過去許多貪汙與民主關係的研究中，大多的問題是忽略或未能解決民主可能存在的內生問題。理論上民主對貪污的影響有正有負，且貪污同樣也會反過來對民主產生影響，而這樣的內生問題在追蹤資料中會對估計結果產生偏誤與不一致。本篇研究採用2001年到2021年共21年，且涵蓋全球198個國家的資料，使用逐步解決內生問題的模式，首先OLS迴歸提供一個存在內生問題的結果；再來使用固定效果模型，克服了未觀察到的變異以及捕捉到個體國家和時間的固定效果；最後是動態追蹤資料系統GMM模型，能更完整解決內生問題及時間動態問題。此外，有別於過去研究在解決內生問題時通常需要從外部尋找工具變數，而尋找有效的工具變數又非一朝一夕之功，系統GMM能從模型內部提取工具變數，省去從外部找尋工具變數的工作。最後得到的結論是民主能抑制貪汙，且兩者為正U型關係。

In the past studies on the relationship between corruption and democracy, most of the problems were that they ignored or failed to solve the possible endogenous problems of democracy. Theoretically, the impact of democracy on corruption is positive or negative, and corruption will also have an impact on democracy in turn, and such endogenous problems will cause bias and inconsistency in the estimation results in the panel data. This study uses data of 21 years from 2001 to 2021 and covers 198 countries around the world. It uses a model to gradually solve endogenous problems. First, OLS regression provides a result with endogenous problems. Second, use a fixed effect model to overcome the unobserved heterogeneity and capture the fixed effects of individual countries and time. Finally, the system GMM model of the dynamic panel data can solve the endogenous problems and time dynamic problems more completely. In addition, unlike previous studies that usually need to find instrumental variables from the outside when solving endogenous problems, furthermore, finding effective instrumental variables is not easy, the system GMM can extract instrumental variables from the inside of the model, eliminating the need to find instrumental variables from the outside. Finally, the conclusion is that democracy can restrain corruption, and the relationship between the two is positive U-shaped.

目錄
中文摘要-----------------I
ABSTRACT----------------II
致謝--------------------III
目錄--------------------IV
圖表目錄-----------------V
第一章、緒論-------------1
1.1 研究動機與背景---1
1.2 研究目的---------3
1.3 研究架構---------3
第二章、文獻回顧----------4
第三章、資料、實證模型與研究方法---6
3.1 資料-------------6
3.2 實證模型---------17
3.3 研究方法---------18
第四章、實證結果與分析----22
4.1 OLS模型---------22
4.2 固定效果模型-----28
4.3 系統GMM模型------30
參考文獻-----------------37

圖表目錄
圖1、全球貪汙印象指數(Corruption Perception Index) ，2022年------1
圖2、GMM檢定結果之貪汙與民主的非線性關係(不考慮截距項)-------------36
表1、資料短定義及來源--------------------------------------------7
表2、資料長定義及處理--------------------------------------------8
表3、敘述統計---------------------------------------------------14
表4、各變數間的相關係數表----------------------------------------16
表5、OLS估計結果(民主指標使用UDS)--------------------------------23
表6、OLS估計結果(民主指標使用van_index)--------------------------25
表7、固定效果模型估計結果----------------------------------------28
表8、GMM模型估計結果(民主指標使用UDS)-----------------------------30
表9、OLS, FE, GMM的綜合比較--------------------------------------34

網頁資料：

1. Transparency International. (2021). Corruption perception index 2020 [Licensed under CCBY-ND 4.0].
http://www.transparency.org/cpi
2. World Bank. (2023). World development indicators.
https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators


期刊論文：

Ades, A. and R. Di Tella (1999). Rents, competition, and corruption. American economic review 89(4): 982-993.

Arellano, M. and S. Bond (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The review of economic studies 58(2): 277-297.

Arellano, M. and O. Bover (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of econometrics 68(1): 29-51.

Bac, M. (2001). Corruption, connections and transparency: Does a better screen imply a better scene? Public Choice 107(1-2): 87-96.

Bardhan, P. K. (1997). Democracy and development: A complex relationship, Citeseer.

Bhattacharyya, S. and R. Hodler (2010). Natural resources, democracy and corruption. European Economic Review 54(4): 608-621.

Blundell, R. and S. Bond (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of econometrics 87(1): 115-143.

Blundell, R. and S. Bond (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of econometrics 87(1): 115-143.

Chowdhury, S. K. (2004). The effect of democracy and press freedom on corruption: an empirical test. Economics letters 85(1): 93-101.

Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press. 257 p.

Drury, A. C., J. Krieckhaus and M. Lusztig. (2006). Corruption, democracy, and economic growth. International political science review 27(2): 121-136.

Feenstra, R. C., R. Inklaar and M. P. Timmer. (2015). The next generation of the Penn World Table. American economic review 105(10): 3150-3182.

Fisman, R. and R. Gatti (2002). Decentralization and corruption: evidence across countries. Journal of Public Economics 83(3): 325-345.

Goel, R. K. and M. A. Nelson (2005). Economic freedom versus political freedom: cross‐country influences on corruption. Australian Economic Papers 44(2): 121-133.

Gygli, S., F. Haelg, N. Potrafke and J.-E. Sturm. (2019). The KOF globalisation index–revisited. The Review of International Organizations 14: 543-574.

Hollyer, J. R., B. P. Rosendorff and J. R. Vreeland. (2011). Democracy and
transparency. The Journal of Politics 73(4): 1191-1205.

Kaufmann, D., et al. (2007). Measuring corruption: myths and realities. Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay and M. Mastruzzi. (2010). Response to ‘What do the worldwide governance indicators measure?’. The European Journal of Development Research 22: 55-58.

Kolstad, I. and A. Wiig (2016). Does democracy reduce corruption? Democratization 23(7): 1198-1215.

Kunicova, J. (2006). Democratic institutions and corruption: incentives and constraints in politics. International handbook on the economics of corruption: 140-160.

La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer and R. Vishny. (1999). The quality of government. Journal of Law, Economics, and organization 15(1): 222-279.

La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer and R. W. Vishny. (1999). Investor protection: origins, consequences, and reform, National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Mass., USA.

Lambsdorff, J. G. (1999). Corruption in empirical research: A review. Transparency International, processed 6.

Lambsdorff, J. G. (2005). The methodology of the 2005 corruption perceptions index. Transparency International and the University of Passau (Germany), at http://ww1. transparency. org/cpi/2005/dnld/methodology. pdf.

Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. The quarterly journal of economics 110(3): 681-712.

Mohtadi, H. and T. L. Roe (2003). Democracy, rent seeking, public spending and growth. Journal of Public Economics 87(3-4): 445-466.

Myerson, R. B. (1993). Incentives to cultivate favored minorities under alternative electoral systems. American political science review 87(4): 856-869.

Nye, J. S. (1967). Corruption and political development: A cost-benefit analysis. American political science review 61(2): 417-427.

Pani, P., C. F. Macedo, L. C. Crispino and V. Cardoso. (2011). Slowly rotating black holes in alternative theories of gravity. Physical Review D 84(8): 087501.

Pemstein, D., Meserve, S. A., & Melton, J. (2017). Democratic compromise: A latent
variable analysis of ten measures of regime type. Political Analysis, 18 (4), 426 449.

Rock, M. T. (2009). Corruption and democracy. The Journal of Development Studies 45(1): 55-75.

Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. The stata journal 9(1): 86-136.

Rose-Ackerman, S. (1999). Political corruption and democracy. Conn. J. Int'l L. 14: 363.

Schultz, E. L., D. T. Tan and K. D. Walsh. (2010). Endogeneity and the corporate governance-performance relation. Australian journal of Management 35(2): 145-163.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). The march into socialism. The American Economic Review 40(2): 446-456.

Shleifer, A. and R. W. Vishny (1993). Corruption. The quarterly journal of economics 108(3): 599-617.

Standaert, S. (2015). Divining the level of corruption: a bayesian state-space approach. Journal of Comparative Economics 43(3): 782-803.

Svensson, J. (2005). Eight questions about corruption. Journal of economic perspectives 19(3): 19-42.

Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics 76(3): 399-457.

Treisman, D. (2007). What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research? Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 10: 211-244.

Ullah, S., P. Akhtar and G. Zaefarian. (2018). Dealing with endogeneity bias: The generalized method of moments (GMM) for panel data. Industrial Marketing Management 71: 69-78.

Uslaner, E. M. (2008). Corruption, inequality, and the rule of law, Cambridge University Press Cambridge.

Vanhanen, T. (2019). Measures of Democracy 1810–2018. Finnish social science data archive. Accessed at: https://services. fsd. uta. fi/catalogue/FSD1289.

Wintoki, M. B., J. S. Linck and J. M. Netter. (2012). Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. Journal of financial economics 105(3): 581-606.