Corruption and Female Representation in the Bureaucracy

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

Abstract

Although in mainstream discussion bureaucratic quality is considered a major factor in curbing corruption, the relationship between corruption and women in the administration has been less well studied. This chapter discusses how institutional theory can be used to make sense of how the relationship between gender and corruption varies between contexts, and suggests that a suppressing logic within bureaucracy limits the impact of gender on corruption, whereas an enforcing logic of the legislature enhances it. This idea comprehends gender as “raw material” to institutions, rather than created by them. However, the discretion used within frontline bureaucracy suggests that gender may matter more on this level. The chapter outlines how the qualities of the raw material are mediated by institutional logics to affect corruption.

References

  1. Agerberg, M., Gustavsson, M., Sundström, A., & Wängnerud, L. (2018). Gender aspects of government auditing. In H. Stensöta & L. Wängnerud (Eds.), Gender and corruption. Historical roots and new avenues for research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Alhassan-Alolo, N. (2007). Gender and corruption: Testing the new consensus. Public Administration and Development, 27, 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, T. D., Beaulieu, E., & Saxton, G. W. (2017). Restoring trust in the police: Why female officers reduce suspicions of corruption. Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12281. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
  4. Coverdale, H. B. (2014). Punishing with care: Treating offenders as equal persons in criminal punishment. London: Department of Law, London School of Economics & Political Science.Google Scholar
  5. Dollar, D., Fishman, R., & Gatti, R. (2001). Are women really the fairer sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 26(4), 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. European Commission. (2005). Database on women and men in decision-making. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-decision-making/database/public-administration/national-administrations/index_en.htm. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
  7. Hankivsky, O. (2014). Rethinking care ethics: On the promise and potential of an intersectional analysis. American Political Science Review, 108(2), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000094.
  8. Krook, M. L., & Mackay, F. (2011). Gender, politics and institutions: Towards a feminist institutionalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Manin, B. (2007). The principles of representative government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. March, J., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Meyers, M. K., & Lehman Nielsen, V. (2012). Street-level bureaucrats and the implementation of public policy. In J. Pierre & B. G. Peters (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public administration (pp. 305–318). London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Østergaard, M. M., & Stensöta, H. O. (2017). Welfare state regimes and caseworkers’ problem explanation. Administration & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399717700224. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
  15. Peters, B. G. (2008). The Napoleonic tradition. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(2), 118–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G., & Lavena C. F. (2014). Representative bureaucracy in policing: Does it increase perceived legitimacy? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 537–551. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu006.
  17. Rothstein, B., & Holmberg, S. (2012). Good government. The relevance of political science. Cheltenham: Edward Edgar.Google Scholar
  18. Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance, 21, 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00391.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sevenhuijsen, S. (1998). Citizenship and the ethics of care: Feminist considerations on justice, morality and care. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stensöta, H. (2018). Final thoughts: Taking stock and reflections on ways forward. In H. Stensöta & L. Wängnerud (Eds.), Gender and corruption. Historical roots and new avenues for research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Stensöta, H. O. (2004). Den empatiska staten: Jämställdhetens inverkan på daghem och Polis 1950–2000 [The empathetic state: The impact of equality on child care and law enforcement in Sweden, 1950–2000]. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  22. Stensöta, H. O. (2015). Public ethics of care: A general public ethics. Ethics and Social Welfare, 9(2), 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stensöta, H. O. (2017, April). Accounting for convergence and persisting differences along gender: Actors and institutions in extra political and intra political institutions. Paper presented at the conference Gender, Institutions and Change: Feminist Institutionalism after 10 Years, Manchester.Google Scholar
  24. Stensöta, H. O., Wängnerud, L., & Svensson, R. (2015). Gender and corruption: The mediating power of institutional logics. Governance, 28, 475–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sung, H.-E. (2003). Fairer sex of fairer system? Gender and corruption revisited. Social Forces, 82(2), 703–723.Google Scholar
  26. Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64(1), 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Teorell, J., Samanni, M., Holmberg, S., & Rothstein, B. (2011). The quality of government dataset, version 6 April 2011. Gothenburg: University of The Quality of Government Institute. http://www.qog.pol.gu.se. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
  28. Thomson, J. (2017). Resisting gendered change: Feminist institutionalism and critical actors. International Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512116677844.
  29. Tronto, J. C. (1994). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Wagner, N., Rieger, M., Bedi, A., & Hout. W. (2016). Are women better police officers? Evidence from a survey experiment in Uganda. Working paper no. 615. The Hague, Netherlands: International Institute of Social Studies.Google Scholar
  31. Watson, K., & Close, E. (2016, November 24). 100 women 2016: Are Mexican women less corrupt than men? BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38077422. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
  32. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  33. Wilkins, V. M. (2007). Exploring the causal story: Gender, active representation, and bureaucratic priorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Young, I. M. (2002). Lived body vs gender: Reflections on social structure and subjectivity. Ratio, 15(4), 410–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations