Analysis of the relationship between government’s anti-corruption programs and bribe-giving behavior at the individual level in Indonesia

Main Article Content

Agustinus Cahyo Wibowo
Khoirunurrofik Khoirunurrofik

Abstract

Research on corruption in Indonesia has primarily focused on institutional corruption, while individual-level bribery remains underexplored. This study analyzes data from the 2020–2021 Anti-Corruption Behavior Survey (SPAK) and other surveys by Statistics Indonesia (BPS) to examine the relationship between the government’s anti-corruption programs and the possibility of individuals in Indonesia engaging in bribery to access public services. The study explores how the programs interact with community perceptions and individual characteristics such as education, gender, marital status, and living area characteristics like Information and Communication Technology (ICT) development and Gross Regional Domestic Product (GRDP). Findings indicate that the anti-corruption program implemented by the government is still limited to community groups with a high chance of committing bribery. Negative interactions are observed between government’s programs and perceptions of anti-corruption in family and public spheres, suggesting that incorporating community perceptions into anti-corruption programs can reduce bribery through rational choice and social norms. It was also found that people with lower education levels, male gender, married status, and living in areas with high ICT development and areas with high GRDP tend to bribe more. At a certain point, increasing age will reduce the chances of bribery. The government should design and implement anti-corruption programs that account for individual and regional characteristics, utilizing both direct and indirect media channels to enhance public perception of anti-corruption and reduce bribe-giving behavior.

Article Details

How to Cite
Wibowo, A. C., & Khoirunurrofik, K. (2024). Analysis of the relationship between government’s anti-corruption programs and bribe-giving behavior at the individual level in Indonesia. Integritas : Jurnal Antikorupsi, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.32697/integritas.v10i2.1256
Section
Articles
Author Biographies

Agustinus Cahyo Wibowo, Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi

Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, Indonesia

Khoirunurrofik Khoirunurrofik, Universitas Indonesia

Institute for Economic and Social Research, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia

References

Adam, I., & Fazekas, M. (2021). Are emerging technologies helping win the fight against corruption? A review of the state of evidence. Information Economics and Policy, 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2021.100950

Asorwoe, E., & Klutse, C. M. (2016). Corruption and Unethical Behavior in Public Sector Organizations: A Specific Test of Social Learning Theory. International Journal of Management and Economics Invention. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijmei/v2i1.04

Banuri, S., & Eckel, C. (2012). Experiments in culture and corruption: A Review. Research in Experimental Economics, 15(1), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0193-2306(2012)0000015005

Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach, Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press.

Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Clarendon Press, Oxford. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00077240

Carson, L. D. (2014). Deterring Corruption: Beyond Rational Choice Theory. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2520280

Dimant, E., & Schulte, T. (2016). The Nature of Corruption: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. German Law Journal, 17(1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200019684

Dong, B., Dulleck, U., & Torgler, B. (2012). Conditional corruption. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(3), 609–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.12.001

Dong, B., Dulleck, U.Torgler, B., eds. (2009). Social Norms and Corruption - Proceedings of the European Economic Association and the Econometric Society Europe Meeting. Barcelona Graduate School of Economics, Catalonia, Spain.

Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior the effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20 (3), 393-398

Gorsira, M., Denkers, A., & Huisman, W. (2016). Both sides of the coin - Motives for corruption among public officials and business employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 179–194

Hunady, J. (2017). Individual and institutional determinants of corruption in the EU countries: the problem of its tolerance. Economia Politica, 34(1), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-017-0056-4

Ivlevs, A., & Hinks, T. (2015). Global economic crisis and corruption. Public Choice, 162(3-4), 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-014-0213-z

Juraev, J. (2018). Rational choice theory and demand for petty corruption. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.15549/jeecar.v5i2.219

Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad Apples, Bad Cases, and Bad Barrels: Meta-Analytic Evidence About Sources of Unethical Decisions at Work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017103

Kunduroglu, T., & Babadogan, C. (2010). The effectiveness of ‘values education’ program integrated with the 4th grade science and technology instructional program. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1287-1292.

Kӧbis, N.C., van Prooijen, J., Righetti, F., & Van Lange, P. (2015). “Who Doesn’t?”-The Impact of Descriptive Norms on Corruption. Plos One [online]. 10 (6), pp.e0131830

Lan, T., & Hong, Y. Y. (2017). Norm, gender, and bribe-giving: Insights from a behavioral game. PLoS ONE, 12(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189995

Lavallée, E., Razafindrakoto, M., & Roubaud, F. (2008). Corruption and trust in political institutions in sub-Saharan Africa. Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis.

Lee, W. S., & Guven, C. (2013). Engaging in corruption: The influence of cultural values and contagion effects at the microlevel. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.09.006

Liu, Q., & Peng, Y. (2015). Determinants of willingness to bribe: Micro evidence from the educational sector in China. Jahrbucher Fur Nationalokonomie Und Statistik, 235(2), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.1515/jbnst-2015-0205

Lindner, S. (2014). Literature Review on Social Norms and Corruption. U4 Epert Answer. https://www.u4.no/publications/literature-review-on-social-norms-and-corruption

Lovat, T., Clement, N., Dally, K., & Toomey, R. (2011). The impact of values education on school ambience and academic diligence. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 166-170.

Maeda, K., & Ziegfeld, A. (2015). Socioeconomic status and corruption perceptions around the world. Research and Politics, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015580838

Mangafić, J., & Veselinović, L. (2020). The determinants of corruption at the individual level: evidence from Bosnia-Herzegovina. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja , 33(1), 2670–2691. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2020.1723426

Marien, S., & Hooghe, M. (2011). Does political trust matter? An empirical investigation into the relation between political trust and support for law compliance. European Journal of Political Research, 50(2), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01930.x

Mocan, N. (2008). What determines corruption? International evidence from microdata. Economic Inquiry, 46(4), 493–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2007.00107.x

OECD (2008). Corruption: A Glossary of International Standards in Criminal Law. OECD Publishing. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264027411-en

Ombudsman. (2022). Laporan Tahun 2021: Mengawasi Kepatuhan dan Kesigapan Penyelenggara Pelayanan Publik dalam Menghadapi Ketidakpastian. https://ombudsman.go.id/produk/lihat/673/SUB_LT_5a1ea951d55c4_file_20220401_110804.pdf

Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2013). Why anti-corruption reforms fail––systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance, 26(3), 449–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2012.01604.x

Rose-Ackerman, S. (2010). The law and economics of bribery and extortion. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6, 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102209-152942

Schmidt, C.D., McAdams, C.R., & Foster, V. (2009). Promoting the moral reasoning of undergraduate business students through a deliberate psychological education-based classroom intervention. Journal of Moral Education. 38(3), 315-334.

Silver, E., & Abell, L. (2016). Beyond Harm and Fairness: A Study of Deviance and Morality. Deviant Behavior, 37(5), 496–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1060746

Sööt, M. L., & Rootalu, K. (2012). Institutional trust and opinions of corruption. Public Administration and Development, 32(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.616

Tanner, C., Linder, S., & Sohn, M. (2022). Does moral commitment predict resistance to corruption? experimental evidence from a bribery game. PLoS One, 17(1)https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262201

Tavits, M. (2010). Why do people engage in corruption? The case of Estonia. Social Forces, 88(3), 1257–1279. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0288