Identification and prioritization of the factors affecting corruption using AHP

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Economic department / shiraz university

2 economic department / shiraz university

Abstract

Corruption is one of the most serious problems in economies. Corruption has different kinds, such as bribery, embezzlement, fraud, and extortion. Contradicting corruption requires recognizing its causes. The causes of corruption can vary depending on each country's social, cultural, institutional, and historical conditions. Identification of the factors that affect corruption is very important. The purpose of this paper is to identify and prioritize the factors affecting corruption. We use an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach. The results show that economic, managerial, and administrative, cultural, and social, political, legal, and psychological dimensions affect corruption. Based on the order of priority, results are political, cultural, and social, economic, legal, managerial, and administrative, and psychological dimensions. The most important achievement of this article is to identify the need for a comprehensive policy to combat corruption in terms of all aspects affecting corruption, with special attention to political, cultural, and social, economic, legal, managerial, and administrative, and psychological dimensions.

Keywords

References

  • Bardhan, P. (1997). Corruption and development: a review of issues. Journal of economic 35(3).1320-1346.
  • Bhattacharyya, S., & Hodler, R. (2015). Media freedom and democracy in the fight against corruption. European Journal of Political Economy. 39.13-24.‏
  • Bhattacharyya, S., & Hodler, R. (2015). Natural resources, democracy and corruption. European Economic Review, 54(4), 608-621.
  • Bhushan, N., & Rai, K. (2007). Strategic decision making: applying the analytic hierarchy process: Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Buehn, A., Karmann, A., & Schneider, F. (2009). Shadow economy and do-it-yourself activities: the German case. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE, 165(4), 701-722.Dzhumashev, R. (2008).
  • Fokuoh Ampratwum, E. (2008). The fight against corruption and its implications for development in developing and transition economies. Journal of Money Laundering Control. 11(1). 76-87.
  • González, A., Ortigoza, E., Llamosas, C., Blanco, G., & Amarilla, R. (2019). Multi-criteria analysis of economic complexity transition in emerging economies: The case of Paraguay. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. 68. 100617.
  • Iwasaki, I., & Suzuki, T. (2012). The determinants of corruption in transition economies. Economics Letters. 114(1). 54-60.
  • Jain, A. K. (2001). Corruption: A review. Journal of economic surveys, 15(1). 71-121.
  • Khaira, A., & Dwivedi, R. (2018). A state of the art review of analytical hierarchy process. Materials Today: Proceedings. 5(2). 4029-4035.
  • Lee, A. H. I., Chen, W.-C., & Chang, C.-J. (2008). A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications. 34 (1). 96–107.
  • Lho, K. and Cabuay, J. (2005). Corruption in the Korean public and private sectors. In Nicholas Tarling (Ed.), Corruption and Good Governance in Asia, New York, Routledge.
  • Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. The quarterly journal of economics. 110(3). 681-712.
  • Mu, E., & Pereyra-Rojas, M. (2016). Practical decision making: an introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) using super decisions V2: Springer.
  • Myrdal, G. (1968). Asian drama, Vol. II, New York. Pantheon, 799-900.
  • Nye, J. S. (1967). Corruption and political development: A cost-benefit analysis. American political science review, 61(2), 417-427.
  • Olkan, B.,(2007), Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia, Journal of Political Economy, 115(2).
  • Parra, D., Muñoz-Herrera, M., & Palacio, L. A. (2021). The limits of transparency in reducing corruption. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics.
  • Pellegrini, L.and Gerlagh, R. (2007) Causes of corruption: a survey of cross-country analyses and extended results, SpringerVerlag.
  • Robbins Michael( 2004) «Does Oil Hinder Democracy?» World Politics, 53(3).
  • Rodriguez, R. (2002). Models, methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces. 32(6). 93.
  • Saaty, T. L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
  • Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2001). How to make a decision Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process.Springer. 1-25
  • Seldadyo, H., & De Haan, J. (2006). The determinants of corruption. The Economist. 66.
  • Serra, D. (2006). Empirical determinants of corruption: A sensitivity analysis. Public Choice. 126(1-2). 225-256.
  • Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1993). Corruption. The quarterly journal of economics, 108(3). 599-617.
  • Takii, K. and Tanaka, R. (2009). “Does the diversity of human capital increase GDP? A comparison of education systems”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 93, Issue. 7-8: 998-1007.
  • Tang, Z., Chen, L., Zhou, Z., Warkentin, M., & Gillenson, M. L. (2019). The effects of social media use on control of corruption and moderating role of cultural tightness-looseness. Government Information Quarterly. 36(4). 101.124-
  • Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. Journal of public economics, 76(3). 399-457.
  • You, J., Khagram, S., (2004), "Inequality and corruption", Faculty Research Working Paper Series. John F.Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics