How Does Governance Affect the Control of Corruption in India? A Configurational Investigation with Fs/QCA
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article investigates difference in corruption among states (provinces) of India and try to find what causes the difference. It uses appropriate methods and its findings are mostly conclusive. I have the following comments and suggestion.
The level of corruption in a particular state is measured by number of convinced for corruption per 1 000 000 inhabitants. However, if a state is captured by systemic corruption, the number can be low – police, courts and other parts of government can participate in corruption. Culprits of corruption behavior can have a big chance to avoid investigation of corruption and sentence. This factor should be at least mention at the text and if it is possible the authors should deal with the problems that numbers of convinced for corruption per 1 000 000 inhabitants can be biased.
In conceptual framework I recommend explicitly mention that corruption can be used as the way how to achieve basic needs or to solve similar serious problems. People who give bribers often have no other possibility how to achieve their basic goals. Se article * below.
It is not clear in the figure 2 whether dimensions mentioned (DM1, DM2, …) here represents anything specific (e.g. factors mentioned in the paragraph starting in row 322 or dimension mentioned in Table 3) or if they are just symbols without specific meaning.
As author(s) highlight one of the most important findings of the article is (p. 460): that “a low level of human resource development dimension is rather the core causal factor contributing to a high control of corruption (low corruption) across Indian states.” Author(s) explain that (p. 475) “that the Indian educational system is so technical and job-oriented that money-making is valued more than moral values and ethics.” Although author(s) refer to the source (Kumar 2012), it should extend their assertion about Indian educational system by adding some relevant facts. Also the suggestions mentioned in paragraph starting at page 512 how to improve the educational system are too general and do not include the fact that the system can be hit by corruption too.
The reviewer.
*Recommended article: How Corruption Is and Should Be Investigated by Economic Theory, Economies 2022, 10(12), 326; https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10120326
Author Response
I want to express gratitude for your valuable suggestions.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
I have made my sygestion and please add cearfully all these recomendation.
Best regards!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
I want to express gratitude for your valuable suggestions.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
There is a great deal of methodological sophistication on offer in this paper, but in the end the authors take a very long route around the hill to arrive at conclusions that are at best familiar and unremarkable, and that do not require or depend upon the data or methods that have been used for support.
My problems here are of several sorts. "Governance" is a popular but awfully vague term (I suspect some of its popularity reflects the more useful dimensions of that vagueness), and as corruption is often taken to be a sign or consequence of poor governance, and "better governance" is a common (if far too vague) reform prescription, it's hard to escape the notion that one concept is being used as a predictor of negative manifestations of itself. The definition offered on p. 6, which in effect says that good governance is the capacity to govern well, illustrates that point.
I also have significant doubts about using convictions data, by themselves, as a measure of corruption. Conviction totals likely reflect much else other than the full extent of corruption (see Oguzhan Dincer's work on this point) -- prosecutorial priorities and resources are two such factors, as are possible political biases and vested interests; the list goes on. The convictions data are referred to as a "direct measurement" of corruption, when in fact direct measurement of what is usually a clandestine activity are impossible. A claim is made that direct measurements are seen as more "objective", but no research or other sources are cited in support of that notion.
Similarly, the conclusions are described as a sharp contrast with the "existing literature", but what literature does that claim refer to? Quite a few other sources are cited in the paper -- that's good -- but what amounts to a core claim for this paper's contribution is presented as an unsupported assertion.
It might be argued -- and I might agree --- that a novel source of support for what we already know (the possible roles of education in corruption control -- see the literature about Hong Kong) has some value. For that reason a shorter version of this paper might merit publication as a research note. I regret to say, however, that I cannot support publication of the current manuscript.
Author Response
I want to express gratitude for your valuable suggestions.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I continue to have significant doubts about the corruption measure and the extent to which the methodology tells us much that we didn't already know. The findings and accompanying arguments about education/human-resource development seem contradictory and and to rest on post hoc rationalizations. Valid emphasis has been added regarding intra-national comparisons, however.
As I've told the editors, my position on the manuscript has not really changed, but I expect others will differ, so I doubt that my quibbles should prevent publication.
