AntiCorruption: Can Women Save the World?

While that is a big and important question, it's isn't answered in it's entirety here. We take a quick look at the main points through the lens of a short 2024 paper I wrote. If women were proven to be less "corrupt" than men then they might well be able to save the world, if and mights indeed...

In her 2007 paper titled, Political Cleaners: Women as the New Anti-Corruption Force?, Anne Marie Goetz proposes and refutes the idea that ’women are less corrupt than men’, calling it a myth. Goetz focuses on the political arena and suggests feminisation as a ‘quick fix for bad governance’ has not been properly assessed to establish truth. The ‘womanly’ nature, caring and attentive, seen as suited to domestic duties has often been transmuted into the political arena to stabilise and reform governance, she cites opportunity as the key variable, the lack of which gives women; less access to politics, less exposure to corrupt networks, hence fewer chances to ‘be corrupt’ and so women are by default seen as less corrupt.

From this angle her focus on the myth is trying to convince the reader that women aren’t political cleaners, citing various feminist, social and political examples, dynamics and rationale. The below table shows some of the conclusions drawn in illustrating the lack of opportunity.

Figure 1.0

BARRIERS TO POLITICAL ACCESS	BARRIERS TO POLITICAL ASCENT
Patriarchal systems	Patriarchal systems
Danger of physical and sexual assault	Established patronage networks
Religious norms	Perception of sexual misconduct
Social norms and expectations; *primary caregivers *poverty *poor education	Enduring dynastic regimes keeping women below male leaders

There is a social stereotype framework applied to women from a general perspective, citing papers from the 1960s to 1990s. A conclusion appears to be that social inequalities have excluded women from the political sphere reducing opportunity, and when they are involved, they are outside of networks that enable corrupt activity, with such limited access they can’t be or be seen to be corrupt or cleaners.

Goetz give intersectionality a nod (the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage), but doesn’t explore the idea in the context of the myth as she does social identity and accountability, 2007 is clearly early days in the ‘gender x corruption’ idea and empirical data is lacking - she lays the foundation for further discussion and investigation, a conversation that must include intersectionality and local factors. The social context is the foundation for her paper, but the power perspective isn’t explored, and a definition of corruption is pondered but not laid as a foundation, undermining the argument. A question that logically applies to the premise of the incorruptible woman is, does power corrupt women? If it does, then they can’t be defacto cleaners, with evidence, this debunks the myth, especially in the context of Johnstone’s ‘Elite Cartel’ syndrome (2014 / See Appendix 1.0).

However, if there was a scale of 'corruption', from authoritarianism to petty bribery, for instance, then there may be a pattern. While some research suggests that women may be less corrupt, it is important to recognize that gender alone does not determine ethical behaviour. Corruption is influenced by institutional strength, cultural norms, opportunities for wrongdoing, and personal choices, transparency, accountability, and governance systems.

Figure1.1

Name	Position/Country/Scandal	Time in power nexus	Available to Goetz
Imelda Marcos	First Lady / Philippines	1965 - 1986	Yes
Isabel dos Santos	First daughter / Angola	1979 - 2017	Yes
Dilma Rousseff	President / Brazil	2011 - 2016	No

The (powerful) women in Figure1.1 have been involved in scandals that involved widely corrupt regimes, this is in line with findings alongside the noted micro-finance fieldworker women who abuse their power for illicit gain (outside the political arena) shows women are susceptible to various forms of corruption. If you can only be corrupt in positions of power, which women tend to lack, then it can't be known that replacing men with women will work as an anticorruption device. This is supported in her cited papers and is perhaps a more coherent argument as political corruption exists in the context of power, the idea that the presence of women in a system reduces corruption requires significant empirical and game data extrapolation. There is an inherent issue as even if a women is a leader in a polity, she is often surrounded by male colleagues in the political fray.

The study of how gender and corruption converge was lacking coverage in 2007 when Goetz published this paper, despite this she argues her point with available literature and her own research and anecdotes. R.C. Brookes stated, ‘The corrupt official must know the better and choose the worse; the inefficient official does not know any better.’ - if, as Fischer et al (2018) suggest, women are more emotionally intelligent and empathetic than men then, a priori, women may know better and be more efficient, though wider study here might counter the Goetz myth. It would also be interesting to study matriarchal societies from a power, gender and corruption perspective, the power is there though the dynamic may more insular than the authoritarian/democratic republics in which we seek change.

Thanks for reading.

---

APPENDIX

1.0

The four Syndromes of Corruption created by M Johnstone are;

*Influence Markets - influence for rent, decisions for sale.

*Oligarchs & Clans - we are family and you're not.

*Elite Cartels - how to buy friends and influence people.

*Official Moguls - reach out and squeeze someone.

BILBLIOGRAPHY

Brooks, R. C. 1909. ‘The Nature of Political Corruption’. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2141078.pdf

Durkin, E. 2019. US college admissions scandal: how did the scheme work and who was charged? The Guardian, March 13. Avaialble at: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/12/college-admissions- fraud-scandal-felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin

Fischer A.H, Kret M.E, Broekens J. 2018. Gender differences in emotion perception and self-reported emotional intelligence: A test of the emotion sensitivity hypothesis. PLoS One. January 25. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784910/#:~:text=Indeed%2C%20research%20has%20sho wn%20that,)%20%5B13%5D%2C%20or%20emotional

Goetz, A.M. 2007. Political Cleaners: Women as the New Anti-Corruption Force? Development and Change. 38(1), pp. 87-105.

Johnstone, M. 2014. Corruption, Contention and Reform. The Power of Deep Democratization. Cambridge University Press. (pg151-185)

Johnstone, M. 2005. Syndromes of Corruption; Wealth, Power, and Democracy. Cambridge University Press.