Symmetric vs. Asymmetric Punishment Regimes for Collusive Bribery
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Public sector reforms and their impact on the level of corruption: A systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as Engel et al., 2016
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).”
From Public sector reforms and their impact on the level of corruption: A systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as Engel et al., 2016
Cites
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 17,604 · see citing works
All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804 · Cited by 2,592 · see citing works
Deutsch, M. (1958) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/002200275800200401 · Cited by 2,077 · see citing works
Liberman, V., Samuels, S. M., & Ross, L. (2004) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167204264004 · Cited by 671 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Public sector reforms and their impact on the level of corruption: A systematic review
Mugellini, G., Della Bella, S., Colagrossi, M., Isenring, G. L., & Killias, M. (2021) · Campbell Systematic Reviews: Better Evidence for a Better World · doi:10.1002/cl2.1173 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
- Authors
- Engel, C., Goerg, S. J., & Yu, G.
- Venue
- American Law and Economics Review
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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