tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9204374242006832151.post1261145302883199871..comments2023-07-06T10:48:10.382+01:00Comments on Rigotnomics: Corruption surveyPierre-Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03936185995162366004noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9204374242006832151.post-86033778272743146122008-10-22T17:43:00.000+01:002008-10-22T17:43:00.000+01:00I didn't do proper regressions I just looked at co...I didn't do proper regressions I just looked at correlations! I guess banking is associated with lower grades and corrupt country with development agency...the sample consists of 39 observations so there is not much econometrics to do!Pierre-Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03936185995162366004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9204374242006832151.post-20010088404800904772008-10-20T14:39:00.000+01:002008-10-20T14:39:00.000+01:00"People with lower grades tend to prefer bank..."People with lower grades tend to prefer banking and are more likely to tolerate corruption as they also come from more corrupt countries" "people from corrupt countries seem to tolerate corruption more, (...). Furthermore, they would rather work in development agencies."<BR/><BR/>causalities statement 1.<BR/>from corrupt countries -> lower grades (proportionately) -> tolerate corruption & prefer banking.<BR/><BR/>causalities statement 2.<BR/>from corrupt countries -> tolerate corruption & prefer development agencies<BR/><BR/>So, unless there is a contradiction, most people from corrupt countries tend to tolerate corruption and prefer development agencies, unless they happen to have lower grades, in which case they prefer banking. But then people from corrupt countries with lower grades must be a (full and sub sample) minority. It is the only way both statements can hold, right?mylifeatnoonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17979073338378487051noreply@blogger.com