do demographic factors and knowledge on...
TRANSCRIPT
ATTITUDES TOWARD CORRUPTION:
DO DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND KNOWLEDGE ON CORRUPTION MATTER IN
INDONESIA? 1
I Wayan Nuka Lantara
Abstract
This survey study investigates the following issues: (1) to what extent is the level of
tolerance of Indonesian society towards various types of corruption; (2) to what extent is
the knowledge level of Indonesian society regarding types of corruption and its legal
consequences; and (3) do demographic factors and knowledge level of corruption
associated with tolerance level towards corruption?
This study distributes a total of 1,200 questionnaires to participants in Indonesia across
level of education (senior high school; undergraduate; and post graduate); across three
geographical areas of Indonesia (west, middle, and east). The response rate is 83.33%
(1,060 out of 1200).
Based on the geographical aspect, it is found that participants tend to have a lower
level of acceptance of corruption compare to those participants reside in middle or east
part of Indonesia. It is also found that in terms of knowledge about corruption and it legal
consequences, participants in the west part of Indonesia tend to yield a higher level of
knowledge compare with those participants who belongs to the middle and east part of
Indonesia.
The study also investigated the effect of the level of knowledge on and various
demographic factors (gender, age, education level, and income) towards the level of
tolerance on corrupt behavior. The results depict that level of knowledge on corruption
provide a significant negative effect on the level of acceptance of corrupt behavior. This
means that the higher the score participants' level of knowledge on various matters related
to corruption, the lower the level of their acceptance of corrupt behavior. The findings
also show that the level of education and income negatively associated with the level of
acceptance of corruption. The higher the level of education and income participants, the
lower the level of acceptance of participants for various acts of corruption.
Keywords: corruption; level of tolerance; education; Indonesia
1 This research is funded by the Konosuke Matsushita Memorial Foundation research grant 2014. I would like to gratitude Ralf Bebenroth of Kobe University for providing great suggestions during the completion of this research
report. I wish to thank also Arief Waluyo of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Veri Antoni of the
Faculty of Law, Gadjah Mada University Indonesia for their great support and feedback on the development of the
survey instruments. Ni Ketut Rai Kartini, Agus Sudariyanto, Erwin Prayoga, and Tanjung Yanugroho also provided
excellent research survey assistant for questionnaire distribution and enumeration.
ATTITUDES TOWARD CORRUPTION:
DO DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND KNOWLEDGE ON CORRUPTION MATTER IN
INDONESIA?2
I Wayan Nuka Lantara3
A. Introduction
Corruption is an old phenomenon, yet remains a big problem in almost all countries in the
world, including for the case of Indonesia. The Transparency International (2013) argues that
corruption is one of the greatest challenges of the contemporary world, which could undermine
good government, distorts public policy, leads to the miss-allocation of resources, harms the
private sector and particularly impairs the poor.
Corruption and economic development has a mutual relationship. Corruption obstructs
economics growth by reducing investment, diverting public resources, and increasing business
costs (Lambsdorff, 2003; Wei, 2000). Conversely, underdevelopment which is identical with
poor governance and law enforcement will be conducive to corruption (Rose-Ackerman, 2004;
Truex, 2010).
Some researchers have studied the determinants of corruption using cross-countries level
of analysis. Some among many factors which associated with the level of corruptions are:
exposure to democracy, political competition, level of education, level of development, and trade
openness (Montinola and Jackman, 2002; Treisman, 2000; Ades and Di Tella. 1999; and Shabbir
and Anwar, 2008).
2 This research is funded by the Konosuke Matsushita Memorial Foundation research grant 2014. I would like to
gratitude Ralf Bebenroth of Kobe University for providing great suggestions during the completion of this research report. I wish to thank also Arief Waluyo of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Veri Antoni of the
Faculty of Law, Gadjah Mada University Indonesia for their great support and feedback on the development of the
survey instruments. Ni Ketut Rai Kartini, Agus Sudariyanto, Erwin Prayoga, and Tanjung Yanugroho also provided
excellent research survey assistant for questionnaire distribution and enumeration. 3 Faculty of Economics and Business, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, e-mail: [email protected]
Indonesia is characterized by a developing country with a huge number of populations
(250 million people) and promising economic growth, but paradoxically is ranked as a country
with a high level of corruption among many ASEAN countries (Transparency International,
2013). The high level of corruption in Indonesia could mean that some Indonesian people tend to
be lenient towards corruption, although some others parts of community demonstrated an explicit
rejection towards corruption.
Anti-corruption movement in Indonesia is now struggling. On the one hand, the
establishment of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) since 2003 as an independent
and powerful agency in Indonesia shows promising results. In terms of justice efforts, there have
been many bureaucrats and or businesspersons convicted of corruption been tried and jailed.
However, on the other side, a report by Transparency International (2013) has consistently put
Indonesia on a much worse rank compared to other ASEAN countries (i.e. Singapore and
Malaysia). If the report holds true, it could mean that corruption remains the latent danger that
threatens people daily life in Indonesia. It should be admitted that nowadays corruption has
become even more widespread and exists at almost every level of bureaucracy system in
Indonesia (KPK, 2013).
Shleifer and Vishny (2004) and Truex (2011) argue that corruption in developing
countries can be best described as a ‘culture of corruption’, which is indicated by the existence
of social norms toward a certain level of corrupt behavior. As commonly found in particular
countries with high corruption level, the attitudes toward corruption behaviors in Indonesian
society could be hypothesized to be not consistent, where some parts of society actively fight
against corruption, while some others demonstrate a relatively high tolerance towards corruption.
However, empirical evidence on the attitudes of Indonesian society towards corruption seems to
be not existence.
This study purports to survey and provide policy recommendations for corruption
eradication program in Indonesia. Specifically, this study is concerned over the following issues:
(1) do the attitudes of society in Indonesia vary across types of corrupt behavior; (2) to what
extent is the level of knowledge of Indonesian society on types of corruption and its legal
consequences; and (3) do demographic factors (e.g: age, gender, level of education, regional
areas; and income) and level of knowledge on corruption determine an individual tolerance level
towards corruption in Indonesia?
This study is expected to be one of the first empirical evidence on the topic of attitudes
and the level of knowledge of Indonesian society towards corruption in Indonesia. In addition,
demographic factors determining the level of tolerance of corruption is expected to be useful for
policy makers to determine the best approach that can be used to educate the Indonesian public
in curbing corruption. The findings of this study is expected to contribute empirical evidence as
well as policy recommendation for policy makers in Indonesia on determining the best approach
that can be used to educate the Indonesian public in curbing corruption. As a developing country,
Indonesia needs to learn from the success stories of developed countries that proved successful
in balancing economic development and the eradication of corruption, such as Japan.
Most of the previous studies on the topic of corruption are more focused on the impact of
corruption on economic development and business activities (Wei, 2000; Lambsdorff, 2003;
Wedeman, 2004; and Olken, 2006). There have been only few studies conducted on the
phenomenon behind the occurrence of corruption, such as how is people's attitudes toward
various types of corrupt behavior, which could form the social norms that could stimulate a
more tolerant attitudes toward corruption, such as a study by Truex (2011) in Nepal.
The proposed benefit and results of this research are as follows, firstly, to provide
empirical evidence on the attitudes of Indonesian society towards various types of corrupt
behavior as well as the level of knowledge on corruption in Indonesia. The empirical findings
are expected to be useful for policy makers in determining the most effective approach in
educating the public in order to eradicate corruption in Indonesia. Secondly, to provide
empirical evidence about which demographic factors that most determine a person's attitude
towards corruption. The findings are expected to be the input for policy makers in Indonesia in
deciding which demographic factors they should focus on, in order to support the eradication of
corruption program in Indonesia. Lastly, the study is expected to perform a literature study to
learn the key to success in the eradication of corruption programs and the role of public
education by studying the case of developed countries that proved to be successful in fighting
corruption, especially from the case of Japan.
The next section of this paper provides a review of corruption in Indonesia and some
relevant literature and previous empirical studies. Section three describes the research method.
Section four discusses the analysis and discussion of the results of research. The last section
describes conclusions and suggestions.
B. Corruption in Indonesia
Corruption has a long tradition in Indonesia and is emblematic of the era of former
President Suharto (1965-1998). In his era, the political system is identical with the system of
crony capitalism, where Suharto and his cronies exerted direct control over most of the largest
firms in Indonesia (McLeod, 2000). These controlled firms received advantages granted by the
government and retransferred the rents to the cronies through various mechanisms, including free
grants of shares in a company, manipulated prices in contracts, big cash envelopes, high salary
positions, rights to exploit natural resources, and other privileges.
A survey study conducted by World Bank (2000) involved a sample of Southeast Asian
firms, including 100 Indonesian firms. The survey was aimed to determine the quality of the
investment climate and business environment in Southeast Asian countries. The result show that
out of the 100 Indonesian firms surveyed, more than two-thirds of them acknowledged high
taxes and bribe payment had been the major obstacle in running business in Indonesia.
In the case of Indonesia, corruption is likely to be related with a number of factors, such
as large amounts of public resources derived from natural resources, vested interests and
politically connected networks, poorly paid civil servants, low regulatory quality, and weak
judicial independence. In addition, local officials are given wide discretionary power and
resources without proper accountability and enforcement mechanisms (Martini, 2012).
Snape (1999) suggested that for the case of Indonesia, corruption can incorporate
collusion and nepotism in terms of the misuse of public office for private gain. However, a
difficulty in writing about corruption in Indonesia, as elsewhere, is that such misuses of office
are unlikely to be documented and much of the available information is therefore anecdotal.
Further evidence is supplied by an opinion poll of 1000 respondents carried out in February 1998
by the Centre for the Study of Development and Democracy in Jakarta, which found that 78% of
Indonesians polled were certain that bribery was still a necessity in dealings with government
offices.
Transparency International has now promoted campaign program called "unmask the
Corrupt". The goal of this program is to create transparency and expose acts of corruption that
had been veiled. Transparency International also warned, corruption is not only rob the rights of
the poor, but also create problems of governance and instability. In the new Indonesian
government by President Joko Widodo (elected in 2104), Indonesian government shows a strong
support for the Commission of Corruption Eradication (KPK) to fight against corruption, which
can be indicated by the increasing number of political figures involved in corruption were
processed in court and imprisoned.
C. Theoretical and Empirical Background
Topics on corruption have received increasing attention from the media and researchers.
Corruption can be commonly defined as the misuse of public or office power for the sake of
personal gain. Corruption can be in the form of bribery, coercion, kickback and other related
practices that provide an unfair advantage to the parties that could undermine fair-trade, waste
resources, defraud the public, and human suffering (Vogl, 1998; Quinones, 2000).
Previous empirical works demonstrated that corruption leads to unfair resource allocation
and profoundly impacts business investment and performance of organizations (Batra and Stone,
2008). Kelman (2000) suggested that corruption is problematic because people are denied
benefits they deserve, and the relationship between people and their government is harmed by
the practice of corruption when the government failed to serve its citizens in a proper way.
Many researchers have tried to investigate the determinant of corruption. Jain (2001)
stated that there are three fundamentals for corruption: (1) bureaucratic discretionary power, (2)
the association of this power with economic rents, and (3) deterrence as a function of the
probability of being caught and penalized. The first two preconditions can be considered as the
benefits of corruption, while the third factor is related to the cost of corruption (Becker, 1968).
Economic and social factors may also be the determinants of corruption. You and
Khagram (2005) argue that income inequality enables the group of richer society to abuse their
power for private gain and tend to promotes higher levels of corruption. However, Husted (1999),
on the other hand, failed to find such relationship between income inequality and corruption.
In terms of demographic factors as the determinant of corrupt behavior, Dollar et al.
(2001) concluded that countries with a larger participation of women in parliament or
government tend to have less corruption, and Swamy et al. (2001) provide empirical evidence
that women are less tolerant towards bribe behavior. Moreover, Paternoster and Simpson (1996)
argue that women may be more risk averse and hence perceive a larger probability of being
caught for being corrupt. Other demographic factors that possibly give impact to corrupt
behavior are income and level of education. Treisman (2007) and Gundlach and Paldam (2009)
argue that there is a long-run negative causation between income and corruption. Husted (1999)
provides empirical evidence that countries with higher GNP per capita tend to have a lower level
of corruption. Glaeser and Saks (2006) provide an empirical result that the higher the level of
education, the less likely the tendency to accept corrupt behavior.
D. Research Design
This survey study investigates the following issues: (1) to what extent is the level of
tolerance of Indonesian society towards various types of corruption; (2) to what extent is the
knowledge level of Indonesian society regarding types of corruption and its legal consequences;
and (3) do demographic factors and knowledge level of corruption associated with tolerance
level towards corruption?
The study was conducted by distributing questionnaires in order to obtain the scores of
intolerance towards corrupt behavior as well as the scores of knowledge of participants regarding
types of corruption and its legal consequences. In total, 1,200 questionnaires were distributed
towards participants in Indonesia across level of education (senior high school; undergraduate;
and post graduate); across three geographical areas of Indonesia: West area (Java and West
Kalimantan); middle area (Bali and Sulawesi); and east area (Maluku and Papua). For each
geographical area, the study distributed 400 questionnaires, which can be divided into the level
of studies as follows: high school (300); undergraduate (600); post graduate (300). Description of
participants is provided in Table 2. Out of total 1,067 questionnaires returned by participants, 7
incomplete questionnaires cannot be used, which produced a response rate of 83.33% (1,060 out
of 1200).
The questionnaire utilized in this study can be divided into two main parts: attitudes
towards corruption; and knowledge on corruption in Indonesia. The first part contains thirteen
questions related to the seven dimensions of the type of corruption that must be completed by the
participants with a Likert scale of one to five, where one is for "very unacceptable", five equal
for "very acceptable", and three is for "neutral ". The lower the scores, the lower the tolerance
level of a particular corruption behavior. Questionnaires about knowledge on corruption contains
thirty questions intended to measure the participants' knowledge about the various types of acts
of corruption in accordance with the rules of corruption in Indonesia, as well as knowledge about
the various cases of corruption involving politicians and public officials in Indonesia that
exposed many print and TV media. Higher scores indicate better level of knowledge on
corruption. The sample of questionnaires can be found as appendix.
Questionnaires for the acceptance level on the various dimensions of corruption wqas
developed based on the questionnaire used in Truex (2010), which includes seven dimensions of
corruption: minor vs grand corruption; vs. cash gifts bribery; private vs. public figure corruptors
corruptors; politician vs. government employee; deserved vs illicit gifts; giver vs receiver of
bribery; favoritism (friends / family vs. non-friends / non-family). Some of the questions used in
Truex (2010) was translated into Indonesian, and modified to fit the context in Indonesia. A
description of the dimensions of corruption is presented in Appendix.
The questionnaire to measure the level of knowledge of participants regarding types of
corruption and its legal consequences was developed based on the specific corruption rules in
Indonesia (Indonesian Corruption Law; Free Anti-Corruption in Indonesia) as well as a variety
of news related to corruption cases handled by the Indonesian Corruption Eradication
Commission (KPK) in Indonesia. The questionnaire used in this study has also been improved in
terms of content validity and face validity in consultation with the staff of KPK and academics
who have expertise in the field of law of corruption in Indonesia. Before distributed to all the
participants, a pilot test involving 35 participants was conducted to improve the quality and
readability research questionnaire.
The study utilized independent sample t-test as well as paired sample t-test to test the
mean different across regions and demographic factors on the tolerance scores and knowledge
scores on corruption. We also employed multivariate analyses using OLS regression to examine
the association between knowledge on corruption and some demographic factors with attitude
towards corruption behavior.
E. Results and discussion
E.1. Description of participants
Table 1 below describes the profile of participants involved in the study, based on
geographical distribution and demographic characteristics (gender and education level). From a
total of 1,060 participants who filled out questionnaires completely, in terms of geographical
areas, 37.8% of participants reside in the western part of Indonesia, 26.3% in the central part of
Indonesia, and the rest (35.8%) in the eastern part of Indonesia. 46.6% of the of participants are
male, and 53.4% are female. In terms of education level, 45.7% of the of participants are in the
senior high school level, 30.9% are in the undergraduate level, and the rest 23.4% are post-
graduate student level.
Table 1. Description of participants
Number % of total
Geographical area of Indonesia
West 401 37.83
Middle 279 26.32 East 380 35.85
Total 1,060 100
Demographic factors
Gender: Male 494 46.60
Female 566 53.40
Total 1,060 100
Education level: Senior high school 484 45.67
Undergraduate 328 30.94
Post-graduate 248 23.39
Total 1,060 100
E.2. Knowledge on corruption and acceptance level towards corrupt behavior
The study also investigated the level of knowledge of the participants on various types of
corruption in accordance with the rule of law in Indonesia as well as a variety of corruption cases
dealt with Commission (KPK) and had been covered extensively in the media in Indonesia.
Examples of questionnaires to measure the participants' level of knowledge of corruption in
Indonesia is shown in appendix 1.
Table 2 presents a description of the level of knowledge on corruption based on
geographical distribution, gender, and level of education. The level of knowledge of participants
is indicated by the score of correct answers of the participants for a total of 30 questions that
were asked in the questionnaire (score range 0% - 100%). Overall, the correct answer scores
obtained by participants were 53.29%. These results indicate that the level of knowledge of
participants is still relatively low, because it is still far from the maximum score.
In terms of geographical distribution, it appears that there is a tendency that the score
level of knowledge of participants who live in western part of Indonesia tend to be higher
(61.62%) compared to the central part of Indonesia (58.55%) and eastern (41.93%). In terms of
gender, female participants tend to score higher levels of knowledge (54.51%) than male
participants (51.87%). From the aspect of education level, the results showed that the higher the
education level of the participants, the higher the score the level of knowledge of corruption.
Table 2 also shows the results of compare mean test of the mean value of participants'
levels of knowledge based on geographical distribution, gender, and education level. The results
of independent sample t-test show that there are significant differences in the knowledge level
based on geographical distribution (west vs. middle; middle vs east; and west vs. east). There is a
tendency that participants belongs to the eastern part of Indonesia has the lower the score of
knowledge about corruption, and the highest score tend to be existed for participants reside in the
west part of Indonesia.
The results as reported in Table 2 also show that in terms of gender, female participants
tend to have higher level of knowledge than male participants, with a significance level of 5%.
These results support the findings of Dollar et al. (2001), which also shows that women tend to
have the level of awareness and knowledge are better than men. The possible argument is that
women tend to have more intense exposure over the good and bad than men, acquired since
childhood. Naturally, this occurs because the culture of eastern society where women tend to be
positioned to obtain a higher protection than men so they can distinguish between the good and
bad in later adult life.
Table 2. Knowledge level of participants regarding corruption
Geographical area of Indonesia Gender Education level
Whole West Middle East Female Male High
school
Under-
graduate
Post
graduate
Knowledge (%) 53.29 61.62 58.55 41.93 54.51 51.87 47.81 52.57 66.42
Compare mean: independent sample t-test
West vs Middle 1.87**
Middle vs East 9.41***
West vs East 15.24***
Female vs Male 1.91**
High School vs
Undergraduate
-3.21***
Undergraduate vs Posgraduate
-7.78***
High School vs
Undergraduate
-11.45***
The results also showed a positive association of education level of the participants with
the knowledge level of the participants of corruption. The higher the education level of the
participants, the higher the level of knowledge of corruption they have. This is supported by the
results of mean different test which shows a significant mean difference (1% level of confidence).
This indicates the need for the provision of knowledge about the various acts of corruption and
legal consequences for communities in Indonesia, especially for central and eastern regions.
These results also indicate the need for the provision of knowledge in terms of more intensive
effort through formal education. For the case in Indonesia, the provision of knowledge about
corruption has not been well integrated into the curriculum in Indonesia, both for secondary and
university level education. Knowledge showed by the participants is more likely obtained from
out of formal classroom, for example of the news media TV, newspapers or the internet.
The study also examined the level of participant’s intolerance for various types of action
that leads to corruption. The dimensions of the types of corruption that are used in this study
refer to the research instrument used in Truex (2010). To adjust to the peculiarities that exist in
Indonesia, the questions used in the questionnaire Truex (2010) was translated into Indonesian,
and some questions were modified according to the context and situation in Indonesia.
Dimensions of various acts of corruption were asked to the participants of this study are
presented in Table 3. The participants' level of tolerance for the actions of corruption measured
by Likert scale 1-5. The lower the score of the chosen participants, the lower the tolerance level
of the participants on the various types of corruption in question.
The result on the level of intolerance towards various types of corruption is shown in
Table 3. The study also conduct different test average value level of intolerance on the various
dimensions of corruption, based on aspects of the geographical region, gender, and education
level. The first test conducted to examine whether there are differences in the average value of
participants' level of tolerance on the dimensions of grand corruption in the form of cash (Q1)
than in the form of gift petty. Overall the participants relatively low level of tolerance shown by
the score approaching the lowest score (range between 1:31 to 2:25).
Based on the geographical aspect, it is found that participants who live in the form of
cash grand compare with in the form of petty gift, at a significance level of 10% in participants.
This pattern is most likely existing among participants who live in the western region of
Indonesia and male. In terms of education level, participants with university level education
(undergraduate and post graduate level) tend to show a stronger intolerance compare to those
participants in lower level of education (high scool). Similar patterns are likely also seen when
tested on the difference between the dimensions of corruption Vs petty cash gift. These results
indicate that the study participants tended to show a lower level of acceptance of the kind of
corruption in the form of grand and petty cash compared petty corruption in the form of gift.
The next test performed to examine differences in participants' level of acceptance based
on the dimensions of corruption made by the politician in the bidding process with unfair
recruitment process (Q4) compared to the unfair recruitment process undertaken by private (Q5).
The results showed that participants tended to be more tolerant to the dimensions of corruption in
the form of bidding unfair process conducted by private rather than by the politician, with a
significance level of 1% for almost all aspects of geography, gender and level of education. The
same pattern is also found on the comparison between the behaviors performed by the corrupt
politician vs. the bureaucrats. These results may indicate that the participants in this study tended
to give a different assessment if acts of corruption committed by actor politician who is generally
a public figure than the private.
Table 3. Level of tolerance towards various types of corruption
Geographical areas of Indonesia Gender Education level
Whole West Middle East Female Male High
school
Under-
graduate
Post
graduate
Q1. Grand cash
1.80 1.49 1.58 2.19 1.69 1.86 1.96 1.75 1.31
Q2. Petty cash 1.79 1.56 1.65 2.11 1.68 1.92 1.93 1.83 1.44
Q3. Petty gift 1.81 1.56 1.59 2.25 1.76 1.95 2.04 1.89 1.40
Q4. Politician job
2.03 1.98 1.81 2.17 1.89 2.18 2.07 1.98 2.00
Q5. Private
job
1.79 1.64 1.57 2.08 1.71 1.90 1.93 1.85 1.44
Q6. Bureau-
crat job
1.82 1.59 1.63 2.16 1.73 1.93 1.94 1.89 1.44
Q7. Public contract
1.75 1.49 1.58 2.10 1.69 1.82 1.89 1.79 1.37
Q8. Private
contract
1.85 1.57 1.67 2.24 1.71 2.02 1.91 1.95 1.58
Q9. Favoritism contract
2.15 1.84 2.05 2.54 2.04 2.29 2.21 2.33 1.77
Q10. Deserved
giver
2.31 2.17 2.21 2.51 2.16 2.49 2.26 2.42 2.29
Q11. Illicit
giver
1.97 1.92 1.97 2.03 1.89 2.07 1.97 2.10 1.79
Q12. Illicit
receiver
1.77 1.59 1.74 1.97 1.69 1.86 1.89 1.77 1.50
Q13.
Favoritism ticket
1.71 1.65 1.74 1.76 1.64 1.79 1.69 1.70 1.76
Mean-comparison: paired-sample t-test
Q1. Grand
cash vs Q3. Petty gift
-0.22 -1.61* -0.26 -0.68 -1.19 -1.59
* -1.35
* -2.56
*** -2.51
***
Q2. Petty cash
Q3. Petty gift
-0.81 -0.05 1.26 -1.43* -0.35 -0.83 -2.47
*** -1.95
** 1.15
Q4. Politician job
Q5. Private
job
6.38***
7.30***
3.81***
1.37* 4.48
*** 4.59
*** 2.55
*** 2.25
*** 7.76
***
Q5. Private job
Q6. Bureau-
crat job
-0.85 1.91**
-1.22 -4.48* -0.55 -0.66 -0.29 -1.27 -0.05
Q4. Politician
job
Q6. Bureau-
crat job
5.52***
7.84***
2.62***
0.21 3.79***
4.04***
2.28**
1.29* 7.05
***
Q7. Public
contract
Q8. Private contract
-2.93***
-1.84**
-1.78**
-1.90**
-0.32 -3.58***
-0.15 -3.14***
-3.68***
Q9. Favoritism
contract
Q13. Favorit-ism ticket
11.54***
4.44***
3.88***
10.61***
8.17***
8.17***
9.13***
8.93***
0.10
Q10. Deserved
giver
Q11. Illicit giver
8.83***
5.43***
2.82***
6.55***
5.76***
6.73***
4.89***
4.49***
6.82***
Q11. Illicit
giver Q12. Illicit
receiver
5.29***
6.72***
3.07***
0.79 4.08***
3.43***
1.17 5.24***
5.61***
Other type of corrupt behavior which was also asked to the participants is type of
corruption in the bidding process conducted in a public contract (Q7) vs. private contract (Q8).
On average, the scores given by the participants ranged from 1:37 to 2:24 that indicate a low
tolerance level of participants for both types of corrupt behavior. The mean difference test results
also showed a significant level of rejection is stronger for the type of corruption in the bidding
process conducted in a public contract than in a private contract, with a significance level of 1%
and 5%.
E.3. The association between demographic factors and corruption knowledge with tolerance
level towards corruption
The study also investigated the effect of the level of knowledge on and various
demographic factors (gender, age, education level, and income) towards the level of tolerance on
corrupt behavior. Results of the study are presented in Table 4, which summarizes the results of
OLS regression with the dependent variable in the form of acceptance level participants for
various types of corruption.
The results depict that level of knowledge on corruption provide a significant negative
effect on the level of acceptance of corrupt behavior. This means that the higher the score
participants' level of knowledge on various matters related to corruption, the lower the level of
their acceptance of corrupt behavior.
Tests on various demographic factors showed that the level of education and income
negatively associated with the level of acceptance of corruption. The higher the level of
education and income participants, the lower the level of acceptance of participants for various
acts of corruption. This findings support the result of Truex (2010) who examined the
participants in Nepal, which also found that participants with higher levels of education and
income tend to show a higher level of intolerance towards corruption.
The study also shows that gender is positively associated with the level of acceptance of
corrupt behavior. This confirmed the test results in Table 4 which shows that the female
participants tended to show a lower acceptance rate than the male participants. These findings
are consistent with the findings of Dollar et al. (2001) and Truex (2010) who found that women
are inherently less corrupt.
F. Conclusion
Corruption remains a big problem for many countries in the world including for
Indonesia. The Transparency International (2013) argues that corruption is one of the greatest
challenges of the contemporary world, which could undermine good government, distorts public
policy, leads to the miss-allocation of resources, harms the private sector and particularly impairs
the poor.
As one of a developing country with a huge number of populations (250 million people)
and promising economic growth, Indonesia paradoxically is ranked as a country with a high level
of corruption among many ASEAN countries (Transparency International, 2013). The high level
of corruption in Indonesia could mean that some Indonesian people tend to be lenient towards
corruption, although some others parts of community demonstrated an explicit rejection towards
corruption. However, in the optimistic side, anti-corruption movement in Indonesia is now
struggling. On the one hand, the establishment of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK)
since 2003 as an independent and powerful agency in Indonesia shows promising results.
This survey study investigates the following issues: (1) to what extent is the level of
tolerance of Indonesian society towards various types of corruption; (2) to what extent is the
knowledge level of Indonesian society regarding types of corruption and its legal consequences;
and (3) do demographic factors and knowledge level of corruption associated with tolerance
level towards corruption?
This study distributes a total of 1,200 questionnaires to participants in Indonesia across
level of education (senior high school; undergraduate; and post graduate); across three
geographical areas of Indonesia (west, middle, and east). The response rate is 83.33% (1,060 out
of 1200).
Based on the geographical aspect, it is found that participants tend to have a lower level
of acceptance of corruption compare to those participants reside in middle or east part of
Indonesia. It is also found that in terms of knowledge about corruption and it legal consequences,
participants in the west part of Indonesia tend to yield a higher level of knowledge compare with
those participants who belongs to the middle and east part of Indonesia.
The study also investigated the effect of the level of knowledge on and various
demographic factors (gender, age, education level, and income) towards the level of tolerance on
corrupt behavior. The results depict that level of knowledge on corruption provide a significant
negative effect on the level of acceptance of corrupt behavior. This means that the higher the
score participants' level of knowledge on various matters related to corruption, the lower the
level of their acceptance of corrupt behavior. The findings also show that the level of education
and income negatively associated with the level of acceptance of corruption. The higher the level
of education and income participants, the lower the level of acceptance of participants for
various acts of corruption.
Findings of this study contribute an empirical evidence on the association between some
demographic factors (such as: gender, education level, and income) as well as knowledge level
on corruption with the level of tolerance towards corrupt behavior. The results can be used to
support corruption eradication program in Indonesia which is currently struggling. The results
imply that comprehensive program to increase the knowledge on corruption is in line with the
effort to increase the intolerance level of Indonesian society against many types of corrupt
behavior in Indonesia.
Table 4. Regression results on the association between knowledge level on corruption and demographic factors with tolerance level
towards corrupt behavior
Tolerance level towards may types of corrupt behavior
Grand
cash
Petty
cash
Petty
gift
Politi-
cian job
Private
job
Bure-
aucrat job
Public
contract
Private
contract
Favori-
tism contract
Deserv-
ed giver
Illicit
giver
Illicit
receiver
Favorit-
ism ticket
Knowledge
on corruption
-1.94***
-1.13***
-1.49***
-1.11***
-1.37***
-1.68***
-1.75***
-1.40***
-1.48***
-0.72***
-0.85***
-1.15***
-0.47***
Gender 0.07 0.22***
0.22***
0.25***
0.16**
0.16**
0.08 0.27***
0.22***
0.30***
0.17**
0.14**
0.13**
Age -0.03 -0.01 0.05* 0.04 -0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.001 -0.03 0.01 -0.06
** 0.001 0.03
Education level
-0.09* -0.08
* -0.12
*** 0.08 -0.08
* -0.05 -0.04 0.04 -0.002 -0.15
** -0.01 -0.04 -0.07
*
Income -0.07***
-0.10***
-0.09***
-0.03 -0.06**
-0.06**
-0.08***
-0.11***
-0.11***
-0.09***
-0.02 -0.09***
0.003
F-value 35.42***
28.41***
38.43***
9.95***
22.46***
28.48***
28.18***
21.93***
25.58***
9.02***
6.94***
19.11***
3.2***
R2 0.20 0.17 0.21 0.06 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.15 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.02
G. References
Ades, A., and Di Tella, R. (1999), “Rents, competition, and corruption”, The American
Economic Review, 89(4), 982–993.
Batra, G., and Stone, A. (2008). Investment climate, capabilities and firm performance: Evidence
from the world business environment survey. OECD Papers, 2008(1), 1–36.
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political
Economy, 76, 169–217.
Dollar, D., Fisman, R., & Gatti, R. (2001). Are women really the “fairer” sex? Corruption and
women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 46, 423–429.
Glaeser, E. L., & Saks, R. E. (2006). Corruption in America. Journal of Public Economics, 90,
1053–1072.
Gundlach, E., & Paldam, M. (2009). The transition of corruption: From poverty to honesty.
Economics Letters, 103, 146–148.
Jain, A. K. (2001). Corruption: A review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 71–121.
Husted, B. W. (1999). Wealth, culture, and corruption. Journal of International Business Studies,
30, 339–360.
Kelman, S. (2000), “Corruption and government: Causes, consequences, and reform”, Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 19(3), pp. 448-491.
Kompas, “The society is convinced about high corruption in Indonesia', Kompas, newspaper, 18
February 1998.
Lambsdorff, J. G. (2003), “How corruption affects persistent capital flows”, Economics of
Governance, 4, 229–243.
Martini M., (2012), “Causes of corruption in Indonesia”, Transparency International.
McLeod, R. (2000). Soeharto Indonesia: A better class of corruption. The Indonesian Quarterly,
28(1), 6–27.
Montinola, G. R., and Jackman, R. W. (2002), “Sources of corruption: A cross-country study”,
British Journal of Political Science, 32 (1), 147–170.
Paternoster, R., & Simpson, S. (1996). Sanction threats and appeals to morality: Testing a
rational choice model of corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 30, 549–583.
Rose-Ackerman, S. (2004). Governance and corruption. In B. Lomborg (Ed.), Global crises,
global solutions (pp. 301–362). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
Shabbir, G., and Anwar, M., (2007), “Determinants of Corruption in Developing Countries”, The
Pakistan Development Review, 46 (4), 751-764.
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1993). “Corruption”. The Quarterly Journal Economics, 108(3),
599–617.
Snape, F. R. (1999), “Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism in Indonesia”, Third World Quarterly,
20 (3), pp. 589-602
Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of
Development Economics, 64, 25–55.
Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. Journal of Public
Economics, 76, 399–457.
Treisman, D. (2007). What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of
cross-national empirical research? Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 211–244.
Quinones, E. (2000), “What is corruption?” Organization for Ethics Economic Cooperation and
Development, 220, 23–24.
Vogl, F. (1998). “The supply side of global bribery”, Finance & Development, 35(2), pp. 30–32.
You, J. -S., & Khagram, S. (2005). Inequality and corruption. American Sociological Review, 70,
136–157.
Wei, S. J. (2000), “How taxing is corruption on international investors?”, Review of Economics
and Statistics, 82(1), 1–11.