Talk:Corruption in local government

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Under the keyword "Gender" the article makes the following claim:

Terrible article but important topic[edit]

To do it justice one would have to examine it by country. Broad sweeping statements completely fail to capture the extent of corruption and the many facets and types around the world. In Australia, for instance, there have been numerous examples in the last few years of entire Councils being forced to resign. The most significant problem here is the cozy relationship that property developers have with their local Council. In other countries there might be different problems, but one thing is certain: corruption is endemic to most local government due to the never ending list of incentives and their lack of accountability.--Weasel tango (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gender[edit]

"Research shows that women are more trustworthy than men and are less likely to be corrupt. Women are less likely to agree with corrupt practices like bribery or take bribes. Having no or fewer women in the local government is another factor that may encourage corruption. Places that do not have policies to narrow gender gaps and give women equal rights in the government more commonly have less integrity and more corruption in them."

This section either needs to be documented/substantiated or removed.

Its a pretty outrageous and offensive claim. This cant be taken as fact unless some evidence is supported — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.84.246.22 (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced POV- pushing WP:OR[edit]

I've no idea how this ridiculous 'article' lasted so long. It is entirely unsourced, riddled with POV and WP:OR, and totally at odds with any reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia policy. I've removed some of the most blatant POV-pushing, and will be starting an AfD as soon as I have the time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This page has no references. There are no studies of local government corruption that provide any evidence of the factors that lead to more or less propensity for corruption. This entire article is fabricated.Leigh878 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced pages are all dead links with the exception of the last one, which does not appear to be an unbiased source. Should the references be removed? QuietObserver720 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the claims on this page can be validated. There is very little research on corruption in local government. The sources cited are international, not local. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knelsonsog (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Veiga's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Veiga has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This article is rather incomplete, not paying sufficient attention to institutional factors that strongly condition the prevalence of corruption at any level of government.
The article does not have any citations along the text, which leaves the reader uncertain of the veracity of the claims made. Although a few references are listed in the end, no connection between the text and the references is made. Therefore, the reader does not know which parts of the article are based in which references. Additionally, since the references listed analyze corruption mainly at the national government level, they do not present evidence supporting the claims made in the article.
Some references that study corruption at the local government level:
Costas-Pérez, Elena; Solé-Ollé, Albert; Sorribas-Navarro, Pilar (2012). "Corruption scandals, voter information, and accountability," European Journal of Political Economy, 28(4),469-484.
Fan, C.S. ; C. Lin; D. Treiman (2009). Political decentralization and corruption: Evidence from around the world. Journal of Public Economics, 93 (1–2), 14–34.
Ferraz, C., Finan, F. (2008). Exposing corrupt politicians. The effects of Brazil's publicly released audits on electoral outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123, 703–745.
Ferraz, C., Finan, F. (2011). "Electoral Accountability and Corruption: Evidence from the Audits of Local Governments." American Economic Review 101: 1274-1311.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Veiga has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference 1: Linda Goncalves Veiga & Francisco Jose Veiga, 2006. "Does Opportunism Pay Off?," NIPE Working Papers 5/2006, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.

Reference 2: Helia Silva & Linda Goncalves Veiga & Miguel Portela, 2011. "Strategic Interaction in Local Fiscal Policy: Evidence from Portuguese Municipalities," NIPE Working Papers 23/2011, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.

Reference 3: Rodrigo Martins & Francisco Jose Veiga, 2012. "Turnout and the modeling of economic conditions: Evidence from Portuguese elections," NIPE Working Papers 01/2012, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Corruption in local government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What About Oppression and Abuse?[edit]

What about oppression and abuse? Using government or position in society as a vehicle for immunity from law enforcement in order to bully, or otherwise commit various crime, violence especially by police, especially in the USA? This counts as corruption obviously but is nowhere included in types. Eyeofthemoonlight (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated Claims[edit]

This article has numerous claims about demographic factors which can play a role in corruption of a local government. However there has been requests for citations to support these factors for close to 2 years, without any being provided. Pursuant to Wikipedia:Citing_Sources "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." At this point, without any definitive sources cited to support the claims these statements are nothing more than opinion, I believe they should be removed. They can always be readded if someone is able to find citations for these claims, but thus far it appears no one has the interest to do so. Iux Aeterna (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a notice regarding the unverified claims int the demographic factors section. Given the length of time this has been without citations, I propose a 1 week period before anything is removed for a lack of citations. Iux Aeterna (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]