Why are Africa's poor more likely than the rich to pay a bribe for public services?

19th January 2017

Research in Africa has consistently found that the poor are more likely than the better off to pay bribes to state officials for public services. This matters for all sorts of reasons, but from a state-building and developmental perspective, the crisis of trust that corruption can trigger can be devastating. When services are pushed just that bit further away by public-servants-turned-corrupt-gatekeepers, it is likely to colour the already jaundiced perceptions that hard-pressed communities may have of state institutions and of their legitimacy; and also, as Seligson puts it, of ‘the broader national governance frameworks in which they are located’.

So why are Africa’s poor more vulnerable to bribery for publicly provided services than those who are wealthier, who could afford to pay larger bribes? Scholars have so far argued that the poor are seen as 'easy targets' by bribe-seeking bureaucrats: the poor have less power, fewer influential connections and less knowledge about what they are entitled to, making them less likely to resist or report requests for bribes.

But there is another possible explanation: the poor simply use state services more than those who can afford privately provided services, and therefore come into contact with corrupt state officials more often.  

In a new study, Richard Rose and I test which of these explanations is more accurate. We analyse Afrobarometer survey responses from 51,605 people across 34 African countries (2011-2013).

First we explore whether Africa’s poor are more likely than the better off to pay a bribe even for services that only the state provides. When non-state providers also offer a service – such as healthcare or education, for instance – people with enough money can choose the provider they prefer. But for some services everyone must interact with the state, irrespective of personal circumstances – when they need official documents and permits or police services, for example.

...once the impact of poverty on an individual’s likelihood of using state services is taken into account, poverty has no independent impact on bribery.
We find that while the poor are more likely than the wealthier to pay a bribe for state services that other providers also offer (‘choice’ services), they are not more or less likely to do so for ‘monopoly’ state services. This suggests that in Africa frequency of contact with state providers may be more important than people’s socioeconomic status in determining their vulnerability to bribery for state services.

This is confirmed when we take a closer look at why the poor are more likely to be ‘choice service’ bribe payers. We find that, once the impact of poverty on an individual’s likelihood of using state services is taken into account, poverty has no independent impact on bribery.

So if Africa’s poor are more likely than the better off to pay a bribe for state-provided ‘choice services’ because they are more likely to use them, what policy implications might this have?

Expanding choice through privatisation has been a common policy response to bribery and inefficiency in public services: profit-making institutions are thought to be both more efficient and more effective in reducing employee bribe-taking. Our study does not look at the existence or extent of bribery in privately provided services. But it highlights that a genuine choice of provider depends on access: the potential of non-state services to benefit the poor depends on how easily the poor can access them.

State-provided vouchers are one means that could enable more poor people to access private services. But voucher schemes could of course involve some risks. If vouchers did not fully meet the charges and higher numbers of better off people used private services, inequality could increase: policymakers would need to ensure that the poor did not become even more disproportionately vulnerable to corruption in public services.

Read more about the study's findings and see coverage in The Washington Post.

 

Image: Women in North Darfur queue to be examined by doctors, 2012 (Photo: UNAMID).

0 Comments

Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.

Author

Caryn Peiffer

Caryn Peiffer

DLP Research Fellow Dr Caryn Peiffer has written DLP papers on the politics of state-business relations, reform coalitions for growth, and on corruption. Caryn examined the determinants of bribe payments as part of the Global Experience of Corruption project (University of Strathclyde). She has carried out research for Transparency International, DFID, AFD, and SIDA, and has worked in India, Zambia and Botswana.

Read more

Related items

Opinion by Heather Marquette13th October 2015

Politics shape services; and services shape politics

How governance and sector specialists can help each other understand the politics of service delivery

Opinion by Richard Batley19th June 2014

Politics - the problem and solution to poor services?

Why - and how - does politics trump everything else in service delivery?

Opinion by Claire Mcloughlin13th March 2014

‘Crows who come in search of dollars’: NGO legitimacy in conflict zones

Do political dynamics affect NGO legitimacy more than performance?

Opinion by Oliver Walton19th August 2014

Is education a magic bullet for addressing corruption? Insights from Papua New Guinea

This post for Devpolicy unpacks the findings of a new Development Policy Centre / DLP paper 

Opinion by Grant Walton17th June 2015

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

The unintended consequences of raising awareness of corruption

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015
Opinion by Heather Marquette10th November 2014

The politics of redistribution: we need you

Which are the key country cases? Help us shape new research.

Opinion by David Hudson16th October 2014
Opinion by Heather Marquette9th March 2015

Inclusive political settlements: who and what gets included, and how?

First of six posts on political settlements by researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal13th July 2015
Opinion by Caryn Peiffer5th February 2015
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal26th April 2016

Medellin - more than a miracle

From the most murderous city on earth to 'a new global standard for urban policy': the politics of change in the wake of crisis

Opinion by Cheryl Stonehouse4th March 2014

Developmental leaders, 'dirty hands', and the dark side of collaboration

The ambiguities of supporting 'developmental leadership'

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi11th December 2013

Security and justice – the mismatch between policy and practice

What hinders more politically nuanced security and justice programming?

Opinion by Shivit Bakrania21st July 2014

Inequality – the politics behind the policies

Discussion starter for the #polinequality conference

Opinion by David Hudson11th February 2015

Corruption: do we target the servant or the paymaster?

Guest post for The Guardian on UK aid watchdog report

Opinion by Heather Marquette5th November 2014

Does talking about corruption make it seem worse?

Guest post for The Guardian's Global Development Professionals Network