When corruption hits the judiciary: A global perspective on access to justice and corruption
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1354Keywords:
Access to justice, corruption, global view, anti-corruption policy, acceso a la justicia, corrupción, visión global, política anticorrupciónAbstract
This study asks if the level of corruption relates to perception of access to justice. Looking at the supply side of access to justice, a corrupt judicial system will imply that the less well-off cannot afford to gain their rights. However, does corruption widen a justice gap? Studies show that corruption relates to democracy, wealth and equality. The link between corruption and the judiciary is less studied. This study explores the general global relations statistically with use of data from 113 countries. Using multiple regression, it corroborates the classical debate on inequality and equal access to justice but critically contribute to this debate by finding that corruption has an independent and strong relation to access to justice. However, it also finds that income inequality continues to be of importance. This finding is not trivial but suggests that anti-corruption and equality policies may improve access to justice.
Este estudio se pregunta si el nivel de corrupción de un país está relacionado con la percepción del acceso a la justicia. Desde el punto de vista de la oferta de acceso a la justicia, un sistema judicial corrupto implicará que los menos pudientes no pueden permitirse asegurar sus derechos. Sin embargo, ¿la corrupción amplía la brecha de la justicia? Los estudios muestran que la corrupción se relaciona con la democracia, la riqueza y la igualdad, pero el vínculo entre la corrupción y el poder judicial está menos estudiado. Este estudio explora estadísticamente el panorama global general con el uso de datos de 113 países. Utilizando la regresión múltiple, corrobora las conclusiones establecidas sobre la desigualdad y la igualdad de acceso a la justicia, pero contribuye de manera crítica a este campo al encontrar que la corrupción tiene una relación independiente y fuerte con el acceso a la justicia. Este hallazgo sugiere que tanto las políticas anticorrupción como las de igualdad pueden mejorar el acceso a la justicia.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1354
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
13(4)_Pedersen_Johanssen_OSLS 279
XML_13(4)_Pedersen_Johanssen_OSLS 63
References
Albiston, C.R., and Sandefur, R.L., 2013. Expanding the empirical study of access to justice. Wisconsin Law Review, 2013(1), 01–120.
Baumann, H., 2017. A failure of governmentality: Why Transparency International underestimated corruption in Ben Ali’s Tunisia. Third World Quarterly, 38(2), 467–482.
Caiden, G.E., and Caiden, N.J., 1977. Administrative corruption. Public Administration Review, 37(3), 301–309.
Campbell, R., et al., 2020. Assessing triangulation across methodologies, methods, and stakeholder groups: The joys, woes, and politics of interpreting convergent and divergent data. American Journal of Evaluation [online], 41(1), 125–144. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018804195
Center for Systemic Peace, 2021. The Polity Project: About Polity [online]. Vienna, VA: Center for Systemic Peace. Available at: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polityproject.html
Charron, N., 2010. The correlates of corruption in India: Analysis and evidence from the states. Asian Journal of Political Science, 18(2), 177–194.
Cornford, T., 2016. The meaning of access to justice. In: E. Palmer et al., eds., Access to justice: Beyond the policies and politics of austerity. Oxford/Portland: Hart, 27–39.
Crawford, C., and Bonilla Maldonado, D., 2020. Access to justice and liberal democracies: Global, regional and national solutions to a world-wide problem. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 27(1), 1–14.
Dahl, R.A., 1971. Poliarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dahlström, C., Lapuente, V., and Teorell, J., 2011. The merit of meritocratization: Politics, bureaucracy, and the institutional deterrents of corruption. Political Research Quarterly, 65(3), 1–13.
Dincer, O.C., and Gunalp, B., 2012. Corruption and income inequality in the United States. Contemporary Economic Policy, 30(2), 283–292.
Fukuyama, F., 2011. The origins of political order: From prehuman times to the French Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gibbert, M., et al., 2021. Using outliers for theory building. Organizational Research Methods, 24(1), 172–181.
Ginsburg, T., 2011. Pitfalls of measuring the rule of law. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3, 269–280.
Graeff, P., 2009. Social capital: The dark side. In: G.T. Svendsen and G.L.H. Svendsen, eds., Handbook of social capital: The troika of sociology, political science and economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 143–161.
Gupta, S., Davoodi, H., and Alonso-Terme, R., 2002. Does corruption affect income inequality and poverty? Economics of Governance, 3(1), 23–45.
Holmberg, S., and Rothstein, B., 2011. Dying of corruption. Health Economics, Policy and Law [online], 6(4), 529–547. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S174413311000023X
Johannsen, L., and Pedersen, K.H., 2012. How to combat corruption: Assessing anti-corruption measures from a civil servant‘s perspective. Halduskultuur [online], 13(2), 130–145. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289662760_How_to_combat_corruption_Assessing_anti-corruption_measures_from_a_civil_servant%27s_perspective
Jong-Sung, Y., and Khagram, S., 2005. A comparative study of inequality and corruption. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 136–157.
Karklins, R., 2002. Typology of post-communist corruption. Problems of Post-Communism, 49(4), 22–32.
Klitgaard, R., 1988. Controlling corruption. University of California Press.
Latham and Watkins LLP, 2016. A survey of pro bono practices and opportunities in 84 jurisdictions [online]. Washington: Pro Bono Institute. Available at: https://www.lw.com/admin/Upload/Documents/Global%20Pro%20Bono%20Survey/A-Survey-of-Pro-Bono-Practices-and-Opportunities.pdf
Lieberman, E.S., 2005. Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 435–452.
Marshall, M.G., et al., 2002. POLITY IV, 1800–1999: Comments on Munck and Verkuilen. Comparative Political Studies, 35(1), 40–45.
Meagher, P., 2005. Anti-corruption agencies: Theoretic Versus Reality. The Journal of Policy Reform, 8(1), 69–103.
Mechkova, V., Lührmann, A., and Lindberg, S., 2018. The accountability sequence: From de-jura to de-facto constraints on government. Studies in Comparative International Development [online], 54(1), 40–70. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12116-018-9262-5
Møller, J., and Skaaning, S.E., 2013. The third wave: Inside the numbers. Journal of Democracy [online], 24(4), 97–109. Available at: https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Moller-24-4.pdf
Munck, G.L., and Verkuilen, J., 2002. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35(2), 5–34.
Mungiu-Pippidi, A., 2013. Becoming Denmark: Historical designs of corruption control. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 80(4), 1259–1286.
Mungiu-Pippidi, A., 2015. The quest for good governance: How societies develop control of corruption. Cambridge University Press.
Navot, D., Reingewertz, Y., and Cohen, N., 2016. Speed or greed? High wages and corruption among public servants. Administration and Society, 48(5), 580–601.
O’Donnell, G.A., 2001. Democracy, law, and comparative politics. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(1), 7–36.
O’Donnell, G., 2004. The quality of democracy: Why the rule of law matters. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 32–46.
Osborne, D., 1997. Corruption as Counter-culture: Attitudes to Bribery in Local and Global Society. In: B.A.K. Rider, ed., Corruption. The Enemy Within. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law international, 9–34.
Ostrom, E., 1998. A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1-22.
Palmer, E., et al., eds., 2013. Access to justice: Beyond the policies and politics of austerity. Oxford/Portland: Hart.
Pedersen, K.H., and Johannsen, L., 2006. Corruption: Commonality, causes and consequences in fifteen post-communist countries. In: A. Rosenbaum and J. Nemec, eds., Democratic governance in central and eastern European countries. Bratislava: NISPAcee, 311–336.
Pedersen, K.H., and Johannsen, L., 2015. European values and practices in post-communist public administration: The Baltic states. In: F. Sager and P. Overeem, eds., The European public servant: A shared administrative identity. Colchester: ECPR Press, 219–241.
Pedersen, K.H., and Johannsen, L., 2016. Where and how you sit: How civil servants view citizens’ participation. Administration & Society, 48(1), 104–129.
Persson, A., Rothstein, B., and Teorell, J., 2013. Why anticorruption reforms fail: Systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance [online], 26(3), 449–471. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2012.01604.x
Piketty, T., 2014. Capital in the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.
Pleasence, P., and Balmer, N., 2018. Measuring the accessibility and equality of civil justice. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law [online], 10, 255–284. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-018-0079-0 [Accessed 27 October 2022].
Policardo, L., and Carrera, E.J.S., 2018. Corruption causes inequality, or is it the other way around? An empirical investigation for a panel of countries. Economic Analysis and Policy, 59, 92–102.
Posner, R.A., 2006. The role of the judge in the twenty-first century. Boston University Law Review [online], 86, 10–49. Available at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2907&context=journal_articles
Przeworski, A., and Limongi, F., 1997. Modernization: Theories and facts. World Politics, 49(2), 155–183.
Rhode, D.L., 2003. Access to justice: Connecting principles to practice. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 17, 369–422.
Rhode, D.L., 2004. Access to justice. Oxford University Press.
Rhode, D.L., 2014. Access to Justice: A Roadmap for Reform. Fordham Urban Law Journal [online], 41(4), 1227–1257. Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol41/iss4/7
Rose, R., and Mishler, W., 2010. Experience versus perception of corruption: Russia as a test case. Global crime, 11(2), 145–163.
Sampson, S., 2010. The anti-corruption industry: from movement to institution. Global crime, 11(2), 261–278.
Schmidt, V., 2013. Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output, and “throughput”. Political Studies, 6(1), 2–22.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1964. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers/London: Allen & Unwin. (Originally published in 1942).
Sen, A., 2009. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Serritzlew, S., Sønderskov, K.M., and Svendsen, G.T., 2014. Do corruption and social trust affect economic growth? A review. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 16(2), 121–139.
The United Nations, 2021. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021 [online]. Available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2021/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2021.pdf
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (A RES 217/A) [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Transparency International, 2022. Corruption Perceptions Index [online]. Berlin: TI. Available at: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021
Treisman, D., 2000. The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76, 399–45.
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.
Turner, S.F., Cardinal, L.B., and Burton, R.M., 2017. Research design for mixed methods: A triangulation-based framework and roadmap. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 243–267.
Uslaner, E.M., 2009. Corruption. In: G.T. Svendsen and G.L.H. Svendsen, eds., Handbook of social capital: The troika of sociology, political science and economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 127–142.
Van Rijckeghem, C., and Weder, B., 1997. Corruption and the rate of temptation: Do low wages in the civil service cause corruption? IMF Working Paper 73 [online]. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/wp9773.pdf
Vannucci A., and Della Porta, D., 2012. When anticorruption policy fails: The Italian case eighteen years after “mani pulite” investigations. In: D. Tänzler, K. Maras and A. Giannakopoulos, eds., The Social Construction of Corruption in Europe. Farnham: Ashgate.
Watts, J.H., and Roberson, C., 2014. Law and society: An introduction. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis Group.
Wei, S.J., 1999. Corruption in economic development: Beneficial grease, minor annoyance, or major obstacle? Policy research working paper No. WPS 2048. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Welzel, C., Inglehart, R., and Klingemann, H.D., 2003. The theory of human development: A cross-cultural analysis. European Journal of Political Research [online], 42(3), 341–379. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00086
World Justice Project, 2018. WJP Rule of Law Index [online]. Available at: https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global/2017-18/
Yang, K., and Callahan, K., 2007. Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 249–264.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Karin Pedersen, Lars Johannsen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
