The roles of transparency and trust in the relationship between corruption and citizen satisfaction
| Author | Heungsik Park,John Blenkinsopp |
| Published date | 01 June 2011 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852311399230 |
| Date | 01 June 2011 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
International
Review of
Administrative
Article
Sciences
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
77(2) 254–274
The roles of transparency and
! The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions:
trust in the relationship between
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020852311399230
corruption and citizen satisfaction
ras.sagepub.com
Heungsik Park
Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea
John Blenkinsopp
Teesside University Business School, UK
Abstract
Reducing corruption and improving citizen satisfaction are important aims of govern-
ment, yet the link between these two policy aims has rarely been explored. This article
reports a study into the roles played by transparency and trust in the relationship
between governmental corruption and citizen satisfaction with public services. The
study was based on data gathered in South Korea to evaluate a specific initiative that
had sought to reduce corruption and increase citizen satisfaction with public works
programmes. The data indicated that the relationship between corruption and satisfac-
tion was moderated by transparency and partially mediated by trust.
Points for practitioners
The study sheds light on the roles of transparency and trust in the relationship between
corruption and citizen satisfaction with public services, and thus provides insights for
developing policy aimed at curtailing corruption and improving satisfaction.
Keywords
citizen satisfaction, corruption, transparency, trust
Introduction
The relationship between corruption and satisfaction is generally under-researched.
The logical assumption is that corruption will have a negative impact on satisfaction,
though one might argue that the ongoing electoral success of some old-style political
bosses might indicate that the public will tolerate a degree of corruption in exchange
for what they perceive to be a well-run city (see Manzetti and Wilson, 2006).
Corresponding author:
Heungsik Park, College of Public Services, Chung-Ang University, 221, Heukseok-dong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul
156–756, South Korea
Email: hspark@cau.ac.kr
Park and Blenkinsopp
255
Transparency and trust are seen to moderate or mediate the relationship between
corruption and satisfaction (Driscoll, 1978; Heise, 1985; Jahansoozi, 2006; Pathak
et al., 2008; Rawlins, 2008). Many societies believe that transparency will reduce
governmental malfeasance through its ‘sunshine’ effect (Heald, 2006), and demand
for transparency has grown rapidly, with organizations in both private and public
sectors being encouraged to be more transparent – see Ball (2009) for a review of this
development. Gaining citizens’ trust is similarly a high priority challenge for public
organizations. The objective of this study was to increase our understanding of the
relationship between corruption and citizen satisfaction, and the roles of transpar-
ency and trust in that relationship, providing insights for research, and for practi-
tioners seeking to develop policy for improving citizen satisfaction.
Literature review
The relationship between corruption and citizen satisfaction
Corruption occurs as a form of behaviour violating the official ethics of public service.
It can occur in the private sector or in the public sector and often occurs simulta-
neously in both (Klitgaard, 1988). One of the most widely cited definitions of cor-
ruption is offered by Nye (1967/2002: 284) who defines it as ‘behaviour which deviates
from the formal duties of a public role because of private-regarding (personal, close
family, private clique) pecuniary or status gains; or violates rules against the exercise
of certain types of private-regarding influence’, succinctly defined by Rose-Ackerman
(2008: 551) as ‘the misuse of public office for private gain’. Barker and Carter (1994)
define corruption in a more detailed way as acts containing three elements: violations
of law, rules, regulations, or ethical standards; misuse of an officer’s position; and
acceptance of some actual or expected material reward or gain. Corruption, regard-
less of its forms, undermines the performance of public services and decreases satis-
faction with them, neatly captured in Rose-Ackerman’s description of corruption as
‘a symptom that something has gone wrong in the management of the state’ (1999: 9).
Perceived corruption erodes public respect for the government as a service provider
and disappoints citizens, thus fostering cynicism about government. We might there-
fore expect the relationship between corruption and satisfaction to be negative, yet
despite its obvious importance this relationship has scarcely been investigated – see
Manzetti and Wilson (2006) for an exception.
Customer satisfaction is of great importance to public agencies that function as
service providers to their citizens. When public services are provided to citizens on
demand, governments, particularly local governments, devote considerable
resources to meeting the needs of their citizens. Levels of citizen satisfaction
have been measured through various methods, broadly speaking either through
measuring overall satisfaction or by measuring the attributes of service that make
up satisfaction with it (Gustafsson and Johnson, 2004). Cumberford et al. (1999)
analysed citizen satisfaction using a scale that examined perception of service qual-
ity in terms of key drivers of satisfaction: courteous, knowledgeable, and
256
International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(2)
competent staff, as well as timeliness, fairness, and getting the desired results.
Similarly, Giannoccaro et al. (2008) examined citizen satisfaction using a modified
version of the SERVQUAL scale (Parasuraman et al., 1988), which had been
developed to measure those attributes of a service which impact on customer sat-
isfaction. Outside of academic research, local governments have often used survey
methods to evaluate levels of service and citizen satisfaction with a service and to
identify opportunities for improvement.
The role of transparency
Transparency is generally defined as the open flow of information (Holzner and
Holzner, 2006; Piotrowski, 2007), and the literature on transparency in the relation-
ship between governments and citizens has strongly emphasized this concept of open-
ness. Oliver (2004: 37) argues that ‘transparency in an organization is not only about
what’s communicated externally, but about what’s right on the inside, in the guts of its
operations’, and introduces the concept of ‘new transparency’ to describe the trend for
organizations to face more active demands for disclosure of information. In the past
many governments passively provided information only on request, and could do so at
their own discretion; now they are being required to engage in more active disclosure.
Piotrowski (2007: 10) states that ‘governmental transparency equates to open govern-
ment’. The oft-cited definition of transparency by the Asian Development Bank (1995)
is ‘the availability of information to the general public and clarity about government
rules, regulations and decisions’. Transparency has become an important agenda in
nearly every organization, public and private, large or small, with Hood (2006: 3)
suggesting that it has ‘attained quasi-religious significance in debate over governance
and institutional design’. Ball (2009) suggests that transparency is starting to subsume
accountability in public discourse about good governance. This sharply growing
demand for transparency is based on many factors. First, transparency is one of the
fundamental moral claims in democratic societies, with the people’s right to have
access to government information being widely accepted in representative democracies
(Pasquier and Villeneuve, 2007). Second, transparency is one of the practical measures
taken to curtail corruption, acting as a deterrent against corrupt behaviour by pro-
moting citizens’ vigilance, thus deterring public officials from misusing public service
to attain private gain (Florini, 2007). O’Neill (2006) observes that it can thus serve as a
strategy to deter corruption and correct poor performance. Third, transparency has a
positive effect on trust and accountability (Heald, 2006). According to Holzner and
Holzner (2006: 114), ‘transparency is linked with the values of accountability’, as it
allows citizens to monitor the quality of public services and encourages public employ-
ees to satisfy citizens. The literature on transparency advises that organizations should
be transparent to increase the degree of trust (Rawlins, 2008), though some scholars
urge caution, citing the negative aspects of transparency, such as violation of privacy,
direct cost of disclosure, and revelation of sensitive information (Prat, 2006: 91).
Chambers (2004: 389, 392) reminds us that although publicity is in important principle
in deliberative democracy, secrecy rather than publicity is often what is needed to
Park and Blenkinsopp
257
ensure a high quality of deliberation. Heald (2006: 62) stresses that ‘transparency is
expected to contribute positively to trust by building credibility’, and it is to a consid-
eration of the role of trust that we now turn.
The role of trust
The literature on trust is long-established and extensive. Rousseau et al. (1998: 394–
395), having examined the definitions of trust used in various disciplines, defined
trust as ‘a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability
based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another’ and
concluded that there are no significant...
To continue reading
Request your trial