
Students who cheat on a simple task are more likely to prefer public sector jobs - nanis
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20150029
======
frobozz
Actual title: Dishonesty and Selection into Public Service: Evidence from
India

The link title: "Students who cheat on a simple task are more likely to prefer
public sector jobs", implies that this is a global phenomenon.

One might expect that the nature of the public sector in a given location
might have an influence over the kinds of people it might attract.

In a place where baksheesh is commonplace, and a small fortune can be amassed
out of "facilitation payments" by a low-level civil servant, it would come as
no surprise that such a position would be attractive to nefarious individuals.

In a place where public sector workers earn marginally less than their private
sector counterparts, and have no means of topping up that income, other than
by taking a second job, one might imagine that such a position would be less
attractive to cheaters, and more attractive to people who value mission over
money.

If I let the assumption of good faith slip, I would say that the link title
has been deliberately crafted to cast aspersions on all public sector
employees worldwide, or, at least in the OP's home country.

~~~
nanis
There is an 80 character limit on titles. The title I used is an abbreviated
version of the first line of the abstract:

    
    
        Students in India who cheat on a simple laboratory task are
        more likely to prefer public sector jobs. This paper shows
        that cheating on this task predicts corrupt behavior by civil
        servants, implying that it is a meaningful predictor of future
        corruption. Students who demonstrate pro-social preferences
        are less likely to prefer government jobs, while outcomes on
        an explicit game and attitudinal measures to measure
        corruption do not systematically predict job preferences. A
        screening process that chooses high-ability applicants would
        not alter the average propensity for corruption. The findings
        imply that differential selection into government may
        contribute, in part, to corruption. 
    

The OP is familiar with several countries, and he is an economist with Ph.D.
in experimental economics. As such, the OP understands that researchers with
limited budgets may choose to carry out their research in countries where
smaller amounts of money can have salient effects.

The OP believes the distribution of human capabilities and preferences is
independent of national or racial origin, and understands the appeal of
government positions to people who like to have power over others without
being accountable.

~~~
frobozz
> The OP believes the distribution of human capabilities and preferences is
> independent of national or racial origin,

The OP has misinterpreted my comment as a racist attack on Indians.

My point was that corruption (or perception thereof) in an organisation,
sector, or industry breeds (or at least sustains) corruption, as corrupt
individuals are attracted to it. Conversely, an apparently "clean"
organisation, sector, or industry is less likely to attract corrupt
individuals, and is more likely to stay clean.

Looking at Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index:
[https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_percept...](https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016)

In (e.g.) India, Turkey, Serbia, one would expect the test cheaters to be
attracted to the civil service. In (e.g.) Russia, Iran, Mexico, even more so.
In (e.g.) Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, one would not expect them to be
attracted to the civil service.

In those countries with less government corruption, one would expect corrupt
individuals to be attracted to different sector.

------
tryonqc
the "Evidence from india" part is important.

~~~
nanis
> the "Evidence from india" part is important.

Why? The theory is independent of racial or national origin:

    
    
        Economic theory predicts that civil servants often shirk
        responsibility or take bribes because it is difficult for
        central governments and citizens to monitor and subsequently
        punish these bad behaviors ( e.g., Banerjee 1997, Shleifer and
        Vishny 1993, Di Tella and Schargrodsky 2004, and Olken and
        Pande 2012) . This implies that variation in the ability to
        monitor or incentivize civil servants may drive the observed
        differences in corruption across countries, across agencies
        within a country, or even across the types of tasks for which
        public servants are responsible. However, not all civil
        servants engage in the same level of corrupt behavior, even in
        the same position or role. Besley (2005) and Prendergast (
        2007) posit that this may be potentially due to different
        government workers having different preferences over engaging
        in corruption. As such, it follows that the types of
        individuals that select into government may help explain
        variation in corruption levels.

~~~
frobozz
It is independent of racial and national origin of the individual concerned,
but not independent of the nation of the civil service being examined.

> This implies that variation in the ability to monitor or incentivize civil
> servants may drive the observed _differences in corruption across countries_
> across agencies within a country, or even across the types of tasks for
> which public servants are responsible.

> As such, it follows that the types of individuals that select into
> government may help explain _variation in corruption levels._

As I stated in my comment on this, where bribery of public servants is the
norm (with this statement comes an implied "and typically goes unpunished",
otherwise it wouldn't be the norm), one might expect corrupt individuals to be
attracted to those roles where they can pocket the most bribes.

In countries (or agencies within a country) where such bribery is rare, and
dealt with seriously if it does occur, what would be the attraction for a
corrupt individual?

It could well be true that test-cheaters are attracted to the public sector,
regardless of how corrupt that particular public sector is, and only exercise
their naughty side in countries/agencies/positions where they can get away
with it, but supporting evidence for that assertion (against the assertion
that test-cheaters are attracted to positions where they can exercise their
naughty side) would only be found in places where they are less likely to get
away with it.

