Cited by 31Corruption and Economic DevelopmentExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems

Symmetric vs. Asymmetric Punishment Regimes for Collusive Bribery

Engel, Christoph, Goerg, Sebastian J., Yu, Gaoneng·2016·American Law and Economics Review

Abstract

In major legal orders such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and France, bribers and recipients face equally severe criminal sanctions. In contrast, countries like China, Russia, and Japan treat the briber more mildly. Asymmetric punishment has been shown to help deter harassment bribery. However, we conjecture that asymmetry is ineffective when applied to collusive bribes. Instead of deterring bribes, asymmetry might enable the briber to enforce the corrupt deal. To test this hypothesis, we design and run a lab experiment in Bonn (Germany) and Shanghai (China) with exactly the same design. The results show that, in both countries, with symmetric punishment bribers are less likely to report to the authorities. Officials are less likely to grant the favor. In Shanghai, corrupt offers are then also less likely. If we frame the experiment as collusive corruption, effects are less pronounced, but we can replicate all of them.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/aler/ahw005

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Five studies test policies guaranteeing impunity to officials or citizens who report corrupt practices on collusive bribery and extortionary bribery.

    “Five studies test the effect of policies guaranteeing impunity to officials or citizens who report corrupt practices (principal witness/leniency treatment/asymmetric liability) on collusive bribery (Abbink & Wu, 2017; Bigoni et al., 2015; Engel et al., 2016; Christofl et al. 2017; Buckenmaier et al., 2018), and extortionary bribery (Abbink et al., 2014).”
  • Leniency can worsen the situation by increasing the probability of bribery.

    “In another case, leniency even worsens the situation by increasing the probability of bribery (Engel et al., 2016).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Engel, C., Goerg, S. J., & Yu, G.
Venue
American Law and Economics Review
Published
2016-07-17
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
506-556
ISSN
  • 1465-7252 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-7260
OpenAlex
W2347113504
Cited by
31
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Law and Economics Review (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Corruption and Economic Development
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Keywords
corruption, reporting to authorities, cross-national comparison, China, Shanghai, United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Japan

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review