One of the great paradoxes in the research on corruption in democracies—and one of the great sources of frustration for anticorruption activists—is that while large majorities of voters consistently claim that they detest corruption and would be less likely to support corrupt politicians, nonetheless politicians credibly accused of corruption regularly win elections. There are many possible explanations for this, including the possibilities that voters lack sufficient information about corruption allegations against candidates, or that voters ultimately prioritize other factors. Yet another possibility—similar to yet distinct from these familiar explanations—is that even if voters are generally aware of corruption allegations against certain politicians, when the time comes to vote, other issues are more salient in many citizens’ minds, and integrity concerns fade into the background.
That last explanation implies that if concerns about politicians’ integrity were made more salient shortly before the election—even if the focus was on political corruption generally, or on corruption in some other jurisdiction—then voters would be less inclined to support politicians suspected of corruption. In a recent article, titled Can Institutions Make Voters Care about Corruption?, Omer Yair, Raanan Sulitzeanu-Kenan, and Yoav Dotan find that this may indeed be the case, and further suggest that if high-profile institutions—such as courts—take actions that raise the salience of corruption and integrity issues shortly before an election, this can lead voters to place more weight on such considerations when casting their ballots. Continue reading →
GAB is happy to welcome back Bonnie J. Palifka, Associate Professor of Economics at Mexico’s Tecnológico de Monterrey (ITESM), who shares the following announcement:
The first Academia against Corruption in the Americas (ACA) conference, which I am organizing, will be held June 22-23, 2018 in Monterrey, Mexico. The purpose of this conference is three-fold:
First, to share research (working papers or already published) from all fields on corruption in the Americas, or general research on corruption by scholars based in the Americas;
Second, to share anticorruption teaching experiences (courses, activities, approaches) and so inspire others;
Third, to create an anticorruption academic network specific to the Americas.
I would like to encourage all academic researchers interested in participating in this conference to submit proposals to me at email@example.com.
Proposals for the research sessions should be full papers on any corruption or anticorruption topic, with preference for those studying corruption or anticorruption in any part of the Americas.
Proposals for the curriculum sessions should be the syllabus, teaching notes, or Power Point presentations relating to your experience teaching (anti)corruption.
Proposals are due by March 1, and decisions will be made by March 15. Proposals will be accepted and reviewed in English, Spanish, Portuguese, or French, but presentations at the conference must be in English or Spanish. Please share the calls for proposals with other corruption scholars, and I hope to see some of you in Monterrey this June.
As most readers of this blog are likely aware, Transparency International (TI) is the world’s leading advocacy organization focused specifically on fighting corruption. In addition to the important advocacy work done by the TI Secretariat and TI’s many national chapters, Transparency International has also played an important role in producing and supporting a variety of research activities.
Word on the street is that Transparency International is in the middle of some sort of internal reorganization. It’s apparently a complicated situation, and while I certainly don’t know much about the details (particularly concerning matters like German labor law), some of my academic colleagues have raised concerns about the possible implications of the reorganization for TI’s research capacity. In response to these concerns, a group of academics sent a letter (which I signed) to the TI Board of Directors, emphasizing the important contributions of the TI Secretariat’s research team. Although these “insider” organizational issues might not be of interest to all our readers, I thought that some of you might be interested, and perhaps might also like to make your voices heard, so I am providing (with the permission of those responsible for drafting and sending the letter) the full text of the letter here: