Abstract

The paper summarized the arguments and counterarguments in the scientific debate on the impact of corruption on a country’s brand. The modern approaches to the analysis of corruption’s impact on the country’s macroeconomic indicators were analysed. The authors justified that increasing the corruption’s level is considered as one of the most significant deterrents to the radical political and economic changes taking place in the countries by society. The main purpose of the paper is to analyse the long-term cause-and-effect relationships between Control of Corruption and the country’s brand. Four European countries (Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine) were selected as the object of the investigation, which pursued an evolutionary policy of reforming the political and economic system after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which encouraged the practice of eliminating corruption. The research period was 2000-2018. With a purpose to check the hypothesis of the investigation the 3-stage algorithm to estimate the long-term cause-and-effect relationships between Control of Corruption and the key parameters of the country brand is developed. The developed algorithm was based on the Augmented Dicker-Fuller test and granger casualty test. It is established that for Ukraine, the interconnections between Control of Corruption and International migrant stock, Control of Corruption and Exports of goods and services, Control of Corruption and Foreign direct investment had a unidirectional character of influence of the corruption’s level on the components of the country’s brand. The findings proved that 51.73%, 43.79% and 66% of the total fluctuations of International migrant stock, Exports of goods and services, Foreign direct investment depend on changes in the level of corruption in the country. The obtained results allowed concluding that for the European Union countries (Poland, Lithuania and Latvia) it was the country brand that had a positive impact on reducing the corruption’s level. It was justified that the choice of a specific model for combating the corruption’s level in the chosen countries significantly determined the course of their political transformation and influenced the change’s rate of the social and economic development.

Keywords: brand, stakeholders, competitiveness, investors, corruption

JEL Classification: C23, C31, D73, O47.

Cite as: Milova, T., Troshkina, K., Horlov, Y. & Dobkowski, J. (2019). Country’s brand and corruption level: cointegration analysis. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3, 366-373. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.3-28

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Andéhn, M., Nordin, F., & Nilsson, M. E. (2016). Facets of country image and brand equity: Revisiting the role of product categories in country‐of‐origin effect research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(3), 225-238.
2. Bilan, Y., Lyeonov, S., Lyulyov, O., & Pimonenko, T. (2019). Brand management and macroeconomic stability of the country. [Zarządzanie marką i stabilność makroekonomiczna kraju] Polish Journal of Management Studies, 19(2), 61-74. doi:10.17512/pjms.2019.19.2.05
3. Corruption Perceptions Index. (2019). Corruption Perceptions Index 2018: Score timeseries since 2012. Retrieved from: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018
4. Fetscherin, M. (2010). The determinants and measurement of a country brand: the country brand strength index. International Marketing Review, 27(4), 466-479.
5. Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods. Econometrica. 37 (3): 424–438. doi:10.2307/1912791
6. Hakimi, A., & Hamdi, H. (2017). Does corruption limit FDI and economic growth? Evidence from MENA countries. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 12(3), 550-571.
7. Halkias, G., Davvetas, V., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2016). The interplay between country stereotypes and perceived brand globalness/localness as drivers of brand preference. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3621-3628.
8. Herrero-Crespo, Á., San Martín Gutiérrez, H., & Garcia-Salmones, M. D. M. (2016). Influence of country image on country brand equity: Application to higher education services. International Marketing Review, 33(5), 691-714.
9. Johansen, Soren (1991). Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Cointegration Vectors in Gaussian Vector Autoregressive Models. Econometrica. 59 (6), 1551–1580.
10. Levin, A., Lin, C-F., & Chu, C-S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1–24. doi:10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
11. Lin, C. P., & Chuang, C. M. (2016). Corruption and brand value. International Marketing Review, 33(6), 758-780.
12. Lyulyov, O., Chygryn, O., and Pimonenko, T. (2018). National Brand as a Marketing Determinant of Macroeconomic Stability. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3, 142-152. http://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2018.3-12
13. Nwankwo, O. F. (2014). Impact of corruption on economic growth in Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(6), 41-46.
14. Patrick, H. P. (2016). Corruption and its Impact on Good Governance in the Caribbean. Contemporary Security and Defense Issues in the Caribbean, 123.
15. Ravi, S. P. (2015). Does corruption in a country affect the foreign direct investment? a study of rising economic super powers China and India. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 3(07), 99.
16. Sekrafi, H., & Sghaier, A. (2018). Examining the relationship between corruption, economic growth, environmental degradation, and energy consumption: a panel analysis in MENA region. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9(3), 963-979.
17. Wang, Z., Zhang, B., & Wang, B. (2018). The moderating role of corruption between economic growth and CO2 emissions: Evidence from BRICS economies. Energy, 148, 506-513.
18. World Bank (2019). World Development Indicators 2019, World Bank. Retrieved from : https://data.worldbank.org/indicator.