## _wp0983 - References

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_wp0983 - References](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp0983.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp0983.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp0983.pdf.json)

---

### Introduction and framing
- Opening epigraph: "He was a pirate with a tremendous and sanguinary history; and as long as he preserved unspotted, in his retirement, the dignity of his name [...] homage and reverence were with him high and low; but when at last he descended into politics and became a paltry alderman, the public “shook” him, and turned aside and wept. When he died [...] little by little he has come into respect again; but it is the respect for the pirate, not the alderman." — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi.
- Central problem: Controlling corruption remains a major challenge in democratic countries.
- Why corruption matters (summary of literature cited):
  - Corruption is socially wasteful and harmful to growth (Mauro, 1995; Tanzi and Davoodi, 1998; Del Monte and Papagni, 2001).
  - It diverts resources to rent-seeking, distorts incentives, increases inequality and poverty (Gupta et al., 2002), and undermines public expenditure management.
  - Multilateral organizations like the IMF and the World Bank are intensifying governance and anti-corruption efforts.

### Research question and approach
- Core question: Can corruption persist in a well-functioning democracy where fully informed citizens make rational decisions?
- Conceptual focus:
  - How corruption alters aggregation of individual preferences into collective choices in representative democracy.
  - How such alterations can motivate preservation of institutional arrangements that encourage some agents to engage in corruption.
- Methodology:
  - Simplified Osborne and Slivinski (1996) “citizen-candidate” model.
  - Analysis of how corruption distorts allocation between private and public goods and induces citizens to reduce demand for public goods.

### Model environment and key mechanisms
- Economy and production:
  - Two goods: private consumer good and a pure public good (“roads”).
  - Competitive sector with constant marginal cost normalized to one.
  - Public good purchased by minister from producers at price 1 in absence of corruption.
  - Population size n > 1; gross income normalized to one for all citizens; tax per citizen t such that tn = g, hence t = g/n.
- Preferences and ideal policy:
  - Citizen utility: U(x,g;θ) ≡ x + θu(g), with θ > 0 heterogeneous across citizens; u(·) continuous, concave, thrice differentiable for tractability.
  - Indirect utility: V(g;θ) ≡ 1 – g/n + θu(g).
  - Ideal policy g_θ solves V'(g;θ)=0 ⇔ u'(g_θ) = 1/(nθ). g_θ strictly increasing in θ.
- Elections and ministers:
  - Minister elected via infinite sequence of pairwise contests; equilibrium minister is Condorcet winner (median voter μ absent corruption).
  - Minister maximizes personal utility once elected (no binding pre-electoral commitments).

### Definition and mechanics of corruption in the model
- Corruption parameters:
  - Government price per mile raised to p > 1; bribe per mile b = p – 1.
  - Minister retains fraction a < 1 of bribe; deadweight/legal costs absorb 1 – a. Minister’s perceived illegal gains = a b g.
  - Minister faces expected value of punishment π (measured in units of consumer good); enterprises run no punishment risk.
  - Minister’s net expected gains from corruption = a b g – π.
  - With corruption, total public expenditure equals p g and tax per citizen becomes (1 + b) g / n.
- Citizen and minister indirect utilities with corruption:
  - Nonelected citizen: V_C(g,b;θ) ≡ 1 – (1 + b)g/n + θu(g) = V(g;θ) – b g / n.
  - Minister (including illegal gains): Ṽ_C(g,b,π;θ) ≡ 1 – (1 + b)g/n + θu(g) + a b g – π.
  - Minister’s FOC under corruption yields u'(ĝ_θ) = p/(nθ) for nonelected preferences and u'(ḡ_θ) = p*/(nθ) for corrupt minister where p* = 1 + b – n a b < 1 is effective tax rate the corrupt minister pays per unit.
- Comparative statics: ĝ_θ < g_θ < ḡ_θ for each θ — corruption shifts preferences of nonelected and elected citizens in opposite directions.

### Characterization of honest and corrupt candidates
- Decision rule (Lemma): An elected citizen engages in corruption iff
  Ψ(θ) ≡ Ṽ_C(ḡ_θ,b,0;θ) – V(g_θ;θ) > π.
- Partition of types:
  - Honest set H(π): {θ | Ψ(θ) < π}.
  - Corrupt set C(π): {θ | Ψ(θ) > π}.
  - Threshold θ*(π) = Ψ^{-1}(π), with Ψ(θ) increasing in θ, so H(π) = {θ < θ*(π)} and C(π) = {θ > θ*(π)}.

### Political equilibria and propositions (selected)
- Proposition 1 (all candidates corrupt):
  - Citizens elect a candidate who ceteris paribus prefers a lower supply of roads than the majority.
  - That elected candidate, once corrupt, chooses a larger supply of roads than preferred by the majority absent corruption.
  - Mechanism: voters shift toward types electing lower g in response to inflated prices; elected corrupt minister expands g to capture bribes.
- Taxation and the Elasticity Condition:
  - Corruption yields lower taxes iff (1 + b) ĝ_μ < g_μ, equivalent to the Allen and Lerner elasticity condition:
    ((g_μ – ĝ_μ)/(g_μ + ĝ_μ)) / ((p – 1)/(p + 1)) > 1.
  - Proposition 2: When all candidates are corrupt and the Elasticity Condition holds, a minority of citizens may indirectly benefit from the shift induced by corruption (outcome closer to their preferred policy and possibly lower taxes).
- Mixed candidacies (honest vs corrupt):
  - Median voter pivotal in pairwise contests.
  - If median voter μ ≤ θ*(π) (median honest), median voter is elected.
  - If median voter μ > θ*(π) (median corrupt):
    - Proposition 3: Corruption alters equilibrium policy by inducing either (i) election of a corrupt candidate, or (ii) election of an honest candidate whose policy preferences differ from the median’s. Electorate trades off honesty against policy proximity.
    - When an honest non-median is elected to avoid corruption, the alteration benefits a minority since price per mile unchanged while quantity shifts.
- Voting on law enforcement (constitutional stage choice of π):
  - Timing: constitutional stage sets π (chosen by constitutional median voter, CMV); political stage elects minister given π. Distribution of types at political stage may be same as constitutional with probability q (conservative), or shifted left with probability 1 – q (progressive).
  - Four law-enforcement regimes (thresholds depend on μ and parameters):
    - Permissive: π ≤ π_A(μ). Corruption permitted; citizens elect corrupt candidate type α(μ), who sets g = ḡ_{α(μ)} and t = (1 + b) ḡ_{α(μ)} / n. Special case full permission π = 0.
    - Tolerant: π_A(μ) < π < π_B(μ). Corruption occurs but constrained; citizens elect corrupt candidate θ*(π) who sets g = ḡ_{γ}, t = (1 + b) ḡ_{γ}/n. PMV utility lower than in permissive regime.
    - Strong: π_B(μ) ≤ π < π_μ. Corruption repressed (does not occur in equilibrium) but threat reduces set of honest candidates; citizens elect honest candidate θ*(π) who sets g = g_γ and t = g_γ / n.
    - Effective: π ≥ π_μ. Corruption prevented; PMV honest and elected; g = g_μ and t = g_μ / n.
  - Comparative statics and constitutional choice:
    - π_A ≡ Ψ(α) where α = (p*/p) μ.
    - CMV chooses π to maximize expected utility W_E(π,q;ν) = qW(π,ν;ν) + (1 – q) W(π,ξ;ν).
    - Proposition 4: If π_B(ξ) < π_ν, corruption does not occur in any state; in conservative state it is completely prevented, in progressive state it is repressed and alters policy favorably to constitutional majority.
    - Proposition 5: If π_B(ξ) > π_ν and W(π_B(ξ),ξ;ν) < W(π_ν,ξ;ν), corruption always occurs in progressive state. For sufficiently large q it is prevented in conservative state; for smaller q it may be fully permitted in both states. CMV may optimally set π = 0 in some parameter regions.

### Main theoretical findings (summary)
- Corruption can persist in a well-functioning democracy even with fully informed, rational voters.
- Corruption distorts allocation between public and private uses; citizens may strategically use corruption to influence future collective choices when they expect preference shifts.
- Corruption tends to reduce public expenditure in real (physical) terms because citizens reduce demand for public goods whose prices are inflated by bribery.
- Impact on tax levels is ambiguous; under the Elasticity Condition, corruption can lower taxes and a minority may indirectly benefit despite not participating in corruption.
- The threat of corruption can change political equilibria even when corruption is prevented in equilibrium.
- Institutional choice over law enforcement (π) is endogenous and can be used by constitutional majorities to shape future political equilibria; constitutional majorities may prefer weaker or stronger enforcement depending on q (probability of conservative state), expected shifts, and parameter values.

### Policy implications and recommendations
- Anticorruption strategies must account for political incentives: resistance to reforms can arise from broad non-elected citizen groups who indirectly benefit from corruption.
- Technical/legal institutional improvements may be insufficient if they do not address incentives confronting constitutional and political majorities.
- Where domestic incentives favor weaker enforcement, international actors (multilateral organizations) may need to provide external economic and political incentives to reduce corruption.
- Policy design should consider:
  - How law enforcement parameters (π) affect the set of honest versus corrupt candidates and the future policy mix.
  - The potential for constitutional-stage choices to lock in law-enforcement regimes that serve existing majorities’ long-term interests.

### Suggestions for further research
- Extend to general equilibrium where income, public expenditure, and taxes are endogenously determined (current model assumes exogenous, equal incomes and no redistributive effects).
- Analyze complementarity between public and private goods.
- Incorporate private-enterprise lobbying and the role of enterprises in influencing political equilibria through corruption (model assumes enterprises play no political role).
- Empirical tests:
  - Cross-country studies using corruption indices (Transparency International, World Bank) and democracy indicators to test whether corruption in democracies results in lower physical supply of public goods and lower taxes.
  - Examine relationship between trends in political preferences and intensity of corruption.
  - Reconcile with Mauro (1998) on diversion of expenditure toward items where bribes are easier to extract.
- Investigate robustness to relaxing key assumptions: pure public good, identical incomes, absence of savings/credit, and no production response to taxes.

*Source: IMF Working Paper _wp0983 - conclusions and suggestions for further research.*

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

### _wp0983 - References..............................................................................................................

### Introduction and framing
- Opening epigraph: "He was a pirate with a tremendous and sanguinary history; and as long as he preserved unspotted, in his retirement, the dignity of his name [...] homage and reverence were with him high and low; but when at last he descended into politics and became a paltry alderman, the public “shook” him, and turned aside and wept. When he died [...] little by little he has come into respect again; but it is the respect for the pirate, not the alderman." — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi.
- Central problem: Controlling corruption remains a major challenge in democratic countries.
- Summary of why corruption matters:
  - Corruption is socially wasteful and harmful to growth (Mauro, 1995; Tanzi and Davoodi, 1998; Del Monte and Papagni, 2001).
  - It diverts resources to unproductive rent-seeking efforts, distorts incentives, increases inequality and poverty (Gupta et al., 2002), and prevents effective management of public expenditure.
  - Multilateral organizations like the IMF and the World Bank are intensifying efforts to promote governance and combat corruption.

### Research question and approach
- Core question: Can corruption persist in a well-functioning democracy where fully informed citizens make rational decisions?
- Conceptual focus:
  - Investigates how corruption alters aggregation of individual preferences into collective choices in representative democracy.
  - Examines how these alterations can motivate preservation of institutional arrangements that encourage some agents to engage in corruption.
- Methodology:
  - Uses a simplified version of Osborne and Slivinski’s (1996) “citizen-candidate” model.
  - Analyzes how corruption distorts allocation between private and public goods, inducing citizens to reduce demand for public goods.

### Key mechanisms and theoretical findings
- Distortion effects:
  - Corruption reduces provision of public goods, harming the majority.
  - A minority may indirectly benefit if corruption leads to tax reductions.
- Strategic use of corruption:
  - If the current majority expects to become a minority in the future, corruption can be used strategically to induce the future majority to impose lower taxes.
  - Decisions about law enforcement, accountability, and institutional variables that affect future incentives to engage in corruption function similarly to constitutional amendments by setting long-standing parameters that condition future policy choices.
- Equilibrium implications:
  - When citizens expect a future change in preferences in favor of more taxes and more public expenditure, corruption can arise even in a well-functioning democracy.
  - Even if corruption does not actually occur, the threat of corruption (from distorted incentives and weak law enforcement) can alter policy choices by affecting free and fair election outcomes.

### Paper structure (as provided)
- Section II: Discusses three strands of research—political economy of corruption, principal-agent relation in corrupt transactions, and impact of corruption on public expenditure.
- Section III: Introduces the political-choice model showing how corruption distorts decisions of elected representatives, how candidates respond based on policy preferences and punishment risk, and anticipatory response of nonelected voters.
- Section IV: Extends the model to include collective decisions on law enforcement, showing that under certain conditions citizens vote in favor of weak law enforcement, thus encouraging corruption.
- Section V: Draws brief conclusions (text truncated in the provided content).

*Source: _wp0983 - References.............................................................................................................. — https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp0983.pdf*

### conclusions and suggestions for further research.

### _wp0983 - conclusions and suggestions for further research.

### Relations with previous studies
- Builds on three strands: political economy of corruption; agency theory; impact of corruption on public expenditure.
- Extends prior political-economy models by:
  - Focusing on a well-functioning democracy where citizens are interested, well informed, and any citizen can stand as candidate (citizen-candidate model).
  - Assuming electoral aggregation is efficient (Condorcet/multiple pairwise contests).
  - Modeling voters’ trade-off between honest candidates with less-preferred policy preferences and corrupt candidates politically closer to voters, where propensity to engage in corruption is correlated with policy preferences.
- Contrasts with special-interest/lobbying models: here bribes are for personal gain and not aimed directly at influencing policy; nonetheless corruption affects policy outcomes and can be used deliberately by a large group of citizens that do not directly take part in corruption.
- Places agency-theory incentives (Becker-style crime model) inside representative democracy: controlling corruption is costly and voters’ differing policy preferences can make corruption politically instrumental to impose preferred policies.

### Model structure and key mechanisms
- Economy:
  - Two goods: a private consumer good and a pure public good (“roads”).
  - Production: competitive sector, constant marginal cost normalized to one.
  - Public good purchased by a minister from producers; ministers pay price 1 per unit in absence of corruption.
  - Population size n > 1; gross income normalized to one for all citizens; tax per citizen t such that total tax revenue tn equals public expenditure g, hence t = g/n.
- Preferences:
  - Citizen utility: U(x,g;θ) ≡ x + θu(g), with θ > 0 heterogeneous across citizens, u(•) continuous, concave, twice (assumed thrice for tractability) differentiable.
  - Indirect utility: V(g;θ) ≡ 1 – g/n + θu(g).
  - Ideal policy g_θ solves V'(g;θ)=0, equivalently u'(g_θ) = 1/(nθ). g_θ strictly increasing in θ.
- Elections:
  - Minister is elected via infinite sequence of pairwise contests; equilibrium minister is Condorcet winner (median voter μ in absence of corruption).
  - Once elected, minister maximizes personal utility (no binding pre-electoral commitments).
- Definition of corruption in model:
  - Minister raises government price per mile to p > 1 (exogenous); bribe per mile b = p – 1.
  - Minister retains fraction a < 1 of bribe; deadweight/legal costs absorb 1 – a. Minister’s perceived illegal gains = a b g.
  - Minister faces expected value of punishment π (measured in units of consumer good); enterprises run no punishment risk.
  - Minister’s net expected gains from corruption = a b g – π.
  - With corruption, total public expenditure equals p g and tax per citizen becomes (1 + b) g / n.
- Citizen vs minister indirect utilities under corruption:
  - Nonelected citizen: V_C(g,b;θ) ≡ 1 – (1 + b)g/n + θu(g) = V(g;θ) – b g / n.
  - Minister (including illegal gains): Ṽ_C(g,b,π;θ) ≡ 1 – (1 + b)g/n + θu(g) + a b g – π.
  - Minister’s FOC under corruption yields u'(ĝ_θ) = p/(nθ) for nonelected preferences and u'(ḡ_θ) = p*/(nθ) for corrupt minister where p* = 1 + b – n a b < 1 is effective tax rate the corrupt minister pays per unit.

### Characterization of honest and corrupt candidates
- Decision rule (Lemma): An elected citizen engages in corruption iff
  Ψ(θ) ≡ Ṽ_C(ḡ_θ,b,0;θ) – V(g_θ;θ) > π.
- Partition of types:
  - Honest set H(π): {θ | Ψ(θ) < π}.
  - Corrupt set C(π): {θ | Ψ(θ) > π}.
  - Threshold θ*(π) = Ψ^{-1}(π), with Ψ(θ) increasing in θ, so H(π) = {θ < θ*(π)} and C(π) = {θ > θ*(π)}.
- Comparative statics: ĝ_θ < g_θ < ḡ_θ for each θ — corruption shifts preferences of nonelected and elected citizens in opposite directions.

### Political response of non-elected citizens (all candidates corrupt)
- Proposition 1: When all candidates are corrupt, citizens elect a candidate who ceteris paribus prefers a lower supply of roads than the majority; that candidate, once elected, chooses a larger supply of roads than preferred by a majority in absence of corruption. Mechanism: citizens shift votes toward types that elect a lower g in response to inflated prices; elected corrupt minister then expands g to capture bribes.
- Taxation effect depends on median voter demand elasticity:
  - Corruption yields lower taxes iff (1 + b) ĝ_μ < g_μ, equivalent to Allen and Lerner elasticity condition:
    The arc price elasticity of the demand for roads of the median voter is larger than unity:
    ((g_μ – ĝ_μ)/(g_μ + ĝ_μ)) / ((p – 1)/(p + 1)) > 1  (presented in text as Elasticity Condition (Allen and Lerner); formula preserved in source: ˆ 1 1 ˆ ggp bgg μμ μμ ⎛⎞ −+ − ⎜⎟ + ⎝⎠ > .)
- Proposition 2: When all candidates are corrupt and the Elasticity Condition holds, a minority of citizens may indirectly benefit from the shift in policy induced by corruption (they may obtain an outcome closer to their preferred policy and possibly lower taxes).

### Choice between honest and corrupt candidates (mixed candidacies)
- Median voter pivotal when comparing two candidates, including cases where one honest and one corrupt.
- If median voter μ ≤ θ*(π) (median honest), median voter is elected.
- When median voter is corrupt (μ > θ*(π)):
  - Proposition 3: Corruption alters equilibrium policy by inducing either (i) election of a corrupt candidate, or (ii) election of an honest candidate whose policy preferences differ from the median’s. The electorate trades off honesty against proximity of policy preferences.
  - When an honest non-median is elected to avoid corruption, the alteration always benefits a minority since price per mile is unchanged while quantity shifts.

### Voting on law enforcement (constitutions, π, and regimes)
- Law enforcement regime summarized by expected value of punishment π (chosen at an initial constitutional stage by a constituent who is the constitutional median voter, CMV).
- Timing: constitutional stage sets π (long-term institutional choice); political stage elects minister given π. Distribution of types at political stage may differ: with probability q same as constitutional (conservative), with probability 1 – q shifted left (progressive).
- Four law-enforcement regimes (thresholds dependent on μ and parameters):
  - Permissive: π ≤ π_A(μ). Corruption permitted; citizens elect corrupt candidate type α(μ), who sets g = ḡ_{α(μ)} and t = (1 + b) ḡ_{α(μ)} / n. Special case full permission π = 0.
  - Tolerant: π_A(μ) < π < π_B(μ). Corruption occurs in equilibrium but is constrained; citizens elect corrupt candidate θ*(π) who sets g = ḡ_{γ}, t = (1 + b) ḡ_{γ}/n. PMV utility lower than in permissive regime.
  - Strong: π_B(μ) ≤ π < π_μ. Corruption is repressed (does not occur in equilibrium) but threat reduces set of honest candidates; citizens elect honest candidate θ*(π) who sets g = g_γ and t = g_γ / n.
  - Effective: π ≥ π_μ. Corruption prevented; PMV honest and elected; g = g_μ and t = g_μ / n.
- Comparative static results:
  - π_A ≡ Ψ(α) where α = (p*/p) μ.
  - Thresholds π_A, π_B, π_C vary with μ and π_B(ν) < π_B(ξ) etc.; regions where citizens elect different types depending on state (conservative vs progressive).
- Constitutional choice of π:
  - CMV pivotal at constitutional stage; CMV chooses π to maximize expected utility W_E(π,q;ν) = qW(π,ν;ν) + (1 – q) W(π,ξ;ν).
  - Proposition 4: If π_B(ξ) < π_ν, corruption does not occur in any state. In the conservative state it is completely prevented; in the progressive state it is repressed and alters policy choice favorably to constitutional majority.
  - Proposition 5: If π_B(ξ) > π_ν and W(π_B(ξ),ξ;ν) < W(π_ν,ξ;ν), corruption always occurs in the progressive state. For sufficiently large q (probability of conservative state) it is prevented in the conservative state; for smaller q and under some conditions it may be fully permitted in both states. The CMV may optimally set π = 0 in some parameter regions.

### Main theoretical findings (summary)
- Corruption can persist in a well-functioning democracy even when voters are fully informed and make rational choices.
- Corruption distorts allocation between public and private uses; citizens may strategically use corruption to alter future collective choices when they expect shifts in preferences.
- Corruption tends to reduce public expenditure in real (physical) terms because citizens reduce demand for public goods whose prices are inflated by bribery.
- Impact on tax levels is ambiguous; under the Elasticity Condition, corruption can lower taxes and a minority may indirectly benefit despite not participating in corruption.
- Threat of corruption can change political equilibria even when corruption is prevented in equilibrium.
- Institutional choice over law enforcement (π) is endogenous and can be used by constitutional majorities to shape future political equilibria; this may lead constitutional majorities to prefer weaker or stronger enforcement depending on expected political shifts (q, conservative vs progressive states) and parameter values.

### Policy implications and recommendations
- Anticorruption strategies need to account for the political dimension: resistance to anti-corruption reforms can arise from broad non-elected citizen groups who indirectly benefit from corruption.
- Technical/legal institutional improvements may be insufficient if they do not address underlying incentives confronting constitutional and political majorities.
- In contexts where domestic incentives favor weaker law enforcement, international actors (multilateral organizations) may be called upon to provide external economic and political incentives to reduce corruption.
- Policy design should consider:
  - How law enforcement parameters (π) affect the set of honest versus corrupt candidates and therefore the future policy mix.
  - The potential for constitutional-stage choices to lock in law-enforcement regimes that serve existing majorities’ long-term interests.

### Suggestions for further research
- Extend the model to general equilibrium where income, public expenditure, and taxes are endogenously determined (current model assumes exogenous, equal incomes and no redistributive effects).
- Analyze the impact of complementarity between public and private goods on results.
- Incorporate private-enterprise lobbying and the role of enterprises in influencing political equilibria through corruption (model assumes enterprises play no political role).
- Empirical tests:
  - Cross-country studies using corruption indices (Transparency International, World Bank) and democracy indicators to test whether corruption in democracies results in lower physical supply of public goods and lower taxes.
  - Examine relationship between trends in political preferences and intensity of corruption.
  - Reconcile or contrast with Mauro (1998) findings that corruption diverts expenditure toward items where bribes are easier to extract (e.g., health and education): investigate whether voters reduce demand in areas most affected by corruption and how this interacts with diversion effects.
- Investigate robustness of results to relaxing key assumptions: pure public good assumption, identical incomes, absence of savings/credit, and no production response to taxes.

*Italic source attribution: IMF Working Paper _wp0983 - conclusions and suggestions for further research.*

### REFERENCES

### REFERENCES

### Cited works
- Ades, Alberto; and Di Tella, Rafael (1997) “National Champions and Corruption: Some Unpleasant Interventionist Arithmetic,” Economic Journal 107 (7), pp. 1023–42.
- Allen, R.D.G.; and Lerner, A.P. (1934) “The Concept of Arc Elasticity of Demand,” The Review of Economic Studies 1 (3), pp. 226–30.
- Barro, Robert (1973) “The Control of Politicians: An Economic Model,” Public Choice 14 (1), pp. 19–42.
- Basu, Kaushik; Bhattacharya, Sudipto; and Mishra, Ajit (1992) “Notes on Bribery and the Control of Corruption,” Journal of Public Economics 48 (3), pp. 349–59.
- Becker, Gary S. (1968) “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,” Journal of Political Economy 76 (2), pp. 169–217.
- Becker, Gary S. (1983) “A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Support,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 98 (3), pp. 371–400.
- Beenstock, Michael (1979) “Corruption and Development,” World Development 7 (1), pp. 15–24.
- Bernhard, William (2002) Banking on Reform: Political Parties and Central Bank Independence in the Industrial Economies, The University of Michigan Press, pp. xiv, 237.
- Besley, Timothy; and Coate, Stephen (1997) “An Economic Model of Representative Democracy,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (1), 85–114.
- Besley, Timothy; and McLaren, John (1993) “Taxes and Bribery: The Role of Wage Incentives,” Economic Journal 103 (416), pp. 119–41.
- Calderon, César; and Chong, Alberto (2006) “Do Democracies Breed Rent-Seeking Behavior?” The Journal of Policy Reform 9 (4), pp. 247–60.
- Chander, Parkash; and Wilde, Louis (1992) “Corruption in Tax Administration,” Journal of Public Economics 49 (3), pp. 333–49.
- Del Monte, Alfredo; and Papagni, Erasmo (2001) “Public Expenditure, Corruption, and Economic Growth: The Case of Italy,” European Journal of Political Economy 17 (1), pp. 1–16.
- Dudley, Leonard; and Montmarquette, Claude (1987) “Bureaucratic Corruption as a Constraint on Voter Choice,” Public Choice 55 (1–2), pp. 127–60.
- Galeotti, Gianluigi; and Merlo, Antonio (1994) “Political Collusion and Corruption in a Representative Democracy,” Public Finance–Finances Publiques 49 (Suppl.) pp. 232–43.
- Grossman, Gene M.; and Helpman, Elhanan (1996) “Electoral Competition and Special Interest Politics,” Review of Economic Studies 63 (2), pp. 265–86.
- Gupta, Sanjeev; Davoodi, Hamid R.; and Alonso-Terme, Rosa (2002) “Does Corruption Affect Income Inequality and Poverty?” Economics of Governance, 3 (1), pp. 23–45.
- Hindricks, Jean; Keen, Michael; and Muthoo, Abhinat (1999) “Corruption, Extortion, and Evasion,” Journal of Public Economics 74 (3), pp. 395–430.
- Johnson, Otmunde E. G. (1975) “An Economic Analysis of Corrupt Government, With Special Applications to Less Developed Countries,” Kyklos 28 (1), pp. 47–61.
- Kurer, Oskar (2001) “Why Do Voters Support Corrupt Politicians?” in: Jain, Arvind K. (ed.) The Political Economy of Corruption, London, Routledge, pp. 63–86.
- Mauro, Paolo (1995) “Corruption and Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (3), pp. 681–712.
- Mauro, Paolo (1998) “Corruption and the Composition of Government Expenditure,” Journal of Public Economics, 69 (2), pp. 263–79.
- McGregor, Rob Roy (2007) “Federal Reserve Transparency: The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same?” Public Choice 133 (3–4), pp. 269–73.
- Mookherjee, Dilip; and Png, I. P. L. (1995) “Corruptible Law Enforcers: How Should They Be Compensated?” Economic Journal 105 (428), pp. 145–59.
- Myerson, Roger B. (1993) “Effectiveness of Electoral Systems for Reducing Government Corruption: A Game Theoretic Analysis,” Games and Economic Behavior 5 (1), pp. 118–32.
- Osborne, Martin J.; and Slivinski, Al (1996) “A Model of Political Competition with Citizen-Candidates,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 111 (1), 65–96.
- Paldam, Martin (2002) “The Cross-Country Pattern of Corruption: Economics, Culture and the Seesaw Dynamics,” European Journal of Political Economy, 18 (2), pp. 215–40.
- Persson, Torsten; Tabellini, Guido; and Trebbi, Francesco (2003) “Electoral Rules and Corruption,” Journal of the European Economic Association, 1 (4), pp. 958–89.
- Peters, John G.; and Welch, Susan (1980) “The Effects of Charges of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections,” American Political Science Review 74 (3), pp. 697–708.
- Rose-Ackerman, Susan (1975) “The Economics of Corruption,” Journal of Public Economics 4 (2), pp. 187–203.
- Rose-Ackerman, Susan (1978) Corruption: A Study in Political Economy, New York, Academic Press, pp. xii, 258.
- Rose-Ackerman, Susan (1999) Corruption and Government : Causes, Consequences, and Reform, Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press, pp. xiii, 266.
- Rundquist, Barry S.; Strom, Gerald S.; and Peters, John G. (1977) “Corrupt Politicians and Their Electoral Support: Some Experimental Observations,” American Political Science Review 71 (3), pp. 954–63.
- Shleifer, Andrei; and Vishny, Robert W. (1993) “Corruption,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (3), pp. 599–617.
- Tanzi, Vito; and Davoodi, Hamid R. (1998) “Corruption, Public Investment and Growth,” in: Shibata, Hirofumi; and Ihori, Toshihiro (eds.) The Welfare State, Public investment, and Growth: Selected Papers from the 53rd Congress of the International Institute of Public Finance, Tokyo, Springer-Verlag, pp. 41–60.
- Treisman, Daniel (2000) “The Causes of Corruption: A Cross-National Study,” Journal of Public Economics 76 (3), pp. 399–457.
- van Winden, Frans (1999) “On the Economic Theory of Interest Groups: Toward a Group Frame of Reference in Political Economics,” Public Choice 100 (1–2), pp. 1–29.

*Source: _wp0983 - REFERENCES*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp0983.pdf_