Corruption perception in Taiwan: Reflections upon a bottom-up citizen perspective

Journal of Contemporary China

Volumn 22, Issue 79, 2013, Pages 56-76

  Yu, Chilik ^a   Chen, Chun Ming ^a   Lin, Min Wei ^a  

^a SHIH HSIN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BUREAUCRACY; CORRUPTION; MASS MEDIA; PERCEPTION; POLITICAL INSTABILITY; POLITICAL PARTICIPATION;

TAIWAN;

EID: 84912088043     PISSN: 10670564     EISSN: 14699400     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10670564.2012.716944     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Stephen Hilgartner and Charles Bosk, ‘The rise and fall of social problems: a public arenas model’, American Journal of Sociology 94(1), (1988), pp. 53–78.
2. Objective or ‘hard’ measures of the prevalence of corruption may include the number of cases filed or investigated, the number of indictments or convictions, the frequency of references to corruption in the media, amongst others. Ko and Hui in this issue employ three objective statistics of corruption to test the effect of fiscal decentralization in mainland China. Note
3. Kilkon Ko and Hui Zhi, ‘Fiscal decentralization: guilty of aggravating corruption in China?’, Journal of Contemporary China 22(79), (2013), DOI: 10.1080/10670564.2012.716943.
4. Staffan Andersson and Paul Heywood, ‘The politics of perception: use and abuse of Transparency International’s approach to measuring corruption’, Political Studies 57(4), (2009), pp. 746–767.
5. Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay and Massimo Mastruzzi, ‘Measuring governance using cross-country perceptions data’, in Susan Rose-Ackerman, ed., International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2006), pp. 72–75.
6. Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay and Massimo Mastruzzi, Measuring Corruption: Myths and Realities (Washington, DC: World Bank Institute, 2006), pp. 2–5.
7. Kilkon Ko and Ananya Samajdar, ‘Evaluation of international corruption indexes: should we believe them or not’, The Social Science Journal 47(3), (2010), pp. 508–540.
8. Arnold Heidenheimer, ‘Terms, concepts, and definitions: an introduction’, in Arnold Heidenheimer and Michael Johnston, eds, Political Corruption: Concepts & Contexts, 3rd edn (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2002), pp. 3–14.
9. Chilik Yu, ‘Promoting integrity, anti-corruption, and democratic governance’, Taiwan Democracy Quarterly 3(3), (2006), pp. 165–176.
10. Frederick Mosher, Democracy and the Public Service (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968).
11. Robert Klitgaard, Controlling Corruption (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1988).
12. Chilik Yu, Chun-Ming Chen, Lung-Teng Hu and Wen-Jong Juang, ‘Evolving perceptions of government integrity and changing anticorruption measures in Taiwan’, in Ting Gong and Stephan Ma, eds, Preventing Corruption in Asia (London: Routledge, 2009), pp. 189–205.
13. Charles Goodsell, The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic, 4th edn (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2004).
14. For possible reasons why cabinet ministers/executives had significantly lost the trust of the people during 2006. Note
15. Yu, et al., ‘Evolving perceptions of government integrity’, pp. 195–197.
16. Chun-Ming Chen and Wen-Jong Juang, ‘Public service ethics and corruption in Taiwan’, in Evan Berman, M. Jae Moon and Heungsuk Choi, eds, Public Administration in East Asia: Mainland China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan (Boca Raton,FL: CRC Press, 2010), pp. 563–589.
17. Despite the many legal provisions against corruptioninplace, effective management and enforcement of these regulations (particularly those that deal with conflict of interest in the government sector) remain challenging and problematic. Note
18. Pin-Sung Hsu, Shih-Shien Chin, ChilikYu and Chin-Wen Wu, ‘Conflict of interest in the public service’, in Chilik Yu, ed., Integrity and Governance (Taipei: Best-Wise, 2011), pp. 90–117.
19. Ting Gong and Jianming Ren, ‘Hard rules and soft constraints: regulating conflict of interest in China’, Journal of Contemporary China 22(79), (2013), DOI: 10.1080/10670564.2012.716941.
20. Jon S. T. Quah, Taiwan’s Anti-Corruption Strategy: Suggestions for Reform (Baltimore, MD: University of Maryland School of Law, 2010).
21. Jon S. T. Quah, ‘Comparing anti-corruption in Asian countries: lessons to be learnt’, Asian Review of Public Administration 11(2), (1999), pp. 71–90.
22. Quah, ‘Comparing anti-corruption in Asian countries’, p. 86.
23. Transparency International, TI Source Book 2000 (Berlin: Transparency International, 2000). Note
24. Andrew Wedeman, ‘The challenge of commercial bribery and organized crime in China’, Journal of Contemporary China 22(79), (2013), DOI: 10.1080/10670564.2012.716942.
25. Goodsell, The Case for Bureaucracy, pp. 24–31.
26. Daniel Katz, Barbara Gutek and Robert Kahn, Bureaucratic Encounters: A Pilot Study in the Evaluation of Government Services (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 1975).
27. Steven Van Walle, ‘Confidence in the criminal justice system: does experience count?’, British Journal of Criminology 49(3), (2009), pp. 384–398.
28. George Serra, ‘Citizen-initiated contact and satisfaction withbureaucracy: a multivariate analysis’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 5(2), (1995), pp. 175–188.
29. Goodsell, The Case for Bureaucracy, p. 25.
30. Paul Goren, ‘Party identification and core political values’, American Journal of Political Science 49(4), (2005), pp. 882–897.
31. Donald Green, Brad Palmquist and Eric Schickler, Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002).
32. Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, Warren E. Miller and Donald Stokes, The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960).
33. Goren, ‘Party identification and core political values’, p. 882.
34. Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, ‘The agenda-setting function of the mass media’, Public Opinion Quarterly 36(2), (1972), pp. 176–187.
35. Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, ‘The evolution of agenda-setting research: twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas’, Journal of Communication 43(2), (1993), pp. 58–67.
36. James Dearing and Everett Rogers, Agenda-Setting (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996).
37. Unlike pan-green media, pan-blue media in Taiwan are generally much harder to specify. Note
38. John Copper, ‘The devolution of Taiwan’s democracy during the Chen Shui-bian era’, Journal of Contemporary China 18(60), (2009), p. 463.
39. Shelly Rigger, ‘Taiwan’s best-case democratization’, Orbis 48(2), (2004), p. 285.
40. Chao-yung Hsueh, ‘Power and corruption in Taiwan’, Issues & Studies 43(1), (2007), p. 12.
41. Copper, ‘The devolution of Taiwan’s democracy during the Chen Shui-bian era’, pp. 473–477.
42. Ian Scott, ‘Institutional design and corruption prevention in Hong Kong’, Journal of Contemporary China 22 (79), (2013), DOI: 10.1080/10670564.2012.716945.
43. Eilo Yu Wing-yat, ‘Anti-corruption approaches in Macao: lawmaking and legal enforcement’, Journal of Contemporary China 22(79), (2013), DOI: 10.1080/10670564.2012.716946.
44. Two additional ‘bottom-up’ factors influence citizens’ perceptions of corruption/government integrity: the utility effect (the proposition that people who think bribery is effective tend to perceive the overall system as more corrupt), and the civic responsibility effect (the proposition that people who would act as whistleblowers upon witnessing an illegal act tend to be more optimistic that government integrity would improve in the future). Future work will attempt to disentangle the different bottom-up factors discussed herein, and identify the most significant ones through the use of multivariate regression analysis. Note