Advertisement

Conclusions

  • Barney Warf
Chapter
Part of the GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 125)

Abstract

The final chapter concludes the volume by summarizing the major findings. It discusses why corruption varies geographically in light of different levels of national wealth, democracy, and the resource curse. It notes the positive role of Weberian bureaucracies and reiterates the consequences of corruption. Finally, it points to the need for contextualized, spatially sensitive analyses that offer more nuanced understandings of corruption than do aspatial, “one-size-fits-all” approaches.

Keywords

Global geography of corruption Corruption effects Resource curse 

References

  1. Andersen, T. (2009). E-government as an anti-corruption strategy. Information Economics and Policy, 21, 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, E., & Cloke, J. (2004). Neoliberal reform, governance and corruption in the south: Assessing the international anti-corruption crusade. Antipode, 36, 272–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cho, Y. H., & Choi, B.-D. (2005). E-government to combat corruption: The case of Seoul metropolitan government. International Journal of Public Administration, 27, 719–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hammond, J. (2011). The resource curse and oil revenues in Angola and Venezuela. Science & Society, 75(3), 348–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Iqbal, M., & Seo, J. W. (2008). E-governance as an anti-corruption tool: Korean cases. Journal of Korean Association for Regional Information Society, 6, 51–78.Google Scholar
  7. Johnston, M. (2005). Syndromes of corruption: Wealth, power, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim, S., Kim, H., & Lee, H. (2009). An institutional analysis of an e-government system for anti-corruption: The case of OPEN. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Li, H., Xu, L.-C., & Zou, H.-F. (2000). Corruption, income distribution, and growth. Economics and Politics, 12(2), 155–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Luckman, E. (2013, October 21). Indonesia’s anti-corruption website is now getting 1,000 crowdsourced reports every day. Tech in Asia. https://www.techinasia.com/lapor-indonesia-200000-users.
  11. Neupane, A., Soar, J., & Vaidya, K. (2014). An empirical evaluation of the potential for public e-procurement to reduce corruption. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 18(2), 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Patak, R., & Prasad, R. (2005). Role of e-governance in tackling corruption: The Indian experience. In R. Ahmad (Ed.), The role of public administration in building a harmonious society (pp. 434–463). Beijing: China National School of Administration.Google Scholar
  13. Rajon, S., & Zama, S. (2008). Implementation of e-governance: Only way to build a corruption-free Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the 11th Computer and Information Technology (pp. 430–435). IEEE.Google Scholar
  14. Shaxon, N. (2007). Oil, corruption and the resource curse. International Affairs, 6, 1123–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sheryazdanova, G., Abdina, A., Abdildina, H., Kakimzhanova, M., Sadykova, T., & Gappasova, A. (2016). Development of electronic government in Kazakhstan as a tool to combat corruption. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(5).Google Scholar
  16. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (n.d.). United Nations Convention against Corruption. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/index.html.
  17. Watts, M. (2004). Resource curse? Governmentality, oil and power in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. Geopolitics, 9(1), 50–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. You, J.-S. (2014). Land reform, inequality, and corruption: A comparative historical study of Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Korean Journal of International Studies, 12(1), 191–224. http://www.kjis.org/journal/view.html?uid=136&&vmd=Full.
  19. You, J., & Khagram, S. (2005). A comparative study of inequality and corruption. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 136–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations