Skip to Main Content
Table 5.
Tau versus State-Level Measures of Corruption: All States and Union Territories
(1) Tau(2) Tau(3) Tau(4) Tau(5) Tau(6) Tau
TI corruption score 0.617 0.587 0.685    
 (0.286) (0.321) (0.127)    
Electricity losses    0.268 0.254 0.593 
    (0.303) (0.226) (0.153) 
Dougherty measure   −0.594   −0.494 
(inspection reforms)   (0.0910)   (0.0917) 
Electricity     0.139  
available (GWH)     (0.197)  
Constant 0.247 2.736 −2.864 −0.486 −4.347 −3.698 
 (0.233) (4.438) (3.497) (0.251) (3.570) (3.937) 
Observations 20 20 19 35 32 21 
Controls No Yes Yes No Yes Yes 
(1) Tau(2) Tau(3) Tau(4) Tau(5) Tau(6) Tau
TI corruption score 0.617 0.587 0.685    
 (0.286) (0.321) (0.127)    
Electricity losses    0.268 0.254 0.593 
    (0.303) (0.226) (0.153) 
Dougherty measure   −0.594   −0.494 
(inspection reforms)   (0.0910)   (0.0917) 
Electricity     0.139  
available (GWH)     (0.197)  
Constant 0.247 2.736 −2.864 −0.486 −4.347 −3.698 
 (0.233) (4.438) (3.497) (0.251) (3.570) (3.937) 
Observations 20 20 19 35 32 21 
Controls No Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

This table reports the results of our estimated regulatory costs (tau) regressed against two different measures of corruption. Controls include the log of net state domestic product per capita in 2005 and the share of privately owned establishments. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. Observations are weighted by the inverse variance of tau and include all Indian states and union territories for which data are available.

Sources: Transparency International (2005), RBI, and Dougherty (2009).

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal