Power and Party: Explaining the Gender Gap in Elites’ Perceptions of Corruption

• In Event: Conceptualizing Sexual Corruption and Sextortion

Abstract

Research shows a consistent link between the higher presence of women in elected office and lower levels of corruption. Considerable debate exists about the mechanisms shaping this relationship, however. One set of explanations points to gender differences in men’s and women’s underlying attitudes about corruption: if women legislators prioritize combatting corruption more than men legislators, then their greater numbers should draw more policy attention to anti-corruption measures.

Our study tests whether women legislators in fact care about corruption more than their male peers. Drawing on elite survey data from elected legislators in 15 Latin American countries, we find that women legislators do indeed identify corruption as an important problem more than men legislators. A significant gender gap in corruption perceptions exists across all countries, which persists even after controlling for countries’ actual level of corruption.

We then shift to exploring why women legislators might more frequently name corruption as problematic, no matter the objective reality. Recent work frames corruption perceptions as stemming from motivated reasoning, in that certain legislators receive material benefits from being seen as anti-corruption warriors. We build on this work, arguing that this motivated reasoning is gendered. We theorize that women more than men have two potential reasons to perceive corruption as problematic: (1) because they benefit less from elite corruption (the power marginalization hypothesis) and (2) because corruption disproportionately harms women as citizens (the gender equality incentives hypothesis).

The power marginalization hypothesis focuses on women’s greater likelihood to be excluded from elite networks, meaning the “old boys’ clubs” that channel decision-making power with parties and parliaments. Since women—as newcomers and outsiders—are less frequently members of these networks, they have less access to corruption and fewer opportunities to benefit from it; they therefore have fewer reasons than men to protect corrupt practices. The gender equality incentives hypothesis contends that women benefit from an efficient and transparent state that protects women’s rights and delivers social protection. Since women depend on the state for protection and services, they more readily perceive corruption as problematic because it undermines state capacity.

Our survey questions ask legislators about their backgrounds and gender equality attitudes, allowing us to measure their political experience (a proxy for power marginalization) and the importance they place on state action in support of gender equality (a proxy for gender equality incentives). We find that the gender gap in corruption perceptions diminishes once we control for women’s outsider status: women legislators with more seniority who belong to the governing coalition hold similar corruption perceptions to men, whereas novice, opposition women perceive corruption more than novice, opposition men. These results lend support to the power marginalization hypothesis, suggesting that women legislators’ exclusion from insider networks makes them more critical of corruption relative to men legislators.

Authors

• Amy C. Alexander, Quality of Government Institute, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

• Asbel Bohigues, University of Valencia

• Jennifer M. Piscopo, Royal Holloway University of London