Governments worldwide have made tremendous effort to fight against corruption. Detecting corruption cases is one of the central tasks of all anti-corruption measures, which plays a vital role in limiting and reducing the extent and degree of corruption. Besides the proactive approach such as investigation initiated by government authorities for corruption detection, public participation such as reports from citizens provides an additional approach. Public participation has been valued for their contributions in various public affairs. It can without doubt improve the overall performance of anti-corruption. But can it also influence people’s perception of anti-corruption performance? In other words, will people’s perception of anti-corruption performance vary with different public participation in anti-corruption?
The present research is set out to investigate how public participation influences people’s perception of anti-corruption performance. Two experimental studies are designed to examine how the degree and mode of public participation in anticorruption influence people’s perception of anticorruption performance. Specifically, the effects of the proportion of citizen reports (high vs. low) and the mode of citizen reports (identifiable vs. anonymous) on people’s perception of anticorruption performance are investigated in study 1 and study 2, respectively. Within-subject designs are applied for both studies.
In Study 1, as one of the sources for corruption detection, citizen report is controlled for their proportion as high (i.e., 81%) in one condition versus low (i.e., 21%) in the other condition. Participants are asked to indicate their evaluation of anticorruption performance in a 1-100 scale and their willingness to report corruption in a 7-point scale for both conditions. It is expected that participants evaluate anticorruption performance better and are more willing to report corruption when there are more reports from citizens.
In Study 2, the proportion of citizen report is controlled between identifiable reports and anonymous reports. The proportion of identifiable reports is controlled as high (i.e., 72%) versus anonymous reports (i.e., 28%) in one condition, and low (i.e., 29%) versus anonymous reports (i.e., 71%) in the other condition. Participants are asked to indicate their evaluation of anticorruption performance in a 1-100 scale and their willingness to report corruption identifiably and anonymously in 7-point scales for both conditions. It is expected that participants evaluate anticorruption performance better when there are more reports from citizens, and they are more willing to report with themselves identified if there are more identifiable reports from citizens, and less willing to report with themselves identified if there are more anonymous reports from citizens.
Theoretical and practical implications will be discussed based on the findings from the the two studies.
