NICARAGUANS TALK
ABOUT CORRUPTION:
A STUDY OF PUBLIC OPINION
by
Mitchell A. Seligson¹
March 1997
¹Dr. Seligson is a Professor of Political Science
at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania
Mitchell A. Seligson is currently Centennial Professor of Political Science and Fellow of The Center for the Americas, Vanderbilt University. He is Founder
and Director of the Latin American Public Opinion Project, LAPOP. Contact: [email protected], Department of Political Science Vanderbilt
University, Box 1817 Station B, Nashville, TN 37325, voice: (615) 322-6328; fax (615) 343-6003.
This document was prepared by Casals & Associates, Inc., Arlington, Virginia, under Contract No.
524-0330-C-00-5066-00 of the United States Agency for International Development, Managua,
Nicaragua.
The opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not
reflect the position or opinion of the United States Agency for International
Development or the United States Government.
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
NICARAGUANS TALK ABOUT CORRUPTION:
A STUDY OF PUBLIC OPINION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Methodology and Sample Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Corruption: How Serious a Problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Definition of Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Corruption in Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Corruption by Individual Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Experience with Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
IMPACT OF EXPERIENCE WITH CORRUPTION ON
POLITICAL OFFICIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
SUPPORT FOR ANTI-CORRUPTION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE PROGRAM TO IMPROVE
GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
CORRUPTION AND THE STABILITY OF DEMOCRACY:
KEY LINKAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
PERCEPTION OF COMPARISONS WITH THE PAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
AN OVERALL LOOK AT THE FACTORS INFLUENCING PERCEPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
APPENDIX I
Survey Questionnaire
iii
Figures
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
iv
Does corruption affect you? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Perception of being affected by corruption, by level of education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Perception of being affected by corruption among those who
listened or not to the radio daily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Perception of being affected by corruption among those who read
or not newspapers daily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Perception of being affected by corruption among those who watch
or not television news daily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Percentage of rural and urban residents who claim to be affected
by corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Perception of Nicaraguans regarding certain actions by government
officials on the “Corrupt-Honest” scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Perception of corruption when mayor lends tractor without the
authorization of municipal council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Perceptions of Nicaraguans regarding certain actions by or on
behalf of individuals on the “Corrupt-Honest” scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Perception of corruption when mother pays bribe to obtain
birth certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Percentage of Nicaraguans who claim to have had personal
experiences with corruption, by type of experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Percentage of respondents who indicated indirect knowledge of
payment of bribes to public employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Percentage of Nicaraguans who claimed not to have knowledge of
acts of corruption or to know of one or two experiences: Cumulative impact . . . . . . . 15
Based on your experience, the payment of bribes is: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
How common is payment of bribes, by partisan vote and gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Cumulative knowledge of acts of corruption according to income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Cumulative knowledge of corruption according to level of education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Relationship between knowledge of corruption and exposure to
media coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Knowledge of acts of corruption, by place of residence in different
types of urban areas and in rural areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Knowledge of corruption, by gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
How Nicaraguans perceive various categories of public officials and
other social groups on the “Corrupt-Honest” scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Relationship between cumulative knowledge of corruption and the
perceived honesty of legislators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Relationship between cumulative knowledge of corruption and the
perceived honesty of public officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Support for anti-corruption measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Knowledge of efforts to improve the management of public funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Have you heard of efforts to improve the management of public funds?,
by level of educational attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Knowledge of measures to improve the management of public funds,
by whether or not they listen to daily radio news programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Knowledge of measures to improve the management of public funds,
by whether or not they watch daily television news broadcasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Knowledge of measures to improve the management of public funds,
by whether or not they read a newspaper daily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Knowledge of measure taken to improve the management of public funds . . . . . . . . . .
Do you know the functions of the Office of the Comptroller General of
the Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Do you know the functions of the Ministry of Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Knowledge of the functions of the Ministry of Finance and the Office
the Comptroller General of the Republic, by level of education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perception of the frequency of bribes and support for the court system . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perception of the frequency of bribes and support for the
political system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perception of the frequency of bribes and support for the
National Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perception of the level of bribery during the presidency of Chamorro
as compared to the Somoza era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perception of the level of bribery during the presidency of Chamorro
as compared to the Sandinista decade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perceived occurrence of bribery during Chamorro’s administration as
compared to the Somoza era and the Sandinista decade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perception of the incidence of bribery, by age of respondent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
27
28
28
29
29
31
31
32
of
33
37
37
38
39
39
40
46
v
Tables
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sample design and weighting scheme for 1996 sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How do Nicaraguans evaluate various acts in terms of whether or not
they are corrupt and whether or not they are justified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Personal experience with corruption in Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Measures taken to control management of public funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
What is the main role of the Office of the Comptroller General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Multiple regression coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Age by department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Mean residual score of perception of prevalence of bribes, by department . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Maps
1.
2.
3.
4.
vi
Perception of the incidence with which bribes are paid, by department . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perception of the incidence of corruption during the Chamorro
government in comparison to the Sandinista decade, by department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perception of the incidence of corruption during the Chamorro
government in comparison to the Somoza regime, by department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mean residual score of perception of prevalence of bribes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
42
43
50
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Even though the public has given considerable attention to the issues of mismanagement of public
funds and corruption in Nicaragua, a systematic effort has yet to be conducted to determine the causes
and possible solutions of corrupt acts, their magnitude and impact on the perceptions of the public,
and how these perceptions vary by gender, education, ideology, or geographic region. The purpose
of this survey, whose results are summarized in this report, is to provide answers to some of these
questions. The survey was conducted in the months of July and August 1996, and it is based on a
national probability (i.e., random) sample of 2,400 members of the voting-age Nicaraguan public.
Survey results can be generalized to 98.3% of the country’s population. Data for the survey were
collected in each department of the country, with the exception of Rio San Juan.
The study reflects the perceptions of survey respondents regarding several themes related to the
management of public funds and corruption. The information gathered was the product of recollections
of acts in which the respondents participated or about which they had indirect knowledge. As a result,
the survey was not designed to measure or determine the extent of corruption. Measuring corruption
is a difficult, if not impossible, task. Citizens acquire their own ideas about corruption through personal
experiences, daily activities, what they hear from relatives and friends, and information from the media.
The purpose of this study is to measure those perceptions by means of a public opinion survey. In
democracies, citizens act on many issues on the basis of their perceptions, including how they vote,
how they choose political affiliations, and how they select civil society activities in which to get
involved. It is not an exaggeration to say, therefore, that the citizenry’s vote is often more influenced
by perceptions of facts than by facts themselves. It follows that those interested in promoting
democracy in Nicaragua pay close attention to these perceptions.
The survey questionnaire was designed to evaluate (1) the extent to which Nicaraguans feel affected
by corruption; (2) how they define corruption; (3) the experience they have had with corruption
(whether directly or indirectly) and how they perceive its incidence; (4) the impact these experiences
have on how honest public officials and other social groups in Nicaragua are perceived to be; (5) to
what extent Nicaraguans support measures to fight corruption (and of what type); and (6) their
knowledge of the program currently being implemented in the country to improve government
financial management. Findings from the survey are used also to establish certain links between
perceptions of corruption and democratic stability, compare citizens’ perceptions regarding levels of
corruption during various political periods, and analyze the factors influencing perceptions of
corruption.
Understanding these issues is a high priority for Nicaragua at this point in history, given that
democratic rule is gradually taking hold after years of dictatorships, ideological conflicts, and civil
wars. Notwithstanding this encouraging trend, Nicaragua still faces grave economic, social, and
administrative problems. To address the latter, the government is implementing an ambitious reform
effort whose objective is to improve the management of public funds and reduce the incidence of
corruption. For the reform to be successful, it will be important to promote a national dialogue
regarding its scope and the impact it will have in the management of the national patrimony.
vii
The vast majority of Nicaraguans believe that corruption affects them personally and that it is
widespread in their country, with perceptions regarding its prevalence exceeding direct experiences
by a wide margin. Perceptions regarding the incidence of corruption tend to be higher among the
older, more educated, higher income, and better informed Nicaraguans, particularly among television
news viewers. Perceptions of corruption are nearly identical in urban and rural areas. Partisanship is
not a major determinant of perceptions of corruption, with voters of both major political factions in
Nicaragua viewing it as equally prevalent.
Nicaraguans are capable of differentiating between various types of questionable behaviors and are
prone to condone many corrupt acts. Although tolerant of corruption when judged justifiable, they
have generally harsher attitudes toward those who abuse the system for personal advantage. While on
the whole distrustful of public officials, Nicaraguans hold elected officials, politicians, and judges in
low esteem and broadly regard teachers, university professors, and clergy as more honest.
Despite their overall tolerance of corruption, Nicaraguans appear to be fed up with dishonesty and
indicate strong support for anticorruption initiatives. They favor more aggressive investigations and
strong legal sanctions, applaud educational and public awareness efforts, and would like to see greater
transparency in the use of public funds. Relatively few Nicaraguans, however, are aware of the
measures being implemented by the government, with support from the international development
community, to reform procedures to improve government financial management, increase economic
efficiency, and help reduce the incidence of corruption. Those who tend to know more about these
efforts are the wealthier, better educated, and more resourceful Nicaraguans. Three of every ten
Nicaraguans claim to know the functions of the Office of the Comptroller General, and a slightly
higher percentage state they are aware of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Finance. However,
when asked specifically to describe these functions, many respondents are capable of providing only
broad answers, suggesting a very limited understanding of what these governmental units actually do.
The perceptions uncovered by this survey are troubling for the political legitimacy of Nicaragua’s
fragile democratic political system. Relatively few Nicaraguans trust the public officials managing the
country’s patrimony. They are mistrustful about most of the country’s major political institutions and
skeptical about the political and economic leaders’ moral integrity. On the other hand, the perceptions
captured by the survey seem to reflect a newly discovered ability to communicate ideas by the citizenry
and a free press no longer muzzled by repression and intolerance.
Future surveys will help assess how the average Nicaraguan evaluates the government financial
management reform currently being implemented. Public awareness efforts designed to communicate
the intent of the reform will sensitize the Nicaraguan public to the importance of complementing the
financial management reform with citizen involvement. Only in this way can Nicaragua successfully
attack the moral, political, economic, institutional, and managerial underpinnings of corruption.
viii
NICARAGUANS TALK ABOUT CORRUPTION:
A STUDY OF PUBLIC OPINION1
It often has been said in Latin America that “corruption is like the weather, everyone talks about it but
nobody can do anything about it.” Perhaps that was true in the past, but, throughout the region, efforts
are being made to reduce governmental corruption. In Nicaragua, the focus of this study, one hears
a lot of grumbling about corruption, but, until now, there has been no systematic attempt to
understand public perception of corruption, its magnitude, impact, causes, and possible solutions.
Furthermore, nothing is known about variation of these perceptions with the population based on
gender, education, ideology, geographic region, etc. This study attempts to provide that empirical
evidence so as to assist those in the government of Nicaragua who are attempting to deal with the
problem of corruption.
At this point in Nicaragua’s history, this is a high priority, given that democratic rule is gradually
taking hold after years of dictatorships, ideological conflict, and civil wars. The election of President
Violeta Chamorro marked a turning point for Nicaragua because, for the first time in many decades,
the change in government was peaceful and resulted from free and fair elections. The election of
President Arnoldo Alemán in October 1996 was a further step in the consolidation of democratic
governance.
Notwithstanding these encouraging events, Nicaragua still faces grave economic, social, and
administrative problems. These problems will be solved only after years of implementing appropriate
policies. The governmental financial management reform, in particular, will enable the Nicaraguan
government to manage its resources more effectively and contribute to improving the quality of life
of its citizens. A national dialogue and transparency in the use of public funds are essential tools in
achieving this objective. This will require Nicaraguan citizens to develop a stronger sense of civic duty
and the press to be objective and responsible. The role the media will play in civil society’s oversight
of government financial management will be critical, given that Nicaragua today enjoys freedom of the
press. This freedom, however, may lead to distorted perceptions of the national reality if present
perceptions are shaped by an unlimited amount of information without taking into account that the
public did not have access to information in the past. This is true regarding corruption, a problem that
has afflicted Nicaragua for the last several decades.
In this study, respondents’ perceptions reflect their past experiences, whether directly or indirectly,
with acts of corruption. The survey was not designed to measure levels of corruption, something that
is difficult to do. Citizens acquire their perceptions about corruption through daily personal
experiences, information received from the media, and interactions with neighbors, relatives, and
friends who have encountered corrupt acts. The purpose of this study is to measure, by means of a
public opinion poll, the extent of those perceptions. In democratic regimes, citizens’ attitudes
regarding many civic activities are more related to perceptions than to actual knowledge, including
how they vote, their political affiliations, or their participation in civil society activities. Voting is
1
I would like to thank Dr. Sergio Diaz-Briquets for his extensive support in every phase of this project.
I consulted with him on questionnaire design, sample design, and analysis strategies. He also read the report in
draft form and made numerous helpful suggestions.
more influenced by how facts are perceived than by the actual facts. Therefore, it is of upmost
importance to those seeking democratization of Nicaragua to pay close attention to how citizens
perceive political and socioeconomic developments.
Methodology and Sample Design
This study is based on a national probability (i.e., random) sample of 2,400 members of the voting-age
Nicaraguan public. Respondents were interviewed by a team selected by Borge & Asociados and
trained with the oversight of Professor Andrew Stein, Tennessee Technological University and former
Fulbright Fellow in Nicaragua. The questionnaire was developed by the author of this study in
consultation with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID,) the Office of the
Comptroller General, and the Ministry of Finance. The draft instrument was pretested extensively by
Professor Stein in both urban and rural Nicaragua.
The study was conducted in each of the departments of the country, with the exception of Rio San
Juan, which was excluded for cost considerations. Rio San Juan contains only 1.7% of the country’s
population, so our findings refer to the remaining 98.3% of the population. Six voting precincts (juntas
receptoras de votos) were selected at random in each department. Within each of those precincts, an
average of 25 interviews were conducted, for a total target of approximately 150 interviews per
department, with the exception of Managua, where 300 interviews were conducted because of its
demographic and political importance. For the overall sample, we can speak about the results with
considerable accuracy: 95% of the time, the results of our sample will be within no more than
approximately 2% (higher or lower) of the views of the entire voting-age Nicaraguan population. As
is well known, the precision of the data obtained in a survey depends on the number of interviews
conducted, which is independent of the size of the population from which the sample is drawn as long
as the size of the population is large. It is for this reason that the precision of the results declines when
the departmental data are examined in comparison to the results of the national sample. At the
departmental level, with a sample average of 150 interviews, the level of accuracy is much lower,
about ±8%. Thus, we are confident in the accuracy of our results at the national level. At the
departmental level, the possible range of error due to the size of the sample is wider, but, in our view,
sufficiently narrow so as to be able to say meaningful things about the individual departments when
we find wide variation among them. Smaller shadings of variation will not be detected by our survey
at the departmental level, except for Managua, where our results are accurate at the ±5.6% level as
a result of our larger sample.
The Atlantic region of Nicaragua has always presented survey researchers with serious challenges.
Zelaya was incorporated into Nicaragua in 1894, but in the mid-1980s was renamed RANN and
RAAS. This is a vast region of more than half the territory of Nicaragua, yet it contains only 9.6% of
the population. The costs of providing a random sample of this region are high, so we decided to
represent it by concentrating our survey in three main population centers: Rama, Bluefields, and
Puerto Cabezas. Within each of these areas, two voting precincts were selected. A total of 175
interviews were conducted in the Atlantic region.
2
While the sample design had a target of 150 interviews per department, we need to reweigh the sample
for our overall results so that each department is represented by a sample size proportional to its
population. Thus, the results presented in this report reflect the weighted sample, accurately portraying
a picture of Nicaragua. Sample weights are given in Table 1 below, and the questionnaire is contained
in Appendix I.
Table 1
Sample design and weighting scheme for 1996 sample
1.
2.
Department
1995
Population
(census
data)
4.
3
5.
Fraction
of national
populatio
n
#3/100
6.
7.
8.
Desired N:
(#5 * 2,400)
Weight
factor
(#6/#4)
Weighted
sample as
delivered
by Borge
Percent of
Population
Survey
N
1,056,702
25.53
306
0.255
612
2.00
612
Matagalpa
364,790
8.81
150
0.088
211
1.41
211
Chinandega
348,971
8.43
147
0.084
202
1.37
202
Leon
330,168
7.98
175
0.080
192
1.10
191
Masaya
236,107
5.70
150
0.057
137
0.91
136
Atlanticoa
469,780
11.35
175
0.113
271
1.55
276
Jinotega
214,070
5.17
148
0.052
125
0.84
124
Esteli
168,936
4.08
125
0.041
98
0.79
97
Granada
153,183
3.70
142
0.037
89
0.63
88
Nueva Segovia
151,324
3.66
150
0.037
89
0.59
87
Carazo
141,831
3.43
132
0.034
82
0.62
84
Rivas
141,792
3.43
150
0.034
82
0.54
84
Chontales
137,477
3.32
150
0.033
79
0.53
79
Boaco
124,513
3.01
151
0.030
72
0.48
72
Madriz
99,842
2.41
149
0.024
58
0.39
57
4,139,486
100.00
2,400
1.000
2,399
Managua
Total
2,400
Source: Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos, INEC, Censos nacionales 1995, 25 de abril de 1995.
Cifras Oficiales Preliminares, Recuento Manual, Nicaragua, September 1995.
a
The tabulations for the 1995 census utilize RANN and RAAS instead of the older departmental name “Zelaya.” Atantico here
includes Zelaya and Rio San Juan. These have been summed here into one area to match the sample.
3
Note that Table 1 shows the method by which the weighting scheme was calculated to insure the
sample obtained for each department accurately reflects the proportion of the population residing in
that department according to the 1995 census.The region called “Atlantico” in this table includes both
RAAN and RAAS, as well as Rio San Juan, even though the only sampling points in that area were
Rama, Bluefields, and Puerto Cabezas. Hence, no interviews were conducted in Rio San Juan.
Furthermore, the sample weights delivered by Borge & Asociados varied slightly from those
calculated in the above table, producing a slight difference in the weighted number of interviews for
some of the departments. Both calculations are presented here, but the sample as weighted by Borge
& Asociados was utilized for all statistical analysis.
Corruption: How Serious a Problem?
Nobody knows how much corruption there is in Nicaragua, nor for that matter does anyone know how
much corruption there is in the United States or Norway. By its very nature, corruption is a sub-rosa
activity for which it is virtually impossible to gather accurate statistics. Notwithstanding this lack of
objective data, citizens universally have opinions about corruption, and those views often are held very
firmly. As shown in Figure 1, three of four Nicaraguan citizens responded affirmatively to the question,
“Does corruption affect you, yes or no?” Although males are more likely to feel affected by corruption,
there is no statistically significant difference between males and females, nor does age influence this
variable. On the other hand, better-educated Nicaraguans are significantly (sig. < .01) more likely to
feel affected by corruption than are the lesser educated, as shown in Figure 2. The reader should
contrast those with no education, 64% of whom feel affected by corruption, with those with university
education, 85% of whom feel affected. This is a troubling finding since it implies that those in society
with the greatest degree of personal resources to evaluate the actions of government are the ones who
perceive corruption as affecting them the most.
Does corruption affect you?
75%
80
Percent
60
40
25%
20
0
No
Yes
Figure 1
4
Perception of being affected by corruption, by level of education
Percent
90
80
70
60
None
Elementary
Middle
Secondary
University/
Professional
Level of education
Figure 2
Not only does educational level significantly increase the perception of corruption, but so does
attentiveness to the media (primarily written and electronic media). Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the
relationship between Nicaraguans’ sense that corruption affects them and whether or not they regularly
listen to radio news programs, watch TV news programs, or read a daily newspaper. In each case,
there is a statistically significant higher perception of corruption among those who listen, watch (sig
< .001), and read (sig. = .035) the news than those who do not. It is also of note that the greatest
difference was made by TV, as opposed to radio, while newspaper readership made the least
difference. These results are significant and consistent with findings from a study conducted by
Harvard University. In that study it was found that listening to TV news and public affairs programs
had a significant positive effect on many forms of civil society participation, although in the U.S.,
newspaper readership was even more strongly correlated.2 These findings also should be considered
by those in the mass media. What the findings show is that the more attention Nicaraguan citizens pay
the media, the more likely they are to feel affected by corruption. Thus, those in the mass media need
to know they are impacting on individuals’ perceptions, especially TV viewers; therefore, they must
think carefully about balance in reporting.
2
See Pippa Norris, “Does Television Erode Social Capital? A Reply to Putnam,” PS: Political Science and
Politics, Vol. 29,. No. 3, September 1996, pp. 474-80.
5
Perception of being affected by corruption
among those who listen or not to the radio daily
80
77%
78
Percent
76
74
72
71%
70
68
66
64
No
Yes
Figure 3
Perception of being affected by corruption
among those who read or not newspapers daily
80
Percent
76
78%
74%
72
68
64
No
Yes
Figure 4
6
Perception of being affected by corruption
among those who watch or not television news daily
80
78%
Percent
76
72
68%
68
64
No
Yes
Figure 5
Based on the above findings, it is not surprising that urban citizens find themselves significantly (sig.
= .01) more affected by corruption than rural citizens. In part this is a result of urbanites’ greater
exposure to education and the media, but it also may be a product of the greater presence of
government institutions in urban areas. Figure 6 below shows the data.
Percentage of rural and urban residents who claim
to be affected by corruption
80
77%
Percent
76
72%
72
68
64
Urban areas
Rural areas
Figure 6
7
Perception of corruption in Nicaragua, as shown in the preceding analysis, has a close connection to
socioeconomic status. More educated, wealthier, media-attentive, and urban Nicaraguans are more
likely to say they have been affected by corruption than are other Nicaraguans. Obviously, these
variables tend to go together, since those who are more educated are also more likely to be wealthier
and to have easier access to the media, and are more likely to live in urban areas. Statistically, this
means there is “multicolinearity” among the variables. In the concluding section of this report, an
analysis will be performed to determine which of these variables seem to be the most important and
what effect they have on the overall picture of the perception of corruption. At this point, it is only
important to note that these same higher socioeconomic status individuals are the ones most likely to
have contact with government officials and to be perceived by the latter as more promising targets of
bribes because of their greater financial resources.
Definition of Corruption
We now know that 75% of Nicaraguans believe corruption affects them personally, but we do not
know how they define corruption. Specifically, what kinds of actions taken in public and private
spheres are considered by Nicaraguans to be corrupt and what are not? To ascertain how Nicaraguans
define corruption, we posed a series of questions about various questionable acts; in each case, we
asked if the act was corrupt and worthy of punishment, corrupt but justifiable, or not corrupt. For
simplification of presentation purposes, we created a corruption scale ranging from 0 to 100, with
those who said the act was corrupt and worthy of punishment receiving a 100, those who found it
justifiable corruption receiving a 50, and those who felt the act was not corrupt receiving a zero.
Furthermore, we divided the various acts into three spheres: corruption in government, corruption by
individual citizens, and corruption by private enterprises. We concentrate our attention on the first
two, since the current anticorruption effort in Nicaragua is directed there.
Corruption in Government
We posed a series of six hypothetical situations to our respondents in the area of corruption in
government. These were common situations involving bribery of public officials and personal use of
public property. The results are presented in Figure 7 below. The strongest criticism is leveled against
legislators (diputados) who accept bribes from a private company. Almost without exception (91%),
Nicaraguans believe that such behavior is corrupt and should be punished. Other forms of corruption,
involving bribery of teachers, police officers, and public employees who use government property for
personal purposes, are all viewed as corrupt to approximately the same degree, namely 77-79 on the
100-point scale. Only in the case of the unauthorized (by the Municipal Council) use by a local mayor
of a municipal tractor to construct a public baseball field is the public quite tolerant of this form of
behavior. Apparently, because the tractor was being used for public good rather than private gain,
most Nicaraguans did not find this kind of behavior objectionable. As shown in Figure 8, in which the
original question coding scheme is displayed, only a minority of Nicaraguans believe that this action
is corrupt and worthy of punishment. In sum, when corruption is for personal gain, it is not supported
by the Nicaraguan public.
8
Corrupt
Perceptions of Nicaraguans regarding certain actions by
government officials on the “Corrupt-Honest” scale
100
94
90
79
80
78
78
77
Scale
70
50
37
40
Mayor lends
tractor
Personal
use of
official
vehicle
Employee
accepts
money
Police
requests
bribe
Teacher
accepts gift
30
Legislator
accepts
bribe
Honest
60
Figure 7
Perception of corruption when mayor lends tractor without
the authorization of municipal council
9
Corruption by Individual Citizens
Individuals generally become involved in corruption through either active participation or passive
acquiescence. Active participation involves citizens taking the initiative to bribe a public official, for
example. Passive acquiescence involves not reporting acts of corruption when they occur or
acquiescing to demands for a bribe made by a public official. Figure 9 shows how Nicaraguans react
to both forms of citizen corruption. There is a clear split in the responses. On the one hand, there is
an overwhelming belief that private businesses that pay bribes or students who give gifts to teachers
are corrupt and should be punished. On the other hand, each of the other forms of corruption was
justified by many respondents. Consideration of each one reveals a clear pattern. We asked our
respondents about the following situation: “An unemployed person is a relative of an important
politician, and the latter uses his influence to obtain a public sector job for him.” Many Nicaraguans
considered this form of behavior by the politician justifiable. Similarly, automobile drivers who pay
bribes requested by corrupt policemen are excused by many Nicaraguans. Even less criticized were
Nicaraguans who do not inform the police about their observation of the illegal use of a public vehicle.
Finally, we asked the respondents: “A mother with several children has to obtain a birth certificate for
one of them. In order not to lose time waiting, she pays a 5 córdoba bribe to a municipal official.” This
form of citizen corruption was the least criticized. But an examination of the individual responses for
this item, as shown in Figure 10, reveals that even in this most highly tolerated form of corruption,
only one-quarter of Nicaraguans do not consider it to be corrupt behavior; nearly half consider it
corrupt but justifiable; while only one-quarter believe it is corrupt and punishable behavior. In sum,
Nicaraguans distinguish clearly between some forms of questionable behavior and others. They are
more likely to be tolerant of the behavior when the circumstances under which it occurs seem to have
some reasonable justification, such as when a poor person needs a job. Even then, majorities recognize
the behavior as corrupt but do not want to punish the offender.
Corrupt
Perceptions of Nicaraguans regarding certain actions by or on
behalf of individuals on the “Corrupt-Honest” scale
100
91
90
81
Scale
80
Driver pays
bribe
Uses
influence to
obtain job
Student
gives gift
40
Company
pays bribe
Honest
53
52
50
Figure 9
10
57
Mother pays
bribe
59
60
Personal use
of official car
not reported
70
Perception of corruption when mother pays bribe to obtain a birth certificate
These findings present a difficult challenge to those who wish to stem corruption. Most Nicaraguans
agree that corruption, even petty corruption (e.g., giving a gift to a school teacher), is not to be
condoned. At the same time, a disturbingly large proportion find such behaviors justifiable and
therefore unworthy of punishment. Clearly, in the cases presented, many Nicaraguans justified
corruption for the poor and defenseless because they easily could see themselves in a similar situation.
But this also implies a great deal of elasticity in drawing the line between corrupt and legitimate
behavior; corruption can be justified by many Nicaraguans when the circumstances seem to merit it.
It is, perhaps, the ability to rationalize and justify illegal behavior that creates an atmosphere in which
such behaviors are tolerated. Thus, while most Nicaraguans consider corrupt a private business that
bribes a legislator, the private business owner might well develop a rationalization for the act along
these lines: “If this bribe works, my business will prosper and I will be able to provide employment for
my workers, a new house for my children, etc.”
The definition of corrupt versus honest behavior presented above did not vary within the Nicaraguan
population based on age, gender, education, or rural-urban residence. There was a significant tendency
in a few cases to associate higher income with lower level of tolerance for corruption, but the pattern
was not strong or uniform. Overall, then, these perceptions are widely shared among Nicaraguans of
all walks of life. In order to provide the interested reader with the full set of questions and responses
analyzed in this section, Table 2 is presented below. Of particular interest might be the percentage of
Nicaraguans who do not perceive the actions described as being corrupt.
11
Table 2
How do Nicaraguans evaluate various acts in terms of whether or not
they are corrupt and whether or not they are justified
Corrupt
and Should
Be Punished
N
%
Corrupt
but Justified
N
%
Not Corrupt
N
%
Total
N
%
DC1
Legislator accepts bribe
2140
91.1
123
5.2
87
3.7
2350
100
DC2
Company pays bribe
2012
85.6
233
9.9
105
4.5
2350
100
DC3
Police requests bribe
1444
61.2
801
33.9
116
4.9
2361
100
DC4
Driver pays bribe
910
38.6
878
37.3
567
24.1
2355
100
DC5
Student gives teacher a gift
1690
71.5
453
19.2
219
9.3
2362
100
DC6
Teacher accepts gift
1662
70.2
424
17.9
280
11.8
2366
100
DC7
Personal use of official vehicle
1477
63.3
638
27.4
217
9.3
2333
100
DC8
Use of official vehicle not reported
889
38.3
672
29.0
759
32.7
2320
100
465
684
19.6
28.9
830
1085
35.0
45.9
1074
596
45.3
25.2
2369
2365
100
100
DC11 Muni. employee accepts money
1565
66.0
566
23.8
242
10.2
2373
100
DC12 Increase on prices
1681
71.5
416
17.7
254
10.8
2351
100
925
39.5
936
40.0
482
20.6
2343
100
DC9 Mayor lends tractor
DC10 Mother pays bribe
DC 13 Employment through connection
Also of note in Table 2 is the item on corruption in the private sector (DC12), which asked, “During
Easter week, a small shop increases the price of candy. Do you think the owner is corrupt and should
be punished, is corrupt but is justified, or is not corrupt?” As shown in Table 2, most Nicaraguans
believe this form of behavior is corrupt and worthy of punishment. The results are similar to the
question asked about teachers accepting gifts from students.
Experience with Corruption
It was noted at the outset of this report that three-quarters of Nicaraguans felt affected by corruption.
The implication is that corruption experienced by the average citizen is widespread. How does that
overall perception match up with actual everyday experiences? We can determine that by describing
some instances of corrupt behavior and asking if the respondents’ have suffered from it. We focus on
bribery by police officers, a behavior that is considered corrupt by over 95% of the Nicaraguan public,
as shown in Table 2 above. In addition, we examine other common forms of corruption, including
requests for payment of bribes to public officials in general, to bank officials, to employers, and to
officials in the legal system (judges, clerks, etc.). These activities cover the wide range of illicit
activities that might touch the lives of Nicaraguans.
We begin the analysis by comparing the percentage of our respondents who have personally
experienced these various forms of corruption. Figure 11 shows the rather surprising results.
Although 75% of the public feel affected by corruption, at most only 12% have personally experienced
12
its major forms. Bribes to any public official in the two years prior to the survey were experienced by
12% of the public. This may be a high rate in comparison with other countries, but a search of archived
data sources has produced no direct comparative data on personal experience with corruption to make
this determination. But in Nicaragua, while 12% is an incidence of perceived corruption that ought to
be reduced, there is a strong discrepancy between this rate and the 75% who say they feel affected
by corruption at the same time they say they have not experienced it. It should be noted that some
respondents could well take the point of view that even though they have no personal experience with
corruption, they believe they are affected by it because, in reality, corruption does affect all citizens.
Since corruption, for example, absorbs taxes and deprives the public of their possible benefit, everyone
in that sense suffers from corruption. Our survey did not determine if individuals were thinking in these
terms when they responded to these questions. Perhaps further focus group work would reveal the
answer.
Percentage of Nicaraguans who claim to have had personal
experiences with corruption, by type of experience
20
18
16
Percent
14
12%
12
10
8%
7%
8
6%
6
4
2
0
Public
Employee
Bank
Police
Work
Figure 11
While it is impossible to spend more than a day in Managua without hearing stories of police bribery,
only 7% of our sample reported personally experiencing that form of corruption. We hasten to add,
however, that the fact that only 7% of the Nicaraguan public have been asked to pay bribes by the
police (in connection with a hypothetical trumped-up traffic violation) is in part a function of the
relatively small percentage of the public who own a car. In our survey, we found that only 11.1% of
the respondents reported owning a truck or a car. Yet, in other, more common activities that do not
depend upon car ownership, like making a transaction in a bank or dealing with superiors in the
workplace, direct personal experience with corruption is confined to considerably less than one in ten
citizens, as is shown in the figure below.
13
If personal experiences with corruption are limited, what, then, can account for the widespread
perception of corruption in Nicaragua? Perhaps vicarious experiences, victimization of relatives,
friends, and neighbors can account for it. We asked two questions to tap this dimension of the
problem. First, we asked if the respondent knew of anyone who had paid a public official a bribe for
any type of favor. Second, we asked if our respondents knew of anyone who had paid a bribe in the
court system. The results are presented in Figure 12. As can be seen, about one-fourth or less of the
Nicaraguan public know someone who has experienced corruption. While these figures are twice as
high as personal experience with corruption, they are still far below the 75% perceived incidence of
corruption.
Percentage of respondents who indicated indirect
knowledge of payment of bribes to public employees
30
27%
25
21%
Percent
20
15
10
5
0
Public
employees
Judiciary system
Figure 12
We explored these puzzling findings further to see if our data were hiding some aspect of experience
with corruption. Perhaps the citizens who have vicariously experienced one form of corruption have
not experienced the other. If that were the case, then it would be appropriate to add the two categories
shown in Figure 12, for a total of 48%, much closer to the 75% figure who report feeling affected by
corruption. In Figure 13 we show that this is not, in fact, the case; 65% of the public have had no
vicarious experience with corruption, 22% have knowledge of one act, and an additional 13% have
knowledge of two acts.
14
Percentage of Nicaraguans who claimed not to have knowledge of acts of
corruption or to know of one or two experiences: cumulative impact
70
65%
60
Percent
50
40
30
22%
20
13%
10
0
No experience
One experience
Two experiences
Figure 13
The gap between perception and experience is perhaps best highlighted by examining Figure 14. After
discussing personal and other experiences of bribery by police and public officials, we asked the
respondents the following question: “Considering your experience with what has just been discussed
(i.e., bribery), the payment of bribes to public officials is: very widespread, widespread, not too
widespread, or not at all widespread?” As can be seen, an overwhelming number (a total of 78%)
believe that bribery is widespread. Thus, while 88% of the public have no direct experience with
corruption, and 65% not even indirect experience, 78% nonetheless believe corruption is widespread.
Based on your experience, the payment of bribes is:
15
We can examine the responses to this question geographically by examining Map 1. There each
department’s average (i.e., mean) response to the question analyzed in Figure 14 is shown. As can be
seen, Managua and Masaya stand out as being the departments in which corruption is seen as being
the most widespread. At the other extreme, Nueva Segovia and Esteli have the most favorable views
on the prevalence of corruption.
For the interested reader, we provide in Table 3 a more detailed summary of experience with each of
the acts of corruption under study. It should be noted that the data are presented so that they total
100% in each case, even though for some of the variables (e.g., EXC2, EXC3), the responses given
are only for those who answered the question. That is, for those Nicaraguans who did not report
having been stopped by a police officer and being falsely accused of a traffic violation, we did not ask
if a bribe was requested or paid. Thus, the high percentages in these two items refer only to the 15.5%
of the respondents who report having been “shaken down” by the police.
Table 3
Personal experience with corruption in Nicaragua
No
Yes
Total
N
%
N
%
N
%
EXC1 Stopped by police
2005
84.5
367
15.5
2372
100
EXC2 Police asks for bribe
213
55.3
172
44.7
386
100
EXC3 Paid a bribe
120
48.4
126
51.2
246
100
EXC4 Witnessed a bribe payment
1533
64.8
834
35.2
2367
100
EXC5 Knows of a bribe payment to a
public employee
1689
72.4
645
27.6
2334
100
EXC6 Bribe requested by a public
employee
2081
87.8
289
12.2
2370
100
EXC12 Payment of bribe at a bank
2164
91.7
195
8.3
2359
100
EXC13 Payment of bribe at work
2215
93.8
145
6.2
2360
100
EXC14 Payment of bribe in the judiciary
system
1879
79.1
495
20.9
2374
100
16
17
Readers might jump to the conclusion that perception of the prevalence of bribery (EXC7) is linked
to the political position of the respondent. Is perception of corruption a partisan issue? In fact, it is not,
as shown in Figure 15 below. Male and female supporters of the two main contenders in the 1990
election, the FSLN and UNO, have very similar perceptions of the widespread prevalence of bribery
of public officials. Indeed, the perception is virtually the same among those who would not disclose
their vote to the interviewers.
Very common
How common is the payment of bribes,
by partisan vote and gender
100
90
80
75% 73%
77% 77%
76%
78%
70
Percent
60
50
Not common
40
30
Male
20
Female
10
0
Did not
respond
FSLN
UNO
Vote in 1990
Figure 15
Which segments of the Nicaraguan population have had greater experience with corruption than
others? To answer this question, we rely on the cumulative knowledge of corruption used above. That
is, this is the combined measure of those who have heard of the payment of a bribe to a public official
(EXC5) and payment of a bribe in the courts (EXC14). Other measures could be used, but they
demonstrate a similar pattern.
First, and most strikingly, knowledge of bribery is directly and positively associated with income: the
wealthier the respondent, the more likely s/he will have heard of an act of bribery. These results are
presented in Figure 16.
18
Cumulative knowledge of acts of corruption according to income
Corruption scale
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
4000>
30014000
20013000
15012000
10011500
700-1000
<700
0.4
Income in Córdobas
Corruption scale varies between 0 and 2
Sig. < .001
Figure 16
A similar pattern is shown when education is examined. As demonstrated in Figure 17, those with
higher levels of education are more likely to have knowledge of corruption than those with lower
levels of education.
Cumulative knowledge of corruption
according to level of education
0.8
Corruption scale
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
None
Elementary
Middle
Level of education
Corruption scale varies between 0 and 2
Sig. < .001
Secondary
University/
Professional
Figure 17
19
The results presented in Figure 18 show that those who are more attentive to the media are more likely
to have heard of acts of corruption.
Percent who pays attention to the media
Relationship between knowledge of corruption and
exposure to media coverage
90
76%
71% 72%
80
70
82%
65%
62%
60
49%
50
35%
40
28%
Listen to
the radio
Watch TV
30
20
Read paper
10
0
None
One
Two
Number of experiences with acts of corruption
Sig. < .001 for each
type of media
Figure 18
Patterns of residence also influence exposure to corruption. As shown in Figure 19, residents of
Managua are more likely to have heard of corrupt acts than Nicaraguans who live in less urban areas.
Exposure to corruption is quite low in rural areas.
Knowledge of acts of corruption, by place of residence
in different types of urban areas and in rural areas
0.9
Corruption scale
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
City of
Managua
Corruption scale varies between 0 and 2
Sig. < .001
20
Departmental
capital
Municipal
capital
Figure 19
Rural areas
Finally, exposure to corruption varies by gender, with males significantly (sig. = .03) more likely than
females to have had the experience. The results are displayed in Figure 20.
Knowledge of corruption, by gender
0.54
Corruption scale
0.52
0.51
0.5
0.48
0.46
0.44
0.44
0.42
Male
Female
Corruption scale of varies between 0 and 2
Sig. = .03
Figure 20
We can summarize this presentation of data by saying first, there is a wide gap between experience and
perception; much higher levels of corruption are perceived than experienced. Second, experience with
corruption is a direct function of factors of socioeconomic status, such as income, education, area of
residence, as well as gender.
21
IMPACT OF EXPERIENCE WITH CORRUPTION
ON POLITICAL OFFICIALS
Is there any spillover between experience with corruption and the opinion Nicaraguans hold of their
political officials? In order to answer that question, we need to proceed in a two-step fashion. First,
we need to examine the degree to which Nicaraguans believe in the integrity of their public officials.
Second, we need to associate experience with corruption with the integrity data.
The survey contained a battery of 16 items in which the respondents were asked to rank, on a scale
of 1-10, the degree to which various public officials were “honorable” or “corrupt.”3 As seen in Figure
21, the average scores vary dramatically. On the one hand, teachers, university professors, and the
clergy are viewed quite favorably, averaging over 7 on the 1-10 scale. If we take 5 as the dividing line
between honorable and corrupt, only one other group—store keepers—is, on average, considered to
be honorable. All remaining groups are on the negative end of the continuum, with party leaders,
mayors, legislators, and ministers trailing the list, and employees of the customs authority at the very
bottom with an average score of 3.6. At the same time it is important to note that among those on the
negative end of the continuum, the police, often the target of much discussion because of alleged
propensity to ask for bribes, are more highly regarded than many other groups. Finally, mayors are
less well regarded than are council members (consejales), although the difference is not large.
How Nicaraguans perceive various categories of public officials
and other social groups on the “Corrupt-Honest” scale
Honest
10
9
7
7
Clergy
University
professors
8
8
7
5.5
4
4
4
4
4.2
4.3
4.5
Party leaders
Judges
Business
leaders
Councilmember
Policemen
Union
leaders
3.6
4
Mayors
4
4
Legislators
5
Ministers
Scale
6
Corrupt
3
Teachers
Customs
employees
1
Store
owners
2
Figure 21
3
The scale was coded so that number 1 coincided with the “very honorable” end of the continuum, while
number 10 coincided with the “very corrupt” end. In order to present the findings in terms of the degree to which the
individuals are perceived as being honest rather than dishonest, the coding has been reversed in this report. That is,
1 is coded as very corrupt and 10 as very honorable.
22
If the Nicaraguan government or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) wanted to increase public
awareness about the need to fight corruption, there are lessons to be learned from these data. In
Nicaragua, teachers, university professors, and the clergy stand out as groups in whom Nicaraguans
have more confidence than any other group. Moreover, it is precisely the nation’s educators who are
in the best position to “get the message out” as part of their regular pedagogical duties. Clearly, then,
teachers and professors could be more helpful than legislators and ministers in attempting to influence
public opinion. In short, if the government and/or NGOs want to encourage Nicaraguans to behave
in an honest fashion and to believe that serious efforts are being made to clean up government
corruption, teachers, professors, and, perhaps, the clergy would be the only ones who could bring
home a believable message.
Now, to return to the question of the linkage between experience with corruption and the degree to
which public officials are perceived as being honorable or corrupt, we bring together this new data
with the material examined earlier. Is there a linkage? The answer, quite clearly, is yes. Examine, for
example, Figure 22, which shows the relationship between vicarious experience with corruption and
the degree to which legislators (i.e., diputados) are perceived as being honest or corrupt (on a tenpoint scale). The greater the experience with corruption, the less honorable the diputado is perceived,
with the difference being statistically significant (sig. < .001).
Corrupt - Honest scale
More corrupt
More honest
Relationship between cumulative knowledge of corruption
and the perceived honesty of legislators
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
None
One
Knowledge of acts of corruption
Two
Sig. < .001
Figure 22
23
The pattern presented above is repeated for the entire series of honesty/corruption measures, with
minor deviations. Rather than present the same pattern repeatedly, Figure 23 presents an overall scale4
of honesty of nine public officials (legislators, ministers, mayors, council members, police, judges, the
military, political party leaders, and customs employees), recalibrated to a range of 1-10 following the
original scale.5 As can be seen, the pattern is identical, with greater vicarious experience with
corruption being linked to a lower estimate of the honorableness of the various public officials. This
pattern does not vary by gender or rural/urban residence.
Relationship between cumulative knowledge of corruption
and the perceived honesty of public officials
Corrupt - Honest scale
More corrupt
More honest
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
None
One
Knowledge of acts of corruption
Honesty = sum of the nine variables/9
Sig. < .001
Figure 23
4
The items form a very reliable scale, with an Alpha coefficient of .85.
5
This was accomplished by dividing the sum of the nine items by nine.
24
Two
SUPPORT FOR ANTICORRUPTION MEASURES
We now know a great deal about perception of corruption in Nicaragua. We know that a relatively
small proportion of the population experiences it directly or indirectly, but most Nicaraguans believe
it is very widespread. We also know that greater exposure to the media increases the perception that
corruption is widespread and that better educated, more well-off, urban Nicaraguans are more likely
to perceive corruption than lower socioeconomic status rural Nicaraguans. Finally, we know that
exposure to corruption has a direct, negative impact on the perception of the honesty of public
officials.
So now we come to the question: What can be done about reducing incidence and perception of
corruption? We asked our 2,400 Nicaraguan voting-age individuals about a number of measures that
have been discussed to see the degree to which they would be supported and which ones would be
viewed as more popular than others. We focused on eight distinct measures that could be taken:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Greater media exposure of corruption
Longer prison sentences for those convicted of corruption
Greater emphasis by teachers on moral values in the schools
Greater investigative efforts by the Comptroller General
Increasing the salaries of the police and public employees
More extensive reporting of expenditures by central and municipal governments
Having the private sector denounce acts of corruption
Greater punishment of the private sector for corruption
Figure 24 shows the degree of support for these eight anticorruption measures. In this figure we
combined those who were either strongly or mildly in favor of the measure. As a practical matter,
nearly all respondents selected the “strong” approval, so the aggregation of the responses has no real
effect on the results. As is obvious from the figure, support for each of these measures is
overwhelming, with no significant variation among them. While investigation of corruption is more
highly supported than any other measure, and greater punishment for corrupt acts by private enterprise
obtains the lowest level of support, the difference between the highest and lowest is only about one
percent, a trivial difference.6 What these results mean is that Nicaraguans overwhelmingly support any
and all reasonable measures to stem corruption. This presents an unusually permissive consensus for
government action. Rarely are policymakers confronted with public opinion that is as universally
supportive as is the case today in Nicaragua.
6
The reader should be aware that even though the vast majority of respondents indicated the Comptroller
General of the Republic should conduct more investigations, many of them are not aware of the specific functions of
this government agency.
25
Scale
26
30
20
10
0
96.0
95.0
Punish private
business
40
95.7
More denunciations
by the private
sector
50
95.5
More information on
expenditures
60
95.4
Higher salaries
70
96.7
More investigations
by the Comptroller
80
95.6
Teach moral
values
90
96.8
Longer sentences
100
More press
coverage
Support for anti-corruption measures
Measures
Figure 24
PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE PROGRAM TO IMPROVE
GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Nicaragua has embarked upon a program to manage government finances more effectively and reduce
corruption in the public sector. How aware were citizens of that campaign as of July 1996? Figure 25
shows that only one-quarter of the population were aware of such efforts.
Knowledge of efforts to improve the management of public funds
Not surprisingly, awareness of such efforts is closely linked to education. As shown in Figure 26, those
with higher levels of education are significantly (sig < .001) more likely to have heard of the efforts
to improve management of public funds. For example, among those with no formal education, only
about 10% of the sample has heard of the efforts, but among those with university education, the
proportion rises to about 45%.
27
Have you heard of efforts to improve the management of public funds?,
by level of educational attainment
50
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
None
Elementary
Middle
Secondary
University/
Professional
Level of education
Sig. < .001
Figure 26
Media attention also increases awareness of efforts to improve government financial management.
While females are less aware than males, as shown in Figures 27, 28, and 29, media use increases
awareness for both sexes. Highest awareness is among male newspaper readers, but even there the
awareness extends to only 38% of the public.
Knowledge of measures to improve the management of public
funds, by whether or not they listen to daily radio news programs
Percent who have knowledge
of some measure
40
30%
30
24%
23%
Gender
Male
20
16%
Female
10
No
Yes
Figure 27
28
Knowledge of measures to improve the management of public
funds, by whether or not they watch daily television news broadcasts
Percent who have knowledge
of some measure
40
33%
30
20
26%
16%
Gender
10%
10
Male
Female
0
No
Yes
Figure 28
Knowledge of measures to improve the management of public funds,
by whether or not they read a newspaper daily
38%
Percent who have knowledge
of some measure
40
34%
30
23%
Gender
20
15%
Male
Female
10
No
Yes
Figure 29
29
We asked the respondents to tell our interviewers which measures were being used to improve the
management of public funds. Recall that only about one-quarter of the respondents said they had some
knowledge that measures were being taken. Of those who did, most were able to mention one of those
measures. The distribution of their responses, in order of increasing frequency of mention, is contained
in Table 4, and graphed in Figure 30. The most common response, given by 92 respondents (in the
weighted sample), was “careful control of public funds,” followed by “investing funds in public
works.” A question was also asked (TR8) if the details concerning public contracts should be made
public. There was near universal agreement on this item (94%), and, for that reason, no further
analysis is presented. However, the general nature of the responses lead to the conclusion that the
knowledge possessed is not very precise.
Table 4
Measures taken to control management of public funds
Frequency
Valid
4
Control over bank loans
7
Fire public functionaries for
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
.1
.3
3
mismanagement of funds
14
.6
3.1
3.4
1
Improve roads
15
.6
3.2
6.6
2
Avoid unnecessary expenditures
28
1.2
6.1
12.7
3
Investment in public property
30
1.3
6.7
19.4
8
Avoid government corruption
33
1.4
7.4
26.9
13 Accountability of public funds
34
1.4
7.6
34.5
10 New methods to improve fiscal
41
1.7
9.2
43.7
11 Municipal development
48
2.0
10.8
54.4
5
Watch public funds
49
2.0
10.8
65.2
6
Invest collected funds in social
65
2.7
14.4
79.6
92
3.8
20.4
100.0
Total
450
18.8
100.0
88
NS/NR
129
5.4
99
N/A
1820
75.8
1950
81.2
2400
100.0
policy
works
9
Missing
Accurate control of public funds
Total
Total
30
Knowledge of measures taken to improve the
management of public funds
92
80
15
30
33
34
41
48
49
Watch public funds
14
28
Invest in property
20
Improve roads
40
Unnecessary expenditures
60
Municipal development
65
Fire public officials
Frequency mentioned
100
1
Figure 30
Careful control of public funds
Invest public funds in social works
Improve fiscal policy
funds
Account for public
Avoid govt. corruption
Control bank loans
0
Since the Office of the Comptroller General and the Ministry of Finance play a key role in the
anticorruption campaign, we wanted to know the extent to which the public is familiar with these
government units. We first asked: “Do you know what are the functions of the Comptroller General
of the Republic?” Figure 31 shows the results. As can be seen, only about a little more than onequarter of the Nicaraguan public knows the functions of the Office of the Comptroller General.
Do you know the functions of the Office of the
Comptroller General of the Republic?
31
We then sought to determine the specific ideas that Nicaraguans had of the Comptroller’s Office, so
we asked, “What is the principal function of the Comptroller’s Office?” In Table 5 we see that among
the one-quarter of the public that could answer this question, the overwhelming (80%) response was:
“inform about what happens in public administration.” The other responses were chosen by a very
small number of Nicaraguans.
Table 5
What is the main role of the Office of the Comptroller General?
Valid
6
5
1
3
2
4
Missing
8
9
Total
Auditing
Oversee government investment
Send people to jail
Engage in political activities
Engage in technical activities
Inform about public administration
Total
NS/NR
N/A
Total
Frequency
Percent
1
11
26
45
52
542
677
9
1714
1723
.1
.4
1.1
1.9
2.2
22.6
28.3
.4
71.4
71.8
2400
100.0
Valid
percent
.2
1.6
3.9
6.7
7.6
80.1
100.0
Cumulativ
e
percent
.2
1.8
5.6
12.3
19.9
100.0
139.8
Turning now to the Ministry of Finance, we also find that a minority of Nicaraguans are familiar with
its functions. In this case, however, more than one-third say they are familiar with this ministry, a level
higher than for the Office of the Comptroller General.
Do you know the functions of the Ministry of Finance?
32
Knowledge of both the Office of the Comptroller General and the Ministry of Finance is directly linked
to the respondents’ level of education. As shown in Figure 33, those with higher
education are more likely to be familiar with both offices.
Knowledge of the functions of the Ministry of Finance and the Office of the
Comptroller General of the Republic, by level of education
80
Percent
60
40
Role of the Office of the
Comptroller General
20
0
None
Role of the Ministry of
Finance
Elementary
Middle
Secondary
University/
Professional
Level of education
Sig. < .001
Figure 33
33
CORRUPTION AND THE STABILITY OF DEMOCRACY:
KEY LINKAGES
Most of the attention now being placed on anticorruption campaigns in Latin America and elsewhere
is justified on the basis of economic efficiency. If, for example, 20% or 30% of government
expenditures are lost to corruption in the form of bribes and kickbacks, that is 20-30% of taxpayers
dollars that are lost. Development is slowed, and public problems go unattended. But there is a
potentially far more important consequence of corruption—it might weaken the very fabric of the
democratic system in which it takes place and leave that system vulnerable to political instability.
There is only limited political science theory on which we can base this argument, but, as shall be
shown in a moment, perception of corruption, in Nicaragua at least, is linked to perception of the very
legitimacy of the political system. Legitimacy is a key concept in political science, and political systems
that are thought to be illegitimate are ones that are not likely to remain stable.
First, it is necessary to discuss the importance of political legitimacy.7 A country’s stability has long
been thought to be directly linked to popular perceptions of the legitimacy of the system. Illegitimate
systems, ones that do not have the support of the populace, can only endure over the long haul
through the use of repression. When repression no longer can be used effectively, or if opposition
elements are willing to risk even extremely grave sanctions, illegitimate regimes will eventually fall.
Hence, the failure of the Tienanmen Square protestors to bring about changes in the Chinese system
can be attributed to either of two causes: (1) the level of coercion that the state was willing to apply
exceeded the willingness of the protestors and their supporters to bear it; or (2) system legitimacy was
greater among the mass public than it appeared from observing the protestors alone. In contrast, the
rapid demise of the communist governments of Eastern Europe suggests rather strongly that once
repressive forces are weakened (in this case by the removal of the threat of Soviet intervention on
behalf of those governments), illegitimate regimes quickly crumble.
But what of democratic systems? Since almost all of Latin America today is democratic (in structure
at least), we want to know what forces have, in the past, been responsible for the prior breakdowns
of democracy. In most cases, military coups have been the main factors responsible. Certainly this has
been the case in the vast majority of democratic breakdowns in Latin America. Democratic systems,
in contrast, provide a wide variety of mechanisms for the popular expression of discontent and
obstacles to the widespread use of official repression. In democracies, therefore, when citizens are
discontent with government performance, they tend to wait until the next election to seek a change
in incumbents. There are, however, some instances in which popular sentiment seems to have been at
least partly responsible for democratic breakdowns. The best known case is the demise of the Weimar
Republic, where the voters made their choice. In Latin America, the Fujimori “auto-golpe,” which
extinguished democratic rule in Peru in 1992, emerged out of a popular revulsion over the inability of
the extant democratic system to deal effectively with Sendero Luminoso terrorism. According to
several reports, despite the use of undemocratic means, President Alberto K. Fujimori was among the
7
This discussion in the next few paragraphs draws on a prior work by Seligson for the USAID mission.
Mitchell A. Seligson, Political Culture in Nicaragua: Transitions, 1991-1995, USAID, January 1996.
35
most popular heads of state in all of Latin America and was reelected when he ran for office.8
Similarly, the repeated attempts to overthrow the elected government of Venezuela have been
supported, according to the polls, by many of its citizens. In the main, however, while authoritarian
regimes survive based on some combination of legitimacy and repression, democracies tend to rely
primarily on legitimacy.9
According to Lipset’s classical work, legitimate systems survive even in the face of difficult times. In
Central America, by the mid-1980s, all six countries were regularly holding free and fair elections.10
The survival of these democracies, each of which is facing very difficult economic times, depends upon
continued popular support. One need only think of the ballot box ouster in 1990 of the Sandinistas in
Nicaragua, to see how critical such support can be. In that case, the inability of the system to cope
effectively with the severe economic crisis and the protracted Contra war, caused voters to turn
against the system.11
Does a belief that the government is riddled with corruption serve to reduce the populations’ political
support for it? We can test this notion with the data from Nicaragua. Examine Figure 34 where the
relationship between the perceived prevalence of bribes is related to support for the court system. As
the perception of bribery increases, support for the court declines significantly. Similarly, as shown
in Figure 35, support for the political system declines with increased perception of corruption. Figure
36 shows the same linkage to support for the legislature.
This research has uncovered a general pattern that suggests corruption is linked to perceptions
of the legitimacy of the political system. It is not surprising, therefore, that in prior comparative work
on the legitimacy of the Nicaraguan system of government, it has been shown that support for that
system is low and falling.12 Thus, corruption not only causes inefficiency, it helps to erode the political
stability of the country.
8
James Brooke, “Fujimori Sees a Peaceful and Prosperous Peru,”New York Times, April 6, 1993, A3.
According to the article, Fujimori’s approval ratings were between 62 and 67 percent.
9
This is not to say that democracies do not use coercion, but that its use is limited.
10
Participation by leftist parties was highly restricted in El Salvador up until the peace accords implemented
in 1992-93. In Guatemala such participation still remains restricted. For details see Mitchell A Seligson and John
A. Booth, Elections and Democracy in Central America, Revisited. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North
Carolina Press, 1995.
11
See Vanessa Castro and Gary Prevost, The 1990 Elections in Nicaragua and Their Aftermath. Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992. Since the ouster of the Sandinistas involved a dramatic shift
in the entire system of government, from socialist to capitalist, from Soviet/Cuban alignment to realignment with the
U.S., it is appropriate to think of this election as having changed the system rather than merely the personnel of
government.
12
36
See preceding footnote for citation.
Support for the court system
Perception of the frequency of bribes and support for the court system
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.1
2.9
None
Not
common
Common
Very
common
Frequency of bribes
Sig. < .001
Figure 34
Perception of the frequency of bribes and support for the political system
4.7
Support for the political system
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.1
4
None
Not
common
Common
Very
common
Frequency of bribes
Figure 35
37
Support for the National Assembly
Perception of the frequency of bribes and support for the National Assembly
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.2
None
Not
common
Common
Frequency of bribes
Sig. < .05
Figure 36
38
Very
common
PERCEPTION OF COMPARISONS WITH THE PAST
This section of the report presents a comparison of perceptions of corruption in 1996 with that of the
past. Specifically, we wanted to know if our respondents believed that corruption at the time this
survey was conducted (July/August 1996 during President Chamorro’s administration) was getting
better, worse, or remained the same when compared with two distinct historical periods: the Somoza
era and the Sandinista decade. Figure 37 shows how the Chamorro period compares with the Somoza
era, while Figure 38 shows how it compares with the Sandinista period.
Perception of the level of bribery during the presidency of
Chamorro as compared to the:
Somoza era
65%
70
60
60
50
50
40
30
22%
20
13%
Percent
Percent
70
Sandinista decade
53%
40
27%
30
20%
20
10
10
0
More
Less
Figure 37
The
same
0
More
Less
The
same
Figure 38
Two conclusions stand out from Figures 37 and 38. First, significant majorities of Nicaraguans believe
that bribery is worse today than it was in either of the two major historical periods being considered.
Second, more Nicaraguans believe that bribery is worse today than it was under Somoza as compared
to the period under the Sandinistas. This suggests that if we attempt to rank the three periods under
consideration, while the present is considered the worst of the three, the Somoza era is seen as
somewhat better than the Sandinistas decade. This conclusion is drawn because present-day
comparisons with the Sandinistas find that 20% of those asked believe that bribery was lower under
Chamorro than under the Sandinistas, whereas only 13% of the respondents believe that bribery was
lower under Chamorro than under Somoza. Another, perhaps clearer, way of looking at this same data
is to create an overall index, by coding “more bribery under Chamorro than in the past” as +100, “less
bribery under Chamorro than in the past” as 0, and the “equal” response as 50. The higher the overall
39
index, the better the past looks in comparison with the present period. Figure 39 shows the results.
As can be seen, the Somoza comparison averaged nearly 76 on the 0-100 scale, whereas the Sandinista
comparison averaged 66. Thus, under both Somoza and the Sandinistas, bribery is thought to have
been less common than it was during the Chamorro presidency, with the Somoza era being somewhat
better than the Sandinista period.
Less bribery
More bribery
during the presidency of Chamorro
Perceived occurrence of bribery during Chamorro’s administration
as compared to the Somoza era and the Sandinista decade
78
75.7
76
74
72
70
68
66.2
66
64
Somoza
Sandinistas
Figure 39
It is also instructive to examine the geographic distribution of these questions on the perceived relative
honesty of the three regimes. Maps 2 and 3 show the patterns. Chinandega is the department in which
there is the strongest perception of increased perception of corruption during the Chamorro govrnment
as compared to the Somoza era, whereas Carazo holds that distinction for the Sandinista comparison.
Chontales, Esteli, Madriz, and Granada are the departments in which the Chamorro government
compares most favorably to the Somoza period, whereas Managua and Matagalpa fare best in
comparison with the Sandinista period.
When interpreting these results, the reader must take into account that individual perceptions are
profoundly influenced by the press and that the degree of freedom the media has enjoyed in
disseminating information has varied considerably during the three time periods being considered.
Under President Chamorro’s administration, Nicaragua enjoyed freedom of the press through which
any allegation—whether justified or not, and many times motivated by partisan interests—was widely
disseminated. This was not the case under the Somoza regime when political repression and media
censorship prevented the free exchange of information. During the Sandinista regime, there were
periods of media censorship. Therefore, it is not surprising that during a period when freedom of the
40
press was unhindered, there was a more generalized perception of rampant corruption,
notwithstanding its actual degree. We remind the reader, as noted at the beginning of this report, that
the true extent of corruption now or in the past will never be known with certainty. We would like to
emphasize that one of the “costs” of democracy is that the acts of public officials are subject to
scrutiny by the media, whereas in authoritarian governments public officials can implement measures
to protect themselves from such scrutiny. Therefore, it is not possible to determine what would have
been the level of perceived corruption during political periods in which repression was used had the
media not been censured.
41
42
43
AN OVERALL LOOK AT THE FACTORS INFLUENCING PERCEPTION
In this study we have examined a number of factors—socioeconomic, demographic, and
geographic—that influence the perception of corruption in Nicaragua. It is now important to examine
the relative significance of those factors to see which are the most essential when controlling for the
effects of the others. This can be accomplished readily through the use of the statistical technique of
multiple regression. While the results are difficult to comprehend for the non expert in multivariate
analysis, this report will summarize the findings for the layman, but still present the details for the
expert.
As noted above, one overall measure of corruption is the question, “Taking into account your
experience or what you have heard, the payment of bribes to public officials is: very widespread,
somewhat widespread, little widespread, not at all widespread?” This is item EXC7 in the
questionnaire. In order to make the results easily interpretable, the responses have been recorded so
that the highest level of corruption is given the highest score (4) and the lowest level the lowest score
(1). The analysis attempts to determine which, if any, of the following factors are related to corruption
when the others are held constant: education, sex, age, income, exposure to the mass media (radio,
TV, newspapers), and religiosity. The multiple regression analysis appears in Table 6. The results
show that only five of these variables are significant predictors of the perception of corruption. Age
is by far the most important: the older the respondent, the greater the perception of corruption.13
Income is the second most important factor; greater wealth is associated with greater perception of
corruption. The higher the level of education, the greater the perception of corruption. Watching TV
news makes Nicaraguans more likely to perceive greater prevalence of bribery, but the other media,
radio and newspapers, no longer have an impact when the effect of TV is considered. Finally, the less
that religion is an important aspect of one’s life, the greater the perception of corruption.14 It is
important, however, to keep this last factor in perspective since the variable used to measure the
importance of religion in the life of the respondents (RF6) has, first, the least weight among the
statistically significant variables that explain the factors that influence perceptions regarding the
incidence of corruption. Second, the vast majority of Nicaraguans (82%) consider religion to be
important in their lives. This means we are referring here only to the small minority who stated religion
was not important in their lives, at the same time they were claiming that corruption was very
widespread. Although the other factors, such as gender, can have an impact on corruption when
viewed in isolation, these relationships drop to insignificance once the impact of age, income,
education, TV news exposure, and religiosity is controlled.
13
This finding is in contrast with that related to whether or not the respondents perceived themselves to be
affected by corruption (see the first section of the report), since survey results show that Nicaraguans of all ages claim
to be affected by corruption.
14
This relationship is the opposite from the expected, since greater religiosity would seem to relate to a stricter
moral code. Further analysis of the relationship between religion and perception of corruption needs to be undertaken.
45
Table 6
Multiple regression coefficientsa
Unstandarized
Coefficients
Model
-.442
.658
.045
.064
2.701
.007
-1.671E-02
.042
-.009
-.396
.692
EDUC Years of schooling
1.325E-02
.005
.067
2.613
.009
AGE
6.885E-03
.001
.113
4.889
.000
GENDER
1.458E-02
.037
.008
.389
.697
Household monthly
4.288E-02
.012
.081
3.463
.001
Q4
Church attendance
-2.989E-04
.001
-.007
-.299
.765
Q5
Praying frequency
2.362E-02
.021
.053
1.145
.252
-7.390E-02
.035
2.142
.032
A2
Watch TV news?
A3
Read the newspaper?
RF6
Importance of religion
. R square= 0.034
-18.23E-02
.041
.120
Sig.
-.010
Listen to the radio?
.108
t
.000
A1
2.631
Beta
24.342
Q10
income
a
Std.
Error
B
1 (Constant)
Standarized
Coefficients
Since age turns out to be the most powerful predictor of the perception of the prevalence of bribery,
it is useful to present a picture of the relationship. That picture is exhibited in Figure 40.
More corruption
Perception of the incidence of bribery, by age of respondent
3.5
3.4
Less corruption
Scale
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
16-25
26-35
36-55
Age
Figure 40
46
56-65
66-81
Now that the major influences on perceptions of corruption have been determined, it is possible to
reexamine the geographic distribution of these perceptions shown in the maps presented earlier. As
is well known, income and education are not randomly distributed in Nicaragua; the cities, especially
Managua, have the highest concentration of people with relatively high incomes and education. There
is less variation by department based on age, but, as Table 7 shows, there are some differences. For
example, Carazo has the oldest average age population, while the population average for Matagalpa,
Boaco and Esteli is the youngest.
Table 7
Age by department
Weighted Sample
Average
1
Managua
34.77
2
Leon
34.48
3
Chinandega
34.70
4
Granada
36.05
5
Masaya
33.97
6
Carazo
37.09
7
Rivas
36.79
8
Matagalpa
33.33
9
Jinotega
33.69
10
Nueva Segovia
35.15
11
Madriz
35.81
12
Esteli
33.54
13
Boaco
33.37
14
Chontales
35.19
18
Atlantico
33.71
Total Average
34.55
In order to examine the influence of geography on the perception of corruption after the impact of age,
income, education, exposure to TV, and religiosity have been removed from consideration, it is
necessary to calculate what are known as “residuals.” Residuals are coefficients that enable us to see
what is left over in the relationship between our dependent variable—perception of the prevalence of
bribery—and our independent variable—namely departmental location, after the impact of age,
income, education, exposure to TV, and religiosity have been removed from the analysis. These
47
residuals are then plotted on the maps developed for this project.15 Map 4 shows the results. The
listing of departments and the precise mean standardized residual score by department is contained in
Table 8.
Table 8
Mean residual score of perception of prevalence of bribes, by department
Department
Mean residual score of perception of
prevalence of bribes (when
controlled for age, income,
education, TV news watching, and
religiosity)
Nueva Segovia
-.38
Rivas
-.32
Esteli
-.26
Boaco
-.16
Jinotega
-.14
Madriz
-.14
Chontales
-.10
Carazo
-.05
Zelaya and Rio San Juan
-.04
Leon
.00
Granada
.04
Chinandega
.07
Matagalpa
.07
Managua
.08
Masaya
.14
Note: A higher score means higher perception of corruption.
The patterns found in Map 4 show that one cluster of departments has residents who, on average,
believe that bribery is more common than in other departments. This contiguous cluster consists of
Managua, Masaya, Granada, and Matagalpa. Added to this is another department, Chinandega, which,
while not contiguous to the others, also shows a higher perception of corruption. Located between
this region of high perception of corruption is Leon, which is also higher than average but not as
extreme as the other five. The areas of low perception of corruption also comprise a contiguous
cluster, consisting of Nueva Segovia, Madriz, Esteli, and Jinotega, to which is added Boaco and Rivas.
15
The residuals are standardized to have a mean of zero (0) and a standard deviation of 1. Thus, we are
looking at variation around the mean, either above it or below it.
48
Map 4 shows us that the perception of corruption in Nicaragua varies even when major
socioeconomic, demographic, and religious characteristics are taken into account. The central region
in and around Masaya and Managua could be considered a “corruption hot spot” in which residents,
on average, are more likely to perceive widespread bribery than in other regions of the country.
Similarly, the cluster in the north (especially Nueva Segovia), along with Boaco and Rivas, are regions
where citizens do not believe there is as much corruption. The reader should be cautioned, however,
that these findings are relative and that the global finding, as reported earlier in this study, was that
most Nicaraguans believe there is a great deal of corruption in the country.
49
50
APPENDIX I
Survey Questionnaire