Unpacking corruption has advantages over using aggregate measures of corruption when theory generates different predictions about the effects of political institutions on different kinds of corruption. We take advantage of the Business Environment and Enterprise Performance surveys conducted in 1999, 2002, and 2005 to investigate the effect of veto players on state capture and bureaucratic corruption in the postcommunist countries. According to our results, a greater number of veto players is associated with less state capture. By contrast, the number of veto players does not have a significant impact on bureaucratic corruption.
AdesAlbertodi TellaRafael. 1996. “The Causes and Consequences of Corruption.” IDS Bulletin27 (2): 6–10.
3.
AdesAlbertodi TellaRafael. 1999. “Rents, Competition, and Corruption.” American Economic Review89 (4): 982–93.
4.
AndersonChristopherTverdovaYulia. 2003. “Corruption, Political Allegiances, and Attitudes toward Government in Contemporary Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science41:91–109.
5.
AndrewsJosephineMontinolaGabriella. 2004. “Veto Players and the Rule of Law in Emerging Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies37:55–87.
6.
ArmingeonKlausCarejaRomana. 2008. “Institutional Change and Stability in Postcommunist Countries, 1990-2002.” European Journal of Political Research47 (4): 436–66.
7.
AustinPeter. 2010. “Estimating Multilevel Logistic Regression Models When the Number of Clusters is Low: A Comparison of Different Statistical Procedures.” The International Journal of Biostatistics6 (1): 1–18.
8.
BeckThorstenAlbertoGeorge ClarkeKeeferGroff PhilipWalshPatrick. 2001. “New Tools in Comparative Political Economy: The Database of Political Institutions.” World Bank Economic Review15 (1): 165–76.
9.
CamposNauroGiovannoniFrancesco. 2007. “Lobbying, Corruption, and Political Influence.” Public Choice131:1–21.
10.
ChangEricGoldenMiriam. 2007. “Electoral Systems, District Magnitude, and Corruption.” British Journal of Political Science37 (1): 115–37.
11.
ClarkePhilippaWheatonBlair. 2007. “Addressing Data Sparseness in Contextual Population Research: Using Cluster Analysis to Create Synthetic Neighborhoods.” Sociological Methods and Research35:311–51.
12.
DahlRobertLindblomCharles. 1953. Politics, Economics, and Welfare. New York: Harper and Row.
13.
DamaniaRichardFredriksonPerManiMuthukamara. 2004. “The Persistence of Corruption and Regulatory Compliance.” Public Choice121:363–90.
14.
DoddLawrenceSchottRichard. 1979. Congress and the Administrative State. New York: John Wiley.
15.
EBRD. 2005. Transition Report 2005: Business in Transition. London: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
16.
FryeTimothyHellmanJoelTuckerJoshua2000. “Database on Political Institutions in the Post-Communist World.” Unpublished dataset, Ohio State University.
17.
FryeTimothyShleiferAndrei. 1997. “The Invisible Hand and the Grabbing Hand: Private Shops in Moscow and Warsaw.” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings87 (2): 354–58.
18.
FryeTimothyZhuravskayaEkaterina. 2000. “Rackets, Regulations, and the Rule of Law.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization16 (2): 478–502.
19.
GehlbachScott. 2008. Representation through Taxation: Revenue, Politics, and Development in Postcommunist States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
GehlbachScottMaleskyEdmund. 2010. “The Contribution of Veto Players to Economic Reform.” Journal of Politics72 (4): 957–75.
21.
GerringJohnThackerStrom. 2004. “Political Institutions and Corruption: The Role of Unitarism and Parliamentarism.” British Journal of Political Science34:295–330.
22.
GrossmanGeneHelpmanElhanan. 1994. “Protection for Sale.” The American Economic Review84 (4): 833–50.
HellmanJoelJonesGeraintKaufmannDaniel. 2003. “Seize the State, Seize the Day: State Capture and Influence in Transition Economies.” Journal of Comparative Economics31:751–73.
25.
HellmanJoelJonesGeraintKaufmannDanielSchankermanMark. 2000. World Bank Working paper No. 51. Washington, DC.
26.
HeniszWitold. 2000. “The Institutional Environment for Economic Growth.” Economics and Politics12 (1): 1–31.
27.
JensenNathan. 2003. “Rational Citizens against Reform: Poverty and Economic Reform in Transition Economies.” Comparative Political Studies36 (9): 1092–111.
28.
KaufmannDavidKraayAaron. 2008. “Governance Indicators: Where Are We, Where Should We Be Going?” The World Bank Research Observer23 (1): 1–20.
KeeferPhilipStasavageDavid. 2003. “The Limits of Delegation: Veto Players, Central Bank Independence, and the Credibility of Monetary Policy.” American Political Science Review97 (3): 407–23.
31.
KnackStephen. 2007. “Measuring Corruption: A Critique of Indicators in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.” Journal of Public Policy27 (3): 255–91.
32.
KopeckyPetr. 2004. “Power to the Executive! The Changing Executive-Legislative Relations in Eastern Europe.” The Journal of Legislative Studies10 (2-3): 142–53.
33.
KunicovaJanaRose-AckermanSusan. 2005. “Electoral Rules as Constraints on Corruption.” British Journal of Political Science35 (4): 573–606.
MaasCoraHoxJoop. 2005. “Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling.” Methodology1:86–92.
36.
MarshallMontyJaggersKeith. 2006. “Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-1999.” University of Maryland, College Park.
37.
McNollgast. 1999. “Political Control of the Bureaucracy.” In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, edited by NewmanPeterLondon: Palgrave.
38.
MokMagdalena. 1995. “Sample Size Requirements for 2-Level Designs in Educational Research.” Multilevel Modeling Newsletter7 (2): 11–15.
39.
NewsomJasonNishishibaMasami2002. “Nonconver-gence and Sample Bias in Hierarchical Linear Modeling of Dyadic Data.” Unpublished manuscript.
40.
PanizzaUgo. 2001. “Electoral Rules, Political Systems, and Institutional Quality.” Economics and Politics13 (3): 269–94.
41.
PerssonTorstenTabelliniGuido. 2000. “Constitutional Determinants of Government Spending.” Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research Working Paper Series. ftp://ftp.igier.uni-bocconi.it/wp/2000/162.pdf.
42.
RasmusenEricRamseyerMark. 1994. “Cheap Bribes and the Corruption Ban: A Coordination Game among Rational Legislators.” Public Choice78:305–27.
43.
Rose-AckermanSusan. 1999. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
RossiterClinton, ed. 1961. The Federalist Papers. New York: New American Library.
45.
SandholtzWayneGrayMark. 2003. “International Integration and National Corruption.” International Organization57 (4): 761–800.
46.
SandholtzWayneKoetzleWilliam. 2000a. “Accounting for Corruption: Economic Structure, Democracy, and Trade.” International Studies Quarterly44 (1): 31–50.
47.
ShleiferAndreiTreismanDaniel. 2000. Without a Map. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
48.
ShleiferAndreiVishnyRobert. 1993. “Corruption.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics108 (3): 599–617.
49.
SnijdersTomBoskerRoel. 1999. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London: SAGE.
50.
SteenbergenMarcoJonesBradford. 2002. “Modeling Multilevel Data Structures.” American Journal of Political Science46 (1): 218–37.
51.
TavitsMargit. 2007. “Clarity of Responsibility and Corruption.” American Journal of Political Science51 (1): 218–29.
52.
TiroleJean. 1994. “The Internal Organization of Government.” Oxford Economic Papers, New Series46 (1): 1–29.
53.
TreismanDaniel. 2000. “The Causes of Corruption: A Cross-National Study.” Journal of Public Economics76 (3): 399–457.
54.
TreismanDaniel. 2007. “What Have We Learned about the Causes of Corruption from Ten Years of Crossnational Empirical Research?” Annual Review of Political Science10:211–44.
55.
TsebelisGeorge. 1995. “Decision-Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism, and Multipartyism.” British Journal of Political Science25 (3): 289–325.
56.
TsebelisGeorge. 1999. “Veto Players and Law Production in Parliamentary Democracies: An Empirical Analysis.” American Political Science Review93 (3): 591–608.
57.
TsebelisGeorge. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
