Political corruption (original) (raw)
Related papers
Corruption: Political and Public Aspects
Although there is fairly general agreement that corruption is a trans-systemic phenomenon endemic to all societies, regimes, and countries, and salient in different periods of the history of mankind, the study of corruption reveals a weaker consensus as to its definition, measurement, and explanation. Empirical studies constantly are faced with three major issues that may hinder further comparative understanding of the phenomenon. First, corruption lacks a precise definition or agreement upon its meaning. Like many other concepts in social sciences, corruption is volatile and subject to historical, social, and cultural connotations. Second, corruption is susceptible to variations across time and space. Its measurement, both in terms of volume as well as the standards qualifying that form of behavior, is prior to any attempt at explaining how the phenomenon expands, grows and mutates contextually. Third, without clearing the first two methodological steps, the empirical testing of a derived hypothesis is bound to show rather limited or disputed results.
Political Corruption: Problems and Perspectives
Political Studies, 1997
Introduction: On Why We Are All Now Concerned About Corruption As the twentieth century comes to an end, one of the issues which has dominated its ®nal decade ± political corruption ± shows little sign of diminishing in importance. The evidence is abundant. In the United States of America and the United Kingdom, two of the world's most well-established democracies, recent national elections have been punctuated by stories relating to corruption: in the former, President Bill Clinton has been dogged both by the so-called Whitewater scandal, and by questions over how his 1996 re-election campaign was funded; in the latter, John Major's Conservative government found itself caught up during the 1997 election campaign in allegations about`sleaze', centring in particular on the`cash-for-questions' issue. 1 In a rather less well-established democracy, Pakistan, the government of Benazir Bhutto was dismissed in early November 1996 by President Farooq Leghari, accused (amongst other things) of undermining judicial independence and engaging in massive corruption. The following day, India's former prime minister, Narasimha Rao, already accused of vote-buying and forgery, was charged with criminal conspiracy to cheat a businessman. In Russia, still struggling to establish democracy on a secure footing, President Boris Yeltsin admitted in March 1997 that`[o]ne of the main faults of the Russian authorities at all levels is corruption'. 2 These examples (all of which have occurred since the original deadline for submission of manuscripts to this volume) are merely illustrative of a phenomenon which was seen until quite recently as being virtually the preserve of authoritarian or`developing' nations ± basically, that is, non-democracies (or, at best, proto-democracies). Where political corruption existed in democratic nations, certainly established western democracies, it was usually viewed as an aberrant deviation from the norm. 3 Such a view was undermined by the extraordinary revelations of systemic corruption which began to emerge in Italy
Political Studies, 2005
Discussion of the definition of corruption has progressed little since Heidenheimer's groundbreaking distinction between definitions centred on public opinion, public office and public interest. All these definitions have been severely criticised. I suggest that underneath these traditional concepts of corruption lurks a much older one based on distributive justice – namely the ‘impartiality principle’, whereby a state ought to treat equally those who deserve equally. This principle provides a much more plausible reason for why the public condemns corruption than alternative approaches, and, moreover, it is recognised fairly universally: the implicit distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ is certainly neither as ‘modern’ nor as ‘Western’ as many have claimed. The universality of the principle of impartiality does not imply universality of its content: who deserves equally, or, alternatively, on which grounds discrimination is ruled out, will be answered differently at different periods in time and will vary from society to society. The impartiality principle provides a starting point for the discussion of both corruption in ‘traditional’ societies and contemporary political corruption – corruption involving violations of specific non-discrimination norms governing the access to the political process and the allocation of rights and resources. The impartiality principle calls for rule-bound administration and thus underpins the public office definition of corruption. A central element of the analysis of corruption is the study of specific non-discrimination norms and their comparison across time and place. This approach leads to a significant enrichment of the concept of corruption.
Bureaucratic and Political Corruption
What is the difference between political and bureaucratic corruption in respective of actors and effects? Which one of the two is more problematic in a democracy?
The Phenomenon of Corruption in Public Administration
2017
The phenomenon of corruption has more or less taken place in all periods of history in human life. Bribery, which is the most concrete version of corruption, is being increasingly debated in human society. Before nations were born, corruption took place in people’s personal affairs, mostly in trading. After the birth of world nations, corruption has widened its dimensions and developed in the purpose of using the power of public authorities; which then later become a fact, which affected the relations between the government and the public. It has now become an important issue within the system of relations in public administration. The term “good governance” is an important factor in the fight against corruption and has been voiced often in recent years by international organizations. According to The World Bank, which use this term very often, state that “good governance” is epitomized by predictable, open, and enlightened policy making (that is, transparent processes); a bureaucra...
Corruption: Public and Private
2019
Corruption is recognised as a major stumbling block to development and is associated with injustice and abuse of power. The consensus on the detrimental effects of corruption stands in contrast with the lack of agreement on the set of phenomena that fall under the heading 'corruption' and there is little discussion on whether the economics of corruption should also include corruption in the private sector. This question is relevant since different foci will have different theoretical bases and policy ramifications. We analyse the issue from two complementary perspectives: whether the impacts of corruption are limited to corruption in the public sector and whether a large public sector is associated with more corruption. First, we review theoretical and empirical perspectives on corruption, showing how concern over corruption in the private sector has a long history, dating back to Marshall and Coase. Second, we analyse corruption's determinants using a panel data approach. The econometric analysis demonstrates how our indicator of government involvement in the economy is a poor predictor of corruption prevalence. Finally, the paper highlights the policy implications of the one-sided focus on corruption in the public sector and proposes an explicit acknowledgment of the role of corruption in the private sector.
Corruption: An Alternative Approach to Its Definition and Measurement
2005
Discussion of the definition of corruption has progressed little since Heidenheimer's groundbreaking distinction between definitions centred on public opinion, public office and public interest. All these definitions have been severely criticised. I suggest that underneath these traditional concepts of corruption lurks a much older one based on distributive justice – namely the ‘impartiality principle’, whereby a state ought to treat equally those who deserve equally. This principle provides a much more plausible reason for why the public condemns corruption than alternative approaches, and, moreover, it is recognised fairly universally: the implicit distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ is certainly neither as ‘modern’ nor as ‘Western’ as many have claimed. The universality of the principle of impartiality does not imply universality of its content: who deserves equally, or, alternatively, on which grounds discrimination is ruled out, will be answered differently at different periods in time and will vary from society to society. The impartiality principle provides a starting point for the discussion of both corruption in ‘traditional’ societies and contemporary political corruption – corruption involving violations of specific non-discrimination norms governing the access to the political process and the allocation of rights and resources. The impartiality principle calls for rule-bound administration and thus underpins the public office definition of corruption. A central element of the analysis of corruption is the study of specific non-discrimination norms and their comparison across time and place. This approach leads to a significant enrichment of the concept of corruption.
New avenues in the study of political corruption
Crime Law and Social Change, 1997
This article argues that the 1990s have witnessed a sea change in the study of political corruption, especially in political science. It explores the reasons for the relative neglect of corruption by political science in the past, and suggests that a process is underway whereby the study of corruption is becoming more integrated into the mainstream of the discipline. It explores the paradox of the co-existence of unresolved disputes about the definition of corruption with a consensus on the severity of the problem, suggesting that corruption remains a worthwhile object of investigation. Finally, it summarises how the contributions to this special issue light possible new avenues in the study of the phenomenon.