The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why Anticorruption Reforms Fail—Systemic Corruption as a Collective Action Problem
Abstract
With an increased awareness of the detrimental effects of corruption on development, strategies to fight it are now a top priority in policy circles. Yet, in countries ridden with systemic corruption, few successes have resulted from the investment. On the basis of an interview study conducted in Kenya and Uganda—two arguably typically thoroughly corrupt countries—we argue that part of an explanation to why anticorruption reforms in countries plagued by widespread corruption fail is that they are based on a theoretical mischaracterization of the problem of systemic corruption. More specifically, the analysis reveals that while contemporary anticorruption reforms are based on a conceptualization of corruption as a principal–agent problem, in thoroughly corrupt settings, corruption rather resembles a collective action problem. This, in turn, leads to a breakdown of any anticorruption reform that builds on the principal–agent framework, taking the existence of noncorruptible so‐called principals for granted.
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
Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance
North, D. C. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808678 · Cited by 32,691
The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.91.5.1369 · Cited by 8,517
Klitgaard, R. (2019) · doi:10.1525/9780520911185 · Cited by 1,423
Cited by
Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say?
Fox, J. A. (2015) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.011 · Cited by 803
Rothstein, B. (2015) · Governance · doi:10.1111/gove.12128 · Cited by 132
Self-citationRethinking Corruption: Hocus-Pocus, Locus and Focus
Heywood, P. M. (2017) · The Slavonic and East European Review · doi:10.5699/slaveasteurorev2.95.1.0021 · Cited by 111
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
“Several authors consider the predominance of the economic theories for explaining corruption as the leading cause of the failure of anti ‐ corruption policies (Marquette & Pfeiffer, 2015; Persson et al., 2013; UNDP, 2015; Johnsøn 2012).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J.
- Venue
- Governance
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-09-07
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 449-471
- ISSN
- 0952-1895 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-0491
- OpenAlex
- W1833743236
- Cited by
- 877
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 104.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Why Anticorruption Reforms Fail—Systemic Corruption as a Collective Action Problem. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2012.01604.x
- The paper
- Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2013). Why Anticorruption Reforms Fail—Systemic Corruption as a Collective Action Problem. Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2012.01604.x
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.