## _wp06146 - References

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_wp06146 - References](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/_wp06146.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/_wp06146.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/_wp06146.pdf.json)

---

### Model setup and key assumptions
- Public output x produced by agent: 1xeθ=+ (publicly observable). Agent privately knows θ, e1, e2, and R where 12 1ee += and ()2 1Reα=− with 01α≤≤.
- Agent’s expected utility (equation (1)): ()()() 12 1,Uw eeCRεθ α=+ + +− −Π
- Principal’s objective (equation (2)): ()1 EXewCθ=+−−
- Penalty function (Assumption 1): ()() 2 2 2 ,1 CR CR CeαΠ==−⎡⎤ ⎣⎦ with boundary and derivative properties as specified in the source.
- Minimum Requirement Constraint (MRC) (Assumption 2): ()1 Ex eYθ=+≥
- Participation constraint (PC): * Uu≥ where * u is agent reservation utility.
- Budget/cash constraint (BC): wC B+≤
- Control cost C is proportional to principal effort; expected penalty Π is increasing in C and in rent size.

### Regimes and theoretical results
- Regimes distinguished by whether MRC is slack or binding and whether PC and BC are slack or binding.
- Result 1 (MRC slack enforceability):
  - A regime where MRC is slack can be enforced if ()2 1 21 C αε α −− > −, and the agent chooses rent capture level such that ()* 2 2 1 21 e C αε α −− = −.
  - Comparative statics:
    - ∂*2 e/∂C < 0
    - ∂*2 e/∂ε < 0
    - derivative w.r.t. α may be positive if ε is small and negative if ε is large
- Result 1.1 (MRC and PC slack):
  - * 0w =.
  - (i) If BC is slack: ()* 2 1 21 C αε α −− = − and expected output is ()()() 21 1 1 EX αε θ α −− =+ − −.
  - (ii) If BC is binding: ()** 2 1 21 C αε α −− < −, and ()() 2 1 1 21 EXB B αε θ α −− =+ −− −.
- Result 1.2 (MRC slack but PC binding):
  - Principal sets w and C such that ()()() 2 ** 2 * 1 1 41 wu C αε εθ α −− +++ = −.
  - (i) If BC is slack: control costs ()**** 11 21 CC αε αε α −− ++ = < − and expected output ()()( )* 11 EX u θε = ++ −.
  - (ii) If BC binding: lower control cost and expected output ()()() 2 * 1 1 21 EXB Bw αε θ α −− =+ −− −−.
- Result 2 (MRC binding):
  - A regime where MRC is binding is enforced if ()( ) 2 1 211 C Y αε αθ −− < −+−, with * 2 1 e Y θ = + −.
  - Optimal control effort C* = 0.
  - (i) If PC slack: * 0w = and ()EX Y =.
  - (ii) If PC binding: ()()() ** 111 wu Y αε α θ = + − − − +, for * w B ≤, and ()()( )() ** 11 EX Y w Yu αε α θ = − = + + − + −.

### Interpretation and implications
- When MRC is binding:
  - Optimal C* = 0 (principal exerts no controls); principal pays lowest wage satisfying PC.
  - Rent capture constrained only by the social consensus ceiling Y (implicit accountability to population).
  - Principal lacks effective policy instruments (no real “carrot” or “stick”) unless Y or * u change.
- When MRC is slack:
  - Principal can use controls (C) to align agent incentives; higher C reduces rent seeking but is costly.
  - If BC binds, optimal C is lower, leading to higher rent capture and lower expected output.
- Multiple constraints can bind simultaneously (MRC, PC, BC), explaining persistence of entrenched rent-seeking equilibria.
  - Simultaneous binding implies traditional incentive schemes (higher wages, stronger penalties) may be infeasible or prohibitively costly.

### Role of transparency (channels and effects)
- Transparency defined as increased production, disclosure, diffusion and use of information within and outside agency.
- Effects on constraints:
  - On MRC:
    - Transparency improves observability of θ and e2 by the public, raising the minimum public output Y demanded by citizens (increasing bargaining power/voice).
    - Empirical support: Reinikka and Svensson (2004, 2005) show increased public access to information reduced capture of public funds in Uganda.
  - On PC:
    - Transparency supports merit-based hiring and promotion, increasing internal motivation ε and nonmonetary utility, which can relax PC and reduce rent capture.
    - Transparency improves control effectiveness (raises C at given cost) by making fiscal data timely and limits extrabudgetary opacity, increasing expected penalties Π.
    - Transparency can increase the cost of concealing corruption (affect α) and thus reduce rent-seeking distortions.
  - On BC:
    - Transparency can reduce control costs for a given effectiveness and thereby relax BC.
    - Second-order effects: improved tax administration, better prioritization via medium-term frameworks, greater donor/lender trust, potentially increased aid or budget space.
- Other political and social effects:
  - Transparency enhances politicians’ ability to commit to development policies and can reduce clientelism and patronage.
  - Transparency supports shifts in accountability networks and raises moral cost of misconduct, enabling social sanctions against corruption.

### Policy recommendations and practical actions
- When traditional incentives are ineffective and multiple constraints bind, prioritize transparency-enhancing reforms as a feasible lever to shift equilibrium:
  - Increase fiscal transparency: clarity of roles, public availability of information, open budget preparation/execution/reporting, and assurances of integrity (consistent with IMF Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency).
  - Promote public access to information to strengthen citizens’ voice and monitoring capacity.
  - Foster meritocratic personnel policies and transparent promotion/hiring procedures to raise ε (internal motivation).
  - Improve quality and timeliness of fiscal data and constrain extrabudgetary procedures to facilitate controls and reduce cost of enforcement.
  - External partners (donors, IFIs) can help by reinforcing citizens’ voice, providing funds to relax BC (e.g., for basic wage increases), and promoting fiscal transparency for both control and citizen information.
- Expected outcome:
  - Accrued transparency benefits can progressively push a high rent-seeking equilibrium toward one associated with better public outcomes by relaxing MRC, PC, and BC and improving incentives and enforcement.

*IMF Working Paper _wp06146 (content as supplied).*

### References..............................................................................................................

### _wp06146 - References

### Model setup and key assumptions
- Public output x produced by agent: 1xeθ=+ (publicly observable). Agent privately knows θ, e1, e2, and R where 12 1ee += and ()2 1Reα=− with 01α≤≤.
- Agent’s expected utility (equation (1)): ()()() 12 1,Uw eeCRεθ α=+ + +− −Π
- Principal’s objective (equation (2)): ()1 EXewCθ=+−−
- Penalty function (Assumption 1): ()() 2 2 2 ,1 CR CR CeαΠ==−⎡⎤ ⎣⎦ with boundary and derivative properties as specified in the source.
- Minimum Requirement Constraint (MRC) (Assumption 2): ()1 Ex eYθ=+≥
- Participation constraint (PC): * Uu≥ where * u is agent reservation utility.
- Budget/cash constraint (BC): wC B+≤
- Control cost C is proportional to principal effort; expected penalty Π is increasing in C and in rent size.

### Regimes and theoretical results
- Regimes distinguished by whether MRC is slack or binding and whether PC and BC are slack or binding.
- Result 1 (MRC slack enforceability):
  - A regime where MRC is slack can be enforced if ()2 1 21 C αε α −− > −, and the agent chooses rent capture level such that ()* 2 2 1 21 e C αε α −− = −.
  - Comparative statics: ∂*2 e/∂C < 0, ∂*2 e/∂ε < 0, derivative w.r.t. α may be positive if ε is small and negative if ε is large.
- Result 1.1 (MRC and PC slack):
  - * 0w =.
  - (i) If BC is slack: ()* 2 1 21 C αε α −− = − and expected output is ()()() 21 1 1 EX αε θ α −− =+ − −.
  - (ii) If BC is binding: ()** 2 1 21 C αε α −− < −, and ()() 2 1 1 21 EXB B αε θ α −− =+ −− −.
- Result 1.2 (MRC slack but PC binding):
  - Principal sets w and C such that ()()() 2 ** 2 * 1 1 41 wu C αε εθ α −− +++ = −.
  - (i) If BC is slack: control costs ()**** 11 21 CC αε αε α −− ++ = < − and expected output ()()( )* 11 EX u θε = ++ −.
  - (ii) If BC binding: lower control cost and expected output ()()() 2 * 1 1 21 EXB Bw αε θ α −− =+ −− −−.
- Result 2 (MRC binding):
  - A regime where MRC is binding is enforced if ()( ) 2 1 211 C Y αε αθ −− < −+−, with * 2 1 e Y θ = + −.
  - Optimal control effort C* = 0.
  - (i) If PC slack: * 0w = and ()EX Y =.
  - (ii) If PC binding: ()()() ** 111 wu Y αε α θ = + − − − +, for * w B ≤, and ()()( )() ** 11 EX Y w Yu αε α θ = − = + + − + −.

### Interpretation and implications
- When MRC is binding:
  - Optimal C* = 0 (principal exerts no controls); principal pays lowest wage satisfying PC.
  - Rent capture constrained only by the social consensus ceiling Y (implicit accountability to population).
  - Principal lacks effective policy instruments (no real “carrot” or “stick”) unless Y or * u change.
- When MRC is slack:
  - Principal can use controls (C) to align agent incentives; higher C reduces rent seeking but is costly.
  - If BC binds, optimal C is lower, leading to higher rent capture and lower expected output.
- Multiple constraints can bind simultaneously (MRC, PC, BC), explaining persistence of entrenched rent-seeking equilibria.
  - Simultaneous binding implies traditional incentive schemes (higher wages, stronger penalties) may be infeasible or prohibitively costly.

### Role of transparency (channels and effects)
- Transparency defined as increased production, disclosure, diffusion and use of information within and outside agency.
- Effects on constraints:
  - On MRC:
    - Transparency improves observability of θ and e2 by the public, raising the minimum public output Y demanded by citizens (increasing bargaining power/voice).
    - Empirical support: Reinikka and Svensson (2004, 2005) show increased public access to information reduced capture of public funds in Uganda.
  - On PC:
    - Transparency supports merit-based hiring and promotion, increasing internal motivation ε and nonmonetary utility, which can relax PC and reduce rent capture.
    - Transparency improves control effectiveness (raises C at given cost) by making fiscal data timely and limits extrabudgetary opacity, increasing expected penalties Π.
    - Transparency can increase the cost of concealing corruption (affect α) and thus reduce rent-seeking distortions.
  - On BC:
    - Transparency can reduce control costs for a given effectiveness and thereby relax BC.
    - Second-order effects: improved tax administration, better prioritization via medium-term frameworks, greater donor/lender trust, potentially increased aid or budget space.
- Other political and social effects:
  - Transparency enhances politicians’ ability to commit to development policies and can reduce clientelism and patronage.
  - Transparency supports shifts in accountability networks and raises moral cost of misconduct, enabling social sanctions against corruption.

### Policy recommendations and practical actions
- When traditional incentives are ineffective and multiple constraints bind, prioritize transparency-enhancing reforms as a feasible lever to shift equilibrium:
  - Increase fiscal transparency: clarity of roles, public availability of information, open budget preparation/execution/reporting, and assurances of integrity (consistent with IMF Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency).
  - Promote public access to information to strengthen citizens’ voice and monitoring capacity.
  - Foster meritocratic personnel policies and transparent promotion/hiring procedures to raise ε (internal motivation).
  - Improve quality and timeliness of fiscal data and constrain extrabudgetary procedures to facilitate controls and reduce cost of enforcement.
  - External partners (donors, IFIs) can help by reinforcing citizens’ voice, providing funds to relax BC (e.g., for basic wage increases), and promoting fiscal transparency for both control and citizen information.
- Expected outcome: accrued transparency benefits can progressively push a high rent-seeking equilibrium toward one associated with better public outcomes by relaxing MRC, PC, and BC and improving incentives and enforcement.

*Italicized source attribution: IMF Working Paper _wp06146 (content as supplied).*

### REFERENCES

### REFERENCES

### References list
- Acemoglu, D., and T. Verdier, 2000, “The Choice Between Market Failures and Corruption,” American Economic Review, Vol. 90, pp. 194–211.
- Ahrend, R., 2002, “Press Freedom, Human Capital and Corruption,” DELTA Working Papers 2002–11, (Paris: DELTA).
- Akerlof, G., 1982, “Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchanges,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 97(4), pp. 543–569.
- Andvig, J., and K. Moene, 1990, “How Corruption May Corrupt,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 13, pp. 63–76.
- Bac, M., 1996, “Corruption and Supervision Costs in Hierarchies,” Journal of Comparative Economics 22(2), pp. 99–118.
- Bako-Arifari, N., 2001, “La corruption au port de Cotonou : Douaniers et Intermédiaires,” Politique Africaine 83, pp. 38–58.
- Banerjee, A., 1997, “A Theory of Misgovernance,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 112(4), pp. 1289–1332.
- Basu, K., S. Bhattacharya, and S. Misra, 1992, “Notes on Bribery and the Control of Corruption,” Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 48, pp. 349–359.
- Becker, G., and G. Stigler, 1974, “Law Enforcement, Malfeasance, and Compensation of Enforcers,” Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 1, pp. 1–18.
- Besley, T., and R. Burgess, 2002, “The Political Economy of Government Responsiveness: Theory and Evidence from India,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 117(4).
- Besley, T., and J. McLaren, 1993, “Taxes and Bribery: the Role of Wage Incentives,” Economic Journal, Vol. 103 , pp. 119–141.
- Bhagwati, J., 1982, “Directly Unproductive, Profit-seeking (DUP) Activities,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 90(5), pp. 988–1002.
- Blundo, G., and J.-P. Olivier de Sardan, 2001, “La Corruption Quotidienne en Afrique de l’Ouest,” Politique Africaine Vol. 83, pp. 8–37.
- Blundo, G., 2001, “ Dessus-de-table—La Corruption Quotidienne dans la Passation des Marchés Publics Locaux au Sénégal,” Politique Africaine, Vol. 83, pp. 98–114.
- Broadman, H., and F. Recanatini, Francesca, 2002, “Corruption and Policy: Back to the Roots,” Journal of Policy Reform, Vol. 5 (1), pp. 37–49.
- Brunetti, A., and B. Weder, 2003, “A Free Press is Bad News for Corruption,” Journal of Public Economic, Vol. 87, pp. 1801–1824.
- Buchanan, J., R. Tollison, and G.Tullock (eds), 1980, Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society (College Station: Texas A&M University Press).
- Campos, E., and S. Pradhan, 1996, “Budgetary Institutions and Expenditure Outcomes : Binding Governments to Fiscal Performance,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 1646, (Washington: The World Bank).
- Cappelli, P., and K. Chauvin, 1991, “An Interplant Test of the Efficiency Wage Hypothesis,” Quarterly Journal of Economics Vol. 106, pp. 769-788.
- Chakraborty, S., and E. Dabla-Norris, 2005, “Rent Seeking,” IMF Staff Papers (forthcoming).
- Chomitz, K., G. Setiadi, A. Azwar, and N. Ismail Widiyarti, 1998, “What Do Doctors Want?: Developing Incentives for Doctors to Serve in Indonesia’s Rural and Remote Areas,” World Bank; Policy Research Working Paper 1888, (Washington: The World Bank).
- Dabla-Norris, E., and S. Freeman, 2004, “Enforcement of Property Rights and Underdevelopment,” Review of Development Economics, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 391–405.
- Dabla-Norris, E., 2002, “A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Corruption in Bureaucracies,” in G. Abed and S. Gupta (ed.) Governance, Macroeconomics, and the IMF, (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Damania, R., P. Fredriksson, and M. Mani, 2003, “The Persistence of Corruption and Regulatory Compliance Failures: Theory and Evidence,” Public Choice, Vol. 121 ( 3), pp. 363–390.
- Danninger, S., M. Cangiano, and A. Kyobe, 2005, “The Political Economy of Revenue-Forecasting Experience from Low Income Countries,” IMF Working Paper 05/2 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Davis, J., 2004, “Corruption in Public Service Delivery: Experience from South Asia’s Water and Sanitation Sector,” World Development, Vol. 32 (1), pp. 53–71.
- Devarajan, S., D. Dollar, and T. Holmgren (eds), 2001, Aid and Reform in Africa. Lessons from Ten Case Studies (Washington: The World Bank).
- Dia, M., 1996, “Africa’ s Management in the 1990s and Beyond: Reconciling Indigenous and Transplanted Institutions,” Directions in Development (Washington: The World Bank).
- Dickens, William, Lawrence Katz, Kevin Lang, and Lawrence Summers, 1989, “Employee Crime and the Monitoring Puzzle,” Journal of Labor Economics 7 (July), pp. 31–347.
- Di Tella, R., and E. Schargrodsky, 2002, “Political and Economic Incentives During an Anti-corruption Crackdown,” in D. Della Porta and S. Rose-Ackerman (Eds.), Corrupt Exchanges: Empirical Themes in the Politics and Political Economy of Corruption (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft).
- Easterly, W., 2001, The Elusive Quest for Growth. Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics, (Cambridge: MIT Press).
- Gatti, R., S. Paternostro, and J. Rigolini, 2003, “Individual Attitudes toward Corruption: Do Social Effects Matter?,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3122 (Washington: The World Bank).
- Goldsmith, A., J. Veum, and W. Darity, Jr., 2000, “Working Hard for the Money? Efficiency Wages and Worker Effort,” Journal of Economic Psychology 21(4), pp. 351–385.
- Heller, P., 2005, “Understanding Fiscal Space,” IMF Policy Discussion Paper No. 05/4 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Holmström, B., 1979, “Moral Hazard and Observability,” Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 10(1), pp 74–91.
- Holmström, B., and P. Milgrom, 1991, “Multi-Task Principal–Agent Analyzes: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership and Job Design,” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Vol. 7, pp. 24–52.
- International Monetary Fund, 1998, IMF Survey 27(8) (April 27).
- International Monetary Fund, 2003, World Economic Outlook (April).
- International Monetary Fund, 2005, World Economic Outlook (September).
- Kaufmann, D., G. Mehrez, and T. Gurgur, 2002, “Voice or Public Sector Management? An Empirical Investigation of Public Sector Performance based on a Survey of Public Officials,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper (unpublished; Washington: World Bank)
- Kaufmann, D., and A. Kraay, 2002, “Growth without Governance,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2928 (Washington: The World Bank).
- Keefer, P., 2005, “Democratization and Clientelism: Why Are Young Democracies Badly Governed?,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3594 (Washington: The World Bank).
- Keefer, P., and S. Khemani, 2005, “Democracy, Public Expenditures, and the Poor: Understanding Political Incentives for Providing Public Services,” The World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 20(1), pp. 1–27.
- Keefer, P., and R. Vlaicu, 2004, “Democracy, Credibility and Clientelism,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3472 (Washington: The World Bank).
- Laffont, J., and D. Martimort, 2002, The Theory of Incentives. The Principal-Agent Model, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press).
- Leruth, L., and E. Paul, 2006, “A Principal-Agent Theory Approach to Public Expenditure Management in Developing Countries,” IMF Working Paper (forthcoming; Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Lienert, I., 2003, “A Comparison Between Two Public Expenditure Management Systems in Africa,” IMF Working Paper No. 03/2 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Martens, B., with U. Mummert, P. Murrell, and P. Seabright, 2002, The Institutional Economics of Foreign Aid, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
- Mauro, P., 1995, “Corruption and Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 110 (3), pp. 681–712.
- ________, 2004, “The Persistence of Corruption and Slow Economic Growth,” IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 51 (1), pp. 1–18.
- Mauss, M., 1923–1924, “Essai Sur le Don. Forme et Raison de l’échange Dans les Sociétés primitives,” Année Sociologique, seconde série.
- Médard, J.-F., 1992, “Le Big Man en Afrique : Esquisse d’analyse du Politicien Entrepreneur,” L’année Sociologique, 42, pp. 169–172.
- Mookherjee, D., L. Png, 1995, “Corruptible Law Enforcers: How Should They be Compensated,” The Economic Journal, Vol. 105, pp. 145–159.
- Moussa, Y., 2004, “Public Expenditure Management in Francophone Africa: A Cross-Country Analysis,” IMF Working Paper 04/42 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Moynihan, D., and S. Pandey, 2005, “The Role of Organizations in Fostering Public Service Motivation,” Public Administration Review (forthcoming).
- Niskanen, W., 1971, Bureaucracy and Representative Government, (Chicago: Aldine/Atherton Press).
- Olken, B., 2005, “Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia,” (unpublished; Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).
- Paul, E., and M. Robinson, 2005, “Performance Budgeting, Motivation, and Incentives” (forthcoming, International Monetary Fund).
- Petrie, M., 2003, “Promoting Fiscal Transparency: The Complementary Roles of the IMF, Financial Markets, and Civil Society,” IMF Working Paper 03/199 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Poncelet, M., G. Pirotte, G. Stangherlin, and E. Sindayihebura, 2005, Les ONG en Villes Africaines, (Louvain-La-Neuve: Academia).
- Rauch, J., 2001, “Leadership Selection, Internal Promotion, and Bureaucratic Corruption in Less Developed Politics,” Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. 34 (1), pp. 240–258.
- Rauch, J., and P. Evans, 2000, “Bureaucratic Structure and Bureaucratic Performance in Less Developed Countries,” Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 75 (1), pp. 49–71.
- Recanatini, Francesca, Alessandro Prati, and Guido Tabellini, 2005, "Why Are Some Public Agencies less Corrupt than Others? Lessons for Institutional Reform from Survey Data,” Jacques Polak Sixth Annual Research Conference, (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Reinikka, R., and J. Svensson, 2004, “Local Capture: Evidence from a Central Government Transfer Program in Uganda,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 119 (2), pp. 679–705.
- _________, 2005, “Fighting Corruption to Improve Schooling: Evidence from a Newspaper Campaign in Uganda,” Journal of European Economic Association, (forthcoming).
- Robinson, J., and T. Verdier, 2002, “The Political Economy of Clientelism,” CEPR Discussion Paper 3205, (London: Center for Economic and Policy Research).
- Rose-Ackerman S., 1978, Corruption: A Study in Political Economy, (New York: Academic Press).
- Sarte, P., 2001, “Rent-seeking Bureaucracies and Oversight in a Simple Growth Model,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Vol. 25, pp. 1345–1365.
- Shleifer, A., and R. Vishny, 1993, “Corruption,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 108, pp. 599–617.
- Svensson, J., 2003, “Who Must Pay Bribes and How Much,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 118 (1), pp. 207–230.
- Tirole, Jean, 1996, “A Theory of Collective Reputations,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 63, pp. 1–22.
- Van Rijckeghem, C., and B. Weder, 1997. “Corruption and the Rate of Temptation—Do Low Wages in the Civil Service Cause Corruption?,” IMF Working Papers 97/73 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- World Bank, 1997, Helping Countries Combat Corruption: The Role of the World Bank. (Washington: The World Bank).
- ________, 2000, “Bolivia. From Patronage to a Professional State. Bolivia Institutional and Governance Review,” Report No. 20115-BO, (Washington: The World Bank).

*Source: _wp06146 - REFERENCES*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/_wp06146.pdf_