Here’s an interesting paper by Weitz-Shapiro and Winters (2014) on the role of education in political control of corruption, which should be of interest to those working in the open government/transparency domains.
When are citizens most likely to hold politicians to account for wrongdoing? In a crowded information environment, political accountability can be achieved only if credible information is available and citizens are able to identify that information. In this paper, we argue that the ability to discern more from less credible information is increasing in citizen sophistication. Using data from an original survey experiment in Brazil, we show that all citizens react negatively to corruption allegations, but that highly educated respondents are more likely to punish credible accusations and to overlook less credible accusations. We then show, using municipal-level audit data, that voters are more likely to punish credible accusations of corruption in municipalities with high literacy rates. Our findings suggest a novel mechanism that may link increasing education with control of political corruption: educated citizens are better able to discern and therefore act on credible accusations.
And, from the conclusion, an important message on the credibility of institutions:
Our findings have interesting implications for our understanding of the relationship between education and political accountability. They suggest a new mechanism through which high educational attainment might decrease corruption—not through changes in preferences that may be associated with different education levels, but rather because more educated individuals are better able to discern more from less credible information and therefore are more likely to act on the former. These results should be heartening to governments, like Brazil’s, that have invested in the creation of reputable independent auditing and control units. As long as these agencies are able to maintain their reputation for high quality, we should expect their influence to grow as the population becomes increasingly educated.
Finally, I couldn’t help but notice that, indirectly, this paper is a good reminder of the validity of the principal-agent model of accountability. Even though it is now fashionable to criticize the model, despite its limitations, it is far from obsolete.
You can download the full paper here [PDF].
Thanks for sharing this Tiago. It sheds some light on the role that elections can play, even in fragile or weak democratic systems, in a broader ecosystem of accountability actors, institutions and mechanisms, given the right conditions. I don’t know if the author has published any articles from it yet, but there was an interesting PhD dissertation that came out a few years ago looking at some similar issues in the Guatemalan context. It may be worth a quick read: http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/dissertationen/speer-johanna-2011-08-18/PDF/speer.pdf
Thanks Brendan. I really like this work, and highlights the relationship / complementarity between electoral and participatory institutions. From a methodological point of view, I am a fan of QCAs.
Pingback: Studying the Politics of Accountability | Politics, Governance and Development