure. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(1), 5–27.
14.
BradburyM.KelloughJ. E. (2011). Representative bureaucracy: Assessing the evidence on active representation. American Review of Public Administration, 41(2), 157–167.
15.
BrattonK. A.RayL. P. (2002). Descriptive representation, policy outcomes, and municipal day-care coverage in Norway. American Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 428–437.
16.
BushS. S.ZetterbergP. (2021). Gender quotas and international reputation. American Journal of Political Science, 65(2), 326–341.
17.
ChappellL.WaylenG. (2013). Gender and the hidden life of institutions. Public Administration, 91(3), 599–615.
ChoB.KimH. (2025). Breaking up male-dominated collusive arrangements: Women’s representation in bureaucracy and corruption. Public Administration, 103(1), 201–219.
20.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
21.
DahlerupD.FreidenvallL. (2005). Quotas as a “fast track” to equal representation for women. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(1), 26–48.
22.
DebskiJ.JetterM.MosleS.StadelmannD. (2018). Gender and corruption: The neglected role of culture. European Journal of Political Economy, 55, 526–537.
23.
DiRienzoC. E. (2019). Culture, corruption, and women in government. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 19(3), 315–332.
24.
DollarD.FismanR.GattiR. (2001). Are women really the “fairer” sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 46, 423–429.
25.
DonchevD.UjhelyiG. (2014). What do corruption indices measure?Economics & Politics, 26(2), 309–331.
26.
DongB.TorglerB. (2013). Causes of corruption: Evidence from China. China Economic Review, 26(1), 152–169.
27.
DreherA.KotsogiannisC.MccorristonS. (2007). Corruption around the world: Evidence from a structural model. Journal of Comparative Economics, 35, 443–466.
28.
EckelC. C.GrossmanP. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dictator experiments. The Economic Journal, 108(448), 726–735.
29.
EsareyJ.ChirilloG. (2013). “Fairer sex” or purity myth? Corruption, gender, and institutional context. Politics & Gender, 9(04), 361–389.
30.
EsareyJ.Schwindt-BayerL. A. (2018). Women’s representation, accountability and corruption in democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 659–690.
31.
EsareyJ.Schwindt-BayerL. A. (2019). Estimating causal relationships between women’s representation in government and corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 52(11), 1713–1741.
32.
FranceschetS.KrookM. L.PiscopoJ. M. (2012). The impact of gender quotas. Oxford University Press.
33.
FranceschetS.PiscopoJ. M. (2008). Gender quotas and women’s substantive representation: Lessons from Argentina. Politics and Gender, 4(3), 393–425.
34.
GlassG. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3–8.
35.
GloverS. H.BumpusM. A.LoganJ. E.CieslaJ. R. (1997). Re-examining the influence of individual values on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(12–13), 1319–1329.
36.
GoelR. K.NelsonM. A. (2023). Women’s political empowerment: Influence of women in legislative versus executive branches in the fight against corruption. Journal of Policy Modeling, 45(1), 139–159.
37.
GoetzA. M. (2007). Political cleaners: Women as the new anti-corruption force?Development & Change, 38(1), 87–105.
38.
GerberA.MalhotraN. (2008). Do statistical reporting standards affect what is published? Publication bias in two leading political science journals. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3(3), 313–26.
39.
GuajardoG.Schwindt-BayerL. A. (2024). Women’s representation and corruption: Evidence from local audits in Mexico. Comparative Political Studies, 57(9), 1411–1440.
40.
GunbyP.JinY.Robert ReedW. (2017). Did FDI really cause Chinese economic growth? A meta-analysis. World Development, 90, 242–255.
41.
GurevitchJ.KorichevaJ.NakagawaS.StewartG. (2018). Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature, 555(7695), 175–182.
42.
HazarikaG. (2018). The plough, gender roles, and corruption. Economics of Governance, 19(2), 141–163.
43.
HeathA. F.RichardsL.De GraafN. D. (2016). Explaining corruption in the developed world: The potential of sociological approaches. Annual Review of Sociology, 42(1), 51–79.
44.
HigginsJ. P. T.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558.
45.
HoltC. A.LauryS. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. The American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.
46.
JhaC. K.SarangiS. (2018). Women and corruption: What positions must they hold to make a difference?Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 151, 219–233.
47.
KubbeI. (2018). Europe’s “democratic culture” in the fight against corruption. Crime, Law and Social Change, 70(2), 217–240.
48.
La PortaR.Lopez-de-SilanesF.ShleiferA.VishnyR. W. (1997). Trust in large organizations. American Economic Review, 87(2), 333–338.
49.
LakensD.HilgardJ.StaaksJ. (2016). On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: Six practical recommendations. BMC Psychology, 4(1), 1–10.
50.
LeeD.HungC. (2022). Meta-analysis of collaboration and performance: Moderating tests of sectoral differences in collaborative performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(2), 360–379.
51.
LeeD. S.WalterA. S.ParkS. (2023). Anti-corruption policy and whistle-blowing intentions: Quasi-experimental evidence from meritocratic civil service systems. Administration & Society, 55(6), 1194–1217.
52.
MeierK. J. (2019). Theoretical frontiers in representative bureaucracy: New directions for research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(1), 39–56.
53.
MeierK. J.FunkK. D. (2017). Women and public administration in a comparative perspective: The case of representation in Brazilian local governments. Administration & Society, 49(1), 121–142.
54.
Meyer-SahlingJ. H.MikkelsenK. S.SchusterC. (2018). Civil service management and corruption: What we know and what we don’t. Public Administration, 96(2), 276–285.
55.
MoherD.ShamseerL.ClarkeM.GhersiD.LiberatiA.PetticrewM.ShekelleP.StewartL. A., & PRISMA-P Group (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1.
56.
NgouhouoI.NjoyaL. (2020). Can the women’s parliamentary representation reduces corruption and informal sector in Africa? Empirical Analysis. Economics Bulletin, 40(1), 612–623.
57.
PitkinH. F. (1967). The concept of representation. University of California Press.
58.
PyoS. (2026). Gender-based passive and active representation: Systematic analysis of the literature. Administration & Society, 58(2), 181–216.
59.
RiccucciN. M.Van RyzinG. G.LavenaC. F. (2014). Representative bureaucracy in policing: does it increase perceived legitimacy?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 537–551.
60.
RiccucciN. M.Van RyzinG. G.LiH. (2016). Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: An experimental study. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 121–130.
61.
RingquistE. J. (2013). Meta-analysis for public management and policy (1st ed). Jossey-Bass.
62.
SchachterH. L. (2017). Women in public administration: Giving gender a place in education for leadership. Administration & Society, 49(1), 143–158.
63.
Schwindt-BayerL. A.MishlerW. (2005). An integrated model of women’s representation. The Journal of Politics, 67(2), 407–428.
64.
SongM. (2018). Gender representation and student performance: Representative bureaucracy goes to Korea. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(4), 346–358.
65.
StensötaH.WängnerudL.SvenssonR. (2015). Gender and corruption: The mediating power of institutional logics. Governance, 28(4), 475–496.
66.
StiversC. (1995). Settlement women and bureau men: Constructing a usable past for public administration. Public Administration Review, 55(6), 522–529.
67.
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(3), 693–712.
68.
StockemerD.SundströmA. (2019). Corruption and women in cabinets: Informal barriers to recruitment in the executive. Governance, 32(1), 83–102.
69.
SungH. E. (2003). Fairer sex or fairer system? Gender and corruption revisited. Social Forces (University of North Carolina Press), 82(2), 703–723.
70.
SungH. E. (2012). Women in government, public corruption, and liberal democracy: A panel analysis. Crime, Law and Social Change, 58(3), 195–219.
71.
SwamyA.KnackS.LeeY.AzfarO. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64, 25–55.
72.
TreismanD. (2007). What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research?Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 211–244.
73.
ValdiniM. E. (2019). The inclusion calculation: Why men appropriate women’s representation. Oxford University Press.
74.
Van RyzinG. G.RiccucciN. M.LiH. (2017). Representative bureaucracy and its symbolic effect on citizens: A conceptual replication. Public Management Review, 19(9), 1365–1379.
75.
WangQ.GuanZ. (2023). Can sunlight disperse mistrust? A meta-analysis of the effect of transparency on citizens’ trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(3), 453–467.
76.
WangY. (2025). Does symbolic representation matter? A meta-analysis of the passive-symbolic representation link. Public Administration, 103(1), 3–24.
77.
WatsonD.MorelandA. (2014). Perceptions of corruption and the dynamics of women’s representation. Politics & Gender, 10(03), 392–412.
78.
ZhangY.WangH. (2025). Symbolic bureaucratic representation and client cooperation: Experimental insights from four daily public service scenarios in China. Public Administration, 103(1), 786–813.
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.
