Outline of Factors of Corruption

After reading both the article by Treisman, and the chapter by Lambsdorff, it is more clear as to what causes corruption. Although Lambsdorff offers a few more causes, both him and Treisman tend to agree on some causes of perceived corruption. Due to the fact that there are many potential causes of corruption (some of them interweaving), I will focus on their best argument, as well as their weakest argument. In both articles, potential causes for corruption are as follows: gender, culture, geography, population size, plurality voting, GDP, government structure, etc. I find that the most compelling argument presented by both authors is the fact that democracies with a free press tend to have a lower rate of perceived corruption. I find that the weakest argument presented by both Treisman and Lambsdorff is their gender argument, due to the fact that it is historically biased, as well as currently untestable.

            Democracies with a free press tend to have a lower rate of perceived corruption. However, this does not readily apply to every democracy. Treisman states that the democracy in question must have been slowly developed over time, and it must have historical standing. For example, Russia would not fit into this category due to the fact that it is a new democracy, and hasn’t had time to establish and relieve itself from communist persuasion. The notion of a free press is also important to this argument. I believe that one of the main factors that can lower corruption is that of a free press. Although press and media can often be biased, most democratic leaders or politicians don’t want their corrupt deals broadcasted for the whole country to see. Free press is a huge deterrent for corruption. Media backlash can ruin their career, family, and reputation. Free press often scares politicians in a democracy away from corruption. In countries where free press is banned, or not established, it is easier for corrupt politicians to slide underneath the public radar, which has a positive correlation with corruption.  I find this to be Treisman’s and Lambsdorff’s best argument because it is the most robust in its category.  The results are fairly clear and need little manipulation beyond measurement of error and individual biased responses to questions.

            I find the authors weakest argument for cause of corruption to be the gender argument. Treisman and Lambsdorff both mention the fact that governments with a percentage of women to be less corrupt. Although women are often publically seen as more compassionate and trustworthy, I don’t follow this argument. It is historically biased due to the fact that most past governments were dominated by only men. Once the women’s rights movement began to pick up speed, women were slowly introduced into global politics. One problem with using women as a deterrent for corruption is the fact that it isn’t comparable to past governments. There has yet to be a country ran solely by women. If there was such a country, it could be compared to a country run completely by men, and then their corruption rates compared. I also think that there are other factors that could make up for the decline in corruption (as seen in countries with women as officials). Things such as introduction of a free press, technological advances, introduction of new laws, etc would have to be observed to make sure that they aren’t the ones to cause the decline in corruption. Although it is a good theory, there is no way to measure or evaluate the gender argument. Until it is scientifically proven that women are genetically less prone to corruption, this argument can’t stand among the ranks of other well  known causes of corruption.

            In conclusion, both authors offer valid potential causes for corruption. However, some of them have a greater value and provide more evidence than others. I find that democracies with a free press probably deter more corruption than that of a government with women.