Em média, sim. Veja só as conclusões deste estudo.
(…) Firstly, by employing a large dataset and estimating by country groups, we present econometric evidence that verify previous findings. Being a woman, the education level, the marital status, the attendance to religious services, being self-employed and the opinions towards the political system, among others, are factors that modify the probability of perceiving corruption.
Secondly, new evidence was provided about the effects of the sector of employment. In all models, those who work in the private sector are more likely to perceive higher corruption than civil servants. This means that those people who are on the demand side of the “bribes market” tend to perceive lower corruption than those people who are on the supply side of this market.
Thirdly, taking into account country-effects, as expected; in almost all cases country dummies are significant. Findings indicate that country effects are linked to past experiences of corruption or the lack of them as well as to economic development, well-being and cultural factors. We find that all Latin American countries show changes which are higher than the average and the same is true for ex-Socialist states and the majority of East Asian countries. On the contrary, with the exemption of Portugal, European countries showed lower changes than the average. We also find that all Anglo-settlement colonies fall in the bottom half as do the majority of rich countries.
Diante disto, pergunte-se: sindicatos de funcionários públicos têm feito algum trabalho em prol da diminuição deste viés ou apenas defendido interesses de políticos? A quem interessa manter este “véu da ignorância”? Boas perguntas para começar a se entender o papel da ação coletiva na sociedade.