The Neighborhood Effect on Perceptions of Corruption: Comparative Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis

This article aims to investigate the factors influencing the perception of high corruption levels in a country and examines the potential existence of spatial dependence in the distribution of these factors. It specifically focuses on exploring the interdependence between the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) and forty four other factors categorized into six distinct categories. The central hypothesis posits that the interdependence between the CPI and these factors is more pronounced at the domestic level compared to its influence on indicators in neighboring countries. To assess the degree of interdependence between the CPI and each of the other indicators, the Pearson's Coefficient of Determination is employed, enabling an evaluation of corruption levels based on domestic state-specific factors. Furthermore, Moran's Bivariate Spatial Autocorrelation Index is utilized to elucidate the extent to which the CPI in one country influences one of the forty-four indicators in neighboring countries. Additionally, the Index of Spatial Interdependence is employed to ascertain the significance of domestic and international factors for each indicator. The research findings provide several noteworthy conclusions. Firstly, the neighborhood effect proves to be particularly significant for indicators that hold universal relevance for all governments, such as demographic and standard of living indicators. Conversely, indicators influenced by institutional, historical, and cultural differences exhibit stronger interrelations within the state. Lastly, the study establishes that the Pearson's Index holds greater significance than the Bivariate Moran's Index of Spatial Autocorrelation and the Index of Spatial Interdependence, thereby confirming the proposed hypothesis.

1. Anselin L. (1995). Local Indicators of Spatial Association LISA. Geographical analysis. Vol. 27. No. 2. P. 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1995.tb00338.x

2. Carothers Т. (2003). Konets paradigmy tranzita [The End of the Transit Paradigm]. Politicheskaya nauka. No. 2. P. 42–65.

3. Becker S.O., Egger P.H., Seidel T. (2009). Common political culture: Evidence on regional corruption contagion. European Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 25. No. 3. P. 300–310.

4. Blavatskyy P.R. (2021). Obesity of politicians and corruption in Ukraine in 2000-2020 – Reply. Economics of Transition and Institutional Change. Vol. 29. No. 6. P. 361–365.

5. Chedraui J.E., Arcaraz F., and Botero A. (2016). Factors Affecting Corruption in Developing and Emerging Countries [Undergraduate research paper]. Georgia Institute of Technology. 18 p. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1853/56047.

6. Churchill R.Q., Agbodohy W., Arhenful P. (2013). Determining Factors Affecting Corruption: A Cross Country Analysis. International Journal of Economics, Business and Finance. Vol. 10. No.1. P. 275– 285.

7. Cliff A., Ord J.K. (1973). Spatial Autocorrelation. London: Pion. 178 p.

8. Doshi S., Ranganatha M. (2018). Towards a critical geography if corruption and power in late capitalism. Progress in Human Geography. Vol. 43. No. 3. P. 436–457.

9. Fearon J.D. (2003). Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country. Journal of Economic Growth. Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024419522867

10. Gawthorpe S. (2017). Spatial proximity and a system of Czech corruption. ANTIcorruption & fraud: Detection & Measurement Conference. URL: https://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/file/paper/59510afab4fb4.pdf (accessed: 08.09.2020).

11. Gazenov S. (2017). Corruption and its causes. A quantitative analysis of corruption using proxy datasets. Revista de Ciencia Politica y Gobierno. Vol. 4. No. 8. P. 69–82.

12. Goel R.K., Nelson M.A. (2007). Are corrupt acts contagious?: Evidence from the United States. Journal of Policy Modeling. Vol. 29. No. 6. P. 839–850.

13. Goel R.K., Nelson M.A. (2010). Causes of corruption : History, geography and government. Journal of Policy Modeling. Vol. 32. No. 4. P. 433–447.

14. Goel R.K., Saunoris J.W. (2014). Global Corruption and the shadow economy: spatial aspects. Public Choice. Vol. 161. No. 1–2. P. 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-013-0135-1

15. He N. (2016). Rethinking the Causes of Corruption: Perceived Corruption, Measurement bias, and Cultural Illusion. Chinese Political Science Review. No. 1. P. 268–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-016-0024-0

16. Heidenheimer A.J., Johnston M. (eds.) (2002). Political Corruption. Concepts and Contexts. New York: Transaction Publishers. 970 p.

17. Helmke G., Levitsky S. (2004). Informal institutes and comparative politics. A research agenda. Perspectives on Politics. Vol. 2. No. 4. P. 725–740.

18. Kosolapov N. A. (2002). Psikhologiia politicheskoi deiatel'nosti [The Psychology of Political Activity]. Moscow: MGIMO. 114 p.

19. Kufakova G. A., Ovsyankina E. S. (1998). Faktory riska razvitiia zabolevaniia tuberkulezom u detei i podrostkov iz sotsial'no-dezadaptirovannykh grupp naseleniia [Factors of risk of developments of tuberculosis infections in children and teenagers from socially disadvantaged groups of the population]. Bol'shoi Tselevoi Zhurnal o tuberkuleze. No 1. URL: https://medi.ru/info/5985/ (accessed: 08.02.2020).

20. Okunev I. Yu. (2020). Atlas mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii: prostranstvennyi analiz indikatorov mirovogo razvitiia [Atlas of international relations: spatial analysis of the world indexes]. Moscow: Aspect Press. 444 p.

21. Pellegrini L., Gerlagh R. (2008). Causes of corruption: a survey of cross-country analyses and extended results. Economics of Governance. Vol. 9. No. 3. P. 245–263.

22. Scott J.C. (1972). Comparative political corruption. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. 166 p. Seldadyo H., de Haan J. (2006). The Determinants of Corruption: A Literature Survey and New Evidence. In EPCS Conference, Turku, Finland. P. 20–23.

23. Tobler W.R. (1970). A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in Detroit Region. Economic Geography. Vol. 46. Supplement: Proceedings, International Geographical Union. Commission on Quantitative Methods. P. 234–240.

24. Tobler W.R. (2004). On the First Law of Geography: A Reply. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Vol. 94. No. 2. P. 304–310.

25. Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics. Vol. 76. No. 3. P. 399–457.

26. Warf B. (2019). Global Corruption from a Geographic Perspective. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 243 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03478-8

27. Weber H. (2013). Demography and democracy: the impact of youth cohort size on democratic stability in the world. Democratization. Vol. 20. No. 2. P. 335–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2011.650916