Analysis of the relationship between government’s anti-corruption programs and bribe-giving behavior at the individual level in Indonesia
Main Article Content
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
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
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
Airaksinen, J., Aaltonen, M., Tarkiainen, L. et al. (2023). Associations between cohabitation, marriage, and suspected crime: a longitudinal within-individual study. J Dev Life Course Criminology 9, 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-022-00219-6
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
Bun, M.J.G., Kelaher, R., Sarafidis, V. et al. Crime, deterrence and punishment revisited. Empir Econ 59, 2303–2333 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-019-01758-6
Carson, L. D. (2014). Deterring corruption: beyond rational choice theory. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2520280
Chen, C., Pinar, M., & Stengos, T. (2024). Bribery, regulation and firm performance: evidence from a threshold model. Empirical Economics, 66(1), 405–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-023-02456-0
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
Ehrlich, I. (2018). Deterrence (Theory), Economics of. In: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2618
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
Grigoryeva, M.S., Matsueda, R.L. (2014). Rational choice, deterrence, and crime: sociological contributions. In: Bruinsma, G., Weisburd, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_410
Hoffmann, L. K., & Patel, R. N. (2023). Petty bribery, pluralistic ignorance, and the collective action problem. Data and Policy, 5. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2023.19
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
Joshi, G. R., & Dangal, R. (2023). Determinants of bribery and corruption in public service delivery: A case study in Nepal. Journal of Management Studies and Development, 2(03), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.56741/jmsd.v2i03.392
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
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
Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi. (2022). Menebar benih antikorupsi: laporan tahunan KPK 2022. https://www.kpk.go.id/images/Laporan_Tahunan_KPK_2022.pdf
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
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
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
McGee, R.W. (2023). The ethics of bribery: an introduction. In: McGee, R.W., Benk, S. (eds) The Ethics of Bribery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17707-1_1
Miceli, T.J. (2019). The social cost of crime: Deterrence. In: The Paradox of Punishment. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31695-2_2
Munro, C., & Kirya, M. (2020). Values education for public integrity. Bergen: U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, Chr. Michelsen Institute (U4 Issue 2020: 8). beta.u4.no. Retrieved from https://beta.u4.no/publications/values-education-for-public-integrity.pdf
Naher, N., Hoque, R., Hassan, M.S. et al. The influence of corruption and governance in the delivery of frontline health care services in the public sector: a scoping review of current and future prospects in low and middle-income countries of South and South-East Asia. BMC Public Health 20, 880 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08975-0
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
Poertner, M., & Zhang, N. (2024). The effects of combating corruption on institutional trust and political engagement: Evidence from Latin America. Political Science Research and Methods, 12(3), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2023.4
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
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
Transparency International. (2022). Corruption perceptions index 2021. Transparency International. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021
Tu, W. (2023). Trust and corruption: how different forms of trust interact with formal institutions. Global Public Policy and Governance, 3(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-023-00061-6
World Bank. (2021). Indonesia economic prospects (boosting the recovery). World Bank Group, (Juni), 65. https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/379141623773793892/Indonesia-Economic-Prospects-June-2021
Xiao, H., Gong, T., Yu, C., Juang, W. J., & Yuan, B. (2020). Citizens’ confidence in government control of corruption: An empirical analysis. Social Indicators Research, 152(3), 877–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02456-y
Yan, Y., & Qi, S. (2021). I know what i need: Optimization of bribery. Journal of Business Ethics, 174(2), 311–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04608-z