Why Expect a Link Between Gender and Corruption?

  • Helena Stensöta
  • Lena Wängnerud
Part of the Political Corruption and Governance book series (PCG)


This chapter departs from the initial studies, published in the 1990s, demonstrating that a higher proportion of women in positions of power correlates with lower levels of corruption. It reflects on contemporary research suggesting a more complex picture. For example, the correlation is much stronger in democracies than in non-democratic states and more visible in studies focusing on the electoral arena than the bureaucracy/administration. The chapter presents promising avenues along which research can be developed highlighting the need for gendered accounts of historical processes; in-depth studies of dynamics in the electoral arena versus bureaucracy; concretization of the role women may play in processes towards good government, theoretical renewal regarding concepts of corruption and the role of masculinity for corrupt transactions.


  1. Alatas, V., Cameron, L., Chaudhiri, A., Erkal, N., & Gangadharan, L. (2009). Gender, culture, and corruption: Insights from an experimental analysis. Southern Economic Journal, 75(3), 663–680.Google Scholar
  2. Alhassan-Alolo, N. (2007). Gender and corruption: Testing the new consensus. Public Administration, 27(1), 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjarnegård, E. (2013). Gender, informal institutions and political recruitment: Explaining male dominance in parliamentary representation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dollar, D., Fisman, R., & Gatti, R. (2001). Are women really the fairer sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 46, 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytical review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Esarey, J., & Chirillo, G. (2013). “Fairer sex” or purity myth? Corruption, gender, and institutional context. Gender and Politics, 9(4), 390–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Esarey, J., & Schwindt-Bayer, L. (2017). Women’s representation, accountability and corruption in democracies. British Journal of Political Science. Online first.
  8. Goertzel, T. G. (1983). That gender gap: Sex, family income, and political opinions in the early 1980s. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 11, 209–222.Google Scholar
  9. Goetz, A. M. (2007). Political cleaners: Women as the new anti-corruption force? Development and Change, 38(1), 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Halleröd, B., Rothstein, B., Daoud, A., & Nandy, S. (2012). Bad governance and poor children. A comparative analysis of government efficiency and severe child deprivation in 68 low- and middle-income countries. World Development, 48(August), 19–31.Google Scholar
  11. Holmberg, S., & Rothstein, B. (2012). Good government. The relevance of political science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Kaufmann, D. (1998). Challenges in the next stage of anti-corruption. In New perspectives on combating corruption. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  13. Kenny, M. (2013). Gender and political recruitment. Theorizing institutional change. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Manin, B. (2007). The principles of representative government. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Mocan, N. (2008). What determines corruption? International evidence from microdata. Economic Inquiry, 46(4), 493–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stensöta, H., Wängnerud, L., & Svensson, R. (2015). Gender and corruption: The mediating power of institutional logics. Governance, 28, 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stockemer, D. (2011). Women’s parliamentary representation in Africa: The impact of democracy and corruption on the number of female deputies in national parliaments. Political Studies, 59(3), 693–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sundström, A., & Wängnerud, L. (2016). Corruption as an obstacle to women’s political representation: Evidence from local councils in 18 European countries. Party Politics, 22(3), 354–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sung, H.-E. (2003). Fairer sex or fairer system? Gender and corruption revisited. Social Forces, 82, 703–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Svallfors, S. (2013). Government quality, egalitarianism, and attitudes to taxes and social spending: A European comparison. European Political Science Review, 5, 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64, 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Swaroop, V., & Rajkumar, A. S. (2002). Public spending and outcome: Does governance matter? Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Teorell, J., Dahlberg, S., Holmberg, S., Rothstein, B., Khomenko, A., & Svensson, R. (2017). The quality of government standard dataset, version Jan17. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute.,
  24. Torgler, B., & Valev, N. T. (2006). Corruption and age. Journal of Bioeconomics, 8(2), 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Treisman, D. (2007). What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research? Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 211–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Watson, D., & Moreland, A. (2014). Perceptions of corruption and the dynamics of women’s representation. Politics and Gender, 10, 392–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. World Bank. (2001). Engendering development. In Through gender equality in rights, resources and voice. A World Bank policy research report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helena Stensöta
    • 1
  • Lena Wängnerud
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations