This is a caption.
Naeimeh Dostdar

Are women inherently incorruptible? Do they have no inclination to bribe, collude, embezzle, or engage in illegal transactions? Is gender a factor that has led to the lesser involvement of women in forgery, document destruction, and abuse of power and position?

These questions are very old, but their investigation does not have a long lifespan. However, the attractiveness of these questions has led to the creation of a specific field for studying the “relationship between corruption and gender”, and groups of researchers are seeking to answer this question: If corruption and gender have relationships, what is the nature of this relationship and can we reduce administrative corruption in the political, economic, and service sectors by relying on gender?

Another important question in this area is whether “gender equality relations in the public sphere and politics and the level of corruption in a specific society are established or not?”.

These questions, in addition to being examined in global research, have also been studied in a research conducted in Iran by Davoud Hosseini Hashemzadeh and Leili Habibi. This study, titled “A Comparison of Perceptions, Experiences, and Attitudes of Male and Female Employees towards Administrative Corruption”, has been published and used as a source in this note.

Corruption.

What is it?

The International Transparency Organization defines corruption as the misuse of power for personal gain.

The first article of the Law on the Promotion of Health in the Administrative System and Combating Corruption in the Islamic Republic of Iran defines corruption as follows: “Any action or inaction by any natural or legal person, individually, collectively or organizationally, which is intentionally and with the aim of gaining any direct or indirect benefit or advantage for oneself or others, in violation of national laws and regulations, or causes harm or damage to public or collective property, interests, resources, or health and safety, such as bribery, embezzlement, profiteering, abuse of power or administrative, political, facilities or information positions, receiving and making illegal payments from public resources, and deviation of these resources towards illegal allocations, forgery, destruction or concealment of administrative and financial documents and records, is considered corruption under this law.”

Different forms of administrative corruption, such as receiving money and various rewards for contract agreements, disregarding protocols for personal gain, using government property for personal purposes, turning a blind eye to illegal activities, interfering in the judicial process, hiring friends and relatives, underreporting income, and ignoring taxes for eligible individuals, exist and continue to exist with varying degrees of severity and weakness in different societies.

Corruption, in terms of its size and extent, is divided into small and large corruption. Small corruption refers to bribery, where employees receive direct payments from their superiors due to their low salaries. Large corruption refers to the misuse of power by high-ranking political officials for personal or group gain.

Hayden Hammer, one of the researchers in this field, considers administrative corruption to include black, gray, and white corruption. The first type is considered undesirable and deserving of punishment by the general public, the second type is seen as undesirable by political elites, but often ignored by the general public, and the third type is not considered important by either elites or the general public.

Corruption.

And.

Gender.

In the first decade of the present century, many studies examined the relationship between gender and corruption. A study by the World Bank, published in 1999, showed that women are more trustworthy and have a higher social spirit compared to men. This research stated that the presence of more women in parliament leads to lower levels of corruption.

However, the belief that women are inherently more honest than men and therefore less prone to corruption has been called into question by subsequent research.

Another researcher named Goetz has said that supporters of this idea have ignored the limitation that gender relations create in accessing positions involved in corruption, especially in cases where corruption takes place through completely male networks without the presence of women.

This means that the reason for less corruption in women is that they are generally not present or have less presence in situations where corruption occurs.

In 2003, another argument was raised, which was that a fairer and greater presence of women in government and politics, meaning the existence of a more democratic system, and in fact, this democratic system, due to its democratic structure, leads to a reduction in corruption, not because women are inherently more honest than men.

Researcher Pembsdrof has studied the relationship between corruption and gender, and his temporary conclusion is that “if women are involved in potentially corrupt transactions, they are more likely to fail. This is not because women are inherently more honest, but because when they have the chance to engage in a corrupt deal, they act more opportunistically.”

Evidence about whether women have less tendency towards corruption compared to men is not conclusive enough and cannot provide a definite answer to this question.

A study titled “Attitudes towards Corruption” conducted in 2006 in Australia, India, Singapore, and Indonesia challenged the idea that women are less inclined towards corruption.

Prior to this, the research that had been conducted in this field suggested that the attitude of each gender towards corruption plays a fundamental role in its occurrence and continuation. However, the findings of this study showed that the gender differences observed in previous research were not as global as claimed and were likely more specific to certain cultural contexts. In countries such as Australia, India, Singapore, and Indonesia, no significant and distinct differences were seen in the attitudes of men and women towards corruption, and the responses of participants in this study showed that men and women are almost equally likely to give or take bribes. Regarding the punishment of bribe givers and receivers, no significant statistical differences were found between the responses of women and men.

Given that the actions of each individual in different matters are highly dependent on their awareness of the consequences and dimensions of those actions, and also considering that there must be necessary resources and conditions in place to carry out an action, in many cases women refrain from participating in administrative corruption or engaging in it because they do not fully understand the consequences and dimensions of it and do not have the means to do so. This means that women generally have less access to sources of power (management, employment, and political positions) and economic resources (capital) compared to men.

Despite these gender differences in understanding and observing corruption, it has never been completely denied. It has been shown that women witness and feel a greater degree of corruption and are more affected by it. According to research, women around the world deal with less corruption than men.

Effect.

Corruption.

Bar.

Women.

Another interesting point in the relationship between corruption and gender is the impact that corruption has on different genders. In fact, more important than whether women have the ability to engage in corruption or not, is the unequal system that results from administrative corruption, which limits the abilities of women and disrupts their path towards gender equality, ultimately reducing their ability to pursue their rights.

Based on this, various forms of sexual discrimination fall under the category of corruption, which women in particular experience in a biased and unjust manner.

One of the most significant impacts of corruption on women is its effect on their economic situation. Corruption weakens women financially and economically. For example, in Africa or Asia, due to cultural traditions, women do not have the right to own property and do not have access to capital. In such circumstances, if there is corruption in government financial support programs for women’s economic empowerment, women are practically deprived of access to these supports.

Furthermore, the existence of corruption in the political system causes women to face even more limitations in their political participation. In a situation where relationships, bribery, vote buying, etc. determine the political fate of individuals, women lose the opportunity to participate in politics because they do not have the ability to compete in these arenas.

In the field of women’s rights, corruption in social and legal structures such as security forces, police, and the judicial system has negative effects on women. The existence of corruption in these security and legal systems increases the possibility of human trafficking networks or men taking advantage of domestic or workplace violence, and women do not have the ability or courage to seek help from these institutions due to the presence of corruption. Offenders also remain unpunished by using this corruption (for example, by paying bribes). In some cases, even the police and support institutions themselves subject women to violence due to corruption.

Another point is “limited access to resources”. Corruption affects women’s access to resources and services. Although all members of society see the harm of corruption in the system, the situation is worse for women. For example, in societies where bribery is common, women, due to poverty and lack of access to money and capital, practically lose the opportunity to benefit from services obtained through bribery. These services may include educational facilities, which depriving women of them puts them in a cycle of violence and discrimination.

A look at research on the relationship between corruption and gender reveals a relatively clear result: in order to reduce corruption in a society, efforts must be made towards gender equality; because it is only in the shadow of gender equality that a democratic society emerges, and democracy may be the only known means through which corruption can be fought.