arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Chapter 3 Experiments in Culture and Corruption: A Review

Sheheryar Banuri & Catherine C. Eckel

Research in Experimental Economics2012https://doi.org/10.1108/s0193-2306(2012)0000015005review
ABDC B
Weight
0.72

What the paper says

Lab studies on culture and corruption have led to some puzzling, contradictory results. This chapter begins with a discussion of nonexperimental work in this area and evaluates the experimental findings in the context of earlier research. We sketch out the channels through which culture interacts with corruption (i.e., through institutions and social norms) and argue that discrepancies in experimental results may be due to differences in design (including repetition or unobserved variation in beliefs) or due to differences in the response to punishment across societies. In addition to exploring design-based reasons for previous contradictory findings, avenues for future research include: behavioral responses to different types of externalities; replicating results in different countries; and utilizing the lab to formulate effective anticorruption measures.

41 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/s0193-2306(2012)0000015005

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{sheheryar2012,
  title        = {{Chapter 3 Experiments in Culture and Corruption: A Review}},
  author       = {Sheheryar Banuri & Catherine C. Eckel},
  journal      = {Research in Experimental Economics},
  year         = {2012},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/s0193-2306(2012)0000015005},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Chapter 3 Experiments in Culture and Corruption: A Review

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.72

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact1.00 × 0.4 = 0.40
M · momentum0.66 × 0.15 = 0.10
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.