The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Experimental Bribery Game
Open accessAbstract
Essential characteristics of corruption are (1) reciprocity relationships between bribers and public officials, (2) negative welfare effects, and (3) high penalties when discovered. We separate the influences of these factors in an experiment. In a two‐player game, reciprocation is economically inefficient through negative externalities. A control treatment without externalities is also conducted. In a third, so‐called sudden death treatment, corrupt pairs face a low probability of exclusion from the experiment without payment. The results show that reciprocity can establish bribery relationships, where negative externalities have no apparent effect. The penalty threat significantly reduces corruption, although discovery probabilities are typically underestimated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.1995.1027 · Cited by 5,548
Klitgaard, R. (2019) · doi:10.1525/9780520911185 · Cited by 1,423
Cited by
A controlled field experiment on corruption
Armantier, O., & Boly, A. (2011) · European Economic Review · doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2011.04.007 · Cited by 146
Letting the briber go free: An experiment on mitigating harassment bribes
Abbink, K., Dasgupta, U., Gangadharan, L., & Jain, T. (2014) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.12.012 · Cited by 132
Self-citationTransparency, wages, and the separation of powers: An experimental analysis of corruption
Azfar, O., & Nelson, W. R. (2007) · Public Choice · doi:10.1007/s11127-006-9101-5 · Cited by 113
Reward self-reporting to deter corruption: An experiment on mitigating collusive bribery
Abbink, K., & Wu, K. (2017) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2016.09.013 · Cited by 80
Self-citationPublic 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Abbink, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-10-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 428-454
- ISSN
- 1465-7341 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1513919838
- Cited by
- 430
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 23.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Experimental Bribery Game. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jleo/18.2.428
- The paper
- Abbink, K. (2002). An Experimental Bribery Game. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/18.2.428
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.