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 for various reasons, governments’ pleas for proactive public engagement and their efforts to encourage citizens to join anti-corruption battles often meet with apathy. Conventional wisdom attributes the contrast in citizens’ decision to confront corruption or not to macro-level institutional factors such as democracy, rule of law, political freedom, and civil society. The contention is that a free, fair and open political environment not only permits but also inspires the public to stand up against corruption. Alternatively, other scholars take a micro-level perspective, considering the propensity to confront corruption as a rational choice based on individual calculation of actual or expected costs and benefits.
In this study, we take a macro-micro interactive approach to address the puzzle of why some people are more willing to report corruption than others. Drawing on data collected from an original survey of 1,025 local residents in Hong Kong, we conduct a disaggregated analysis of who, among the general public, are willing to report suspected corruption and who, conversely, are reluctant to do so and why. Underlying our research are two propositions. First, citizens’ response to suspected corrupt behaviour is a good indicator of their tolerance for corruption. However, a low tolerance level alone does not necessarily mean that people will report corruption. We further argue that people’s willingness to confront corruption also reflects the extent to which they are satisfied with and have confidence in the government’s anti-corruption endeavour. Hence our second proposition is that citizens’ assessment of the government’s anti-corruption work has a strong impact on their willingness to engage in the fight against corruption. Our findings indicate that the propensity to report corruption results from the interaction between a lower level of tolerance for corruption and a positive assessment of the quality of anti-corruption governance in a society.
We expect our study to make two contributions. The first is to develop a macro-micro interactive perspective, which we term “socially embedded anti-corruption governance”, in understanding public engagement in combating corruption. By doing so, we seek to bridge the gap between structuralism which contends that human actions can be understood only in terms of their relationship to a larger, overarching system and methodological individualism on which rational choice assumptions are rested. Second, we are particularly sensitive to the impact of the quality of governance on citizens’ propensities to act against corruption. While personal characteristics contribute to people’s willingness to combat corruption, the overall quality of the anti-corruption work of the government as perceived by citizens exerts a strong normative effect on public willingness to combat corruption. Our research provides an evidence-based analysis of anti-corruption governance and is practically useful for formulating effective policies for controlling corruption.
