Focusing on Masculinity and Male-Dominated Networks in Corruption

  • Elin Bjarnegård
Chapter
Part of the Political Corruption and Governance book series (PCG)

Abstract

Bjarnegård’s chapter argues for the need to bring the role of masculinity to the fore in future studies of gender and corruption. Hitherto, most research has focused on the role of women and the values they may bring to positions of power. This chapter turns the question around and problematizes the role of male-dominated networks. The core of the argument is that corruption indicates the presence of shadowy arrangements that benefit the already privileged, which in most countries tend to be men. Based on data from Thailand, it reveals how women are locked out of positions of power, since they are not trusted as partners in the network of sensitive exchanges.

References

  1. Barnes, T. D., & Beaulieu, E. (2014). Gender stereotypes and corruption: How candidates affect perceptions of election fraud. Politics & Gender, 10, 365–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, L. J. (2003). Democratization and the hidden public: The impact of patronage networks on Senegalese women. Comparative Politics, 35, 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergqvist, C., Bjarnegård, E., & Zetterberg, P. (2016). The gendered leeway: Male privilege, internal and external mandates, and gender-equality policy change. Politics, Groups, and Identities.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2016.1229627.
  4. Bjarnegård, E. (2013). Gender, informal institutions and political recruitment: Explaining male dominance in parliamentary representation. Houndmills/Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjarnegård, E., & Kenny, M. (2016). Comparing candidate selection: A feminist institutionalist approach. Government and Opposition, 51(3), 370–392.  https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2016.4.
  6. Bjarnegård, E., & Melander, E. (2011). Disentangling gender, peace and democratization: The negative effects of militarized masculinity. Journal of Gender Studies, 20(2), 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bjarnegård, E., & Melander, E. (2014). Revisiting representation: Communism, women in politics, and the decline of armed conflict in East Asia. International Interactions, 39(4), 558–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bjarnegård, E., & Melander, E. (2017). Pacific men: How attitudes to gender equality explain hostility. Pacific Review. (Forthcoming in a printed issue).Google Scholar
  9. Bjarnegård, E., & Zetterberg, P. (2016). Political parties and gender quota implementation. The role of bureaucratized candidate selection procedures. Comparative Politics, 48, 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callahan, W. A. (2005). Social capital and corruption: Vote buying and the politics of reform in Thailand. Perspectives on Politics, 3(03), 20050926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chappell, L. (2006). Comparing political institutions: Revealing the gendered “logic of appropriateness”. Politics & Gender, 2, 223–235.Google Scholar
  12. Childs, S., & Krook, M. L. (2008). Critical mass theory and women’s political representation. Political Studies, 56, 725–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dollar, D., Fisman, R., & Gatti, R. (2001). Are women really the “fairer” sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 26, 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duerst-Lahti, G. (2008). Gender ideology: Masculinism and feminalism. In G. GOERTZ & A. Mazur (Eds.), Politics, gender, and concepts: Theory and methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Epstein, C. F. (1981). Women and power: The roles of women in politics in the United States. In C. F. Epstein & R. L. Coser (Eds.), Access to power: Cross-National Studies of women and elites. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  16. Esarey, J., & Chirillo, G. (2013). “Fairer sex” or purity myth? Corruption, gender, and institutional context. Politics & Gender, 9, 361–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Esarey, J., & Schwindt-Bayer, L. (2017). Women’s representation, accountability and corruption in democracies. British Journal of Political Science. Online first.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000478.
  18. Fallon, K. M., Swiss, L., & Viterna, J. (2012). Resolving the democracy paradox: Democratization and women’s legislative representation in developing nations, 1975 to 2009. American Sociological Review, 77(3), 380–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freidenberg, F., & Levitsky, S. (2006). Informal institutions and party organization in Latin America. In G. Helmke & S. Levitsky (Eds.), Informal institutions and democracy. Lessons from Latin America. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gallagher, M., & Marsh, M. (Eds.). (1988). Candidate selection in comparative perspective: The secret garden of politics. London/Newbury Park/Beverly Hills/New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Goetz, A. M. (2007). Political cleaners: Women as the new anti-corruption force. Development and Change, 38, 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hassim, S., & Goetz, A. M. (2003). No shortcuts to power. African women in politics and policy making. London/New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  23. Hazan, R. Y. (2001). Candidate selection methods: An analytical framework. Party Politics, 7, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2004). Informal institutions and comparative politics: A research agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2, 725–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2006). Informal institutions and democracy. Lessons from Latin America. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hung-En Sung. (2012). Women in government, public corruption, and liberal democracy: A panel analysis. Crime, Law and Social Change, 58(3), 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hydén, G. (2006). African politics in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 422–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  30. Kenny, M. (2007). Gender, institutions and power: A critical review. Politics & Gender, 27, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krook, M. L., & Mackay, F. (Eds.). (2011). Gender, politics, and institutions: Towards a feminist institutionalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Lauth, H.-J. (2000). Informal institutions and democracy. Democratization, 7, 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lipman-Blumen, J. (1976). Toward a homosocial theory of sex roles: An explanation of the sex segregation of social institutions. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mackay, F., & Waylen, G. (2009). Feminist institutionalism. Politics & Gender, 5, 237–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MCCargo, D. (2002). Democracy under stress in Thaksin’s Thailand. Journal of Democracy, 13, 112–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nelson, M. H. (2005). Analyzing provincial political structures in Thailand: phuak, traukun, and hua khanaen. In S. Frost (Ed.), SEARC working paper series. Hong Kong: The Southeast Asia Research Centre (SEARC) of the City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  37. Norris, P. (1996). Legislative recruitment. In L. LEDUC, R. G. NIEMI, & P. NORRIS (Eds.), Comparing democracies: Elections and voting in global perspective. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Pennings, P., & Hazan, R. Y. (2001). Democratizing candidate selection: Causes and consequences. Party Politics, 7, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Piattoni, S. (Ed.). (2001). Clientelism, interests, and democratic representation: The European experience in historical and comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Radnitz, S. (2011). Informal politics and the state. Comparative Politics, 43, 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stensöta, H., Wängnerud, L., & Svensson, R. (2015). Gender and corruption: The mediating power of institutional logics. Governance, 28, 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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, 693–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Sung, H.-E. (2003). Fairer sex or fairer system? Gender and corruption revisited. Social Forces, 82, 703–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64, 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Szwarcberg, M. (2012). Revisiting clientelism. A network analysis of problem-solving networks in Argentina. Social Networks, 34(2), 230–240.Google Scholar
  47. Tripp, A. (2001). Women’s movements and challenges to neopatrimonial rule: Preliminary observations from Africa. Development and Change, 32, 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. UNDP. (2006). Women’s right to a political voice in Thailand. Millenium development goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women. Bangkok: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Women’s Democratic Development Foundation.Google Scholar
  49. World Bank. (2001). Engendering development: Through gender equality in rights, resources, and voice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elin Bjarnegård
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GovernmentUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations