Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

Title: Can Corruption Be Measured? Comparing Global Versus Local Perceptions of Corruption in East and Southeast Asia
Authors: Lin, Min-Wei;Yu, C.
Contributors: 公行系
Keywords: corruption;East Asia;global;local;measurement;perceptions;Southeast Asia
Date: 2014-03
Issue Date: 2015-06-11 12:04:47 (UTC+8)
Abstract: Since Transparency International first released its annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) in 1995, the CPI has quickly become the best known corruption indicator worldwide. The CPI has been widely credited with making comparative and large-N studies of corruption possible, as well as putting the issue of corruption squarely in the international policy agenda. Despite its enormous influence on both academic and policy fronts, the CPI is not without critics. One often noted critique is that the CPI relies solely on surveys of foreign business people and the expert assessments of cross-national analysts; as such, the CPI mainly reflects international experts' perceptions, not the perceptions of each country's citizens. This study examines the above critique in closer detail. Data from the Asian Barometer Survey is employed to analyze whether international experts' corruption perceptions were similar to those of domestic citizens. The Asian Barometer Survey is a public opinion survey on issues related to political values, democracy, and public reform in 13 different areas around East and Southeast Asia (Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam). Data analysis indicates that global and local perspectives are only moderately aligned in the 13 areas studied. International experts and domestic citizens differ, to varying degrees, in their evaluation of the extent of public sector corruption in several areas, suggesting the presence of a corruption perception gap. Four implications about the existence of this gap can be drawn for future corruption measurement. © 2014 © 2014 The Editor, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice.
Relation: Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(2), 140-157
Data Type: article
DOI 連結:
Appears in Collections:[公共行政學系] 期刊論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
140-157.pdf210KbAdobe PDF856View/Open

All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing