Table of Contents
Chapter 4: Results, Analysis, and discussion 2
4.1 Data and method 2
4.2 Data selection 2
4.3 Operationalization of variables 3
4.4 Methods 5
5.0 Analysis 6
5.1Comparison of means 6
Table 1: comparison of mean between variable V1, V2 and V3 6
Figure 1: comparison of mean between variable V1, V2 and V3 7
5.2 Correlation 7
Table 2: Correlation between the countries selected for the study 8
Figure 2: Scatter diagram 8
5.3: Regression Analysis 9
Table 3: Regression analysis table 9
Table 4: Combined ANOVA model summary (V1, V2, and V3) 10
5.4 Robustness 10
5.5 Conclusion 11
Chapter 4: Results, Analysis, and discussion
4.1 Data and method
4.2 Data selection
The study data was derived from various studies with specific reference to Democracy cross-sectional data that carries the largest data set with over 1,000 variables. It also entails discussion on economic, social and political characteristics of about 191 countries in total. In this analysis, the researcher specifically used a sample of 50 countries. This was just enough to investigate the impact of different electoral systems on political corruption. It is beyond any reasonable doubt that corruption has always been a key issue more so in the political arena that needs to be addressed Ades (2016).About research hypotheses that pose the question; What are the factors that create corruption and how are they related to autocracy?. This research hypothesis is best answered by the findings of the study which supports its relevancy from Myerson’s (1993) theoretical model that was used to illustrate the rot of electoral system with specific reference to the majoritarian regime.
The chapter again discusses on regression analysis of the selected countries electoral system and political corruption. According to Charron (2010), the number of cases in which the study can investigate depends on the legitimacy of political competition. Studies on political regimes and corruption have a long history and have not fared much better, empirical evidence on the correlation between the two factors point towards circumstances that can achieve high levels of political accountability in either a democracy or an autocracy. A casual examination of the Russian regions in the early 2000s determined that highly democratized and highly autocratic regimes achieved high incidences of political accountability and lower levels of corruption respectively compared to regimes that practiced a mixed form of autocracy and democracy (Brumberg, 2002). Moreover, most studies separate political regimes into two extremes without the need to account to countries that exhibit a mixed form of political systems.
4.3 Operationalization of variables
Dependent variables
Autocratic regimes sustain high levels of corruption: High level of corruption in its definition harms the advance of a nation. It is through such degenerate acts that spread the criminal endeavor, for example, illegal tax avoidance, medication and human trafficking since the officeholders couldn’t care less about the fewer benefit individuals in the general public. Among the outstanding violations in the contemporary time is the political defilement. Along these lines, it is fundamental to comprehend the importance of the term political debasement and different manners by which it is executed in the present administrations. According to Navot (2015), political defilement is the abuse of the official obligations for individual increases. The comprehension of this definition as indicated by Navot (2015) began in the second 50% of the twentieth century. Be that as it may, political debasement has experienced different changes in the quest for making it unmistakable to individuals what political defilement is.
According to Suleiman (2017), political debasement is the awful demonstration of utilizing the administrative capacity to threaten the fewer benefit individuals for private increases. The suggestion here is that officeholders frequently control the conventions utilized as a part of the political associations, which likewise impacts the execution of the administration associations and also the political framework promoting the institutional rot. Further, political debasement can be connected to the misuse of the political expert to amass and seal stealthy pick up to guarantee that one stays in control. Political debasement is the one that yields the political guardians as political increases that individuals accomplish from this type of defilement sets the ground for them.
Autocratic regimes resist institutional change: as a dependent variable for this study autocratic regimes resisting intuitional change is worth investigating more so when it comes to across country analysis of the impact of autocracy on corruption. Autocracy may sound so simple, but when it happens the ruling regime loses power, and that may come at a cost. The possibility under which autocracy may happen depends in a coup in which the military officially takes power and overthrow a monarch. The coup has a possibility of setting power timeframe in which the regime will rule before another democratic election is held this may be brought about by changing of rules and regulations that govern power. According to a study conducted by Barro and Lee (2000) where 280 autocratic regimes were involved between 1946-2010 where the study revealed how regimes might exit power and a possibility a rises for autocracy with the incumbent taking the front stage to take over control.
Semi-democratic regimes sustain high levels of corruption: The assumption might be right or wrong, and this is why the researcher picked on this specific variable to find out if the findings might support the research hypothesis which is set to associate autocratic regimes to transitional changes in governments or public offices. Although democratic systems are generally hypothesized to exhibit a lower variation in the degree of corruption, the current focus of most literature rests heavily on the relationship between democracy and corruption (Magaloni, 2006).
Perhaps, the patterns of corruption observed under autocracy and democracy seem to diverge, probably in a significant way. Even when autocratic political systems establish parliaments, political parties, and regular polls, accountability appears to be more compromised compared to nations that experience competitive electoral political systems. For example, when electoral authoritarianism is practice in part to co-opt possible political rivals, corrupt strategies may be employed as an approach to political patronage, and hence, polls may be seen as a catalyst for corruption instead of averting it. Nevertheless, this is mainly speculative. Little has been explored about corruption in authoritarian polities, where political accountability is not controlled by the competitive struggles for political office and the routine circulation of the elite.
Independent variable
Impact of autocracy on corruption: autocracy creates a loophole to corruption in that it builds an empire for autocratic leadership which allows a person to coordinate, direct, and supervise other people. There exist numerous forms of leadership with the common one being autocratic leadership. According to Khan et al. (2015), autocratic leaders retain much power as well as decision-making authority as possible, and this makes people who are close to the leaders to find an opportunity of looting public funds without fear of arrest or corruption charges because they hide under the umbrella of leadership. These leaders do not consult others, and they do not allow their input in their leadership. As a result, autocratic leadership yields dictatorship regimes. As per Geddes et al. (2014), an autocratic leader hides the rules that shape and constrain the political choices. It is through such a regime that determines the group from which a leader is chosen from and the leadership choices and policies. Besides, autocratic leaders exploit threats and punishments to influence other people, hence the emergence of a dictatorship regime.
4.4 Methods
The most important part of research is the methodology section in which the researcher is at liberty to choose which methodology best suits the study objectives and variables. Therefore in this study out of the 50 Countries targeted the researcher decided to take a sample size of 10% of the total population is sufficient to conduct a study and give comprehensive finding which is supported by other researchers like Mugenda and Mugenda (2008). Therefore 10% of 50 gives five countries in which the researcher randomly chose five party free nations like Afghanistan, Liberia, Guinea Bissau, Singapore and Sierra Leone which was enough to generalize the study findings. The data was then analyzed by the use of a statistical package for social sciences (SPSS version 21.0) for the quantitative data which also gave regression and correlation analysis. Then lastly the relationship between the study variables that are dependent and independent was tested with the help of analysis of variance (ANOVA).
5.0 Analysis
A descriptive analysis was conducted to help in revealing the relationship between the variables. Correlation analysis and regression were used in analyzing the relationship between the dependent variables V1, V2 and V3 and independent variable D1. After the relationship between the variables is tested the robustness was also tested using a T-test to determine the level of significance. Therefore the study met all the requirements for generalization of research findings.
5.1Comparison of means
Table 1: comparison of mean between variable V1, V2, and V3
Impact of autocracy on corruption
N
Mean
Standard deviation
Minimum
Maximum
Lower levels of political and economic accountability
88
-0.04
0.86
-1.28
1.44
Corruption relevance on autocracy
18
0.12
0.74
-1.01
2.78
Level of corruption on semi-autocratic regimes
40
0.16
1.04
-1.02
2.41
The findings reveals that for cases where higher means was detected bit showed that the impact of autocracy on corruption was low while in cases where the means recording were low it showed that the level of autocracy was high. Therefore it was worth investing the impact of the variables. The ranges showed that (N=88) was followed by (N=40) then lastly (N=18) respectively.
Figure 1: comparison of mean between variable V1, V2, and V3
5.2 Correlation
The person’s correlation was calculated by the use of SPSS version 21.0 to determine the relationship of correlation between the two variables. This was followed by a scatter diagram of the same to reveal more about the study variables for every country that was selected for the study.
Table 2: Correlation between the countries selected for the study
(1)
Afghanistan
(2)
Liberia
(3)
Guinea Bissau
(4)
Singapore
(5)
Siera Leone
V1
1
V2
0.86**
1
V3
0.22*
0.165
1
The study revealed that the values of correlation were ranging between a reasonable correlation value that is between (r=-1 to r=+1). This showed that there existed a positive correlation between the variables hence the variables created an impact on autocracy on corruption. If by any chance the correlation analysis could have recorded a 0.00 (r=0.00) that could have been an indication that no association between variables therefore in simple terms no positive or negative correlation between the study variables.
Figure 2: Scatter diagram
The graph does not flatten at any other given point meaning the dependent variables at no point had a zero significance with the independent variable.
5.3: Regression Analysis
Table 3: Regression analysis table
Coefficientsafor V1, V2 and V3
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
7.413
1.021
7.221
.000
Autocratic regimes sustain high levels of corruption.
.688
.0436
.452
14.765
.000
Corruption in autocratic regimes resisting institutional change
1.046
.402
.058
2.4568
.005
Semi-democratic regimes sustaining high levels of corruption
1.024
.006
.078
4.008
.000
- Dependent Variable: Impact of autocracy on corruption.
From the table above it was revealed that regression had a standard error of 1.021 with Beta values forming .452 and t-test value at 7.221 and the variable v1 and v3 had a significance level of .00 while variable V2 had a significant level of .005.
Table 4: Combined ANOVA model summary (V1,V2 and V3)
The significance is 0.000, so we can reject the null hypothesis that “The model has no “predictive value. “Which showed a total of 0.00 as the significance that makes the researcher rejects the null hypothesis.
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Regression
14.700
1.424
18.884
.000b
1
Residual
2.1345
2
.068
Total
16.345
3
Dependent Variable: Impact of autocracy on corruption.
This shows that variable V1, V2, and V3 were less than <0.05 each. Again it sets a platform for rejecting the null hypotheses.
5.4 Robustness
Robustness was tested on the findings on which T-test was used in testing the significance level of autocracy on corruption against other variables.
Robustness
N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Control of Corruption
2
-0.01256
0.86432
0.124567
3
0.34522
1.04567
0.123145
From the findings, there was a significant relationship at level (2-tailed) where t=5 9-0.01256 and the std.deviation error at 0.124567 and 0.123145 respectively.
5.5 Conclusion
The study revealed that the values of correlation were ranging between a reasonable correlation value that is between (r=-1 to r=+1). This showed that there existed a positive relationship between the variables hence the variables created an impact on autocracy on corruption. If by any chance the correlation analysis could have recorded a 0.00 (r=0.00) that could have been an indication that no association between variables therefore in simple terms no positive or negative correlation between the study variables.
Secondly, the findings revealed that for cases where higher means was detected bit showed that the impact of autocracy on corruption was low while in cases where the means recording were low it showed that the level of dictatorship was high. Therefore it was worth investing the impact of the variables. This is linked to a study by Suleiman (2017), political debasement is the awful demonstration of utilizing the administrative capacity to threaten the fewer benefit individuals for private increases. The suggestion here is that officeholders frequently control the conventions utilized as a part of the political associations, which likewise impacts the execution of the administration associations and also the political framework promoting the institutional rot. Further, political debasement can be connected to the misuse of the political expert to amass and seal stealthy pick up to guarantee that one stays in control. Political debasement is the one that yields the political guardians as political increases that individuals accomplish from this type of defilement sets the ground for them.
Bibliography
Brumberg, D. (2002). The trap of liberalized autocracy. Journal of democracy, 13(4), 56-68.
Fjelde, H., & Hegre, H. (2014). “Political corruption and institutional stability. Studies in Comparative International Development, 49(3), 267-299.
Friedrich, C. J. (2002). Corruption concepts in historical perspective. Political corruption: Concepts and contexts, 3, 1-23.
Good, K. (2010). Autocracy, insecurity, and pre-modernity in Botswana. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 48(3), 348-372.
Magaloni, B. (2006). Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico.
Treisman, D. (2007). What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research? Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 10, 211-244.