Propensities to engage in and punish corrupt behavior: Experimental evidence from Australia, India, Indonesia and Singapore

By Lisa A. Cameron, Ananish Chaudhuri, Nisvan Erkal, Lata Gangadharan. 2009

278 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Demography, Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d970bfe3f84663f4d7a456aee9f32de4a6090115

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Demography

In Safety Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Corruption as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Costa Rica (2015, unknown): “…gender (Dollar, Fisman, and Gatti 2001; Esarey and Chirillo 2013; Sung 2003; Swamy et al. 2001), age (Torgler and Valev 2010), cultural attitudes (Cameron et al. 2009; Fisman and Miguel 2007), and partisan preferences (Anderson and Tverdova 2003; Anduiza, Gallego, and Muñoz 2013) all fit within…”
The Promise and Success of Lab-Field Generalizability in Experimental Economics: A Critical Reply to Levitt and List (2011, background): “• Results of corruption experiments conducted in Australia, India, Indonesia, Singapore do not strongly correlate with national corruption indices [Cameron et al., 2009].”
Subject pool effects in a corruption experiment: A comparison of Indonesian public servants and Indonesian students (2009, methodology): “A comparison of student attitudes across time or countries can reveal the extent of the mood for change (Cameron et al., 2006).”
LEGAL CORRUPTION: LEGAL CORRUPTION (2011, unknown): “Alatas et al. (2009), Barr et al. (2009), and Cameron et al. (2009) provide comparative studies of similar bribery games for different country and occupation samples.”
Dishonesty and Selection into Public Service: Evidence from India (2017, background): “…may not be capturing people’s actual 4 See Abbink, Irlenbusch, and Renner (2002); Abbink and Hennig-Schmidt (2006); Barr and Serra (2009); and Cameron et al. (2009) for additional examples of explicit laboratory games of corruption. preferences for dishonesty and that less explicitly framed…”
Corruption and culture: An Experimental Analysis (2010, background): “Alternatively, we could have followed Cameron et al. (2009) and had each act of bribery affect only one, distinct ‘other members of society’.”
A controlled field experiment on corruption (2011, background): “1% in Cameron et al. (2009) in an environment with negative externalities and possible punishment.”
Letting the Briber Go Free: An Experiment on Mitigating Harassment Bribes (2013, unknown): “There has also been research on the impact of framing, subject background and culture on behavior in the context of corruption (Abbink and Hennig-Schmidt 2006; Alatas et al. 2009; Barr and Serra 2009; Cameron et al. 2009; Banuri, Eckel, and Wilson 2011).”
Pocketbook vs. Sociotropic Corruption Voting (2014, background): “For evidence from laboratory experiments to the contrary – that corruption perception may influence bribe-giving and bribe-taking – see Cameron et al. (2009) and Drugov, Hamman & Serra (2011).”
The effects of externalities and framing on bribery in a petty corruption experiment (2009, background): “Alternatively, we could have followed Cameron et al. (2009) and had each act of bribery affect only one, distinct ‘other members of society’.”
Gender, Culture, and Corruption: Insights from an Experimental Analysis (2008, background): “We discuss the treatment effects in detail in Cameron et al. (2006). Since the focus of the current paper is gender”