Academic Publications

Below are selected publications by the ICRN core team and advisory board.

 

If you have trouble accessing the full texts, please send an email to info@icrnetwork.org

 


2019

  • Bader, M., Huss, O., Meleshevich, A., & Nesterenko, O. (2019). Civil Society against Corruption in Ukraine: Pathways to Impact.
  • Bader, M., Huss, O., Meleshevich, A., & Nesterenko, O. (2019). When does Anti-Corruption Activism in Ukraine have Impact? Lessons for International Assistance.
  • Bull, M. J., & Heywood, P. M. (2019). Introduction: towards a better understanding of corruption and anti-corruption. European Political Science, 18(2), 185-188.
  • Engelbert, A., & Kaltenborn, M. (2019). Corruption and social rights accountability (No. 213). IEE Working Papers.
  • Huss, O., & Petrenko, O. (2019). Friends or Foes of Transformation? Economic Elites in Post-Soviet Ukraine–an Introduction. Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte/Economic History Yearbook, 60(2), 291-298.
  • Huss, O., Bader, M., Meleshevich, A., & Nesterenko, O. (2019). Analysing contextual factors for anti-corruption activism in the regions of Ukraine.
  • Köbis, N. C., Verschuere, B., Bereby-Meyer, Y., Rand, D., & Shalvi, S. (2019). Intuitive honesty versus dishonesty: Meta-analytic evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(5), 778-796.
  • Köbis, N., Troost, M., Brandt, C., & Soraperra, I. Social norms of corruption in the field–Social nudges on posters can help to reduce bribery. Behavioral Public Policy
  • Köbis, N., van der Lingen, S., Cruz, T. D. D., Iragorri-Carter, D., van Prooijen, J. W., Righetti, F., & Van Lange, P. A. (2019). The Look Over Your Shoulder: Unethical Behaviour Decreases in the Physical Presence of Observers.
  • Kubbe, I., & Varraich, A. (2019). Corruption and Informal Practices in the Middle East and North Africa.
  • Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2019). Getting the basic nature of systemic corruption right: A reply to Marquette and Peiffer. Governance.
  • Povitkina, M., & Bolkvadze, K. (2019). Fresh pipes with dirty water: How quality of government shapes the provision of public goods in democracies. European Journal of Political Research.
  • Stephenson, M. C. (2019). Corruption as a self-reinforcing “trap”: Implications for reform strategy. QoG Working Paper
  • Soraperra, I., Köbis, N., Efferson, C., Shalvi, S., Vogt, S., & Offerman, T. (2019). A market for integrity An experiment on corruption in the education sector.
  • Wickberg, S. (2019). Political Corruption in a World in Transition: The Fluctuating Boundaries of Corruption. Political Corruption in a World in Transition, 139.
  • Wysmułek, I. (2019). Using public opinion surveys to evaluate corruption in Europe: trends in the corruption items of 21 international survey projects, 1989–2017. Quality & Quantity, 1-22. 

2018

  • Charron, N., Lapuente, V., & Rothstein, B. (2018). Mapping the quality of government in Europe.
  • Gawthorpe, S. (2018). Rethinking Corruption in the Czech Republic: A Mixed-Methods Approach to a Systemic Problem.
  • Heywood, P. M. (2018). Combating corruption in the twenty-first century: new approaches. Daedalus, 147(3), 83-97.
  • Huss, O. (2018). Corruption, Crisis, and Change: Use and Misuse of an Empty Signifier. In Crisis and Change in Post-Cold War Global Politics (pp. 97-128). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
  • Ina, K. (2018). Let’s Play: Bribery Games in the US and Germany. Corruption and Norms: Why Informal Rules Matter, 153-185.
  • Jackson, D., & Köbis, N. (2018). Anti-corruption through a social norms lens. U4 Issue, 2018(7).
  • Köbis, N. (2018). The role of data: How can indicators be useful for combatting corruption?. How to conceptualize corruption?, 4.
  • Köbis, N. C., & Huss, O. (2018). Ein Atlas zur Unterscheidung von Korruptionsformen. In Korruptionsbekämpfung vermitteln (pp. 153-177). Springer VS, Wiesbaden.
  • Köbis, N. C., Iragorri-Carter, D., & Starke, C. (2018). A social psychological view on the social norms of corruption. In Corruption and Norms (pp. 31-52). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
  • Kubbe, I. (2018). Europe’s “democratic culture” in the fight against corruption. Crime, Law and Social Change, 70(2), 217-240.
  • Kubbe, I., & Engelbert, A. (2018). Corruption and the impact of democracy. Crime, Law and Social Change, 70(2), 175-178.
  • Maciel, G. G., & de Sousa, L. (2018). Legal Corruption and Dissatisfaction with Democracy in the European Union. Social Indicators Research, 140(2), 653-674.
  • Onopriychuk, N., & Huss, O. (2018). Anti-corruption Policies and Practices in Post-Soviet and Eastern European States. How to conceptualize corruption?, 53.
  • Rothstein B. (2018) Corruption, Gender Equality and Meritocracy. In: Stensöta H., Wängnerud L. (eds) Gender and Corruption. Political Corruption and Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
  • Rothstein, B. (2018). Fighting systemic corruption: The indirect strategy. Daedalus, 147(3), 35-49.
  • Schwickerath, A. K. (2018). Anti-Corruption Norms in Training for United Nations Peacekeeping Operations. Crime, Law and Social Change, 70(2), 275-291.
  • Schwickerath, A. K. (2018). How to conceptualize corruption? Conference Proceedings: Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Forum, June 2017. In Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Forum (p. 67). DEU.
  • Stephenson, M. C. (2018). Beware blowback: how attempts to strengthen FCPA deterrence could narrow the statute’s scope. Research Handbook on Corporate Crime and Financial Misdealing, 175.
  • Wickberg, S. (2018). Corruption and Anti-Corruption in Fiji. Transparency International Knowledge Hub.
  • Wickberg, S. (2018). Focusing efforts and blurring lines: the OECD’s shift from ethics to integrity.
  • Wickberg, S. (2018). The Role of Mediated Scandals in the Definition of Anti-corruption Norms. In Corruption and Norms (pp. 91-112). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
  • Wysmułek, I. (2018). Europe of Uneven Data: Country Representation in International Surveys on Corruption, 1989–2017. ASK. Research & Methods, (27), 87-104.

2017

  • Engelbert, A. (2017). Public Procurement Law in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Means to Curb Corruption?. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
  • Ensminger, J. (2017). Corruption in community-driven development. A Kenyan case study with insights from Indonesia. U4 Issue.
  • Heywood, P. M. (2017). Rethinking corruption: Hocus-pocus, locus and focus. Slavonic & East European Review, 95(1), 21-48.
  • Köbis, N. C., van Prooijen, J. W., Righetti, F., & Van Lange, P. A. (2017). The road to bribery and corruption: Slippery slope or steep cliff?. Psychological Science, 28(3), 297-306.
  • Köbis, N., & Starke, C. (2017). Why did the Panama Papers (not) shatter the world? The relationship between Journalism and Corruption. How to research corruption?, 69.
  • Kubbe, I. (2017). Elites and corruption in European democracies. In Parties, governments and elites (pp. 249-279). Springer VS, Wiesbaden.
  • Kubbe, I., & Engelbert, A. (Eds.). (2017). Corruption and Norms: Why Informal Rules Matter. Springer.
  • Lambsdorff, J. (2017). Invisible Feet and Grabbing Hands: The Political Economy of Corruption and Welfare. In The Economics of Transparency in Politics (pp. 123-150). Routledge.
  • Rothstein, B., & Varraich, A. (2017). Making sense of corruption. Cambridge University Press.
  • Wedel, J. R. (2017). From power elites to influence elites: Resetting elite studies for the 21st century. Theory, Culture & Society, 34(5-6), 153-178.
  • Wedel, J. R. (2017). Meet the New American Influence Elites: How Top Players Sway Policy and Governing in the Twenty-First Century. The Death of Public Knowledge?: How Free Markets Destroy the General Intellect, 213.
  • Wysmułek, I. (2017). Corruption in schools? The scale and sources of corruption perceptions in Poland. Edukacja, (5), 41-55

2016

  • Boräng, , F.,Jagers, S., & Povitkina , M. (2016). How corruption shapes the relationship between democracy and electrification. QoG Working Paper Series, 2016(14), 14.
  • Charron, N., & Rothstein, B. (2016). Does education lead to higher generalized trust? The importance of quality of government. International journal of educational development, 50, 59-73.
  • Coroado, S., de Sousa, L., Rodrigues, I., Quaresma, R., Diaz, D., Abreu, S., ... & Andreica, A. (2016). Lobbying in Portugal: to regulate or not to regulate?.
  • da Cruz, N. F., Tavares, A. F., Marques, R. C., Jorge, S., & de Sousa, L. (2016). Measuring local government transparency. Public Management Review, 18(6), 866-893.
  • de Sousa, L. (2016). ‘Above the Law, Below Ethics’: Some Findings on Portuguese Attitudes Towards Corruption1. The Social Construction of Corruption in Europe, 245.
  • de Sousa, L. (2016). Corrupção. Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos.
  • Engelbert, A., Kaltenborn, M., & Reit-Born, N. A. (2016). Effective corruption control: Supplier remedies in public procurement in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania-A comparative analysis of mechanisms and their implementation (Vol. 68). Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH.
  • Huss, O. (2016). The Perpetual Cycle of Political Corruption in Ukraine and Post-Revolutionary Attempts to Break Through It. Revolution and War in Contemporary Ukraine: The Challenge of Change.
  • Köbis, N. C., van Prooijen, J. W., Righetti, F., & Van Lange, P. A. (2016). Prospection in individual and interpersonal corruption dilemmas. Review of General Psychology, 20(1), 71-85.
  • Povitkina, M., & Wysmulek, I. (2016). Quantitative methods in researching corruption: surveys, cross-national studies, and measurement issues. How to research corruption, 25-33.
  • Schwickerath, A. K., Varraich, A., & Smith, L. L. (2016, June). How to research corruption. In Conference Proceedings Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Forum June (pp. 7-8).
  • Starke, C., Köbis, N. C., & Brandt, C. O. (2016). The Role of Social Norms in Corruption Research [blog].
  • Starke, C., Naab, T. K., & Scherer, H. (2016). Free to expose corruption: The impact of media freedom, internet access and governmental online service delivery on corruption. International Journal of Communication, 10, 21.
  • Uslaner, E. M., & Rothstein, B. (2016). The historical roots of corruption: State building, economic inequality, and mass education. Comparative Politics, 48(2), 227-248.
  • Varriach, A. (2016). Making Sense of Corruption through interviews. How to research corruption, 13-20.
  • Wickberg, S. (2016). Scandales et corruption dans le discours médiatique français: la partie émergée de l’iceberg?. Éthique publique. Revue internationale d’éthique sociétale et gouvernementale, 18(2). 

2015

  • de Sousa, L., & Moriconi, M. (2015). The discursive use of the concept of ‘corruption’in parliamentary debates during the Portuguese Estado Novo (1935–74). Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 45(2), 159-181.
  • Engelbert, A. (2015). Anti-corruption elements in the Ghanaian public procurement law. African Public Procurement Law Journal, 2(1).
  • Heywood, P. M. (2015). Measuring corruption: perspectives, critiques and limits. Routledge handbook of political corruption, 137-153.
  • Köbis, N. C., Van Prooijen, J. W., Righetti, F., & Van Lange, P. A. (2015). “Who doesn’t?”—The impact of descriptive norms on corruption. PloS one, 10(6), e0131830.
  • Kubbe, I. (2015). Corruption in Europe: Is it all about Democracy? (Vol. 6). Nomos Verlag.
  • Lambsdorff, J. G. (2015). Behavioural and institutional economics as an inspiration to anti-corruption. Some counter intuitive findings. Routledge Handbook of Political Corruption, 299-314.
  • Lambsdorff, J. G. (2015). Preventing corruption by promoting trust: Insights from behavioral science (Vol. 69, No. 15). Passauer Diskussionspapiere-Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe.
  • Lambsdorff, J. G., & Schulze, G. G. (2015). What can we know about corruption. A very short history of corruption research and a list of what we should aim for. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 235(2), 1-15.
  • Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2015). Getting to S weden, Part II: Breaking with Corruption in the Nineteenth Century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 38(3), 238-254.
  • Stephenson, M. C. (2015). Corruption and democratic institutions: a review and synthesis. Greed, Corruption, and the Modern State: Essays in Political Economy, 92.
  • Wickberg, S. (2015). Overview of corruption and anti-corruption in Egypt. Transparency International, (4). 

Before 2015 (selected)

  • Andersson, S., & Heywood, P. M. (2009). The politics of perception: use and abuse of Transparency International's approach to measuring corruption. Political studies, 57(4), 746-767.
  • de Sousa, L. (2010). Anti-corruption agencies: between empowerment and irrelevance. Crime, law and social change, 53(1), 5-22.
  • de Sousa, L. (2008). ‘I Don't Bribe, I Just Pull Strings’: Assessing the Fluidity of Social Representations of Corruption in Portuguese Society. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 9(1), 8-23.
  • de Sousa, L., & Quah, J. S. (2010). Institutional Responses to Corruption: The Role of Anti-Corruption Agencies. Crime, Law and Social Change, 53(1).
  • de Sousa, L. (2001). Political parties and corruption in Portugal. West European Politics, 24(1), 157-180.
  • Engelbert, A. (2014). The role of anti-corruption agencies in the investigation and prosecution of procurement related corruption cases (No. 209). IEE Working Papers.
  • Fox, J., & Stephenson, M. C. (2011). Judicial review as a response to political posturing. American Political Science Review, 105(2), 397-414.
  • Frank, B., Lambsdorff, J. G., & Boehm, F. (2011). Gender and corruption: Lessons from laboratory corruption experiments. The European Journal of Development Research, 23(1), 59-71.
  • Gawthorpe, S. (2010). Unstable Membership: Bulgaria, Corruption, and Policy of the European Union.
  • Heywood, P. M. (1997). Political corruption: Problems and perspectives. Political studies, 45(3), 417-435.
  • Heywood, P. M. (2007). Corruption in contemporary Spain. PS: Political Science & Politics, 40(4), 695-699.
  • Heywood, P. M., & Rose, J. (2014). “Close but no Cigar”: the measurement of corruption. Journal of Public Policy, 34(3), 507-529.
  • Heywood, P. M. (Ed.). (2014). Routledge handbook of political corruption. Routledge.
  • Holmberg, S., & Rothstein, B. (Eds.). (2012). Good government: The relevance of political science. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Kubbe, I. (2014). Corruption and trust: A model design. In (Dys-) Functionalities of Corruption (pp. 117-135). Springer VS, Wiesbaden.
  • Kubbe, I. (2013). Corruption in Europe in Comparative Perspective (Doctoral dissertation, Universitätsbibliothek der Leuphana Universität Lüneburg).
  • Lambsdorff, J. G. (2013). Securing Investor Confidence or Fighting Corruption? How Intergovernmental Organizations may Reconcile Two Opposing Goals. In: Susan Rose-Ackerman and Paul Carrington (eds.), Anti-Corruption Policy: Can International Actors Play a Constructive Role? Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.
  • Lambsdorff, J. G. (2012). Chapter 10 Behavioral and Experimental Economics as a Guidance to Anticorruption. In New advances in experimental research on corruption (pp. 279-300). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  • Lambsdorff, J. G., & Frank, B. (2011). Corrupt reciprocity–Experimental evidence on a men's game. International review of Law and economics, 31(2), 116-125.
  • Lambsdorff, J. G., & Frank, B. (2010). Bribing versus gift-giving–An experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(3), 347-357.
  • Lambsdorff, J. G. (2004). How corruption affects economic development. Global Corruption Report, 310, 212.
  • Lambsdorff, J. G. (2002). Corruption and rent-seeking. Public Choice, 113(1-2), 97-125.
  • Lambsdorff, J. G. (1998). An empirical investigation of bribery in international trade. The European Journal of development research, 10(1), 40-59.
  • Martini, M., & Wickberg, S. (2014). Prevenir la corruption dans la gestion des finances publiques en afrique francophone.
  • Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2013). Why anticorruption reforms fail—systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance, 26(3), 449-471.
  • Rothstein, B. (2014). What is the opposite of corruption?. Third World Quarterly, 35(5), 737-752.
  • Rothstein, B., & Torsello, D. (2014). Bribery in preindustrial societies: understanding the universalism-particularism puzzle. Journal of anthropological research, 70(2), 263-284.
  • Rothstein, B. (2013). Corruption and social trust: Why the fish rots from the head down. Social Research, 80(4), 1009-1032.
  • Rothstein, B. (2012). Good governance. In The Oxford handbook of governance.
  • Rothstein, B. (2011). Anti-corruption: the indirect ‘big bang’approach. Review of International Political Economy, 18(2), 228-250.
  • Rothstein, B. (2011). The quality of government: Corruption, social trust, and inequality in international perspective. University of Chicago Press.
  • Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. M. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World politics, 58(1), 41-72.
  • Stephenson, M. C. (2008). Optimal political control of the bureaucracy. Mich. L. Rev., 107, 53.
  • Varraich, A. (2014). Corruption: An umbrella concept. QoG Working Paper Series, 5(5).
  • Wedel, J. R. (2012). Rethinking corruption in an age of ambiguity. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 453-498.
  • Wickberg, S. (2012). Overview of corruption and anti-corruption in Lebanon. Transparency International, Anti-Corruption Research Centre, 350(15), 1-10.
  • Wickberg, S., Chene, M., & Zinnbauer, D. (2012). Overview of corruption and anti-corruption in Bangladesh. Report by Transparency International.
  • Wickberg, S. (2013). Corruption risks and mitigation strategies in small and medium size enterprise lending. Transparency International, Expert Answer, 395.
  • Wickberg, S. (2013). Literature Review on Corruption in Fragile States. Transparency International, Berlin.[Google Scholar].
  • Wickberg, S. (2013). Literature Review on the Costs of Corruption to the Poor. Transparency International.
  • Wickberg, S. (2013). Papua New Guinea: overview of corruption and anti-corruption. Anti-Corruption Resource Centre accessed September, 11, 2014.
  • Wickberg, S. (2013). Technological innovations to identify and reduce corruption. Transparency International, (8).  

Call: Meta-Analysis on Bribery Games

 

 

 

 

Nils KöbisIna Kubbe, Shaul Shalvi and Bruno Verschuere are conducting a meta-study on bribery games.

Our aim is to compare behavior across behavioral paradigms used to study bribery in the lab, in the field and online to obtain aggregate insights about behavioral factors of bribery.

We kindly ask you to share data sets or manuscripts of bribery games that fulfill the following inclusion criteria:

 

  • The study uses a paradigm that is explicitly labeled as a bribery game
  • OR
  • The paradigm:
  1. uses an incentivized (financial or non-financial incentives), behavioral paradigm, i.e., no hypothetical set-ups
  2. entails a transaction between at least two players that is mutually beneficial to both players
  3. power asymmetry exists between the players
  4. a successful transaction between agents creates negative externalities (that can be on other players or more general entities, e.g. deduction of a donation for a charitable cause)

 

Please send manuscripts that fulfill these criteria to n.c.kobis@uva.nl or inakubbe@post.tau.ac.il

 

A few examples of studies that qualify are:

Abbink, K., Irlenbusch, B., & Renner, E. (2002). An experimental bribery game. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 18, 428–454.

Alatas, V., Cameron, L., Chaudhuri, A., Erkal, N. & Gangadharan, L. (2009). Gender and corruption: Insights from an experimental analysis. Southern Economic Journal, 75(3), 663–680.

Banerjee, R. (2014). On the Interpretation of Bribery in a Laboratory Corruption Game: Moral Frames and Social Norms. Experimental Economics (Vol. 19). Aarhus, Denmark: Springer US.

Barr, A., & Serra, D. (2008). Corruption and culture: An experimental analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 862–869. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.07.006

Cameron, L. A., Chaudhuri, A., Erkal, N., & Gangadharan, L. (2009). Propensities to engage in and punish corrupt behavior: Experimental evidence from Australia, India, Indonesia and Singapore. Journal of Public Economics, 93(7–8), 843–851. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.03.004

Frank, B., & Schulze, G. G. (2000). Does economics make citizens corrupt? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43, 101–113. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00111-6

Jiang, T., Lindemans, J. W., & Bicchieri, C. (2015). Can trust facilitate bribery? Experimental evidence from China, Italy, Japan and the Netherlands. Social Cognition, 33(5), 1–26.

Kubbe, I. (2018). Let’s Play: Bribery Games in the US and Germany. In Corruption and Norms (pp. 153-185). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Köbis, N. C., van Prooijen, J.-W., Righetti, F., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2017). The Road to Bribery and Corruption. Psychological Science. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616682026

Lambsdorff, J. G., & Frank, B. (2011). Corrupt reciprocity – Experimental evidence on a men’s game. International Review of Law and Economics, 31(2), 116–125. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2011.04.002

Muthukrishna, M., Francois, P., Pourahmadi, S., & Henrich, J. (2017). Corrupting cooperation and how anti-corruption strategies may backfire. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(7), 138. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0138

Salmon, T. C & Serra, D. (2017). Corruption, Social Judgment and Culture: An Experiment

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 142 : 64-78.

Van Veldhuizen, R. (2013). The influence of wages on public officials’ corruptibility: A laboratory investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 341–356. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.09.009

 

 

We would love to include all relevant studies (published or unpublished). So if in doubt, please email us (to n.c.kobis@uva.nl or inakubbe@post.tau.ac.il) to see if your study fits. Most often, this will require minimal effort on your side, we look forward to hearing from you before October 1st, 2018.

 

Thanks very much,

Nils Köbis, Ina Kubbe, Shaul Shalvi & Bruno Verschuere