politics and corruption essay

Essay on Political Corruption

Students are often asked to write an essay on Political Corruption in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Political Corruption

Understanding political corruption.

Political corruption is the misuse of public power for private gain. It includes activities like bribery, nepotism, and embezzlement. It’s a global issue affecting the development of countries.

Effects of Political Corruption

Political corruption hinders development and increases inequality. It affects public trust, leading to instability in society. It also discourages foreign investments.

Combating Political Corruption

Fighting corruption requires strong laws and transparent governance. Public awareness and participation are also crucial. With collective efforts, we can curb political corruption.

250 Words Essay on Political Corruption

Introduction.

Political corruption is a global phenomenon, deeply embedded in the socio-economic fabric of many societies. It undermines the democratic principles of nations and impedes economic development.

Manifestations of Political Corruption

Implications and consequences.

The implications of political corruption are far-reaching. It erodes public trust, hampers economic growth, and exacerbates income inequality. Moreover, it can lead to political instability and social unrest.

To combat political corruption, transparency and accountability in public administration must be promoted. Implementing stringent laws, fostering a culture of ethics, and encouraging citizen participation in governance are crucial steps.

While political corruption remains a daunting challenge, it is not insurmountable. Through collective efforts and robust institutional frameworks, societies can curb this menace and foster a climate of integrity and fairness.

500 Words Essay on Political Corruption

Political corruption is a global issue that transcends cultural, social, and economic boundaries. It refers to the misuse of public power by government officials for private gain, undermining the principles of democracy, justice, and social welfare. This essay explores the causes, implications, and potential solutions to political corruption.

Causes of Political Corruption

The roots of political corruption often lie in a complex interplay of societal, economic, and political factors. One of the primary causes is the lack of transparency and accountability in government operations. This opacity allows corrupt practices to go unnoticed and unpunished. Additionally, weak institutions and inadequate legal frameworks can provide fertile ground for corruption to thrive.

Implications of Political Corruption

Political corruption has far-reaching consequences that extend beyond the immediate actors involved. It undermines democratic values by eroding public trust in government institutions. When public officials are perceived as corrupt, citizens may feel disillusioned and disengaged from the political process.

In economic terms, corruption can stifle growth and development. It diverts public resources away from essential services such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure, exacerbating poverty and inequality. Furthermore, it creates an unstable business environment, discouraging domestic and foreign investments.

Solutions to Political Corruption

Education also plays a pivotal role in combating corruption. By promoting civic education and ethical values, societies can cultivate a generation of citizens and leaders who reject corruption. Furthermore, the media and civil society organizations can act as watchdogs, exposing corrupt practices and holding officials accountable.

Lastly, international cooperation is vital in the fight against corruption. Given the global nature of corruption, countries must work together to prosecute corrupt officials, recover stolen assets, and promote good governance.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Essay on Corruption, Its Causes, and Effects

Causes of corruption: essay introduction, causes of corruption, effects of corruption, conclusion: what are the causes and effects of corruption.

Bibliography

Transparency International defines corruption as an act that abuses the entrusted power for private gain. This means that it violates the rights of individuals that have bestowed power, authority, and legitimacy. Corruption varies in degree and nature depending on the level of its occurrence, people involved, and circumstances that motivate individuals to be corrupt. Modernization has transformed corruption, and people adopt new and complicated ways of concealing their fraudulent activities. This paper presents the causes and effects of corruption in the public and private sector.

Politics is an effective way of ensuring power and resources are shared equally among all individuals from different backgrounds within a specified jurisdiction. However, people have used political activities and offices to advance their gains and neglect the need to be accountable and responsible to the public. The emergence of political elites has created room for corruption to flourish in public and private offices because people no longer respect the need to develop national programs that will benefit citizens. They have diverted the resources of the public to achieve their gains without considering the impacts of their actions on other citizens. Politics has allowed corrupt officers to win elections and take powerful positions in government. Therefore, citizens continue to suffer because their interests are not addressed by those they expected would alleviate their problems.

Also, the existence of artificial scarcity of resources has pushed people to look for cheap ways of getting what they need. For instance, the scarcity of employment and investment opportunities has led to stiff competition for the limited available resources. Therefore, people use unorthodox ways to persuade those in charge of approving projects to allow them to continue with their investment projects. People with malevolent intentions continue to destroy the economy of their nations as they create false impressions of the scarcity of resources. The existence of unhealthy competitions among businesses forces some of them to use unethical ways to persuade their clients to buy their products. Government officials in charge of quality standards are usually bribed to cover the activities of such investors, and this promotes corruption in businesses. This violates the rights of citizens to access quality products and services.

Thirdly, the ethical qualities of people in authority have decreased, and their value system deteriorated due to lack of strong moral teachings and responsibilities. People no longer have respect for the old ideals of moral and honest service delivery procedures, and society has become a haven for individuals that disregard human dignity. It is necessary to explain that modernity has clouded the need to respect the positions and individuals placed to serve others. People have little respect for morals that guide service delivery and ensure others benefit from their services. Therefore, corruption has been fuelled by poor moral values and lack of respect for human life.

The present generation is full of corrupt activities because people fail to condemn them. There are no strong civil societies to rebuke and oppose corrupt leaders, and this promotes the flourishing of this behavior in generations. The American public forum is dominated by debates on gay marriages, foreign policies, and inflated health bills, but nobody seems to pay attention to the escalating cases of corruption in the public and private sectors. The younger generations do not see the need to fight corruption because their predecessors support and cultivate it through modern systems and activities.

Lastly, widespread poverty and illiteracy have contributed to endemic corruption in modern societies. There are efforts to educate people, especially the rural folks, to ensure they know their rights and freedoms to reduce corruption in their societies. However, these efforts seem to bear no fruits because poverty drives them to seek cheap and quick ways of accessing their needs. Also, poverty makes people desperate, and thus, they do anything that will ensure they have food on their tables. Therefore, corruption flourishes in most societies because people do not know their rights and those that do have limited resources to access them.

Corruption violates the rights and freedoms of individuals to get basic services from public and private offices. This means that this practice compromises the quality of services offered by employees in the public and private sectors and puts the lives of citizens at risk. Corrupt officials do not offer equal services to clients because they treat some with more interests than others. This violates the provisions of equality and the rights for justice in various issues. This makes public institutions and offices to become illegitimate because of misusing their democratic power for private gains.

Also, corruption hinders the effective development of political systems in a country. This vice promotes patronage that is serious threats to democratic processes. Most corrupt nations experience civil disobedience and political instability that hamper development projects. The introduction of multi-party democratic systems is usually hampered by the corruption that compromises the legitimacy of political parties and individuals. Civil disobedience and lack of trust in political institutions propel individuals to protest and demand the removal of their leaders from power.

Moreover, this vice stalls development projects and subjects citizens to abject poverty because of a lack of transparency and accountability in public offices. Corruption enables few individuals that have money to have their way and get what they want while those that do not have been forced to look for other alternatives. Poverty and unemployment are common occurrences in societies that condone corruption, and they cannot develop because of poor management systems. The need to offer quality services like improving infrastructure, medical facilities, schools, and social amenities is compromised by the lack of transparent processes of awarding tenders and distributing resources in a society.

Lastly, this vice discourages unity and cooperation in society because some individuals think they are more important than others. Unequal distribution of national resources and restricted access to public services lead to frustration and apathy among citizens, and this weakens the fabric that binds members of the society. This leads to social inequality and the emergence of class differences that violate the dignity and rights of individuals. Uncontrolled corruption widens the gap between the rich and poor, and this results in a weak civil society.

Corruption is caused by man-made factors like capitalism, lack of transparency and accountability, nepotism, tribalism, poverty, weak social and political structures, and poverty. This vice lowers the pace of national development, weakens societies, and increases poverty. Therefore, people should work hard to ensure they fight corruption by educating their members on the importance of transparent practices. Also, government systems should be programmed to detect and eliminate this vice, and those found promoting it should face harsh penalties.

Johnston, M., Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power, and Democracy. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Turvey, B., Forensic Fraud: Evaluating Law Enforcement and Forensic Science Cultures in the Context of Examiner Misconduct . Massachussetts: Academic Press, 2013.

• Capitalism in the US: Criticism and Alternative
• Egypt Risks the Fire of Radicalization
• Corruption and Corporate and Personal Integrity
• Trend Analysis: Water Scarcity Issue
• Scarcity and Student’s Bandwidth
• Political Interests Motivations and Opinions
• American Exceptionalism's Two Faces
• The Kenyan National Flag Significance
• Politics and Legislature in Canada
• The United Arab Emirates History
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, May 18). Corruption, Its Causes, and Effects. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corruption-causes-and-effects/

"Corruption, Its Causes, and Effects." IvyPanda , 18 May 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/corruption-causes-and-effects/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Corruption, Its Causes, and Effects'. 18 May.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Corruption, Its Causes, and Effects." May 18, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corruption-causes-and-effects/.

1. IvyPanda . "Corruption, Its Causes, and Effects." May 18, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corruption-causes-and-effects/.

IvyPanda . "Corruption, Its Causes, and Effects." May 18, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corruption-causes-and-effects/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > Social Philosophy and Policy
• > Volume 35 Issue 2
• > THE CORRUPTION OF POLITICS

Article contents

The corruption of politics.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2019

This essay challenges conceptions of political corruption that rely on standards external to politics and explores an understanding of corruption as something that is part of the internal policing of politics. The essay draws attention to the multiple, conflicting ideas and principles that contribute to our understanding of corruption but argues that these often generate over-moralized and over-generalized claims and can become corrosive of the compromises and procedures that are central to political rule. The essay shows that recent accounts of political corruption often have highly attenuated understandings of “politics” and are over-expansive in their normative commitments, and argues that how we understand and talk about the corruption of politics is of major significance for the stability and effectiveness of the political orders of Western societies.

Access options

An early version of the essay published here was given as a Max Weber Lecture at the EUI, Florence, May 2017.

1 Plato, Republic , trans., Grube and Reeve (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1997) 589c-d.

2 The multi-headed monster is common trope in caricature representations of corruption: for example, “The champions of reform destroying the monster of corruption” (George Humphrey, 1831), “The Champion of Oakhampton, attacking the hydra of Gloucester Place” (Thomas Tegg, 1809) or “Dispute between Monopoly and Power, from The Satirist ” (William Henry Brooke, 1813).

3 See, for example, Krueger , Anne , The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society,” American Economic Review 64 , no. 3 ( 1974 ): 291 – 303 Google Scholar .

4 Pettit , Philip , Republicanism ( Oxford : Oxford University Press , 1997 ), 210 –18. Google Scholar

5 See Thompson , Dennis , Ethics in Congress ( Washington, DC : Brookings Institute , 1995 ) Google Scholar ; Laurence Lessig, Republic Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It (Boston: Hachette, 2011) and “‘Institutional Corruption’ Defined,” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 41, no. 3 (2013): 553–55; Seamus Miller, “Corruption,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Feb 2, 2011); and the essay by Daniel Weinstock in this volume. For criticisms of this approach, see Philp , Mark and David-Barrett , E. , “Realism about Political Corruption,” Annual Review of Political Science 18 ( 2015 ): 387 – 402 CrossRef Google Scholar ; and Maria Paola Ferretti in this volume.

6 See most famously Bernard Williams, In the Beginning Was the Deed (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005) and Raymond Geuss, Philosophy and Real Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009). See also Galston , William , “Realism in Political Theory,” European Journal of Political Theory 9 , no. 4 ( 2010 ): 385 – 411 CrossRef Google Scholar and my “Realism without Illusions,” Political Theory 40, no. 5 (2012): 629–49.

7 Indeed the boundaries of the political are themselves variable, locally policed, and unstable. See, for example, Candea , Matei , “‘Our Division of the Universe’ Making a Space for the Non-Political in the Anthropology of Politics,” Current Anthropology 52 , no. 3 ( 2011 ): 309 – 334 CrossRef Google Scholar .

8 Williams, In the Beginning Was the Deed, chap. 1, “Realism and Moralism.”

9 These vary on their degrees of politicization, the training and qualifications required, the character of loyalty demanded, their conditions of service, and the type of legal system in which they operate.

10 Rothstein , Bo , The Quality of Government: Corruption, Social Trust, and Inequality in Institutional Perspective ( Chicago, IL : Chicago University Press , 2011 ). CrossRef Google Scholar

11 Finn , Paul , “Official Misconduct,” Criminal Law Journal 2 ( 1978 ): 315 Google Scholar . “As an official is not permitted to subordinate the positive requirements of his office to his own judgment as to what he should or should not do, he is indictable for any deliberate refusal to discharge any mandatory public duty imposed upon him.”

12 An important component given the extent to which corruption discourse develops in relation to the church in Western Europe (see Mark Knights, in this volume)

13 See CSPL, Standards Matter: A Review of Best Practice in Promoting Good Behaviour in Public Life (London: The Stationary Office of HM Government, 2013); see also my Public Ethics and Political Judgment (London: CSPL, 2014).

14 Hence the considerable divergences in Western political and administrative systems in the exact understandings of what counts as legitimate personal interests, degrees of partisanship, and so on.

15 Or Transparency International’s “the abuse of entrusted authority for private gain,” which allows a dramatically wider remit than public office.

16 Beetham , David , “Moving Beyond a Narrow Definition of Political Corruption,” in Whyte , David , ed., How Corrupt is Britain ( London : Pluto Press , 2015 ), 41 CrossRef Google Scholar .

17 I set this out fully in “The Definition of Political Corruption,” in Paul Heywood, ed., The Routledge Handbook of Political Corruption (London: Routledge, 2014), 17–29.

18 Almost . . . but perhaps not quite. We can imagine cases where the stronger condemnatory language of “treason” might be used for cases that meet all these conditions.

19 A line common in the 1640s, again in the 1790s, and not unknown today.

20 Rothstein , Bo and Varraich , Aiysha , Making Sense of Corruption ( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2017 ), 50 CrossRef Google Scholar .

21 This is compatible with the definition by Emanuela Ceva in this collection: “We have political corruption when public officials abuse their entrusted public power for the pursuit of a surreptitious agenda.”

22 This also allows a degree of generality to the idea of politics, while recognizing how important agent perspectives are in constructing an account of the exact way of filling out these details of the account.

23 Bo Rothstein, The Quality of Government .

24 Underkuffler , Laura , Captured by Evil: The Idea of Corruption in Law ( New Haven, CT : Yale University Press , 2013 ), 69 Google Scholar . See Mario Villareal-Diaz in this volume for a critique of character-based accounts of corruption.

25 Underkuffler, The Idea of Corruption in Law , 243.

26 Zephyr Teachout, Corruption in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), and see McCormick , Richard L. , “Anti-Corruption in American History,” Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 14 ( 2015 ): 441 –54 CrossRef Google Scholar .

27 See Susan Rose-Ackerman, Corruption, and Government: Causes, Consequences and Reform (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Many of the contributions to this literature pay lip-service to the difficulties of definition, only to produce a mass of data about “corruption” to allow cross cultural explanations for levels of corruption. See for example, Alina Munui-Pippidi, The Quest for Good Governance: How Societies Develop Control of Corruption (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015). James Ferguson’s comment is pertinent here: “In ‘development’ discourse, the fact that there are no statistics available is no excuse for not presenting statistics, and even made-up numbers are better than none at all.” The Anti-Politics Machine (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1994), 41. On the counterproductive effects of corruption discourse see also Buckley in this volume.

28 Critically assessed in Väyrynen , Pekka , The Lewd, the Rude, and the Nasty: A Study of Thick Ethical Concepts in Ethics ( Oxford : Oxford University Press , 2013 ). CrossRef Google Scholar

29 Jim Clifton, “Explaining Trump: Widespread Government Corruption,” January 6, 2016 http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/188000/explaining—trump—widespread—government—corruption.aspx?g_source=Opinion&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles

30 Krastev , I. , Shifting Obsessions: Three Essays on the Politics of Anti-Corruption ( Budapest : Central European University Press , 2004 ). Google Scholar

31 Frank Anechiaro and James B. Jacobs, The Pursuit of Absolute Integrity (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1996) and my “Delimiting Democratic Accountability,” Political Studies 57, no. 1 (2009): 28–53; and “Access, Accountability and Authority: Corruption and the Democratic Process,” Crime, Law and Social Change 36, no. 4 (2001): 357–77.

32 Williams, In the Beginning Was the Deed , 13

33 See, for example, Hine , David and Peele , Gillian , The Regulation of Standards in British Public Life ( Manchester : Manchester University Press , 2016 ), chaps. 2–4 Google Scholar .

34 Nor, indeed, has there been much work exploring the implications of the variety of regime types and political forms and their varying demands on incumbents.

35 M. de Montaigne, Essays , ed. M. A. Screech (London: Allen Lane, 1991), “On Vanity,” 1121–22.

36 See their respective essays in Hampshire , Stuart , Public and Private Morality ( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 1978 ) CrossRef Google Scholar .

37 Classically discussed by Max Weber, in Politics as a Vocation as an ethic of responsibility.

38 One symptom of this is how much more we feel let down by them and how little we trust them. Surveys frequently report extremely low levels of trust in politicians—partly because the question used most often is whether people trust them to tell the truth; but also probably because we have high expectations and find feet of clay.

39 See for example, G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Elections as Instruments of Democracy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 47.

40 We can refer to a tradition of thinking about politics in which “decisionist” elements are central, as in the work of Machiavelli, Weber, Schmitt, or Arendt. See my Political Conduct (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 63–68.

41 See, for example, Laurence Lessig, Republic Lost .

42 The attempt to import Western values can be seen in the case of chapter 6 of the Kenyan constitution of 2010, which is full of the language of transparency and accountability but remains untranslated into any of the local languages, which have no equivalents for such terms.

43 Shany Mor, On Representation , (D.Phil thesis, University of Oxford: 2014).

44 Montesquieu, L’Esprit des Lois, XIX (27). Montesquieu says “historians”—I am suggesting “journalists” as a plausible modern translation.

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• Volume 35, Issue 2
• Mark Philp (a1)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505251900013X

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Americans’ Dismal Views of the Nation’s Politics

5. money, power and the influence of ordinary people in american politics, table of contents.

• The impact of partisan polarization
• Persistent concerns over money in politics
• Views of the parties and possible changes to the two-party system
• Other important findings
• Explore chapters of this report
• In their own words: Americans on the political system’s biggest problems
• In their own words: Americans on the political system’s biggest strengths
• Are there clear solutions to the nation’s problems?
• Evaluations of the political system
• Trust in the federal government
• Feelings toward the federal government
• The relationship between the federal and state governments
• Americans’ ratings of their House member, governor and local officials
• Party favorability ratings
• Most characterize their party positively
• Quality of the parties’ ideas
• Influence in congressional decision-making
• Views on limiting the role of money in politics
• Views on what kinds of activities can change the country for the better
• How much can voting affect the future direction of the country?
• Views of members of Congress
• In their own words: Americans’ views of the major problems with today’s elected officials
• How much do elected officials care about people like me?
• What motivates people to run for office?
• Quality of recent political candidates
• In elections, is there usually at least one candidate who shares your views?
• What the public sees as most important in political candidates
• Impressions of the people who will be running for president in 2024
• Views about presidential campaigns
• How much of an impact does who is president have on your life?
• Whose priorities should the president focus on?
• How different are the Republican and Democratic parties?
• Views of how well the parties represent people’s interests
• What if there were more political parties?
• Would more parties make solving problems easier or harder?
• How likely is it that an independent candidate will become president?
• Americans who feel unrepresented by the parties have highly negative views of the political system
• Views of the Electoral College
• Should the size of the U.S. House of Representatives change?
• Senate seats and population size
• Younger adults more supportive of structural changes
• Politics in a single word or phrase: An outpouring of negative sentiments
• Negative emotions prevail when Americans think about politics
• Americans say the tone of political debate in the country has worsened
• Which political topics get too much – and too little – attention?
• Majority of Americans find it stressful to talk politics with people they disagree with
• Acknowledgments

Americans have long believed that major political donors and special interests have too much influence on politics and that ordinary people have too little influence. Most see voting as the best way for average Americans to impact the direction of the country.

But the belief that there is too much money in politics is widespread. References to the influence of money and concerns about corruption are some of the most frequently cited critiques of the political system , and many Americans see monetary gain as a reason why most elected officials seek office to begin with.

This chapter details that an overwhelming share of Americans hold the view that the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend on political campaigns should be limited – and a majority say they think it legally could be.

When it comes to the decisions made by members of Congress, large shares of Americans say major donors, lobbyists and special interests have too much influence.

By contrast, just 9% of adults say the people in lawmakers’ districts have too much influence; that compares with 70% who say the people in their districts have too little influence (19% say they have about the right amount).

Americans’ views on which groups have influence on the decisions made by members of Congress are similar across party lines:

• Around eight-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (83%) say people who donate a lot of money to campaigns have too much influence on decisions made by members of Congress. A nearly identical share of Democrats and Democratic leaners (80%) say the same.
• Majorities in both parties also say lobbyists, special interests and large employers in lawmakers’ districts have too much influence.
• Relatively small shares in both parties say people in lawmakers’ districts have too much influence. Nearly identical majorities of Republicans (72%) and Democrats (71%) say they have too little influence.

By a wide margin, the public supports limiting the amount of money spent on political campaigns: 72% say there should be limits on spending by individuals and organizations, while just 11% say they should be able to spend as much as they want.

Comparable majorities in both parties (76% of Democrats, 71% of Republicans) say there should be campaign spending limits.

Nearly six-in-ten Americans (58%) say it is possible to have laws that would effectively reduce the role of money in politics, while 21% say it is not; 20% are not sure.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say it is possible to have laws that reduce the influence of money on politics. About two-thirds of Democrats say this is possible (66%), while only 16% say it is not. Roughly half of Republicans (52%) think this is possible, while 29% say it is not.

Presented with a number of ways that someone might try to change the country for the better, Americans rate voting in elections as the most effective of these.

Just over four-in-ten U.S. adults (44%) say that voting is an extremely or very effective way to change the country for the better, while 34% say it is somewhat effective and 21% say it is not too or not at all effective.

About a quarter describe both running for political office (26%) and volunteering for an organization or association (24%) as at least very effective.

Fewer adults say this about other items included in the survey: donating money to a charity or nonprofit (17% say this is extremely or very effective), volunteering for a political campaign (15%), donating money to a political candidate or party (13%), and attending a political protest (10%) or rally (9%).

A majority of adults say that attending a political rally (60%) is not too or not at all effective as a way to change the country for the better. Nearly as many (56%) say the same about attending a political protest.

Republicans’ and Democrats’ views on the effectiveness of each of these items are similar, though slightly larger shares of Democrats than Republicans rate several as extremely or very effective.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to view voting in elections (50% of Democrats, 39% of Republicans) and volunteering for an organization or association (30% vs. 19%) as extremely or very effective.

Overall, a 57% majority of Americans say that voting by people like them can affect the future direction of the country a lot (20%) or some (36%).

Roughly three-in-ten (31%) say that voting by people like them has “not much” of an effect, and 11% say it has no effect at all.

About half of adults under age 50 (52%) say voting can have at least some effect on the country’s future direction, compared with a majority (61%) of those 50 and older.

And while Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say voting has at least some effect overall, those who identify as the strongest partisans within each party view voting as most effective.

Six-in-ten strong Republicans say that voting can have at least some effect; 53% of those who identify with the Republican Party, but not strongly and 40% of Republican leaners say the same. Among Democrats, 73% of strong Democrats say this, compared with 62% of not strong Democrats and 59% of Democratic leaners.

Age differences on the impact of voting are evident in both partisan coalitions. In both parties, those ages 50 and older are more likely than younger adults to say voting can have at least some effect on the country’s future direction. 

Among Republicans and Republican leaners, 60% of those 65 and older say voting can have at least some effect on the country’s future direction, compared with roughly half of those ages 50 to 64 (52%) and 30 to 49 (47%). Among Republicans under age 30, 44% say voting can have a lot or some effect on the country’s direction.

Age differences are similar among Democrats and Democratic leaners. Democrats 65 and older are 18 percentage points more likely than those under 30 to say voting can have at least some effect on the country’s direction. 

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Election 2024
• Election System & Voting Process
• Federal Government
• National Conditions
• Political Animosity
• Political Discourse
• Political Parties
• Political Polarization
• State & Local Government
• Trust in Government
• Trust, Facts & Democracy

How do states fill vacancies in the U.S. Senate? It depends on the state

In gop contest, trump supporters stand out for dislike of compromise, what americans know about their government, congress has long struggled to pass spending bills on time, how the gop won the turnout battle and a narrow victory in last year’s midterms, most popular, report materials.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Politics — Political Corruption

Essays on Political Corruption

Choosing the perfect political corruption essay topic.

Political corruption is a pervasive issue that affects countries all over the world. It can have a significant impact on the economy, social stability, and the overall well-being of a nation. As a college student, writing an essay on political corruption can help you gain a deeper understanding of the topic and its implications. However, choosing the right essay topic is crucial to ensure that you can effectively convey your thoughts and ideas. In this article, we will discuss the importance of the topic, provide advice on choosing a topic, and provide a detailed list of recommended essay topics, divided into categories.

The Importance of Political Corruption Essay Topics

Essays on political corruption are essential in raising awareness and understanding of the issue. By writing about political corruption, you can shed light on the various forms it takes, its impact on society, and potential solutions. Additionally, exploring this topic can help you develop critical thinking and analytical skills, as well as gain a deeper understanding of the political landscape. Moreover, discussing this topic can encourage dialogue and action towards combating corruption in the political sphere.

Choosing a Topic

When selecting a political corruption essay topic, it's essential to consider your interests, research availability, and the potential impact of the topic. Choose a topic that you are passionate about and that has enough research material available to support your arguments. Additionally, consider the relevance and significance of the topic in the current political climate. Lastly, ensure that the topic has the potential to engage your audience and encourages critical thinking and discussion.

Recommended Political Corruption Essay Topics

Types of political corruption.

• The impact of bribery on political decision-making
• The role of nepotism in political corruption
• The influence of cronyism on government policies
• The prevalence of electoral fraud in corrupt political systems
• The role of lobbying in shaping corrupt political agendas

Global Perspectives on Political Corruption

• The comparison of political corruption in developed and developing nations
• The influence of multinational corporations on political corruption
• The correlation between political instability and corrupt governance
• The impact of globalization on political corruption
• The role of international organizations in combating political corruption

Consequences of Political Corruption

• The economic impact of political corruption on a nation's development
• The social implications of corrupt political systems on marginalized communities
• The impact of political corruption on the environment and natural resources
• The erosion of trust in government due to political corruption
• The influence of corruption on the rule of law and justice systems

Solutions to Political Corruption

• The role of transparency and accountability in combating political corruption
• The effectiveness of anti-corruption laws and enforcement mechanisms
• The impact of civic engagement and activism in addressing political corruption
• The role of technology in promoting transparency and reducing corruption
• The importance of ethical leadership in preventing political corruption

These essay topics cover a wide range of aspects related to political corruption, offering ample opportunities for exploration and analysis. Whether you are interested in examining the consequences of corruption, global perspectives on the issue, or potential solutions, there is a topic that suits your interests and research capabilities. By selecting a compelling and relevant essay topic, you can effectively contribute to the ongoing discourse on political corruption and its impact on society.

The Causes of Political Corruption and Its Negative Effects

An analysis of political corruption of american cities in the shame of cities by lincoln steffens, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Political Corruption in Afghanistan

The effects of the social hierarchy in caleb williams and pamela or virtue rewarded, a corruptive factor in american politics, review of the problem of corruption in kenya, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Use of Experimental Economics to Adress The Issue of Corruption Worldwide

Political corruption in shakespeare's works, the problem of corruption and its examples in philippines, response paper on the price of a vote in the middle east by daniel corstange, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

How Political Corruption Affects Brazil and Stagnate Its Development

Does power corrupt, authoritarianism and economic growth, relevant topics.

• Electoral College
• Andrew Jackson
• Abraham Lincoln
• Transportation
• Compulsory Voting

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

The causes and effects of corruption, and how to combat corruption, are issues that have been very much on the national and international agendas of politicians and other policymakers in recent decades (Heidenheimer and Johnston 2002; Heywood 2018). Moreover, various historically influential philosophers, notably Plato ( The Republic ), Aristotle ( The Politics ), Machiavelli ( The Prince and The Discourses ), Hobbes ( The Leviathan ) and Montesquieu ( The Spirit of the Laws ), have concerned themselves with political corruption in particular, albeit in somewhat general terms (Sparling 2019; Blau 2009). For these philosophers corruption consisted in large part in rulers governing in the service of their own individual or collective—or other factional—self-interest, rather than for the common good and in accordance with the law or, at least, in accordance with legally enshrined moral principles. They also emphasized the importance of virtues, where it was understood that the appropriate virtues for rulers might differ somewhat from the appropriate virtues for citizens. Indeed, Machiavelli, in particular, famously or, perhaps, infamously argued in The Prince that the rulers might need to cultivate dispositions, such as ruthlessness, that are inconsistent with common morality. [ 1 ] And Plato doubted that the majority of people were even capable of possessing the requisite moral and intellectual virtues required to play an important role in political institutions; hence his rejection in The Republic of democracy in favor of rule by philosopher-kings. Moreover, these historically important political philosophers were concerned about the corruption of the citizenry: the corrosion of the civic virtues. This theme of a corrupt citizenry, as opposed to a corrupt leadership or institution, has been notably absent in contemporary philosophical discussion of the corruption of political institutions until quite recently. However, recently the corruption of political institutions and of the citizenry as a consequence of the proliferation of disinformation, propaganda, conspiracy theories and hate speech on social media, in particular (Woolley and Howard 2019), has become an important phenomenon which philosophers have begun to address (Lynch 2017; Cocking and van den Hoven 2018; Miller and Bossomaier 2023: Ch. 4). Social media bots are used inter alia to automatically generate disinformation (as well as information), propagate ideologies (as well as non-ideologically based opinions), and function as fake accounts to inflate the followings of other accounts and to gain followers. The upshot is that the moral right of freedom to communicate has frequently not been exercised responsibly; moral obligations to seek and communicate truths rather than falsehoods have not been discharged, resulting in large-scale social, political and, in some cases, physical harm. One key set of ethical issues here pertains to an important form of institutional corruption: corruption of the democratic process. For instance, revelations concerning the data firm Cambridge Analytica’s illegitimate use of the data of millions of Facebook users to influence elections in the U.S. and elsewhere highlighted the ethical issues arising from the use of machine learning techniques for political purposes by malevolent foreign actors. The problem here is compounded by home-grown corruption of democratic institutions by people who wilfully undermine electoral and other institutional processes in the service of their own political and personal goals. For instance, Donald Trump consistently claimed, and continues to claim, that the 2020 U.S. presidential election which he demonstrably lost involved massive voter fraud. The problem has also been graphically illustrated in the U.S. by the rise of home-grown extremist political groups fed via social media on a diet of disinformation, conspiracy theories, hate speech, and propaganda; a process which led to the violent attack in January 2021 on the Capitol building which houses the U.S. Congress.

In the modern period, in addition to the corruption of political institutions, the corruption of other kinds of institutions, notably market-based institutions, has been recognised. For example, the World Bank (1997) some time back came around to the view that the health of economic institutions and progress in economic development is closely linked to corruption reduction. In this connection there have been numerous anti-corruption initiatives in multiple jurisdictions, albeit this is sometimes presented as politically motivated. Moreover, the Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath have revealed financial corruption, including financial benchmark manipulation, and spurred regulators to consider various anti-corruption measures by way of response (Dobos, Pogge and Barry 2011). And in recent decades there have been ongoing efforts to analyze and devise means to combat corruption in in police organizations, in the professions, in the media, and even in universities and other research-focused institutions.

While contemporary philosophers, with some exceptions, have been slow to focus on corruption, the philosophical literature is increasing, especially in relation to political corruption (Thompson 1995; Dobel 2002; Warren 2006; Lessig 2011; Newhouse 2014; Philp and David-Barrett 2015; Miller 2017; Schmidtz 2018; Blau 2018; Philp 2018; Thompson 2018; Sparling 2019; Ceva & Ferretti 2021). For instance, until relatively recently the concept of corruption had not received much attention, and much of the conceptual work on corruption had consisted in little more than the presentation of brief definitions of corruption as a preliminary to extended accounts of the causes and effects of corruption and the ways to combat it. Moreover, most, but not all, of these definitions of corruption were unsatisfactory in fairly obvious ways. However, recently a number of more theoretically sophisticated definitions of corruption and related notions, such as bribery, have been provided by philosophers. Indeed, philosophers have also started to turn their minds to issues of anti-corruption, e.g., anti-corruption systems (often referred to as “integrity systems”), and in doing so theorizing the sources of corruption and the means to combat it.

1. Varieties of Corruption

2.1.1 personal corruption and institutional corruption, 2.1.2 institutional corrosion and structural corruption, 2.1.3 institutional actors and corruption, 2.2 causal theory of institutional corruption, 2.3.1 proceduralist theories of political corruption, 2.3.2 thompson: individual versus institutional corruption, 2.3.3 lessig’s dependence corruption, 2.3.4 ceva & ferretti: office accountability, 3. noble cause corruption, 4. integrity systems, 5. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries.

Consider one of the most popular of the standard longstanding definitions, namely, “Corruption is the abuse of power by a public official for private gain”. [ 2 ] No doubt the abuse of public offices for private gain is paradigmatic of corruption. But when a bettor bribes a boxer to “throw” a fight this is corruption for private gain, but it need not involve any public office holder; the roles of boxer and bettor are usually not public offices.

One response to this is to distinguish public corruption from private corruption, and to argue that the above definition is a definition only of public corruption. But if ordinary citizens lie when they give testimony in court, this is corruption; it is corruption of the criminal justice system. However, it does not involve abuse of a public office by a public official. And when police fabricate evidence out of a misplaced sense of justice, this is corruption of a public office, but not for private gain.

In the light of the failure of such analytical-style definitions it is tempting to try to sidestep the problem of providing a theoretical account of the concept of corruption by simply identifying corruption with specific legal and/or moral offences. However, attempts to identify corruption with specific legal/moral offences are unlikely to succeed. Perhaps the most plausible candidate is bribery; bribery is regarded by some as the quintessential form of corruption (Noonan 1984; Pritchard 1998; Green 2006). But what of nepotism (Bellow 2003)? Surely it is also a paradigmatic form of corruption, and one that is conceptually distinct from bribery. The person who accepts a bribe is understood as being required to provide a benefit to the briber, otherwise it is not a bribe; but the person who is the beneficiary of an act of nepotism is not necessarily understood as being required to return the favor.

In fact, corruption is exemplified by a very wide and diverse array of phenomena of which bribery is only one kind, and nepotism another. Paradigm cases of corruption include the following. The commissioner of taxation channels public monies into his personal bank account, thereby corrupting the public financial system. A political party secures a majority vote by arranging for ballot boxes to be stuffed with false voting papers, thereby corrupting the electoral process. A police officer fabricates evidence in order to secure convictions, thereby corrupting the judicial process. A number of doctors close ranks and refuse to testify against a colleague who they know has been negligent in relation to an unsuccessful surgical operation leading to loss of life; institutional accountability procedures are thereby undermined. A sports trainer provides the athletes he trains with banned substances in order to enhance their performance, thereby subverting the institutional rules laid down to ensure fair competition (Walsh and Giulianotti 2006). It is self-evident that none of these corrupt actions are instances of bribery.

Further, it is far from obvious that the way forward at this point is simply to add a few additional offences to the initial “list” consisting of the single offence of bribery. Candidates for being added to the list of offences would include nepotism, police fabricating evidence, cheating in sport by using drugs, fraudulent use of travel funds by politicians, and so on. However, any such list needs to be justified by recourse to some principle or principles. Ultimately, naming a set of offences that might be regarded as instances of corruption does not obviate the need for a theoretical, or quasi-theoretical, account of the concept of corruption.

As it happens, there is at least one further salient strategy for demarcating the boundaries of corrupt acts. Implicit in much of the literature on corruption is the view that corruption is essentially a legal offence, and essentially a legal offence in the economic sphere. Accordingly, one could seek to identify corruption with economic crimes, such as bribery, fraud, and insider trading.

But many acts of corruption are not unlawful. Bribery, a paradigm of corruption, is a case in point. Prior to 1977 it was not unlawful for U.S. companies to offer bribes to secure foreign contracts; indeed, elsewhere such bribery was not unlawful until much later. [ 3 ] So corruption is not necessarily unlawful. This is because corruption is not at bottom simply a matter of law; rather it is fundamentally a matter of morality.

Secondly, corruption is not necessarily economic in character. An academic who plagiarizes the work of others is not committing an economic crime or misdemeanor; and she might be committing plagiarism simply in order to increase her academic status. There might not be any financial benefit sought or gained.

We can conclude that many of the historically influential definitions of corruption, as well as attempts to circumscribe corruption by listing paradigmatic offences, fail. They fail in large part because the class of corrupt actions comprises an extremely diverse array of types of moral and legal offences undertaken in a wide variety of institutional contexts including, but by no means restricted to, political and economic institutions.

However, in recent times progress has been made. Philosophers, at least, have identified corruption as fundamentally a moral, as opposed to legal, phenomenon. Acts can be corrupt even though they are, and even ought to be, legal. Moreover, it is evident that not all acts of immorality are acts of corruption; corruption is only one species of immorality.

An important distinction in this regard is the distinction between human rights violations and corruption (see the entry on human rights ). Genocide is a profound moral wrong; but it is not corruption. This is not to say that there is not an important relationship between human rights violations and corruption; on the contrary, there is often a close and mutually reinforcing nexus between them (Pearson 2001; Pogge 2002 [2008]; Wenar 2016; Sharman 2017). Consider the endemic corruption and large-scale human rights abuse that have taken place in authoritarian regimes, such as that of Mobutu in Zaire, Suharto in Indonesia and Marcos in the Philippines (Sharman 2017). And there is increasing empirical evidence of an admittedly sometimes complex, but sometimes not so complex, causal connection between corruption and the infringement of both negative rights (such as the right not to be tortured, suffer arbitrary loss of one’s freedom, or have one’s property stolen) and positive rights, e.g., subsistence rights (such as the right to a sufficient supply of clean water to enable life and health); there is evidence, that is, of a causal relation between corruption and poverty. Consider corrupt authoritarian leaders in developing countries who sell the country’s natural resources cheaply and retain the profits for themselves and their families and supporters (Pogge 2002 [2008]: Chapter 6; Wenar 2016). As Wenar has forcefully argued (Wenar 2016), in the first place this is theft of the property (natural resources) of the people of the countries in question (e.g., Equatorial Guinea) by their own rulers (e.g., Obiang) and, therefore, western countries and others who import these resources are buying stolen goods; and, in the second place, this theft maintains these human rights-violating rulers in power and ensures that their populations continue to suffer in conditions of abject poverty, disease etc.

Thus far, examples of different types of corrupt action have been presented, and corrupt actions have been distinguished from some other types of immoral action. However, the class of corrupt actions has not been adequately demarcated within the more general class of immoral actions. To do so, a definition of corrupt actions is needed.

An initial distinction here is between single one-off actions of corruption and a pattern of corrupt actions. The despoiling of the moral character of a role occupant, or the undermining of institutional processes and purposes, would typically require a pattern of actions—and not merely a single one-off action. So a single free hamburger provided to a police officer on one occasion usually does not corrupt, and is not therefore an act of corruption. Nevertheless, a series of such gifts to a number of police officers might corrupt. They might corrupt, for example, if the hamburger joint in question ended up with (in effect) exclusive, round the clock police protection, and if the owner intended that this be the case.

Note here the pivotal role of habits (Langford & Tupper 1994). We have just seen that the corruption of persons and institutions typically requires a pattern of corrupt actions. More specifically, corrupt actions are typically habitual. Yet, as noted by Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics , one’s habits are in large part constitutive of one’s moral character; habits make the man (and the woman). The coward is someone who habitually takes flight in the face of danger; by contrast, the courageous person has a habit of standing his or her ground. Accordingly, morally bad habits —including corrupt actions—are extremely corrosive of moral character, and therefore of institutional roles and ultimately institutions. Naturally, so-called systemic corruption would typically involve not simply the habitual performance of a corrupt action by a single individual but the habitual performance of a corrupt action by many individuals in an institution or, conceivably, an entire society or polity. Moreover, this pattern of individuals engaged in the performance of habitual corrupt actions might have a self-sustaining structure that gives rise to a collective action problem, if the pattern is to be broken. Consider widespread bribery in relation to competitive tenders for government contracts. Bribes are paid by competing companies in order to try influence the outcome of the tender process. Any firm that chooses not to pay a bribe is not given serious consideration. Thus, not to engage in corruption is to seriously disadvantage one’s company. Even those who do not want to engage in bribery do so. This is a collective action problem (Olson 1965).

Notwithstanding the habitual nature of most corrupt actions there are some cases in which a single, one-off action would be sufficient to corrupt an instance of an institutional process. Consider a specific tender. Suppose that one bribe is offered and accepted, and the tendering process is thereby undermined. Suppose that this is the first and only time that the person offering the bribe and the person receiving the bribe are involved in bribery. Is this one-off bribe an instance of corruption? Surely it is, since it corrupted that particular instance of a tendering process.

Ontologically speaking, there are different kinds of entities that can be corrupted. These include human beings, words of a language, artefacts, such as computer discs, and so on. However, our concern in this entry is with the corruption of institutions since this is the main focus of the philosophical and, for that matter, the non-philosophical, literature. Of course, institutions are comprised in large part of institutional roles occupied by human beings. So our focus on institutional corruption brings with it a focus on the corruption of individual human beings. (I refer to the corruption of individual human beings as personal corruption.) However in the case of institutional corruption, the focus on the corruption of human beings (personal corruption) is on human beings qua institutional actors (and on those who interact with institutional role occupants qua institutional role occupants)(Miller 2017: 65).

The upshot of this is that there are three sets of distinctions in play here. Firstly, there is the distinction between institutional corruption and non-institutional corruption—the latter being the corruption of entities other than institutions, e.g., corruption of artefacts. Secondly, there is the distinction between personal and non-personal corruption—the former being the corruption of human beings as opposed to, for instance, institutional processes. Thirdly, with respect to personal corruption, there is the distinction between the corruption of persons qua institutional actors and non-institutional personal corruption. Non-institutional personal corruption is corruption of persons outside institutional settings. Personal corruption pertains to the moral character of persons, and consists in the despoiling of their moral character. If an action has a corrupting effect on a person’s character, it will typically be corrosive of one or more of a person’s virtues. These virtues might be virtues that attach to the person qua human being, e.g., the virtues of compassion and fairness in one’s dealings with other human beings. Corrosion of these virtues amounts to non-institutional personal corruption. Alternatively—or in some cases, additionally—these virtues might attach to persons qua occupants of specific institutional roles, e.g., impartiality in a judge or objectivity in a journalist. Corrosion of these virtues amounts to institutional personal corruption, i.e., corruption of a person qua institutional role occupant.

In order to provide an adequate account of institutional corruption we need a serviceable notion of an institution: the thing corrupted. For our purposes here it is assumed that an institution is an organization or structure of organizations that reproduces itself (e.g., by training and recruitment processes) and is comprised of a structure of institutional roles defined in terms of tasks (Harré 1979; Giddens 1984; Miller 2010). Accordingly, the class of institutions is quite diverse and includes political institutions, (e.g., legislatures), market-based institutions, (e.g., corporations), institutions of learning, (e.g., universities), security agencies, (e.g., police and military organizations), and so on. Importantly, as we noted above, the various different types of, and even motives for, institutional corruption vary greatly from one kind of institution to another.

Note that in theorizing institutional corruption the distinction between an entire society or polity, on the one hand, and its constituent institutions, on the other, needs to be kept in mind. A theory of democracy, for instance, might be a theory not only of democratic government in the narrow sense of the legislature and senior members of the executive, but also of the public administration as a whole, the judiciary, the security agencies (police and military), civil society and so on. Obviously, a theory of the corruption of democratic political institutions (in the narrow sense of the legislature and the senior members of the executive) might not be generalizable to other sorts of institution within a democracy, e.g., to security agencies or market-based institutions. Moreover, fundamental differences regarding the specific form that a democracy ought to take, e.g., between those of a republican persuasion (Pettit 1997; Sandel 2012) and libertarians (Nozick 1974; Friedman 1970), might morph into disputes about what counts as institutional corruption. For instance, on one view market-based institutions exist to serve the common good, while on another they exist only to serve the individual self-interest of the participants in them. Thus on the latter, but not the former, view market intervention by the government in the service of the common good might be regarded as a species of corruption. Further, a theory of the corruption of democracy, and certainly of the corruption of one species of democracy such as liberal democracy, is not necessarily adequate for the understanding of the corruption of many of institutions within a democracy and, in particular, those institutions, such as military and police institutions, hierarchical bureaucracies and market-based institutions, which are not inherently democratic either in structure or purpose, notwithstanding that they exist within the framework of a democratic political system, are shaped in various ways by that framework and, conversely, might be necessary for the maintenance of that framework.

2. Institutional Corruption

2.1 general features of institutional corruption.

Our concern here is only with institutional corruption. Nevertheless, it is plausible that corruption in general, including institutional corruption frequently, if not typically, involves the despoiling of the moral character of persons and in particular, in the case of institutional corruption, the despoiling of the moral character of institutional role occupants qua institutional role occupants. To this extent institutional corruption involves personal corruption and, thereby, connects institutional corruption to moral character. If the moral character of particular institutional role occupants, (e.g., police detectives), consists in large part of their possession of certain virtues definitive of the role in question (e.g., honesty, independence of mind, impartiality) then institutional corruption will frequently involve the displacement of those virtues in these role occupants by corresponding vices, (e.g., dishonesty, weak mindedness, bias); that is, institutional corruption will frequently involve institutional personal corruption.

As noted above, the relationship between institutional corruption and personal corruption is something that has been emphasized historically, e.g., by Plato, Aristotle and Machiavelli. However, some recent theorists of structural corruption have tended to downplay this relationship. Lessig’s notion of dependence corruption (Lessig 2011), in particular, evidently decouples structural corruption from (institutional) personal corruption (see section 2.3.3 below).

Personal corruption, i.e., the state of having been corrupt ed , is not the same thing as performing a corrupt action, i.e., being a corrupt or . Typically, corruptors are themselves corrupted, but this is not necessarily the case. Consider, for example, a parent who pays a one-off bribe to an immigration official in order to be reunited with her child. The parent is a corruptor by virtue of performing a corrupt action, but she is not necessarily corrupted by her, let us assume, morally justifiable action.

Does personal corruption imply moral responsibility for one’s corrupt character? This issue is important in its own right but it also has implications for our understanding of structural corruption. Certainly, many, if not most, of those who are corrupted are morally responsible for being so. After all, they do or should know what it is to be corrupt and they could have avoided becoming corrupt. Consider, for instance, kleptocrats, such as Mobuto and Marcos, who have looted billions of dollars from the public purse (Sharman 2017), or senior members of multi-national corporations who have been engaged in ongoing massive bribery in China and elsewhere (Pei 2016). These kleptocrats and corporate leaders are not only corruptors, they are themselves corrupt; moreover, they are morally responsible for being in their state of corruption.

However, there appear to be exceptions to the claim that personal corruption necessarily or always brings with it moral responsibility for one’s corrupt character, e.g., adolescents who have been raised in criminal families and, as a result, participate in the corrupt enterprises of these families. These individuals perform actions which are an expression of their corrupt characters and which also have a corrupting effect.

What of the moral responsibility of corruptors for their corrupt actions? It is plausible that many, if not most, corruptors are morally responsible for their corrupt actions (e.g., the legions of those rightly convicted of corruption in criminal courts—and therefore, presumably, morally responsible for their actions—in jurisdictions around the world), but there appear to be exceptions, e.g., those who are coerced into offering bribes.

One school of thought in the theory of social institutions that might well reject the view that corruptors are necessarily or even typically morally responsible (or, therefore, blameworthy) for their corrupt actions is structuralism (Lévi-Strauss 1962 [1966]) and especially structural Marxism (Althusser 1971). According to the latter view institutional structure and, in particular, economic class-based relations largely determine institutional structures and cultures, and regularities in the actions of institutional actors. On this anti-individualist conception neither institutional corrosion nor institutional corruption—supposing the two notions can be distinguished (see below)—are ultimately to be understood by recourse to the actions of morally responsible individual human agents. Strong forms of structuralism are inconsistent with most contemporary philosophical accounts of institutional corruption, not the least because these accounts typically assume that institutions have an inherently normative—rather than merely ideological—dimension. However there are echoes of weaker forms of structuralism in some of these accounts when it comes to the issue of the moral responsibility of human persons for institutional corruption. One influential contemporary theorist of corruption who apparently does not accept the view that corruptors are necessarily or always morally responsible (or, therefore, blameworthy) for their corrupt actions is Lessig (Lessig 2011) (see section 2.3.3 below).

The upshot of our discussion of (institutional) personal corruption and moral responsibility is as follows. We now have, at least notionally, a fourfold distinction in relation to corruptors: (1) corruptors who are morally responsible for their corrupt action and blameworthy; (2) corruptors who are morally responsible for their corrupt action but not blameworthy; (3) corruptors who are not morally responsible for having a corrupt character, but whose actions: (a) are expressive of their corrupt character, and; (b) have a corrupting effect; (4) corruptors who do not have a corrupt character and are neither morally responsible nor blameworthy for their corrupt actions, yet whose actions have a corrupting effect, e.g., by virtue of some form of structural dependency for which individual human persons are not morally responsible.

Naturally, in the case of institutional corruption typically greater institutional damage is being done than simply the despoiling of the moral character of the institutional role occupants. Specifically, institutional processes are being undermined, and/or institutional purposes subverted. A further point is that the undermining of institutional purposes or processes typically requires the actions of multiple agents; the single action of a single agent is typically not sufficient. The multiple actions of the multiple agents in question could be a joint action(s) or they could be individual actions taken in aggregate. A joint action is one in which two or more agents perform a contributory individual action in the service of a common or collective end (Miller 2010: Chapter 1) or, according to some theorists, joint intention (Bratman 2016: Chapter 1). For instance, motivated by financial gain, a group of traders within the banking sector might cooperate with one another in order to manipulate a financial benchmark rate, such as LIBOR (London Interbank Borrowing Rate) (Wheatley 2012).

However, arguably, the undermining of institutional processes and/or purposes is not a sufficient condition for institutional corruption. Acts of institutional damage that are not performed by a corruptor and also do not corrupt persons might be thought to be better characterized as acts of institutional corrosion . Consider, for example, funding decisions that gradually reduce public monies allocated to the court system in some large jurisdiction. As a consequence, magistrates might be progressively less well trained and there might be fewer and fewer of them to deal with the gradually increasing workload of cases. This may well lead to a diminution over decades in the quality of the adjudications of these magistrates, and so the judicial processes are to an extent undermined. However, given the size of the jurisdiction and the incremental nature of these changes, neither the magistrates, nor anyone else, might be aware of this process of judicial corrosion, or even able to become aware of it (given heavy workloads, absence of statistical information, etc.). At any rate, if we assume that neither the judges nor anyone else can do anything to address the problem then, while there has clearly been judicial corrosion, arguably there has not been judicial corruption. Why is such corrosion not also corruption?

For institutional corrosion to constitute corruption, it might be claimed (Miller 2017: Chapter 3), the institutional damage done needs to be avoidable; indeed, it might also be claimed that the relevant agents must be capable of being held morally responsible for the damage, at least in the generality of cases. So if the magistrates in our example were to become aware of the diminution in the quality of their adjudications, could cause additional resources to be provided and yet chose to do nothing, then arguably the process of corrosion might have become a process of corruption.

An important question that arises here is whether or not institutional corruption is relative to a teleological or purpose-driven conception of institutions and, relatedly, whether the purposes in question are to be understood normatively. Arguably, the institutional purposes of universities include the acquisition of new knowledge and its transmission to students; moreover, arguably, knowledge acquisition is a human good since it enables (indirectly), for instance, health needs to be met. However, it has been suggested that the purposes of political institutions, in particular, are too vague or contested to be definitive of them (Ceva & Ferretti 2017; Warren 2004). One response to this is to claim that governments are in large part meta-institutions with the responsibility to ensure that society’s other institutions realize their distinctive institutional purposes. On this view, an important purpose of governments is provided, in effect, by the purposes of other fundamental institutions. For instance, an important purpose of governments might be to ensure market-based institutions operate in a free, fair, efficient and effective manner (Miller 2017: 14.1).

Naturally, there are many different kinds of entities which might causally undermine institutions, including other collective entities. However, collectivist accounts of institutions go beyond the ascription of causal responsibility and, in some cases, ascribe moral responsibility. Firstly, such collectivist accounts of institutions ascribe intentions, beliefs and so on to organizations and other collective entities per se. Secondly, this ascription of mindedness to collective entities leaves the way open to ascribe moral agency to these entities (French 1979; List & Pettit 2011). On such collectivist accounts corruptors include collective entities; indeed, corruptors who are morally responsible for their corrupt actions. Thus Lockheed Corporation, on this view, was a moral agent (or, at least, an immoral agent) which corrupted the Japanese government (a second moral agent) by way of bribery. Other theorists, typically referred to as individualists, reject minded collective entities (Ludwig 2017; Miller 2010). Accordingly to individualists, only human agents are possessed of minds and moral agency. [ 4 ] Thus collective entities, such as organizations, do not have minds and are not per se moral agents. Accordingly, it is only human agents who culpably perform actions that undermine legitimate institutional processes or purposes.

An important related issue that arises at this point pertains to the human agents who perform acts of corruption. Are they necessarily institutional actors? It might be thought that this was not the case. Supposing a criminal bribes a public official in order to get a permit to own a gun. The criminal is not an institutional actor and yet he has performed an act of institutional corruption. However, in this example the public official has accepted the bribe and she is an institutional actor. So the example does not show that institutional corruption does not necessarily involve the participation of an institutional actor. What if the criminal offered the bribe but it was not accepted? While this may well be a crime and is certainly an attempt at institutional corruption, arguably, it is not an actual instance of an act of institutional corruption but rather a failed attempt. Moreover, it is presumably not an instance of institutional corruption because the institutional actor approached refused to participate in the attempted corrupt action. Let us pursue this issue further.

As we saw in section 1 , corruption, even if it involves the abuse of public office, is not necessarily pursued for private gain. However, according to many definitions of corruption institutional corruption necessarily involves abuse of public office. Moreover, our example of an attempted bribe to secure a gun permit involves a public official. However, we have canvassed arguments in section 1 that contra this view acts of corruption might be actions performed by persons who do not hold public office, e.g., price-fixing by market actors, a witness who gives false testimony in a law court. At this point in the argument we need to invoke a distinction between persons who hold a public office and persons who have an institutional role. CEOs of corporations do not hold public office but they do have an institutional role. Hence a CEO who embezzles his company’s money is engaged in corruption. Again, citizens are not necessarily holders of public offices, but they do have an institutional role qua citizens, e.g., as voters. Hence a voter who breaks into the electoral office and stuffs the ballot boxes with falsified voting papers in order to ensure the election of her favored candidate is engaged in corruption, notwithstanding the fact that she does not hold public office.

The causal theory of institutional corruption (Miller 2017) presupposes a normative teleological conception of institutions according to which institutions are defined not only as organizations or systems of organizations with a purpose(s), but organizations or systems of organizations the purpose(s) of which is a human good. The goods in question are either intrinsic or instrumental goods. For instance, universities are held to have as their purpose the discovery and transmission of knowledge, where knowledge is at the very least an instrumental good. (For criticisms see Thompson 2018 and Ceva & Ferretti 2021.)

If a serviceable definition of the concept of a corrupt action is to be found—and specifically, one that does not collapse into the more general notion of an immoral action—then attention needs to be focused on the moral effects that some actions have on persons and institutions. An action is corrupt only if it corrupts something or someone—so corruption is not only a moral concept, but also a causal or quasi-causal concept. That is, an action is corrupt by virtue of having a corrupting effect on a person’s moral character or on an institutional process or purpose. If an action has a corrupting effect on an institution, undermining institutional processes or purposes, then typically—but not necessarily—it has a corrupting effect also on persons qua role occupants in the affected institutions.

Accordingly, an action is corrupt only if it has the effect of undermining an institutional process or of subverting an institutional purpose or of despoiling the character of some role occupant qua role occupant. In light of the possibility that some acts of corruption have negligible effects, such as a small one-off bribe paid for a minor service, this defining feature needs to be qualified so as to include acts that are of a type or kind that tends to undermine institutional processes, purposes or persons ( qua institutional role occupants)—as well as individual or token acts that actually have the untoward effects in question. Thus qualified, the causal character of corruption provides the second main feature of the causal theory of institutional corruption, the first feature being the normative teleological conception of institutions. I note accounts predicated on these two assumptions have ancient origins, notably in Aristotle (Hindess 2001).

In keeping with the causal account, an infringement of a specific law or institutional rule does not in and of itself constitute an act of institutional corruption. In order to do so, any such infringement needs to have an institutionally undermining effect , or be of a kind that has a tendency to cause such an effect, e.g., to defeat the institutional purpose of the rule, to subvert the institutional process governed by the rule, or to contribute to the despoiling of the moral character of a role occupant qua role occupant. In short, we need to distinguish between the offence considered in itself and the institutional effect of committing that offence. Considered in itself the offence of, say, lying is an infringement of a law, rule, and/or a moral principle. However, the offence is only an act of institutional corruption if it has some institutionally undermining effect, or is of a kind that has such a tendency, e.g., it is performed in a courtroom setting and thereby subverts the judicial process.

A third feature of the causal theory of institutional corruption pertains to the agents who cause the corruption. As noted in section 2.1.3 , there are many different kinds of entities which might causally undermine institutions, including other collective entities. However, it is an assumption of the causal theory of corruption that only human agents are possessed of minds and moral agency. Accordingly, on the causal theory it is only human agents who culpably perform actions that undermine legitimate institutional processes or purposes.

A fourth and final feature of the causal theory also pertains to the agents who cause corruption. It is a further assumption of the causal theory that the human agents who perform acts of corruption (the corruptors) and/or the human agents who are corrupted (the corrupted) are necessarily institutional actors (see discussion above in section 2.1.3 ). More precisely, acts of institutional corruption necessarily involve a corruptor who performs the corrupt action qua occupant of an institutional role and/or someone who is corrupted qua occupant of an institutional role .

In light of the above discussion the following normative theory of corruption suggests itself: the causal theory of institutional corruption (Miller 2017: Chapter 3).

An act x (whether a single or joint action) performed by an agent (or set of agents) A is an act of institutional corruption if and only if:

• x has an effect, or is an instance of a kind of act that has a tendency to have an effect, of undermining, or contributing to the undermining of, some institutional process and/or purpose (understood as a collective good) of some institution, I , and/or an effect of contributing to the despoiling of the moral character of some role occupant of I , agent (or set of agents) B , qua role occupant of I ;
• A is a role occupant of I who used the opportunities afforded by their role to perform x , and in so doing A intended or foresaw the untoward effects in question, or should have foreseen them;
• B could have avoided the untoward effects, if B had chosen to do so. [ 5 ]

Note that (2) (a) tells us that A is a corruptor and is, therefore, either (straightforwardly) morally responsible for the corrupt action, or A is not morally responsible for A ’s corrupt character and the corrupt action is an expression of A ’s corrupt character.

Notice also that the causal theory being cast in general terms, i.e., the undermining of institutional purposes, processes and/or persons ( qua institutional role occupants), can accommodate a diversity of corruption in a wide range of institutions in different social, political and economic settings, past and present, and accommodate also a wide range of mechanisms or structures of corruption, including structural relations of dependency, collective action problems and so on.

A controversial feature of the causal account is that organizations that are entirely morally and legally illegitimate, such as criminal organizations, (e.g., the mafia), are not able to be corrupted (Lessig 2013b). For on the causal account the condition of corruption exists only relative to an uncorrupted condition, which is the condition of being a morally legitimate institution or sub-element thereof. Consider the uncorrupted judicial process. It consists of the presentation of objective evidence that has been gathered lawfully, of testimony in court being presented truthfully, of the rights of the accused being respected, and so on. This otherwise morally legitimate judicial process may be corrupted, if one or more of its constitutive actions are not performed in accordance with the process as it ought to be. Thus to present fabricated evidence, to lie under oath, and so on, are all corrupt actions. In relation to moral character, consider an honest accountant who begins to “doctor the books” under the twin pressures of a corrupt senior management and a desire to maintain a lifestyle that is only possible if he is funded by the very high salary he receives for doctoring the books. By engaging in such a practice he risks the erosion of his moral character; he is undermining his disposition to act honestly.

2.3 Theories of Political Corruption

Let us term theories of corruption which focus on the undermining of institutional procedures or processes, as opposed to institutional purposes, proceduralist theories of institutional corruption. Mark Warren has elaborated a proceduralist theory of the corruption of democracies, in particular; a theory which he terms “duplicitous exclusion” (Warren 2006). (Relatedly and more recently, Ceva & Ferretti speak of bending public rules in the service of “surreptitious agendas” as definitive of corruption (Ceva & Ferretti 2017: 6), although in a recent work they have shifted to a notion of corruption in terms of lack of accountability (Ceva & Ferretti 2018; Ceva & Ferretti 2021). See discussion below in 2.3.4.)

Democratic political institutions are characterized by equality (in some sense) with respect to these processes. Warren offers a particular account of democratic equality and derives his notion of corruption of democratic political institutions from this. According to Warren, democracies involve a norm of equal inclusion such that

every individual potentially affected by a collective decision should have an opportunity to affect the decision proportional to his or her stake in the outcome. (Warren 2004: 333)

Corruption of democracies occurs under two conditions: (1) this norm is violated and; (2) violators claim to be complying with the norm (Warren 2004: 337). Warren contrasts his theory of duplicitous exclusion with what he terms “office-based” accounts (Warren 2004:329–32).The latter might be serviceable for administrative agencies and roles but is, according to Warren, inadequate for democratic representatives attempting to “define the public interest” (Warren 2006: 10) and relying essentially on the political process, rather than pre-existing agreement on specific ends or purposes, to do so. This latter point is made in one way of another by other theorists of modern representative democracies, such as Thompson (2013) and Ceva & Ferretti (2017: 5), and is an objection to teleological accounts (such as the causal account— section 2.2 above).

Warren’s other necessary condition for the corruption of institutions, namely duplicity, resonates with the emphasis in the contemporary anti-corruption literature and, for that matter, in much public policy on transparency; transparency can reveal duplicity and thereby thwart corruptors. Moreover, the duplicity condition—and the related surreptitious agenda condition of Ceva & Ferretti—is reminiscent of Plato’s ring of Gyges (Plato Gorgias ); corruption is something done under a cloak of secrecy and typically involves deception to try to ensure the cloak is not removed. Unquestionably, corruption often flourishes under conditions of secrecy. Moreover, corruptors frequently seek to deceive by presenting themselves a committed to the standards that they are (secretly) violating. But contra Warren—and, for that matter, Ceva & Ferretti—corruption does not necessarily or always need to be hidden in order to flourish. Indeed, in polities and institutions suffering from the most serious and widespread forms of corruption at the hands of the very powerful, there is often little or no need for secrecy or deception in relation to the pursuit of corrupt practices; corruption is out in the open. Consider Colombia during the period of the drug lord, Pablo Escobar’s, “reign”; the period of the so-called “narcocracy”. His avowed and well-advertised policy was “silver or lead”, meaning that politicians, judges, journalists and so on either accepted a bribe or risked being killed (Bowden 2012). Against this it might be suggested that at least corruption in democracies always involves hiding one’s corrupt practices. Unfortunately, this seems not to be the case either. As Plato pointed out long ago in The Republic , democracies can suffer a serious problem of corruption among the citizenry and when this happens all manner of corrupt practices on the part of leaders and others will not only be visible, they will be tolerated, and even celebrated.

Warren’s theory is evidently not generalizable to many other institutions, namely, those that are not centrally governed by democratic norms and, in particular, by his norm of equal inclusion. Consider, for instance, military institutions. Most important decisions made by military personal in wartime—as opposed to those made by their political masters, such as whether to go to war in the first place—are made in the context of a hierarchical structure; they are not collective decisions, if the notion of a collective decision is to be understood on a democratic model of decision-making, e.g., representative democracy. Moreover, with respect to, for instance, the decision to retreat or stand and fight a combatant does not and cannot reasonably expect to have “an opportunity to affect the decision proportional to her stake in the outcome”. The combatant’s personal stake might be very high; his life is at risk if he stands and fights and, therefore, he might prefer to retreat. However, military necessity in a just war might dictate that he and his comrades stand and fight and, therefore, they are ordered to do so by their superiors back at headquarters and, as virtuous combatants, they obey. I note that Machiavelli contrasts combatants possessed of the martial virtues with corruptible mercenaries who only fight for money and who desert when their lives are threatened (Machiavelli The Prince : Chapter 12).

Thompson’s groundbreaking and influential theory of institutional corruption takes as its starting point a distinction between what Thompson refers to as individual corruption and institutional corruption. When an official accepts a bribe in return for providing a service to the briber, this is individual corruption since the official is accepting a personal benefit or gain in exchange for promoting private interests (Thompson 2013: 6). Moreover, the following two conditions evidently obtain: (i) the official intends to provide the service (or, at least, intends to give the impression that he will provide the service) to the bribee; (ii) the official and the bribee intentionally create the link between the bribe and the service, i.e., it is a quid quo pro . By contrast, institutional corruption involves political benefits or gains, e.g., campaign contributions (that do not go into the political candidates’ own pockets but are actually spent on the campaigns) by public officials under conditions that tend to promote private interests (Thompson 2013: 6). The reference to a tendency entails that there is some kind of causal regularity in the link between acceptance of the political benefits and promotion of the private interests (including greater access to politicians than is available to others (Thompson 2018)). However, the officials in question do not intend that there be such a link between the political benefits they accept and their promotion of the private interests of the provider of the political benefits. Rather

the fact that an official acts under conditions that tend to create improper influence is sufficient to establish corruption, whatever the official’s motive. (Thompson 2013: 13)

I note that in the case of institutional corruption and, presumably, individual corruption (in so far as it involves the bribery of public or private officials) the actions in question must undermine some institutional process or purpose (and/or perhaps institutional role occupant qua role occupant). Thus Thompson says of institutional corruption:

It is not corrupt if the practice promotes (or at least does not damage) political competition, citizenship representation, or other core processes of the institution. But it is corrupt if it is of a type that tends to undermine such processes and thereby frustrate the primary purposes of the institution. (Thompson 2013: 7)

While Thompson has provided an important analysis of an important species of institutional corruption, his additional claim that officials who accept personal benefits in exchange for promoting private interests, i.e., a common form of bribery, is not a species of institutional corruption is open to question (and a point of difference with the causal theory). As mentioned in section 1 , this species of bribery of institutional actors utilizing their position—whether that position be one in the public sector or in the private sector—can be systemic and, therefore, extremely damaging to institutions. Consider the endemic bribery of police in India with its attendant undermining of the provision of impartial (Kurer 2005; Rothstein & Varraich 2017), obligatory (Kolstad 2012) and effective police services, not to mention of public trust in the police. Some police stations in part of India are little more than unlawful “tax” collection or, better, extortion agencies; local business people have to pay the local police if they are to guarantee effective police protection, truck drivers have to pay bribes to the police at transport checkpoints, if they are to transit expeditiously through congested areas, speeding tickets are avoided by those who pay bribes, and so on. Moreover, endemic bribery of this kind is endemic in many police forces and other public sector agencies throughout so-called developing countries, even if it is no longer present in most developed countries.

Thompson invokes the distinction between systemic and episodic services provided by a public official in support of his distinction between individual and institutional corruption. By “systemic” Thompson means that the service provided by the official

is provided through a persistent pattern of relationships, rather than in episodic or one-time interactions. (The particular relationships do not themselves have to be ongoing: a recurrent set of one-time interactions by the same politician with different recipients could create a similar pattern.) (Thompson 2013: 11)

However, as our above example of bribery of police in India makes clear, Thompson’s individual corruption can be, and often is, systemic in precisely this sense. In more recent work Thompson has drawn attention to mixed cases involving, for instance, both a personal and a political gain—the political gain not necessarily being a motive—and suggested that if the dominant gain is political rather than personal then it is institutional corruption or perhaps a mix of individual and institutional corruption (Thompson 2018). Fair enough. However, this does not remove the objection that systemic bribery (for instance) involving only personal gain (both as a motive and an outcome) are, nevertheless, cases of institutional corruption.

Thompson uses the case of Charles Keating to outline his theory (Thompson 1995 and 2013). Keating was a property developer who made generous contributions to the election campaigns of various U.S. politicians, notably five senators, and then at a couple of meetings called on a number of these to do him a favor in return. Specifically, Keating wanted the senators to get a regulatory authority to refrain from seizing the assets of a subsidiary of a company owned by Keating. The chair of the regulatory authority was replaced. However, two years later the assets of the company in question were seized and authorities filed a civil racketeering and fraud suit against Keating accusing him of diverting funds from the company to his family and to political campaigns. Thompson argues that the Keating case involved: (1) the provision or, at least, the appearance of the provision of an improper service on the part of legislators (the senators) to a constituent (Keating), i.e., interfering with the role of a regulator on his behalf; (2) a political gain in the form of campaign contributions (from Keating to the senators), and; (3) a link or, at least, the appearance of a link between (1) and (2), i.e., the tendency under these conditions for the service to be performed because of the political gain.

Accordingly, the case study involves at least the appearance of corrupt activity on the part of the senators. Moreover, Thompson claims that such an appearance might be sufficient for institutional corruption in that damage has been done to a political institution by virtue of a diminution in public trust in that institution. Thus the appearance of a conflict of interest undermines public trust which in turn damages the institution. The appearance of a conflict of interest arises when legislators use their office to provide a questionable “service” to a person upon whom they are, or have been, heavily reliant for campaign contributions. Evidently, on Thompson’s account of institutional (as opposed to individual) corruption it is not necessary that the legislators in these kinds of circumstance ought to know that their actions might well have the appearance of a conflict of interest, ought to know that they might have a resulting damaging effect, and ought to know, therefore, that they ought not to have performed those actions. Certainly, the senators in the Keating case ought to have known that they ought not to perform these actions. However, the more general point is that it is not clear that it would be a case of corruption, if it were not the case that the legislators in question ought to have known that they ought not to perform the institutionally damaging actions in question. On the causal account ( section 2.2 above), if legislators or other officials perform institutionally damaging actions that they could not reasonably be expected to know would be institutionally damaging then they have not engaged in corruption but rather incidental institutional damage (and perhaps corrosion if the actions are ongoing).

As outlined above, Thompson has made a detailed application of his theory to political institutions and, especially to campaign financing in the U.S.. However, he views the theory as generalizable to institutions other than political ones. It is generalizable, he argues, in so far as “public purposes” can be replaced by “institutional purposes” and “democratic process” with “legitimate institutional procedures” (Thompson 2013: 5). Certainly, if the theory is to be generalizable then it is necessary that these replacements be made. The question is whether making these replacements is sufficient. Moreover, the particular species of institutional corruption that he has identified and analyzed might exist in other institutions but do so alongside a wide range of other species to which his analysis does not apply—including, but not restricted to, what he refers to as individual corruption. Thompson has recently identified some other forms of institutional corruption to which he claims his theory applies (Thompson 2018). For instance, the close relationship that might obtain between corporations and their auditing firms. The salient such relationships are those consisting of auditing firms undertaking profitable financial consultancy work for the very corporations which they are auditing; hence the potential for the independent auditing process to be compromised. These relationships certainly have the potential for corruption. However, they do not appear to be paradigms of institutional corruption in Thompson’s sense since, arguably, undertaking such consultancy work is not prima facie an integral function of auditing firms qua auditors in the manner in which, for instance, securing campaign finance is integral to political parties competing in an election (to mention Thompson’s paradigmatic example of institutional corruption).

Newhouse has attempted to generalize Thompson’ theory, but in doing so also narrows it. Newhouse argues that Thompson’s theory is best understood in terms of breach of organizational fiduciary duties (Newhouse 2014). An important underlying reason for this, says Newhouse, is that Thompson’s (and, for that matter, Lessig’s) account of institutional corruption presuppose that institutions have an “obligatory purpose” (Newhouse 2014: 555) Fiduciary duties are, of course, obligatory. Moreover, they are widespread in both the public and private sector; hence the theory would be generalized. On the other hand, there are many institutional actors who do not have fiduciary duties. Thus if Newhouse is correct in thinking that Thompson’s theory of institutional corruption provides a model for breach of organizational fiduciary duty and only for breach of organizational fiduciary duty, the ambition to generalize Thompson’s theory will remain substantially unrealized.

Lawrence Lessig has argued that the U.S. democratic political process and, indeed, Congress itself, is institutionally corrupt and that the corruption in question is a species of what he calls “dependency corruption” (Lessig 2011 and 2013a). Lessig argues that although U.S. citizens as a whole vote in the election of, say, the U.S. President, nevertheless, the outcome is not wholly dependent on these citizens as it should be in a democracy or, at least, as is required by the U.S. Constitution. For the outcome is importantly dependent on a small group of “Funders” who bankroll particular candidates and without whose funding no candidate could hope to win office. Accordingly, there are really two elections. In the first election only the Funders get to “vote” since only they have sufficient funds to support a political candidate. Once these candidate have been “elected” then there is a second election, a general election, in which all the citizens get to vote. However, they can only vote on the list of candidates “pre-selected” by the Funders. Lessig’s account of the U.S. election is complicated, but not vitiated, by the existence of a minority of candidates, such as Bernie Sanders, who rely on funding consisting of small amounts of money from a very large number of Funders. It is further complicated but not necessarily vitiated by the rise of demagogues such as Donald Trump who, as mentioned above, can utilise social media and computational propaganda to have an electoral influence much greater than otherwise might have been the case (Woolley and Howard 2019).

On Lessig’s view there are two dependencies in play, namely, the dependency of the outcome of the election on the citizenry and the dependency of this outcome on the Funders. However, these two dependencies are inconsistent. Therefore, the question that now arises is which dependency is legitimate. Clearly, the dependency on the citizenry as a whole is legitimate since this is what the Constitution clearly intended. Since these funders are not representative of the U.S. citizenry the dependency on the Funders is illegitimate and a corruption of the democratic process in the U.S..

Lessig states that his notion of dependency corruption cuts across Thompson’s notions of individual and institutional corruption (Lessig 2013a: 14). Regarding the relation to Thompson’s notion of institutional corruption: On the one hand, dependence corruption involves a tendency, as does Thompson’s notion of institutional corruption (see above section 2.3.2 ). On the other hand, on Thompson’s theory, a politician, or set of politicians, can receive campaign contributions from Funders and further their private interests without being dependent on them. So in this respect Thompson’s notion of institutional corruption is wider than Lessig’s notion of dependence corruption. Regarding the relation to Thompson’s notion of individual corruption: A politician, or set of politicians, may come to depend on personal benefits from Funders. This is dependence corruption but on Thompson’s theory it is presumably individual corruption. (Although, perhaps, it might not be individual corruption in Thompson’s sense, if it involves a regularity and hence tendency).

Lessig offers a plausible analysis of the corruption of the U.S. electoral system by the Funders. Two related questions now arise. Is Lessig’s theory of dependence corruption correct? Is the notion of dependence corruption generalizable to institutions other than political institutions and, if so, to what extent?

The extent to which Lessig’s notion of dependence corruption is generalizable is ultimately an empirical question; it is a matter of seeking to apply it widely and waiting on the outcome (see, for instance, Light’s analysis of corruption in the pharmaceutical industry (Light, Lexchin, & Darrow 2013)). However, as mentioned above in the comparison of Lessig’s account with that of Thompson, Lessig does not see his dependence account as entirely generalizable.

Unlike the causal account of corruption (see section 2.2 above), Lessig’s notion of institutional corruption commits him only to normatively neutral institutional purposes (Lessig 2014; Lessig 2013b: 14) rather than to morally good or otherwise valuable institutional purposes. Accordingly, by Lessig’s lights, to say of a university that it has as a fundamental purpose to educate (to some objectively acceptable, minimum standard) is merely to say that this is a de facto fundamental purpose. Therefore, being market-based it could change its order of priorities; i.e., it would be perfectly entitled to prioritize profit over educational standards, just as, for instance, a retail store is perfectly entitled to prioritize profit over its standards of service to its customers.

According to Lessig, dependence corruption does not necessarily involve corrupt persons. As we have seen, Lessig’s favored example of dependence corruption is the dependency of the outcome of U.S. elections on a small group of large funders of those campaigning for political office rather than on the American people. Lessig suggests that those who engage in dependence corruption could be “good souls” (Lessig 2011: 17). Here we need to keep in mind distinctions between being evil and being corrupt, and between being corrupt and being morally responsible for one’s corruption. A corrupt person is not necessarily an evil person. After all, as we have seen, a corrupt person might only be corrupt qua institutional actor. Thus a corrupt police officer might be a good father and husband. Moreover, corruption admits of degrees. So a corrupt police officer might be a so-called grass-eater rather than a so-called meat-eater; their corrupt character might only manifest itself in relatively minor forms of corruption, e.g., minor bribe-taking, rather than in major forms of corruption, e.g., on-selling large quantities of heroin seized from drug dealers.

What of moral responsibility and corruption? Consider Lessig’s own favored example of dependence corruption. Surely, moral responsibility for corruption of the U.S. electoral system can be assigned to U.S. legislators, in particular, as well as the Funders who finance campaigns in the expectation (presumably) of favorable legislation if their candidates are elected. Lessig distinguishes between

responsibility for changing individual behavior within the system and responsibility for changing the system itself. (Lessig 2013a: 15)

According to Lessig

the sin of a Congressman within such a system is not that she raises campaign money. It is that she doesn’t work to change the corruption that this dependence upon a small set of funders produced. (Lessig 2013a: 15)

So apparently direct participation in the corruption of the electoral system by legislators and (?) Funders is not a sin. Lessig’s claim here might be that the corruptors of the U.S. electoral system are not engaged in sinful acts because they are not morally responsible for this wrongdoing. This claim is open to question. The actions of the legislators and Funders (and, for that matter, the lobbyists) that are constitutive of dependence corruption (offering and receiving (directly and indirectly) campaign funds) are avoidable and the legislators and Funders are, or ought to be, aware of the institutional damage being done by their combined actions. Moreover, in suggesting that the legislators have a moral responsibility to change the system, Lessig, in effect, concedes as much. How could they have a moral responsibility to change the system if they were not aware of it and their role in it?

What might be influencing Lessig at this point is the degree of the moral responsibility, specifically, full and partial responsibility. It is the combined effect of the many individual actions of a large number of legislators (and Funders and lobbyists) that does the institutional damage. Therefore, each only makes a small causal contribution and each, therefore, only has a small share in the moral responsibility for the outcome. Moreover, in relation to changing the system, there is a need for joint action; it is a joint moral responsibility involving shared partial individual responsibility. Thus legislators could, and know they could, jointly act to enact campaign finance reform to address the problem of dependency by, for example, restricting campaign contributions. Accordingly, the moral responsibility in play is a species of collective responsibility; specifically, joint moral responsibility (Miller 2010: Chapter 4).

Ceva & Ferretti understand political corruption widely to include not only the corruption of politicians but of public officials in general, including police officers, members of the professions, such as doctors and teachers, and others in the public sector. They define political corruption in terms of two individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions: “There must be a public official who (1) acts in her institutional capacity as an officeholder (office condition) (2) for the pursuit of an agenda whose rationale may not be vindicated as coherent with the terms of the mandate of her power of office (mandate condition)” (Ceva & Ferretti 2021: 19). The first condition, namely that political corruption involves a public official who acts in her institutional capacity, is familiar (see above). What of condition (2), the mandate condition?

The mandate condition concerns the motive or reason guiding the office holder’s action; the action is performed for the pursuit of an agenda with a rationale. So the officeholder’s action considered in itself might or might not be an exercise of a constitutive institutional right or duty of the office in question. But what is this rationale that would render the action corrupt? The rationale in question is one that “may not be vindicated as coherent with the terms of the mandate of her power of office”. The key notion here is that of coherence with the mandate of the powers of office. Here the powers of office are presumably simply the institutional rights and duties constitutive of an office, e.g., the right of legislators to vote on legislation, the duty not to take bribes. So, in summary, corruption involves the performance of an action(s) the motivating reason for which does not cohere with the mandate authorizing an office holder’s rights and duties qua office holder.

Ceva & Ferretti further argue that the relations between organizational roles generate a deontic dimension. For instance, they say: “Office accountability governs the institutional relations between office holders. As participants in these relations, officeholders are established with the authority to require that one another ‘gives an account’ of their actions” (Ceva & Ferretti 2021: 25). They provide the example of a physician: “By following this course of action, the physician is also in the position of justifying her conduct to her colleagues with reference to the terms of her power mandate, thus fulfilling office accountability. By her action, the physician is accountable not only to the other doctors…but also to the hospital staff” (Ceva & Ferretti 2021:26).

Ceva & Ferretti also address the question, What is wrong with corruption? In doing so they offer a distinctive theory. According to them political corruption is inherently wrong (as opposed to wrong by virtue of its consequences) because it is “a specific form of interactive injustice consisting in a violation of the duty of office accountability” (Ceva & Ferretti 2021: 122). Thus, it turns out that political corruption is inherently wrong because it is unjust. More specifically, political corruption involves an action by an institutional member which is unjust to his colleagues since each member owes it to every other member to do his duty.

A question might arise at this point in relation to the scope of the notion of an institution that Ceva & Ferretti’s employ in their account of political corruption (understood as corruption of public institutions). For instance, are those who are entitled to vote in a democracy themselves institutional role occupants of the institution of government? Are patients in a public hospital themselves role occupants of the hospital or students in a public school role occupants of the school? Ceva & Ferretti deploy an account of a public institution according to which the answer to these questions is in each case in the negative. For on their account of the corruption of public institutions there must be an officeholder possessed of a mandate who engages in corruption. But citizens, hospital patients and school students are not office holders with mandates. Indeed, citizens are the source of the mandate as, arguably (supposing there is a mandate), are patients and if not students, at least their parents (on the students’ behalf). One untoward consequence of this view is that evidently citizens, patients and students cannot themselves directly engage in acts of corruption (understood as corruption of public institutions) or, at least, if they can their actions would fall outside Ceva & Ferretti’s theory of institutional corruption.

At any rate, to return to the question of the wrongness of corruption, we saw above that on Ceva & Ferretti’s view this consists in corruption being a form of interactive injustice. Accordingly, interactive justice goes hand in glove with office accountability. On this view a teacher who fails students who do not provide her with sexual favors, and gives high marks to those who do, is performing corrupt actions by virtue of her unjust treatment of her teaching colleagues. Ceva & Ferretti argue that the normative source (relevant to the inherent wrongness of corrupt actions) of the principle of impartiality in the practice of the assessment by teachers of their students’ work lies in the role-based relations that the teacher has with her fellow teachers (and other school staff) (Ceva & Ferretti 2021: 98). So this teacher’s action is not corrupt by virtue of the injustice done to the students (although Ceva & Ferretti agree that it would be unfair to the students), but rather by virtue of the injustice done to the teacher’s colleagues. Contrary to Ceva & Ferretti it could reasonably be claimed that the primary form of institutional corruption involved here lies in the corruption of the teacher-student relationship (and its harmful consequences). More generally, Ceva & Ferretti’s theory of political corruption evidently privileges relationships between office holders at the expense of those whom they serve.

As we saw earlier, in the paradigm cases corrupt actions are a species of morally wrong, habitual, actions. What of the motive for corrupt actions? We saw above that there are many motives for corrupt actions, including desires for wealth, status, and power. However, there is apparently at least one motive that we might think ought not to be associated with corruption, namely, acting for the sake of the good. Here we need to be careful. For sometimes actions that are done for the sake of the good are, nevertheless, morally wrong actions. Indeed, some actions that are done out of a desire to achieve the good are corrupt actions, namely, acts of so-called noble cause corruption.

This is not the place to provide a detailed treatment of the phenomenon of noble cause corruption (Kleinig 2002; Miller 2016: Chapter 3). Rather let us simply note that even in cases of noble cause corruption—contra what the person who performs the action thinks—it may well be the case that the corrupt action morally ought not to be performed; or at least the corrupt action is pro tanto morally wrong, even if it is morally permissible all things considered. Accordingly, the person who performs it may well be deceiving him or herself, or be simply mistaken when they judge that the action morally ought to be performed. So their motive, i.e., to act for the sake of what is right, has a moral deficiency. They are only acting for the sake of what they believe is morally right, but in fact it is not morally right; their belief is a false belief. So we can conclude that corrupt actions are habitual actions that are at the very least pro tanto morally wrong and quite possibly morally wrong all things considered, and therefore in all probability not motivated by the true belief that they are morally right.

Here there are more complex excuses and justifications available for what might first appear to be an act of noble cause corruption. Perhaps a police officer did not know that some form of evidence was not admissible. The police officer’s false belief that an action is right (putting forward the evidence in a court of law) was rationally dependent on some false non-moral belief (that the evidence was admissible); and the police officer came to hold that non-moral belief as a result of a rational process (he was informed, or at least misinformed, that the evidence was admissible by a senior officer). This would incline us to say that the putative act of noble cause corruption was not really an act of corruption—although it might serve to undermine a morally legitimate institutional process—and therefore not an act of noble cause corruption. This intuition is consistent with the causal account of corruption in particular. The police officer in question did perform an action that undermined a legitimate criminal justice process. However, his action was not corrupt because he is not a corruptor. He did not intend to undermine the process, he did not foresee that the process would be undermined, and (let us assume) he could not reasonably have been expected to foresee that it would be undermined. Nor is his action the expression of a corrupt character.

Earlier, it was suggested that acts of noble cause corruption are pro tanto morally wrong and that this is typically contra what the actor believes. However, it is conceivable that some acts of noble cause corruption are morally justified all things considered. Perhaps the act of noble cause corruption while wrong in itself , nevertheless, was morally justified from an all things considered standpoint. If so, we might conclude that the action was not an act of corruption (and therefore not an act of noble cause corruption). Alternatively, we might conclude that it was an act of corruption, but one of those few acts of corruption that was justified in the circumstances. Perhaps both options are possibilities.

Suppose an undercover police officer offers a “bribe” to a corrupt judge for the purpose, supposedly, of getting the judge to pass a lenient sentence on a known mafia crime boss. The police officer is actually engaged in a so-called “sting” operation as part of an anti-corruption strategy. The judge accepts the bribe and is duly convicted of a criminal offence and jailed. (Let us also assume that the judge is already so corrupt that he will not be further corrupted by being offered the bribe.) The police officer offers the bribe for the purpose of achieving a moral good, i.e., convicting a corrupt official. However, we are disinclined to call this a case of corruption. Presumably the reason for this is that in this context the “bribe” does not have a corrupting effect; in particular, it does not succeed in undermining the judicial process of sentencing the crime boss. So this is a case in which a prima facie act of noble cause corruption turns out not be an act of corruption, and therefore not an act of noble cause corruption. A less straightforward case is the one where the action does have a corrupting effect. Consider two possibilities: (i) The sting is continued for a while (to catch other corrupt judges) and paid for (by bribes) verdicts are temporarily enforced during the sting; (ii) The process of considering and accepting the money offered by the disguised police officer further despoils the judge’s character but has no further effect on court proceedings (because the judge is arrested within minutes). In both cases, arguably, the officer conducting the sting operations committed an act of corruption.

What of morally justified acts of noble cause corruption. Suppose someone bribes an immigration official in order to ensure that his friend—who is ineligible to enter Australia—can in fact enter Australia, and thereby have access to life-saving hospital treatment. This act of bribery is evidently an act of institutional corruption; a legitimate institutional process has been subverted. However, the person acted for the sake of doing what he believed to be morally right; his action was an instance of noble cause corruption. Moreover, from an all things considered standpoint—and in particular, in the light of the strength of the moral obligations owed to close friends when their lives are at risk—his action may well be morally justified. Accordingly, his act of corruption may well not have a corrupting effect on himself. Plausibly, this explains any tendency we might have not to describe his action as an action of corruption. But from the fact that the person was not corrupted it does not follow that the act did not corrupt. Moreover, it does not even follow that some person or other was not corrupted. Clearly, in our example, the immigration official was corrupted and, therefore, the action was pro tanto morally wrong, even if the action was morally right all things considered.

In this section the following propositions have been advanced: (a) the phenomenon of noble cause corruption is a species of corruption, and it is seen to be so by the lights of the causal account of corruption in particular; (b) conceivably, some acts of noble cause corruption are morally justified all things considered; (c) instances of structural corruption favored by Lessig and/or Thompson are potentially cases of noble cause corruption, but this is not necessarily the case.

Thus far our concern has been with theorizing institutional corruption. Indeed, most of the philosophical work undertaken to date has consisted in such theorizing. However, there are some salient exceptions to this. For instance, Pogge has suggested undermining the international borrowing privileges of authoritarian governments who have removed democratic governments (Pogge 2002 [2008]: Chapter 10); Wenar (2016) argues for the enforcement of property rights (popular resource sovereignty) in relation to the resources curse; Lessig (Lessig 2011) has elaborated a raft of specific measures to reform the system of campaign contributions in the U.S.; Alexandra and Miller (2010) have outlined ways to utilize reputational devices in some sectors in which reputational loss hurts the “bottom line” (see also Brennan & Pettit 2005 for an account of the theoretical underpinnings of such practical reforms).

However, at a more general level there is an apparent need on the part of philosophers to conceptualize the notion of an anti-corruption system or, more broadly, an integrity system for institutions (Klitgaard 1988; Pope 1997; Anechiarico & Jacobs 1998; Klitgaard et al. 2000; Preston & Sampford 2002; Baker 2005; Miller 2017). An integrity system is an institutional arrangement the purpose of which is to promote ethical attitudes and behavior and, crucially, to prevent or, at least, reduce institutional corruption. For instance, an integrity system for a police organization might consist of a set of laws and regulations, an internal affairs department comprised of corruption investigators, an external oversight body, professional reporting mechanisms, an enforceable code of ethics, a complaints and discipline process, and so on. The contribution of philosophers to integrity systems has been threefold. Firstly, they have offered synoptic or “birds-eye” views of the architecture of such systems and in so doing determined whether they are fit for normative institutional purpose. Naturally, this work presupposes theories of the normative institutional purposes of the institutions in question (Lessig 2011; Thompson 1995). Secondly, they have addressed a variety of ethical issues that have arisen in the design and implementation of integrity systems and their various institutional components. Consider, for instance, the range of ethical issues that arise in relation to anti-corruption systems for police organizations, e.g., entrapment, privacy/surveillance (Miller 2016). Thirdly, they have identified the underlying causal and/or rational basis of the corruption and, in light of this, designed appropriate anti-corruption measures. (Pogge 2002 [2008]: Chapter 6; Lessig 2011); van den Hoven, Miller, & Pogge 2017). An important set of structural problems facilitating corruption are collective action problems, e.g., regulatory arbitrage in the global financial system and tax havens (Obermayer & Obermaier 2016; Rothstein & Varraich 2017). One kind of solution proposed is that of an enforceable cooperative scheme at the international level (Eatwell & Taylor 2000).

Integrity systems can be thought of as being either predominantly reactive or predominantly preventive, albeit the distinction is somewhat artificial since there is always a need for both reactive elements, e.g., investigations of corrupt actions, and preventive elements, e.g., ethics training and transparency mechanisms. Reactive systems are fundamentally linear. They frame laws and regulation that set out a series of offences, wait for transgressions, investigate, adjudicate and take punitive measures. In many areas, including institutional corruption, resources are limited and, thus, ethically informed decisions have to be made in relation to the prioritization of corrupt activity to be investigated and to what extent. This ethical problem is to be distinguished from the problem of under-resourcing motivated by a desire to hamstring anti-corruption initiatives. Moreover, both problems are to be distinguished from the debate between those who favor increased laws and regulations to combat, for instance, financial corruption, and those who argue for a decrease in such laws and regulations since they unnecessarily increase the cost of doing business.

Preventive institutional mechanisms for combating corruption can be divided into four categories. Mechanisms designed to reduce the motivation to engage in corruption, e.g., ethics education programs; mechanisms to reduce the capacity of those motivated to engage in corruption, e.g., legislation to downsize oligopolies to prevent cartels (Rose-Ackerman 1999), exploitation of the lack of trust between corruptors (Lambsdorff 2007), democratization and the separation of powers (“power corrupts” (Acton 1887 [1948: 364]) to reign in powerful, corrupt governments (Johnston 2014); mechanisms to eliminate or reduce the opportunity to engage in corruption, e.g., conflict of interest provisions; mechanisms to expose corrupt behavior, e.g., oversight bodies, media organizations (Pope 1997; Spence et al. 2011).

It is self-evident that there is need for both reactive and preventive elements if an integrity system is to be adequate. This point obtains whether or not the integrity system in question pertains to a single organization, an industry, an occupational group, or an entire society. However, the reactive and preventive elements need to cohere in an overall holistic integrity system (Miller 2017). A further point often overlooked is that if an integrity system is to be effective it presupposes a framework of accepted social norms in the sense of socially accepted moral principles. Social norms provide the standards which determine what counts as corruption. Moreover, in so doing they determine whether or not such behavior will be tolerated or not. Revealing corruption has very little effect if the wider community to whom the corruption is revealed are tolerant or otherwise accepting of it.

Corruption is a highly diverse phenomenon, including bribery, nepotism, false testimony, cheating, abuse of authority and so on. Moreover, corruption takes different forms across the spectrum of institutions giving rise to political corruption, financial corruption, police corruption, academic corruption and so on. The causal theory of corruption is a sustained attempt to provide an account which accommodates this diversity. In doing so it emphasizes the causal as well as the normative dimension of institutional corruption. The most influential contemporary philosophical theories of political corruption are those of Dennis Thompson and Lawrence Lessig. Moreover, Lessig’s notion of dependence corruptions looks to be generalizable to a degree to institutions other than political institutions. Likewise the mechanism that lies at the heart of Thompson’s theory may be generalizable to a degree to institutions other than political institutions. However, as they stand, neither of these theories provides a general or comprehensive theory of institutional corruption (and Lessig’s theory, at least, is not intended to do so). The wide diversity of corrupt actions implies that there may well need to be a correspondingly wide and diverse range of specific anti-corruption measures to combat corruption in its different forms, and indeed in its possibly very different contexts. Recent decades have seen the rise of whole systems of anti-corruptions mechanisms encased in what are referred to as integrity systems. Here we can distinguish reactive from preventive elements of an integrity or anti-corruption system and, arguably, an effective integrity system should integrate reactive and preventive elements in an overall holistic system.

• Abed, George T. and Sanjeev Gupta (eds.), 2003, Governance, Corruption, and Economic Performance , Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.
• Aßländer, Michael S. and Sarah Hudson (eds.), 2017, Handbook of Business and Corruption , Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.
• Acton, Lord [John Emerich Dalberg Acton], 1887 [1948], Letter to Mandell Creighton, 5 April 1887, printed in Acton’s Essays on Freedom and Power , Gertrude Himmelfarb (ed.), Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, pp. 358–367.
• Alexandra, Andrew and Seumas Miller, 2010, Integrity Systems for Occupations , London: Routledge.
• Althusser, Louis, 1971, Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays ( Lénine et las philosophie ), Ben Brewster (trans.), London: New Left Books.
• Anechiarico, Frank and James B. Jacobs, 1998, The Pursuit of Absolute Integrity: How Corruption Control Makes Government Ineffective , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Aristotle [fourth century BCE], The Politics , any edition.
• –––, Nicomachean Ethics , any edition.
• Baker, Raymond W., 2005, Capitalism’s Achilles Heel: Dirty Money and How to Renew the Free-Market System , Indianapolis: Wiley.
• Bellow, Adam, 2003, In Praise of Nepotism: A History of Family Enterprise from King David to George W. Bush , New York: Doubleday.
• Blau, Adrian, 2009, “Hobbes on Corruption”, History of Political Thought, 30(4): 596–616.
• –––, 2018, “Cognitive Corruption and Deliberative Democracy”, Social Philosophy and Policy, 35(2): 198–220.
• Bowden, Mark, 2012, Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World’s Greatest Outlaw , New York: Atlantic Books.
• Bratman, Michael E., 2016, Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199897933.001.0001
• Brennan, Geoffrey and Philip Pettit, 2005, The Economy of Esteem: An Essay on Civil and Political Society , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199246483.001.0001
• Ceva, Emanuela and Maria Paola Ferretti, 2017, “Political Corruption”, Philosophy Compass , 7(2): 1–10. doi:10.1111/phc3.12461
• –––, 2018, “Political Corruption, Individual Behavior and the Quality of Institutions”, Politics, Philosophy & Economics , 17(2):216–231. doi:10.1177/1470594X17732067
• –––, 2021, Political Corruption , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Cocking, Dean and Jeroen van den Hoven, 2018, Evil Online , Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
• Cohen, Elliott D. (ed.), 2005, News Incorporated: Corporate Media Ownership and Its Threat to Democracy , Amherst, New York: Prometheus.
• Crank, John and Michael A. Caldero, 2004, Police Ethics: The Corruption of Noble Cause , Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.
• Dobel, J. Patrick, 2002, Public Integrity , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
• Dobos, Ned, Christian Barry, and Thomas Pogge (eds.), 2011, Global Financial Crisis: The Ethical Issues , London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230306950
• Eatwell, John and Lance Taylor, 2000, Global Finance at Risk: The Case for International Regulation , New York: New Press.
• Elliott, Deni and Edward H. Spence, 2018, Ethics for a Digital Era , Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118968888
• Friedman, Milton, 1970, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”, New York Times Magazine , 13 September 1970.
• French, Peter A., 1979, “The Corporation as a Moral Person”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 16(3): 207–15
• Giddens, Anthony, 1984, The Constitution of Society , Cambridge, UK: Polity.
• Green, Stuart P., 2006, Lying, Cheating and Stealing: A Moral Theory of White-Collar Crime , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199225804.001.0001
• Harré, Rom, 1979, Social Being: A Theory for Social Psychology , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Heidenheimer, Arnold J. and Michael Johnston (eds.), 2002, Political Corruption: Concepts and Contexts , third edition, London: Transaction Publishers.
• Heywood, Paul (ed.), 2018, Routledge Handbook of Political Corruption, London: Routledge.
• Hindess, Barry, 2001, “Good Government and Corruption”, in Larmour and Wolanin 2001: 1–10.
• Johnston, Michael, 2014, Corruption, Contention, and Reform: The Power of Deep Democratization , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139540957
• Kleinig, John, 2002, “Rethinking Noble Cause Corruption” International Journal of Police Science and Management , 4(4): 287–314. doi:10.1350/ijps.4.4.287.10877
• Klitgaard, Robert E., 1988, Controlling Corruption , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Klitgaard, Robert, Ronald Maclean-Abaroa, and H. Lindsey Parris, 2000, Corrupt Cities: A Practical Guide to Cure and Prevention , Oakland, CA: ICS Press.
• Kolstad, Ivar, 2012, “Corruption as a Violation of Distributed Ethical Obligations” Journal of Global Ethics , 8(2–3): 239–250. doi:10.1080/17449626.2012.716076
• Kurer, Oskar, 2005, “Corruption: An Alternative Approach to its Definition and Measurement”, Political Studies , 53(1): 222–39. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00525.x
• Lambsdorff, Johann, Graf, 2007, Institutional Economics of Corruption and Reform: Theory, Evidence and Reform , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511492617
• Langford, John W. and Allan Tupper (eds.), 1994, Corruption, Character and Conduct: Essays on Canadian Government Ethics , Toronto: Oxford University Press.
• Larmour, Peter and Nick Wolanin (eds.), 2001, Corruption and Anti-Corruption , Canberra: Asia Pacific Press.
• Lessig, Lawrence, 2011, Republic Lost: How Money Corrupts—and a Plan to Stop it , New York: Twelve. [ Lessig 2011 available online ]
• –––, 2013a, “Institutional Corruptions”, Edward J. Safra Working Papers 1. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2233582
• –––, 2013b, “‘Institutional Corruption’ Defined”, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics , 41(3): 553–555. doi:10.1111/jlme.12063
• –––, 2014, “What an Originalist Would Understand ‘Corruption’ to Mean”, California Law Review , 102(1): 1–24. doi:10.15779/z38df8d
• Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 1962 [1966], La pensée sauvage , Paris: Plon. Translated as The Savage Mind , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Light, Donald W., Joel Lexchin, and Jonathan J. Darrow, 2013, “Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs”, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics , 14(3): 590–600. doi:10.1111/jlme.12068
• Lynch, Michael, 2017, The Internet of Us , New York: Liveright.
• List, Christian and Philip Pettit, 2011, Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591565.001.0001
• Ludwig, Kirk, 2017, From Plural to Institutional Agency: Collective Action II , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1532, The Prince ( Il Principe ), any edition.
• –––, c.1517, Discourses on Livy ( Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio ), any edition.
• Miller, Seumas, 2010, Moral Foundations of Social Institutions: A Philosophical Study , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511818622
• –––, 2016, Corruption and Anti-Corruption in Policing: Philosophical and Ethical Issues , Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46991-1
• –––, 2017, Institutional Corruption: A Study in Applied Philosophy , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781139025249
• Miller, Seumas, Peter Roberts, and Edward Spence, 2005, Corruption and Anti-Corruption: An Applied Philosophical Approach , New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Miller, Seumas and Terry Bossomaier, 2023, Cybersecurity, Ethics and Collective Responsibility, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Montesquieu, 1748, The Spirit of the Laws ( De l’esprit des lois ), any edition.
• Munger, Michael, 2018, “On the Contingent Vice of Corruption ” Social Philosophy and Policy , 35(2): 158–181.
• Newhouse, M.E., 2014, “Institutional Corruption: A Fiduciary Theory” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy , 23(3): Article 2, URL = < https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp/vol23/iss3/2 >
• Noonan, John T. Jr, 1984, Bribes , New York: Macmillan.
• Nozick, Robert, 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
• Nye, Joseph S., 1967, “Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-benefit Analysis”, American Political Science Review , 61(2): 417–427. doi:10.2307/1953254
• Obermayer, Batian and Frederik Obermaier, 2016, Panama Papers. Die Geschichte einer weltweiten Enthüllung , Köln : Kiepenheuer & Witsch. Translated in the same year as The Panama Papers: Breaking the Story of How the Rich & Powerful Hide Their Money , London: Oneworld.
• Olson, Mancur, 1965, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Pearson, Zoe, 2001, “An International Human Rights Approach to Corruption”, in Larmour and Wolanin 2001: 30–61.
• Pei, Minxin, 2016, China’s Crony Capitalism: The Dynamics of Regime Decay , Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Pettit, Philip, 1997, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198296428.001.0001
• Philp, Mark, 1997, “Defining Political Corruption”, Political Studies , 45(3): 436–462. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00090
• –––, 2018, “Corruption of Politics”, Social Philosophy and Policy , 35(2): 73–93.
• Philp, Mark and Elizabeth David-Barrett, 2015, “Realism about Political Corruption ”, Annual Review of Political Science , 18: 387–402.
• Plato [fourth century BCE], Gorgias , any edition.
• –––, The Republic , any edition.
• Pogge, Thomas, 2002 [2008], World Poverty and Human Rights , London: Polity; second edition, 2008.
• Pope, Jeremy, 1997, National Integrity Systems: The TI Source Book , Berlin: Transparency International.
• Preston, Noel and Charles Sampford, 2002, Encouraging Ethics and Challenging Corruption , Sydney: Federation Press.
• Pritchard, Michael S., 1998, “Bribery: The Concept”, Science and Engineering Ethics , 4(3): 281–286. doi:10.1007/s11948-998-0019-9
• Reich, Robert B., 2015, Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few , New York: Alfred A. Knoff
• Resnik, David B., 2007, The Price of Truth: How Money Affects the Norms of Science , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195309782.001.0001
• Rose-Ackerman, Susan, 1999, Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences and Reform , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rothstein, Bo and Aiysha Varraich, 2017, Making Sense of Corruption , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316681596
• Sandel, Michael, J., 2012, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets , London: Penguin.
• Schmidtz, David (ed.), 2018, Social Philosophy and Policy , 35(2).
• Sharman, J.C., 2017, The Despot’s Guide to Wealth Management: On the International Campaign Against Grand Corruption , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Sparling, Robert, 2019, Political Corruption , Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Spence, Edward H., Andrew Alexandra, Aaron Quinn, and Anne Dunn, 2011, Media, Markets and Morals , Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Thompson, Dennis F., 1995, Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption , Washington DC: Brookings Institute.
• –––, 2013, “Two Concepts of Corruption: Individual and Institutional”, Edward J. Safra Working Papers 16. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2304419
• –––, 2018, “Theories of Institutional Corruption”, Annual Review of Political Science , 21: 495–513. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-120117-110316
• Van den Hoven, Jeroen, Seumas Miller and Thomas Pogge (eds.), 2017, Designing-in Ethics , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9780511844317
• Walsh, Adrian and Richard Giulianotti, 2006, Ethics, Money and Sport , London: Routledge.
• Warren, Mark E., 2004, “What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy”, American Journal of Political Science , 48(2): 328–343. doi:10.2307/1519886
• –––, 2006, “Political Corruption as Duplicitous Exclusion” PS: Political Science and Politics , 39(4): 803–807. doi:10.1017/S1049096506060975
• Wenar, Leif, 2016, Blood Oil: Tyrants, Violence and the Rules that Run the World , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wheatley, Martin, 2012, The Wheatley Review of LIBOR, , London: HM Treasury. [ Wheatley 2012 available online ]
• Woolley, Samuel and Philip Howard, 2019, Computational Propaganda, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• World Bank, 1997, Helping Countries Combat Corruption: The Role of the World Bank , Washington DC: World Bank. [ World Bank 1997 available online ]

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Convention Against the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions , Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 15 February 1999.

ethics: virtue | integrity | moral dilemmas

Copyright © 2023 by Seumas Miller < semiller @ csu . edu . au >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Meta-Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

2 (page 18) p. 18 Why corruption is a problem

• Published: April 2015
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Corruption impacts upon individuals, groups, and organizations in numerous ways. ‘Why corruption is a problem’ considers the negative effects of corruption in terms of social, environmental, economic, politico-legal, security-related, and international implications, using examples from around the world. The impact of particular acts of corruption is often on several areas simultaneously. Some well-regarded analysts have argued that corruption can sometimes be beneficial, but there is widespread agreement that even if corruption may, in some specific situations, be beneficial, this is only ever short term; eventually, the costs of corruption invariably outweigh the benefits.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Advertisement

Understanding corruption in the twenty-first century: towards a new constructivist research agenda

• Review Article
• Published: 12 January 2021
• Volume 19 , pages 82–102, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Sofia Wickberg 1  

978 Accesses

6 Citations

8 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The search for a universally acceptable definition of corruption has been a central element of scholarship on corruption over the last decades, without it ever reaching a consensus in academic circles. Moreover, it is far from certain that citizens share the same understanding of what should be labelled as ‘corruption’ across time, space and social groups. This article traces the journey from the classical conception of corruption, centred around the notions of morals and decay, to the modern understanding of the term focussing on individual actions and practices. It provides an overview of the scholarly struggle over meaning-making and shows how the definition of corruption as the ‘abuse of public/entrusted power for private gain’ became dominant, as corruption was constructed as a global problem by international organizations. Lastly, it advocates for bringing back a more constructivist perspective on the study of corruption which takes the ambiguity and political dimensions of corruption seriously. The article suggests new avenues of research to understand corruption in the changing context of the twenty-first century.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Corruption, Crisis, and Change: Use and Misuse of an Empty Signifier

The Cancer of Corruption: A Philosophical and Ethical Perspective

Existing and Promising Theoretical Approaches to Understanding ICTs Contribution to Anti-corruption Efforts

Author’s own translation.

Interestingly, in French, ‘corruption’ also refers to the sexual abuse of youth, reflecting the original polysemy.

Professor of History, Technische Universität Darmstadt (INTEX1). Interview, with author. November 17th 2016.

Abbott, K. 2001. Rule-making in the WTO: Lessons from the Ce of Bribery and Corruption. Journal of International Economic Law 4(2): 275–296.

Article   Google Scholar  

Affaire Penelope Fillon: Plusieurs centaines de manifestants à Paris “contre la corruption des élus” Europe 1, February 19th 2017. https://www.europe1.fr/societe/affaire-penelope-fillon-plusieurs-centaines-de-manifestants-a-paris-contre-la-corruption-des-elus-2982434 . Accessed 3 Dec 2020.

Alatas, H.S. 1968. The Sociology of Corruption: The Nature, Function, Causes and Prevention of Corruption . Singapore: D. Moore Press.

Google Scholar  

Andreas, P., and K.M. Greenhill. 2010. Sex, Drugs, and Body counts: The Politics of Numbers in Global Crime and Conflict . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Atkinson, M.M., and M. Mancuso. 1985. Do we Need a Code of Conduct for Politicians? The Search for an Elite Political Culture of Corruption in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science 18(3): 459–480.

Barnes, B. 2018. Women Politicians, Institutions, and Perceptions of Corruption. Comparative Political Studies 52(1): 134–167.

Bauhr, M., and N. Charron. 2020. Do Men and Women Perceive Corruption Differently? Gender Differences in Perception of Need and Greed Corruption. Politics and Governance 8(2): 92–102.

Becker G. S. 1974. Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment . New York: National Bureau of Economic Research: distributed by Columbia University Press.

Belouezzane, S. 2020. Affaire Fillon: Les Républicains «choqués»par les déclarations de l’ex-chef du Parquet national financier. Le Monde, June 22, 2020. https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2020/06/22/les-republicains-choques-par-les-declarations-de-l-ex-cheffe-du-parquet-national-financier-sur-l-affaire-fillon_6043676_823448.html . Accessed 3 Dec 2020.

Berti, C., R. Bratu, and S. Wickberg. 2020. Corruption and the Media. In A Research Agenda for Studies of Corruption , ed. A. Mungiu-Pippidi and P. Heywood. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Best, J. 2008. Ambiguity, Uncertainty, and Risk: Rethinking Indeterminacy. International Political Sociology 2(4): 355–374.

Boccon-Gibod, T. Forthcoming. De la corruption des régimes à la confusion des intérêts: pour une histoire politique de la corruption. Revue française d’administration publique 145.

Bratu, R., and I. Kažoka. 2018. Metaphors of Corruption in the News Media Coverage of Seven European Countries. European Journal of Communication 33(1): 57–72.

Buchan, B., and L. Hill. 2014. An Intellectual History of Political Corruption . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bukovansky, M. 2006. The Hollowness of Anti-corruption Discourse. Review of International Political Economy 13(2): 181–209.

Centre national des ressources textuelles et lexicales. n.d. Corruption. https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/corruption . Accessed 5 Mar 2020.

Clarke, J. 2006. What’s Culture Got to Do with It? Deconstructing Welfare, State and Nation . Working Paper n° 136-06, Centre for Cultural Research, University of Aarhus.

Clarke, N., W. Jennings, J. Moss, and G. Stoker. 2018. The Good Politician: Folk Theories, Political Interaction, and the Rise of Anti-politics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cooley, A., and J. Snyder (eds.). 2015. Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Craig, M. 2015. Post-2008 British Industrial Policy and Constructivist Political Economy: New Directions and New Tensions. New Political Economy 20(1): 107–125.

Eggers, V. 2018. Corruption, Accountability, and Gender: Do Female Politicians Face Higher Standards in Public Life? The Journal of politics 80(1): 321–326.

Engler, S. 2020. “Fighting Corruption” or “Fighting the Corrupt Elite”? Politicizing Corruption Within and Beyond the Populist Divide. Democratization 27(4): 643–661.

Europe 1. Affaire Penelope Fillon: Plusieurs centaines de manifestants à Paris “contre la corruption des élus”. February 19th 2017. Online, available at: https://www.europe1.fr/societe/affaire-penelope-fillon-plusieurs-centaines-de-manifestants-a-paris-contre-la-corruption-des-elus-2982434 Accessed 3 Jan 2021.

Fawcett, P., M. Flinders, C. Hay, and M. Wood (eds.). 2017. Anti-politics, Depoliticisation and Governance . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Friedrich, C. 1972. The Pathology of Politics: Violence, Betrayal, Corruption, Secrecy and Propaganda . New York: Harper and Row.

Friedrich, C. 2002. Corruption Concepts in Historical Perspective. In Political Corruption: Concepts & Contexts . 3rd ed, ed. A.J. Heidenheimer and M. Johnston. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Gallie, W. B. 1956. IX.—Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56(1): 167–198.

Gardiner, J.A. 1970. The Politics of Corruption. Organised Crime in an American City . New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

Gebel, A.C. 2012. Human Nature and Morality in the Anti-corruption Discourse of Transparency International. Public Administration and Development 32: 109–128.

Génaux, M. 2002. Les mots de la corruption: la déviance publique dans les dictionnaires d’Ancien Régime. Histoire, économie et société 21(4): 513–530.

Génaux, M. 2004. Social Sciences and the Evolving Concept of Corruption. Crime, Law and Social Change 42(13): 13–24.

Gledhill, J. 2004. Corruption as the Mirror of the State in Latin America. In Between Morality and the Law: Corruption, Anthropology and Comparative Society , ed. I. Pardo. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

Glynn, P., S.J. Kobrin, and M. Naìm. 1997. The Globalization of Corruption. In Corruption and the Global Economy , ed. K.A. Elliott. Washington, D.C: Institute of International Economics.

Graaf, G. 2007. Causes of Corruption: Towards a Contextual Theory of Corruption. Public administration quarterly 31(1/2): 39–86.

Gregg, B. 2011. Human Rights as Social Construction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Guilhot, N. 2005. The Democracy Makers: Human Rights and International Order . New York: Columbia University Press.

Habermas, J. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Harrison, E. 2006. Unpacking the Anti-corruption Agenda: Dilemmas for Anthropologists. Oxford Development Studies 34(1): 15–29.

Hay, C. 2007. Why We Hate Politics . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hay, C. 2016. Good in a Crisis: The Ontological Institutionalism of Social Constructivism. New Political Economy 21(6): 520–535.

Heeks, R., and H. Mathisen. 2012. Understanding Success and Failure of Anti-corruption Initiatives. Journal of Crime, Law and Social Change 58(5): 533–549.

Heidenheimer, A.J. 1970. Political Corruption: Readings in Comparative Analysis . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Heidenheimer, Arnold J., and Michael Johnston. 2002. Political Corruption: Concepts & Contexts . 3rd ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Heidenheimer, A.J., M. Johnston, and V.T. Levine (eds.). 1989. Handbook of Corruption . New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Hellman, O. 2019. The Visual Politics of Corruption. Third World Quarterly 40(12): 2129–2152.

Heywood, P. 2015. Introduction Scale and Focus in the Study of Corruption. In Routledge Handbook of Political Corruption , ed. P. Heywood. Abingdon: Routledge.

Heywood, P. 2017. Rethinking Corruption. Hocus–Pocus, Locus and Focus. The Slavonic and East European Review 95(1): 21–48.

Heywood, P. 2019. 7—Paul Heywood on Which Questions to Ask to Gain New Insights into the Wicked Problem of Corruption. Kickback the Global Anticorruption Podcast . https://soundcloud.com/kickback-gap/7-episode-paul-heywood . Accessed 5 Nov 2020.

Heywood, P., and J. Rose. 2014. “Close But No Cigar”: The Measurement of Corruption. Journal of Public Policy 34(3): 507–529.

Hirsch, M. 2010. Pour en finir: avec les conflits d’intérêt . Paris: Stock.

Hirschman, A.O. 1997. The Passions and the Interests Political Arguments for Capitalism Before its Triumph . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hough, D. 2013. Corruption, Anti-corruption and Governance . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Huss, O. 2018. Corruption, Crisis, and Change: Use and Misuse of an Empty Signifier. In Crisis and Change in Post-Cold War Global Politics , ed. E. Resende, D. Budrytė, and D. Buhari-Gulmez. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Institutet mot mutor. n.d. Brottsbalken . Official website. https://www.institutetmotmutor.se/regelverk/det-svenska-regelverket/brottsbalken/ . Accessed 20 Jan 2020.

Jakobi, A.P. 2013. The Changing Global norm of Anti-corruption: From Bad Business to Bad Government. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 7(1): 243–264.

Jankowski, P. 2008. Shades of Indignation: Political Scandals in France, Past and Present . New York: Berghahn Books.

Johnston, M. 1996. The Search for Definitions: The Vitality of Politics and the Issue of Corruption. International Social Science Journal 48(149): 321–335.

Johnston, M. 2014. Corruption, Contention, and Reform . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnston, M. 2015. Reflection and Reassessment. The Emerging Agenda of Corruption Research. In Routledge Handbook of Political Corruption , ed. P. Heywood. Abingdon: Routledge.

Kalniņš, V. 2014. Anti-corruption Policies Revisited: D3.2.8. Background paper on Latvia. In Corruption and Governance Improvement in Global and Continental Perspectives , ed. A. Mungiu-Pippidi. Gothenburg: ANTICORRP.

Katzarova, E. 2019. The Social Construction of Global Corruption: from Utopia to Neoliberalism . Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kelley, J.G. 2017. Scorecard Diplomacy Grading States to Influence Their Reputation and Behavior . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Klein, N. 2014. This Changes Everything . New York City: Simon & Schuster.

Klitgaard, R. 1998. International Cooperation Against Corruption. Finance & Development 35(1): 3–6.

Knights, M. 2018. Explaining Away Corruption in Pre-modern Britain. Social Philosophy and Policy 35(2): 94–117.

Koechlin, L. 2013. Corruption as an Empty Signifier. Politics and Political Order in Africa . Leiden: Brill.

Krastev, I. 2004. Shifting Obsessions: Three Essays on the Politics of Anticorruption . New York: Central European University Press.

Kroeze, R. 2016. The Rediscovery of Corruption in Western Democracies. In Corruption and Governmental Legitimacy: A Twenty-First Century Perspective , ed. J. Mendilow and I. Peleg. Lexington: Lexington Books.

Kroeze, R., A. Vitória, and G. Geltner (eds.). 2018. Anticorruption in History: From Antiquity to the Modern era . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kubbe, I., and A. Engelbert (eds.). 2017. Corruption and Norms: Why Informal Rules Matter . London: Palgrave Macmillan Political Corruption and Governance Series.

Kubbe, I., and A. Varraich (eds.). 2019. Corruption and Informal Practices in the Middle East and North Africa . Abingdon, New York: Routledge Corruption and Anti-Corruption Studies.

Kurer, O. 2015. Definitions of Corruption. In Routledge Handbook of Political Corruption , ed. P. Heywood. Abingdon: Routledge.

Lascoumes, P. 2010. Favoritisme et corruption à la française Petits arrangements avec la probité . Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

Ledeneva, Alena. 2008. Blat and Guanxi: Informal Practices in Russia and China. Comparative Studies in Society and History 50(1): 118–144.

Lefebvre, B. 2017. Rétro 2017. Fillon, une campagne placée sous le signe de la corruption. NPA Revolution permanente, December 28th 2017. https://www.revolutionpermanente.fr/Retro-2017-Fillon-une-campagne-placee-sous-le-signe-de-la-corruption . Accessed 3 Dec 2020.

Loli, M., and I. Kubbe. Forthcoming. Add Women and Stir? The Myths About the Gendered Dimension of Anti-corruption. European Journal of Gender Politics .

Marquette, H., and C. Peiffer. 2018. Grappling with the “Real Politics” of Systemic Corruption: Theoretical Debates Versus “Real-World” Functions. Governance 31: 499–514.

Mason, P. 2020. Twenty Years with Anticorruption. Part 4 Evidence on Anti-corruption—The Struggle to Understand What Works. U4 Practitioner Experience Note 2020:4 . Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute.

Mazur, A.G. 2020. Feminist Approaches to Concepts and Conceptualization Toward Better Science and Policy. In Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science , ed. S. Crasnow and K. Intemann. Oxford: Routledge.

Mendilow, J., and E. Phélippeau (eds.). 2019. Political corruption in a world in transition . Wilmington, Delaware: Vernon Press.

Mény, Y. 2013. De la confusion des intérêts au conflit d’intérêts. Pouvoirs 147: 5–15.

Merry, S.E., K.E. Davis, and B. Kingsbury. 2015. The Quiet Power of Indicators: Measuring Governance, Corruption, and the Rule of Law . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Monier, F. 2016. La corruption, fille de la modernité politique? Revue internationale et stratégique 1(101): 63–75.

Mungiu-Pippidi, A., and P. Heywood (eds.). 2020. A Research Agenda for Studies of Corruption . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Naìm, M. 1995. The Corruption Eruption. The Brown Journal of World Affairs 2(2): 245–261.

Navot, D., and I. Beeri. 2018. The Public’s Conception of Political Corruption: A New Measurement Tool and Preliminary Findings. European Political Science 17(1): 1–18.

Nay, O. 2014. International Organisations and the Production of Hegemonic Knowledge: How the World Bank and the OECD Helped Invent the Fragile State Concept. Third World Quarterly 35(2): 210–231.

Nye, J. 1967. Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. The American Political Science Review 61(2): 417–427.

OECD. 2017. Terrorism, Corruption and the Criminal Exploitation of Natural Resources . Paris: OECD Publishing.

Oren, I. 2002. Our Enemies and US: America’s Rivalries and the Making of Political Science . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Pearson, Z. 2013. An International Human Rights Approach to Corruption. In Corruption and Anti-Corruption , ed. P. Larmour and N. Wolanin. Canberra: Asia Pacific Press.

Pecnard, J. 2017. Présidentielle: rechute de complotisme aigu dans l’équipe Fillon. L’Express, March 23rd 2017. https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/politique/elections/presidentielle-rechute-de-complotisme-aigu-dans-l-equipe-fillon_1891811.html . Accessed 3 Dec 2020.

Persson, A., B. Rothstein, and J. Teorell. 2013. Why Anticorruption Reforms Fail: Systemic Corruption as a Collective Action Problem. Governance 26(3): 449–471.

Peters, J.G., and S. Welch. 1978. Political Corruption in America: A Search for Definitions and a Theory, or If Political Corruption is in the Mainstream of American Politics Why is it Not in the Mainstream of American Politics Research? The American Political Science Review 72(3): 972–984.

Philp, M. 1997. Defining Political Corruption. Political Studies 45(3): 436–462.

Philp, M. 2015. The Definition of Political Corruption. In Routledge Handbook of Political Corruption , ed. P. Heywood. Oxford: Routledge.

Philp, M., and E. David-Barrett. 2015. Realism About Political Corruption. Annual Review of Political Science 18: 387–402.

Quah, Jon S.T. 2008. Curbing Corruption in India: An Impossible Dream? Asian Journal of Political Science 16(3): 240–259.

Rittel, H.W.J., and M.M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in the General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.

Rose, J. 2018. The Meaning of Corruption: Testing the Coherence and Adequacy of Corruption Definitions. Public Integrity 20(3): 220–233.

Rose-Ackerman, S. 1978. The Economics of Corruption: A Study in Political Economy . New York: Academic Press.

Rose-Ackerman, S. 1999. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rose-Ackerman, S. (ed.). 2006. International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Rothstein, B., and D. Torsello. 2014. Bribery in Preindustrial Societies: Understanding the Universalism-Particularism Puzzle. Journal of Anthropological Research 70(2): 263–284.

Rothstein, B., and A. Varraich. 2017. Making Sense of Corruption . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roux, A. 2016. La corruption internationale: essai sur la répression d’un phénomène transnational . Ph.D. thesis defended on December 7th 2016 at the University of Aix-Marseille.

Schaffer, F.C. 2016. Elucidating Social Science Concepts: An Interpretivist Guide . New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Sineau, M. 2010. Chapitre 6/Genre et corruption: des perceptions différenciées. In Favoritisme et corruption à la française. Petits arrangements avec la probité , ed. P. Lascoumes, 187–198. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Soroos, M.S. 1990. A Theoretical Framework for Global Policy Studies. International Political Science Review 11(3): 309–322.

Sousa, L., P. Larmour, and B. Hindess. 2009. Governments, NGOs and Anti-corruption: The New Integrity Warriors . New York, NY: Routledge.

Steingrüber, S., M. Kirya, D. Jackson, and S. Mullard. 2020. Corruption in the Time of COVID-19: A Double-Threat for Low Income Countries. U4 Brief 2020:6 . Bergen: Michelsen Institute.

Stone, D. 2013. Knowledge Actors and Transnational Governance . London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tänzler D., Maras, K. 2012. The Social Construction of Corruption in Europe . Farnham Burlington, Vt: Ashgate.

Thompson, D.F. 1993. Mediated Corruption: The Case of the Keating Five. American Political Science Review 8(2): 369–381.

Torgler, V. 2010. Gender and Public Attitudes Toward Corruption and Tax Evasion. Contemporary Economic Policy 28(4): 554–568.

Transparency International. n.d. How Do You Define Corruption? Official website. https://www.transparency.org/what-is-corruption#define . Accessed 5 Mar 2020.

Transparency International Sverige. n.d. Vad är korruption? Official website. https://www.transparency.se/korruption . Accessed 20 Jan 2020.

United Nations. 2010. Travaux Préparatoires of the negotiations for the elaboration of the United Nations Convention against Corruption . Vienna: United Nations Office.

United Nations. 2020. Covid - 19: l’ONU appelle à combattre la corruption qui prend de nouvelles forms. ONU Info. https://news.un.org/fr/story/2020/10/1079882 . Accessed 10 Nov 2020.

Vlassis, D. 2004. The United Nations Convention Against Corruption: Origins and Negotiation Process. Resource Material Series 66: 126–131.

Voltolini, B., M. Natorski, and C. Hay. 2020. Introduction: The Politicisation of Permanent Crisis in Europe. Journal of European Integration 42(5): 609–624.

Wang, H., and J.N. Rosenau. 2001. Transparency International and Corruption as an Issue of Global Governance. Global Governance 7(1): 25–49.

Warren, M.E. 2015. The Meaning of Corruption in Democracies. In Routledge Handbook of Political Corruption , ed. P. Heywood. Oxford: Routledge.

Wedel, J.R. 2012. Rethinking Corruption in an Age of Ambiguity. The Annual Review of Law and Social Science 8(1): 453–498.

Wickberg, S. 2018. Corruption. In Dictionnaire d’économie politique , ed. A. Smith and C. Hay. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

Wickberg, S. 2020. Global Instruments, Local Practices. Understanding the ‘Divergent Convergence’ of Anti - corruption Policy in Europe . Ph.D. Thesis, defended on July 2d 2020. Paris: Sciences Po.

Williams, R. (ed.). 2000. The Politics of Corruption 1, Explaining Corruption . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

World Bank. 1997. Helping Countries Combat Corruption The Role of the World Bank . Poverty Reduction and Economic Management. Washington DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 2020. Combating Corruption. Official Website. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/governance/brief/anti-corruption . Accessed 10 Nov 2020.

Zaretysky, R. 2017. Why is France so Corrupt? Foreign Policy, February 1st 2017. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/01/why-is-france-so-corrupt-fillon-macron-le-pen/ . Accessed 3 Dec 2020.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Sciences Po, Centre d’études européennes et de politique comparée, Paris, France

Sofia Wickberg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sofia Wickberg .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wickberg, S. Understanding corruption in the twenty-first century: towards a new constructivist research agenda. Fr Polit 19 , 82–102 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-020-00144-4

Download citation

Accepted : 18 December 2020

Published : 12 January 2021

Issue Date : March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-020-00144-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Political concept
• Constructivism
• Political analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research