Socially Embedded Anti‐Corruption Governance: Evidence from Hong Kong
| Published date | 01 August 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1798 |
| Author | Ting Gong,Hanyu Xiao |
| Date | 01 August 2017 |
SOCIALLY EMBEDDED ANTI-CORRUPTION GOVERNANCE: EVIDENCE
FROM HONG KONG
TING GONG AND HANYU XIAO*
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
SUMMARY
In this study, we seek to identify and explain what factors influence citizens’propensity to confront corruption by reporting
suspected corruption cases. From a macro–micro interactive perspective, which we term ‘socially embedded anti-corruption
governance’, we make two propositions focusing on intrinsic and extrinsic factors, respectively. We believe, first, that citizens’
response to suspected corrupt behaviour is a good indicator of the level of their tolerance for corruption. If corruption is
unacceptable to citizens, they would be more likely to report suspected corruption cases. However, a low level of tolerance
of corruption alone does not necessarily explain why people report corruption. We further argue that people’s willingness to
confront corruption is also affected by the extent to which they are satisfied with and have confidence in the government’s
anti-corruption endeavours. Drawing on data collected from an original survey of 1025 local residents in Hong Kong, we test
the two hypotheses. Our findings confirm that the propensity to report suspected corruption results from both a low level of
tolerance towards corruption and the positive perception of the quality of anti-corruption governance. The implications of our
findings for other regions, especially Mainland China, are explored. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words—corruption; anti-corruption reform; quality of governance; reporting corruption; ICAC; Hong Kong
INTRODUCTION
Why do some citizens have a strong propensity to confront and combat corruption while others do not?
Specifically, why are some people more disposed to report suspected corruption than others? Such questions have
puzzled scholars and practitioners because they do not seem to be related to a lack of opportunity to report
corruption. Governments and their anti-corruption agencies (ACAs) are generally aware of the importance of
engaging the public in fighting corruption and the need to provide channels for citizens to report corruption. The
success of government efforts at combating corruption hinges on the extent to which they are able to attain public
support. Encouraging citizens to report suspected corruption cases, thus, constitutes an indispensable component of
effective anti-corruption strategies. Without public involvement in reporting corruption, enforcement agencies will
suffer from, to say the least, a lack of information to pursue investigations.
Yet in some countries and for various reasons, pleas for proactive public engagement and efforts to encourage
and empower citizens to join the battle against corruption often seem to fall on deaf ears. There is evidence from
around the globe of apathy in reporting corruption. According to a report by Statistics South Africa, for example,
although more than two thirds of South African households saw corruption increasing in the country, almost half of
them chose not to report corruption and considered efforts to do so to be pointless (Corruption Watch, 2014). The
situation is worse in some other countries. A survey of Transparency International revealed that only 16 per cent of
respondents from Rwanda said that they had filed complaints against bribery, and the rates were even lower in
Uganda (6.9%) and Burundi (3.2%) (TI, 2011). China, where corruption has been rampant and persistent
(Wedeman, 2012; Ko and Weng, 2012; Gong and Xiao, 2016), presents an interesting case. On the Mainland,
*Correspondence to: H. Y. Xiao, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon
Tong, Hong Kong. E-mail: hanyu.xiao@cityu.edu.hk
public administration and development
Public Admin. Dev. 37, 176–190 (2017)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/pad.1798
Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial