Final Thoughts: Taking Stock and Reflections on Ways Forward
This final chapter deepens how the two main contributions of the volume, the importance of gender equality and the usefulness of institutional theory, may forward our understanding of the link between gender and corruption, and exemplifies these points with the help of the preceding chapters. Beyond these conclusions, it further reflects on notions of individual-level mechanisms and calls for increased carefulness in transferring ideas of mechanisms from one context or problem to another; possible pitfalls of this are highlighted. It is further proposed to distinguish broadly between “refraining from” and “actively protecting” as two equally valid mechanisms that may enhance good government. A final reflection on how gender and power is connected in the field ends the chapter.
- Alexander, A. C., & Ravlik, M. (2015, September). Responsiveness to women’s interests as a quality of government mechanism: A global analysis of women’s presence in national legislatures and anti-trafficking enforcement. Paper presented at the American political science association meeting, San Francisco.Google Scholar
- Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Esarey, J., & Schwindt-Bayer, L. (2017). Women’s representation, accountability and corruption in democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000478.
- Fraser, N. (2000). After the family wage: A postindustrial thought experiment. In B. Hobson (Ed.), Gender and citizenship in transition (pp. 1–33). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hernes, H. M. (1987). Welfare state and woman power: Essays in state feminism. Oslo: Oslo Norwegian Press.Google Scholar
- Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
- Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- Ledyard, J. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In J. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (pp. 111–194). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Persson, A., & Rothstein, B. (2011). Why big government is good government. Paper presented at the American political science association annual meeting. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1902612
- Schulze, G., & Frank, B. (2003). Deterrence versus intrinsic motivation: Experimental evidence on the determinants of corruptibility. Economics of Governance, 4, 143–160.Google Scholar
- Stack, C. B. (1997). Different voices, different visions: Gender, culture and moral reasoning. In M. BacaZinn, P. Hondagneu-Sotelo, & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Through the prism of difference: Readings on sex and gender (pp. 42–48). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Stensöta, H. (2004). Den empatiska staten. Daghemspolitik och polispolitik 1950–2000 [The empathetic state. Childcare and law enforcement policy 1950–2000]. Doctoral dissertation. Gothenburg studies in political science no 80. Livrena (p. 250).Google Scholar