Previous studies have posited that women are less tolerant of unethical behaviors than men and have found that countries with a greater percentage of women in government are associated with lower levels of corruption. Nonetheless, recent studies have hypothesized that the effect of women on corruption is dependent on institutional and cultural environments in which they work. The aim of this study is to empirically test if the effect of women in government on country-level corruption is dependent on culture using cross-country data. Through a series of regressions, moderating terms between women in government and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are added to empirically test the moderating effect of culture. This study offers empirical evidence that the effect of women in government on corruption is dependent on Hofstede’s individual cultural dimension, supporting recent claims that the effect of women on corruption is indeed dependent on cultural contexts.
AguileraRVVaderaAK (2008) The dark side of authority: antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes of organizational corruption. Journal of Business Ethics77: 431–49.
2.
AlatasVCameronLChaudhuriA, et al. (2009) Gender, culture, and corruption: insights from an experimental analysis. Southern Economic Journal75(3): 663–80.
3.
BanuriSEckelC (2012) Experiments in culture and corruption: a review. Policy Research Working Paper WPS 6064, The World Bank Development Research Group.
4.
BergE (2001) How Should Corruption be Measured? [MSc Economics Extended Essay.]. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
5.
BrettJMOkumuraT (1998) Inter- and intracultural negotiation: US and Japanese negotiators. Academy of Management Journal41(5): 495–510.
6.
BreuschTSPaganAR (1979) A simple test for heteroskedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica47(5): 1287–94.
7.
ChattopadhyayRDufloE (2004) Women as policy makers: evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica72(5): 1409–43.
8.
ChengCZaumD (2008) Introduction—key themes in peacebuilding and corruption. International Peacekeeping15(3): 301–9.
9.
CohenJRPantLWSharpDJ (1996) A methodological note on cross-cultural accounting ethics research. International Journal of Accounting31: 55–66.
10.
Cowell-MeyersK (2001) Gender, peace, and power. Women & Politics23(3): 57–90.
11.
DollarDFismanRGattiR (2001) Are women really the “fairer” sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization46: 423–9.
12.
DrogendijkRSlangenA (2006) Hofstede, Schwartz, or managerial perceptions? The effects of different cultural distance measures on establishment mode choices by multinational enterprises. International Business Review15: 361–80.
13.
EgwemiV (2012) Corruption and corrupt practices in Nigeria: an agenda for taming the monster. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa14(3): 72–85.
HofstedeG (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills: SAGE.
22.
HofstedeGJ (2000) Organizational culture: siren or sea cow? A reply to Dianne Lewis. Strategic Change, 9(2), 135–137.
23.
HofstedeGHofstedeGJMinkovM (2010) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
24.
HustedBW (1999) Wealth, culture, and corruption. Journal of International Business Studies30(2): 339–60.
25.
HustedBW (2000) The impact of national culture on software piracy. Journal of Business Ethics26: 197–211.
26.
JainAK (2001) Corruption: a review. Journal of Economic Surveys15(1): 71–121.
27.
JohnsonRASharmaS (2004) About corruption. In: JohnsonRA (ed), The Struggle Against Corruption: A Comparative Study. Perspectives in Comparative Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 125–58.
28.
JohnstonM (1996) The search for definition: the vitality of politics and the issue of corruption. International Social Science Journal149: 321–35.
29.
KaramALovenduskiJ (2005) Women in parliament: making a difference. In: Women in Parliament: Beyond Numbers. Stockholm: International IDEA, 1998, pp. 125.
30.
KaufmannDKraayAMastruzziM (2011) The worldwide governance indicators: methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law3(2): 220–46.
31.
KlitgaardR (1988) Controlling Corruption. Berkeley: University of California Press.
32.
KruegerABMalečkováJ (2003) Education, poverty and terrorism: is there a causal connection?Journal of Economic Perspectives17(4): 119–44.
33.
LancasterTDMontinolaGR (1997) Toward a methodology for the comparative study of political corruption. Crime, Law and Social Change27: 85–206.
34.
Le BillonP (2008) Corrupting peace? Peacebuilding and post-conflict corruption. International Peacekeeping15(3): 344–61.
35.
LichtANGoldschmidtCSchwartzSH (2003) Culture rules: the foundations of the rule of law and other norms of governance. William Davidson Institute Working Paper, Number 605.
36.
LowLALamoreeSRLondonJ (2015) The “demand side” of transnational bribery and corruption: why leveling the playing field on the supply side isn’t enough. Fordham Law Review84: 563.
37.
NyeTS (1967) Corruption and political development: a cost-benefit analysis. The American Political Science Review61(2): 417–27.
38.
OlkenBA (2007) Monitoring corruption: evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. Journal of Political Economy115(2): 200–49.
39.
PorterE (2003) Women, political decision-making, and peace-building. Global Change, Peace & Security15(3): 245–62.
40.
RivasFM (2013) An experiment on corruption and gender. Bulletin of Economic Research65(1): 10–42.
41.
Rose-AckermanS (2005) The challenge of poor governance and corruption. Especial 1 DIREITO GV L. Rev., 207.
42.
Rose-AckermanS (2008) Corruption and government. International Peacekeeping15(3): 328–43.
43.
SahaSGounderRSuJJ (2009) The interaction effect of economic freedom and democracy on corruption: a panel cross-country analysis. Economics Letters105(2): 173–6.
44.
SchwartzSH (1994) Beyond individualism/collectivism: new cultural dimensions of values. In: KimUTriandisHCKagitcibasiCChoiSCYoonG (eds) Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 85–119.
45.
SeleimABontisN (2009) The relationship between culture and corruption: a cross-national study. Journal of Intellectual Capital10(1): 165–84.
46.
SerraD (2006) Empirical determinants of corruption: a sensitivity analysis. Public Choice126: 225–56.
47.
ShenCWilliamsonJB (2005) Corruption, democracy, economic freedom, and state strength: a cross-national analysis. International Journal of Comparative Sociology46(4): 327–45.
48.
SikesER (1928) State and Federal Corrupt-Practices Legislation. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 58–60.
49.
SøndergaardM (1994) Hofstede’s consequences: a study of reviews, citations and replications. Organization Studies15(3): 447–56.
50.
SteenkampJBEM (2001) The role of national culture in international marketing research. International Marketing Review18(1): 30–44.
51.
SwamyAKnackSLeeY, et al. (2000) Gender and corruption. IRIS Center Working Paper no. 232. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=260062 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.260062 (accessed 1 October 2017).
52.
TanziV (1998) Corruption around the world: Causes, consequences, scope, and cures. Staff Papers45(4): 559–594.
UslanerEM (2008) Corruption Inequality, and the Rule of Law: The Bulging Pocket Makes the Easy Life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
56.
Van OudenhovenJP (2001) Do organizations reflect national cultures? A 10-nation study. Internal Journal of Intercultural Relations25: 89–107.
57.
WangV (2013) Women changing policy outcomes: learning from pro-women legislation in the Ugandan Parliament. Women’s Studies International Forum41: 113–21.
58.
WänguerudL (2009) Women in parliaments: descriptive and substantive representation. The Annual Review of Political Science12(51): 51–69.
59.
WhiteH (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometica48(4): 817–38.
