essay on corruption in politics

• EssayBasics.com
• Pay For Essay
• Write My Essay
• Homework Writing Help
• Essay Editing Service
• Thesis Writing Help
• Write My College Essay
• Do My Essay
• Term Paper Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Write My Research Paper
• Assignment Writing Help
• Essay Writing Help
• Call Now! (USA) Login Order now
• EssayBasics.com Call Now! (USA) Order now
• Writing Guides

Corruption in Politics (Essay Sample)

Corruption in politics.

Corruption in politics is an age-old problem that comes in various forms like extortion, nepotism, embezzlement and bribery. The history of corruption can be traced back long ago, as corruption is believed to have started when human existence began. In America, political leaders are often accused of misusing their positions for their benefit making corruption a great concern in American politics. In America, lobbying during an election campaign is considered as bribery. Bribing of voters is high during political campaigns despite the existence of electoral laws, not much has been done to eliminate corruption. Politics is the heart and soul of the American government, and without political representation, many people will have no say. However, we have seen editorial cartoons portraying America as being a country run by corporations instead of the elected leaders.

Over the last decades, issues of corruption have been highlighted by different interest groups in America. Corruption scandals have toppled the government in several countries not only in America. In America, corporations are also known to contribute huge sums of money for political campaigns. Even though electoral laws regulate the amount of money to be spent during campaigns, politicians use a lot of money beyond the set amount. Those who make donations during election campaigns will eventually be rewarded hence creating room for corruption.

Corporations have been accused of corruption, because of campaigns, politicians are in need of money, therefore, wealthy corporation fund certain politicians. These corporations manipulate the elected politicians to pass laws that benefit their companies. In history, many corruption scandals involving corporation have been severally highlighted in the US with corporate corruption ruining the country’s freedom and equality. One of the recent scandal involving Rod Blagojevich and Tony Rezko reveals that corruption is not ending soon in American politics. Elected officials are supposed to represent the public, but with corrupt officials, the public have lost trust in the government.

It is true that corporations are the ones running the American government because most congress representatives are controlled by specific corporations. As a result, the development of corporate corruption has become the focus in the recent times. The public feels that their needs are no longer articulated by the elected leaders. Corporate donations have worsened corruption in America resulting to a negative portrayal of American democracy. Corruption has slowed down the progress of government officials from discussing important issues that affect the public.

Corruption is a global concern that requires collaborative efforts from the government and different stakeholders. We need to fight all forms of corruption because of its detrimental effect on the economic growth and future development of our country. Fighting corruption requires more than just a cartoon on the editorial newspapers. We need to take drastic changes to maintain the American dream portrayal. As the government focuses on international affairs and other problem facing our economy, corruption needs to be part of its agenda.

Donations should be limited to control corporations from controlling our congressional representatives. Corruption is an issue whose solution requires concerted efforts from all section more so from the public and policy makers. Multiple actions need to be taken to create a culture of transparency by empowering citizens. Corruption in politics remains a challenging subject not only in America but also in other advanced economies because corruption limits investment, hence affecting the country’s economic growth.

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 fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Political Corruption in a Democracy

This essay will explore the issue of political corruption in democratic systems. It will examine causes, consequences, and the measures being taken to combat corruption, highlighting the importance of transparency and accountability in governance. PapersOwl offers a variety of free essay examples on the topic of Corruption.

How it works

Power is given to the politicians to ensure freedoms and to make the country thrive constantly, but when we give them this power, we expect them to not abuse it for their own benefit. Unfortunately, some politicians will use their power for personal benefit and as a united nation, we must be informed of how they could maltreat their power. An election has just passed by where we either give power to a new official or the incumbent keeps their power for how well they did the previous term, and these elections are vital to corrupt politicians because your vote helps them get anything in their favor quicker and easier.

Political corruption will always be an undying predicament for nations worldwide with politicians having their minds based on the roots of totalitarian governments evolving to the acceptance of money over the governed.

• 1 What is Political Corruption?
• 2 Rooted in Totalitarian
• 4 The 1970’s: Abscam and Watergate
• 5 Current Events of Political Corruption

What is Political Corruption?

Before entering the abyss of political corruption, we must understand its foundation, the basic principles political corruption and its forms. There are two main forms of political corruption both dealing with money and power. The first type of political corruption deals with a high-level politician using their hold in office to gain a profit from government revenues and the economy as a whole, e.g. illegally using taxpayer money for your own personal benefit. The second form is extracting the public resources and money to keep power in office and the country. Political corruption mainly deals with high public officials and government offices, this is different from bureaucratic corruption which deals with far lower-level officials. We can also distinguish political corruption from business corruption which deals with private corporations and not the government but if a government official takes bribes from a business, that’s considered political corruption and stuff like police brutality and repression of political opponents would not be considered political corruption as it does not deal with a politician trying to use something for their benefit (US Legal, Inc.). So how has the current political system implemented corruption, how has it let our politicians see money as a benefit when it can actually destroy the livelihood of millions across the nation?

Rooted in Totalitarian

Political corruption has its roots in totalitarian governments, and in a broader spectrum, any type of dictatorship. Dictators keep control in government by spreading fear amongst its people, such as, Nazi Germany’s Holocaust or the USSR’s famines and purges. They gather and extract fear among the people maintain their power in government (Niiler). The second form of political corruption is extracting resources from the public and government to maintain control (US Legal, Inc.), we can see that in totalitarian governments and in a democracy. We can say now that it wouldn’t be as severe but we can tell that after exterminating totalitarianism in most parts of the world, it seeps back into a democracy. Political leaders worldwide saw dictatorship as an epidemic and caused the lives of millions yearly but they know that if they can gain more control secretly, they have more say in government to make their lives better or a certain group instead of all citizens.

Bribery is a fairly simple topic to grasp and comprehend. The act of directly or indirectly giving or promising anything of value to government officials for say in government is illegal and this would be considered bribery in its most basic form. For an official to accept a bribe, s/he could be punished with a fine of no more the 3x what was offered, 15 years imprisonment, removal from office or all of the above (US Legal, Inc.). Bribery is one of the most common forms of corruption (Alston) and appears in numerous cases, such as, Abscam in the late 1970s in the US and the Kenjivideos from early 2018 in Peru.

The 1970’s: Abscam and Watergate

Famous US corruption case, all over the news in the 1980’s and a movie adaptation, Abscam dealt with the FBI and dozens of politicians to catch them in the act of corruption. Mel Weinberg, conman was given the task to aid the FBI to lure in corrupt officials (Greene). The FBI created a phony oil company and Arabic sheik in the late 1970s. The FBI initially invested money in art which led criminals to them and the criminals led them to officials (Greene). The “company” wanted their “sheik” to have US asylum from the politicians and to start a casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The mayor of Camden, NJ, led them to congressmen to make private legislation to get the “sheik” asylum, 50k upfront and 50k later. At the end of the investigation, over a dozen public officials, including 1 senator and 6 congressmen were convicted for taking the bribes (FBI). Senator Larry Pressler, after being on news for denying the bribe form the phony company, the media called him “heroic” but he differed and said this about us, “I do not consider myself a hero … what have we come to if turning down a bribe is ‘heroic’?” (Internet Archive Way Back Machine). Abscam being well known in the 70s, it will never outlive the Watergate Scandal. President Nixon, trying to run for reelection during the controversial Vietnam War, had burglars steal documents and tap phones in the Watergate complex, home of the Democratic National Committee, to win the upcoming election. The phone taps didn’t work on the first try so five men came back to the complex to bring in a new microphone but the security guard noticed something fishy in the building so he called the police and they caught the five men red-handed (History). At the beginning, it didn’t seem that President Nixon was directly correlated with the men and he made a speech that he was not involved with the scandal at all, and the voter believed him. He won the 1972 Presidential Election in a landslide where only Massachusetts and D.C. weren’t for his reelection (History). Nixon and his men planned to instruct the CIA to delay the FBI’s investigation; this act was worse than breaking into Watergate and stealing documents because this was an abuse of power (History). The trial begun and Nixon’s men weren’t going his way. The White House counsel, John Dean, testified the president’s crimes and others testified his involvement in taping all of the Oval Office’s conversations; if the attorneys got their hands on the tapes, they would have proof that Nixon is guilty. Nixon tried to keep his hands on them, with his lawyers saying he had the right to keep them due to “executive privilege” but the Supreme Court ordered to hand them over and the House of Representatives impeached him for “obstruction of justice, abuse of power, criminal cover-up and several violations of the Constitution.” (History). He released the tapes on August 5, 1974, and resigned on August 8th 1974 leaving the White House the following day after months of corruption in the air. The new president, Gerald Ford, pardoned him and his crimes 6 weeks after he entered office. Abscam and Watergate are well known throughout our country but there are some current events in our country and in others where the media doesn’t reach us, whether it’s because we aren’t their demographic or the agenda of local media would rather focus on other events.

Current Events of Political Corruption

Abscam and Watergate, being infamous in the US, took place almost 40-50 years ago, but there are plenty of current events that don’t cycle around like these two in our modern day.. In South American country, Peru, former President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (PPK) allegedly took bribes from Brazilian construction company, Odebrecht. The scandal is believed to be involved with over $800 million (in $US). Two days before Kuczynski impeachment trial, a series of videos were leaked, infamously called the Kenjivideos, where PPK peer, Kenji Fujimori was caught trying to bribe other congressmen to vote no in PPK impeachment trial. As suspected from any scandal, PPK resigned before impeachment and stated in his resignation that he was innocent and only resigned for his family to live peacefully and he would not obstruct the country’s future (Charner). The PPK scandal was one out of the many recent events but there is one more familiar with US citizens where Russia made an interference with the 2016 US Election to create a President-Elect Donald Trump turnout. The election has been highly investigated by the CIA, FBI, and NSA and all three agree with high confidence that Russia may have interfered with the election. If research and studies prove that President Trump conspired with Russians for his favor, this could be considered an act of corruption as he extracting resources to get power in government and this could raise questions if he could be impeached, if he is found guilty with the Constitution stating for impeachment “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes or Misdemeanors.” (Masters).

Cite this page

Political Corruption in a Democracy. (2019, Dec 22). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/political-corruption-in-a-democracy/

"Political Corruption in a Democracy." PapersOwl.com , 22 Dec 2019, https://papersowl.com/examples/political-corruption-in-a-democracy/

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Political Corruption in a Democracy . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/political-corruption-in-a-democracy/ [Accessed: 7 Sep. 2024]

"Political Corruption in a Democracy." PapersOwl.com, Dec 22, 2019. Accessed September 7, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/political-corruption-in-a-democracy/

"Political Corruption in a Democracy," PapersOwl.com , 22-Dec-2019. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/political-corruption-in-a-democracy/. [Accessed: 7-Sep-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Political Corruption in a Democracy . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/political-corruption-in-a-democracy/ [Accessed: 7-Sep-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Essay on Corruption

Students are often asked to write an essay on 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 Corruption

Understanding corruption.

Corruption is a dishonest behavior by a person in power. It can include bribery or embezzlement. It’s bad because it can hurt society and slow down progress.

Types of Corruption

There are many types of corruption. Bribery is when someone pays to get an unfair advantage. Embezzlement is when someone steals money they’re supposed to look after.

Effects of Corruption

Corruption can lead to inequality and injustice. It can make people lose trust in the government and can cause social unrest.

Fighting Corruption

To fight corruption, we need strong laws and honest leaders. Education can also help people understand why corruption is harmful.

250 Words Essay on Corruption

Introduction.

Corruption, a pervasive and longstanding phenomenon, is a complex issue that undermines social and economic development in all societies. It refers to the misuse of entrusted power for private gain, eroding trust in public institutions and impeding the efficient allocation of resources.

Manifestations and Impacts of Corruption

Corruption manifests in various forms, including bribery, embezzlement, nepotism, and fraud. Its impacts are far-reaching, affecting socio-economic landscapes. Economically, it stifles growth by deterring foreign and domestic investments. Socially, it exacerbates income inequality and hampers the provision of public services.

Anti-Corruption Strategies

Addressing corruption requires a multi-faceted approach. Legislation and law enforcement are critical, but they must be complemented with preventive measures. Transparency, accountability, and good governance practices are key preventive strategies. Technology can also play a significant role, particularly in promoting transparency and reducing opportunities for corrupt practices.

Corruption is a global issue that requires collective action. While governments bear the primary responsibility for curbing corruption, the involvement of civil society, media, and the private sector is indispensable. Thus, the fight against corruption is a shared responsibility, requiring the commitment and efforts of all sectors of society.

500 Words Essay on Corruption

Corruption, an insidious plague with a wide range of corrosive effects on societies, is a multifaceted phenomenon with deep roots in bureaucratic and political institutions. It undermines democracy, hollows out the rule of law, and hampers economic development. This essay explores the concept of corruption, its implications, and potential solutions.

The Nature of Corruption

Implications of corruption.

Corruption poses a significant threat to sustainable development and democracy. It undermines the government’s ability to provide essential services and erodes public trust in institutions. Furthermore, it exacerbates income inequality, as it allows the wealthy and powerful to manipulate economic and political systems to their advantage.

Corruption also hampers economic development by distorting market mechanisms. It discourages foreign and domestic investments, inflates costs, and breeds inefficiency. Additionally, it can lead to misallocation of resources, as corrupt officials may divert public resources for personal gain.

The Root Causes

Combating corruption.

Legal reforms are also essential to strengthen the rule of law and ensure that corrupt practices are adequately punished. Additionally, fostering a culture of ethics and integrity in society can help to change attitudes towards corruption.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

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

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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  

923 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 includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Approaches to Corruption: a Synthesis of the Scholarship

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

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

• 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

Essay on Corruption for Students and Children

500+ words essay on corruption.

Essay on Corruption – Corruption refers to a form of criminal activity or dishonesty. It refers to an evil act by an individual or a group. Most noteworthy, this act compromises the rights and privileges of others. Furthermore, Corruption primarily includes activities like bribery or embezzlement. However, Corruption can take place in many ways. Most probably, people in positions of authority are susceptible to Corruption. Corruption certainly reflects greedy and selfish behavior.

Methods of Corruption

First of all, Bribery is the most common method of Corruption. Bribery involves the improper use of favours and gifts in exchange for personal gain. Furthermore, the types of favours are diverse. Above all, the favours include money, gifts, company shares, sexual favours, employment , entertainment, and political benefits. Also, personal gain can be – giving preferential treatment and overlooking crime.

Embezzlement refers to the act of withholding assets for the purpose of theft. Furthermore, it takes place by one or more individuals who were entrusted with these assets. Above all, embezzlement is a type of financial fraud.

The graft is a global form of Corruption. Most noteworthy, it refers to the illegal use of a politician’s authority for personal gain. Furthermore, a popular way for the graft is misdirecting public funds for the benefit of politicians .

Extortion is another major method of Corruption. It means to obtain property, money or services illegally. Above all, this obtainment takes place by coercing individuals or organizations. Hence, Extortion is quite similar to blackmail.

Favouritism and nepotism is quite an old form of Corruption still in usage. This refers to a person favouring one’s own relatives and friends to jobs. This is certainly a very unfair practice. This is because many deserving candidates fail to get jobs.

Abuse of discretion is another method of Corruption. Here, a person misuses one’s power and authority. An example can be a judge unjustly dismissing a criminal’s case.

Finally, influence peddling is the last method here. This refers to illegally using one’s influence with the government or other authorized individuals. Furthermore, it takes place in order to obtain preferential treatment or favour.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Ways of Stopping Corruption

One important way of preventing Corruption is to give a better salary in a government job. Many government employees receive pretty low salaries. Therefore, they resort to bribery to meet their expenses. So, government employees should receive higher salaries. Consequently, high salaries would reduce their motivation and resolve to engage in bribery.

Tough laws are very important for stopping Corruption. Above all, strict punishments need to be meted out to guilty individuals. Furthermore, there should be an efficient and quick implementation of strict laws.

Applying cameras in workplaces is an excellent way to prevent corruption. Above all, many individuals would refrain from indulging in Corruption due to fear of being caught. Furthermore, these individuals would have otherwise engaged in Corruption.

The government must make sure to keep inflation low. Due to the rise in prices, many people feel their incomes to be too low. Consequently, this increases Corruption among the masses. Businessmen raise prices to sell their stock of goods at higher prices. Furthermore, the politician supports them due to the benefits they receive.

To sum it up, Corruption is a great evil of society. This evil should be quickly eliminated from society. Corruption is the poison that has penetrated the minds of many individuals these days. Hopefully, with consistent political and social efforts, we can get rid of Corruption.

{ “@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “FAQPage”, “mainEntity”: [{ “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “What is Bribery?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Bribery refers to improper use of favours and gifts in exchange for personal gain.”} }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: ” How high salaries help in stopping Corruption?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”:”High salaries help in meeting the expenses of individuals. Furthermore, high salaries reduce the motivation and resolve to engage in bribery.”} }] }

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Top Stories
• Stock Market
• BUYING RATES
• FOREIGN INTEREST RATES
• Philippine Mutual Funds
• Leaders and Laggards
• Stock Quotes
• Stock Markets Summary
• Non-BSP Convertible Currencies
• BSP Convertible Currencies
• US Commodity futures
• Infographics
• B-Side Podcasts
• Agribusiness
• Arts & Leisure
• Special Features
• Special Reports
• BW Launchpad

• Editors' Picks

The problem of corruption and corruption of power

Thinking beyond politics.

By Prof. Victor Andres Manhit

Transparency International (TI) has been fighting corruption for 27 years in over 100 countries. Here in the Philippines, I remember their prominent voices such as Randy David, Solita Monsod, Attorney Lilia de Lima, and Judge Dolores Español — all passionate advocates for transparency and accountability, issues that are still very relevant in our society.

Accordingly, TI defines corruption as “the abuse of power for private gain.” By this, corruption has deprived countless citizens around the globe of much-needed public services and benefits of development.

Under the Corruption Perception Index (CPI), corruption indicators pertain to “bribery; the diversion of public funds; the effective prosecution of corruption cases; adequate legal frameworks, access to information; and legal protections to whistleblowers, journalists and investigators.”

But what has corruption caused us?

In September 2018, the United Nations (UN), citing World Economic Forum (WEF) data, expressed that global corruption eats up 5% of the world’s gross domestic product; in November, the World Financial Review stated that Philippines had lost $10 BILLION annually due to illicit financial flows; in December, the UN and the WEF disclosed that $3.6 TRILLION had been lost due to bribes and stolen money; and in December 2019, the WEF published that “corruption, bribery, theft and tax evasion, and other illicit financial flows cost developing countries $1.26 TRILLION a year.”

In the Philippines, an estimated P1.4 TRILLION has been lost to corruption in the years 2017 (P670 BILLION) and 2018 (P752 BILLION), Deputy Ombudsman Cyril Ramos said, where around 20% of the annual government appropriation goes to corruption. Also, according to a study by Carandang and Balboa-Cahig (2020), “some of the more notable typologies and their accompanying corruption cases in the Philippine context are as follows: non-Compliance with the Government Procurement Reform, technical malversation, political dynasty, ghost project, income and asset misdeclaration, red tape, influencing a subordinate to defy order and protocol, bribery, connivance of government officials with drug lords.”

Further, the wide-ranging impact of corruption could result in a myriad of outcomes. In April 2020, the Global Infrastructure Anti-Corruption Center (GIACC) said that corruption may cause

“inadequate infrastructure, dangerous infrastructure, displacement of people, damage to the environment, reduced spending in infrastructure, reduced public expenditure, and reduced foreign investment.”

The said CPI indicators and data culled to substantiate them, and the gargantuan multi-level impact of corruption represent a formidable platform in instigating institutional reforms to achieve bureaucratic coherence and improve the development capacity of the state. With a multi-stakeholder roadmap against corruption, the plans and investments for economic recovery and development in the new normal will not be for naught. In turn, succeeding economic growths could be dispersed effectively.

Specifically, combating corruption in our country instantly augments the chance of helping the following: the 1.3 million people who have perceived themselves as poor in 2019 (self-rated poverty) and the families suffering from hunger (20.9%) during the pandemic, according to an SWS survey; the 16.7% of the population in poverty (Philippine Statistics Authority); and the additional 1.5 million Filipinos pushed into poverty by the pandemic (Philippine Institute for Development Studies).

But the problem of corruption could dangerously be translated into corruption of power. This happens if political opportunism becomes a trend. Rather than harmonize national unity in a pandemic-ravaged country, division and confusion among the population or a particular sector is instead espoused. In turn, false promises and hopes could frustrate the holistic approach being forged by a wide-range of social actors attuned to the long-standing battle against corruption.

More so, corruption of power could be exacerbated whenever the law is weaponized and used to benefit a new or selected few. Empirically, two examples could be cited. First if more than half of Filipinos agree that “It is dangerous to print or broadcast anything critical of the administration, even if it is the truth,” (SWS, July 3-6, 2020 survey), then what we have now is a terrified citizenry.

Second, the latest political charade in “handling” the country’s elite is not really about dismantling the oligarchy as pronounced. What’s happening is a mere changing of the old guards; the overt creation and empowerment of a new oligarchy, the “Dutertegarchs,” as William Pesek has pointedly raised.

To address corruption, political-institutional and economic reforms beg to be independently and holistically crafted and implemented.

Victor Andres “Dindo” C. Manhit is the President of Stratbase ADR Institute.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

PHL inflation cools in boon for rate cuts

Talent shortage may hamper adoption of AI among Philippine BPO firms

ADB to boost infrastructure support for Philippines under six-year plan

Do you have to write an essay for the first time? Or maybe you’ve only written essays with less than 1000 words? Someone might think that writing a 1000-word essay is a rather complicated and time-consuming assignment. Others have no idea how difficult thousand-word essays can be. Well, we have...

To write an engaging “If I Could Change the World” essay, you have to get a few crucial elements: Let us help you a bit and give recommendations for “If I Could Change the World” essays with examples. And bookmark our writing company website for excellent academic assistance and study...

Why do you want to be a pharmacist? An essay on this topic can be challenging, even when you know the answer. The most popular reasons to pursue this profession are the following:

How to write a film critique essay? To answer this question, you should clearly understand what a movie critique is. It can be easily confused with a movie review. Both paper types can become your school or college assignments. However, they are different. A movie review reveals a personal impression...

Are you getting ready to write your Language Proficiency Index Exam essay? Well, your mission is rather difficult, and you will have to work hard. One of the main secrets of successful LPI essays is perfect writing skills. So, if you practice writing, you have a chance to get the...

Dengue fever is a quite dangerous febrile disease that can even cause death. Nowadays, this disease can be found in the tropics and Africa. Brazil, Singapore, Taiwan, Indonesia, and India are also vulnerable to this disease.

For high school or college students, essays are unavoidable – worst of all, the essay types and essay writing topics assigned change throughout your academic career. As soon as you’ve mastered one of the many types of academic papers, you’re on to the next one. This article by Custom Writing...

Even though a personal essay seems like something you might need to write only for your college application, people who graduated a while ago are asked to write it. Therefore, if you are a student, you might even want to save this article for later!

If you wish a skill that would be helpful not just for middle school or high school, but also for college and university, it would be the skill of a five-paragraph essay. Despite its simple format, many students struggle with such assignments.

Reading books is pleasurable and entertaining; writing about those books isn’t. Reading books is pleasurable, easy, and entertaining; writing about those books isn’t. However, learning how to write a book report is something that is commonly required in university. Fortunately, it isn’t as difficult as you might think. You’ll only...

A descriptive essay is an academic paper that challenges a school or college student to describe something. It can be a person, a place, an object, a situation—anything an individual can depict in writing. The task is to show your abilities to communicate an experience in an essay format using...

An analysis / analytical essay is a standard assignment in college or university. You might be asked to conduct an in-depth analysis of a research paper, a report, a movie, a company, a book, or an event. In this article, you’ll find out how to write an analysis paper introduction,...

Thank you for these great tips now i can work with ease cause one does not always know what the marker will look out fr. So this is ever so helpfull keep up the great work

This article was indeed helpful a whole lot. Thanks very much I got all I needed and more.

I can’t thank this website enough. I got all and more that I needed. It was really helpful…. thanks

Really, it’s helpful.. Thanks

Really, it was so helpful, & good work 😍😍

Thanks and this was awesome

I love this thanks it is really helpful

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Essay on the political functions of corruption, additional details.

Quezon City 1101 , Philippines

No download available

Availability, related topics.

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos

Make Your Note

Corruption in India

• 06 Oct 2023
• 20 min read
• GS Paper - 4
• GS Paper - 2
• Transparency & Accountability
• Ethics and Human Interface
• Ethics in Human Actions
• Ethics in Private & Public Relationships

For Prelims: Corruption Perception Index , Transparency International , Democracy , Corruption

For Mains:  Transparency & Accountability in Governance,Common Causes of Corruption and its Prevention in India.

What is the Context?

The Prime Minister of India, in his 76 th Independence Day address, targeted the twin challenges of corruption and nepotism and raised the urgent need to curb them . Also, Corruption Perception Index (CPI) 2023 was released by Transparency International.

• Overall, the index shows that control of corruption has stagnated or worsened in most countries over the last decade. India Corruption Perceptions Index was 40 index points in 2023.

What is Corruption?

Corruption is dishonest behaviour by those in positions of power . It starts with the tendency of using public office for some personal benefit.

• Moreover, it is unfortunate that corruption has, for many, become a matter of habit. It is so deeply entrenched that corruption is now considered a social norm. Hence, corruption implies the failure of ethics.

What are the Reasons Behind Corruption in India?

• L ack of Transparency : A lack of transparency in government processes, decision-making, and public administration provides fertile ground for corrupt practices. When actions and decisions are shielded from public scrutiny, officials may engage in corrupt activities with reduced fear of exposure.
• A perception of impunity due to the inadequate punishment of corrupt individuals can encourage further corruption. When individuals believe they can get away with corrupt practices, they are more likely to engage in them.
• Low Salaries and Incentives: Public officials, especially those in lower-ranking positions, are sometimes paid low salaries. This can make them more susceptible to bribery and other corrupt practices, as they may see corruption as a means to supplement their income.
• India's complex economic environment, which involves various licences, permits, and approvals, can create opportunities for corruption. Businesses may resort to bribery to navigate this environment.
• Political Interference: Political interference in administrative matters can compromise the autonomy of government institutions. Political leaders may pressure officials to engage in corrupt activities for personal or party gain.
• Cultural Factors: There can be a cultural acceptance of corrupt behaviour in certain contexts, which perpetuates corruption. The notion that "everyone does it" can lead individuals to engage in corruption without feeling morally compromised.
• Lack of Whistleblower Protection: Inadequate protection for whistleblowers can deter individuals from reporting corruption. The fear of retaliation can silence potential whistleblowers and allow corruption to thrive.
• Social Inequality: Social and economic disparities can contribute to corruption, as individuals with wealth and power may use their influence to secure preferential treatment and engage in corrupt practices without repercussions.

What are the Reasons for the Prevalence of Corruption in Civil Services?

• Politicisation of Civil Services: When civil service positions are used as rewards for political support or swapped for bribes , the opportunities for high levels of corruption increase significantly.
• Lower Wages: Lowering wages for civil servants compared to those in the private sector. Certain employees may resort to taking bribes in order to compensate for the difference in wages.
• Administrative Delays: Delays in the clearance of files are the root cause of corruption as common citizens are coerced to grease the palm of erring officials and authorities for expedited clearance of the files.
• Colonial Legacy of Unchallenged Authority: In a society which worships power, it is easy for public officials to deviate from ethical conduct.
• Weak Enforcement of Law: Various laws have been made to curb the evil of corruption but their weak enforcement has acted as a hindrance in curbing corruption .

What can be the Impact of Corruption?

• To demand quality, one might need to pay for it. This is seen in many areas like municipality, electricity, distribution of relief funds, etc.
• A crime may be proved as a benefit of the doubt due to a lack of evidence or even the evidence erased.
• These low-quality services are all done to save money by the contractors and the officials who are involved.
• These people sanction the funds for research to those investigators who are ready to bribe them.
• Disregard for Officials: People start disregarding the officials involved in corruption and also the administrative set up which creates distrust in the system.
• Lack of Respect for Government: Top brass leaders of the nation like the President or Prime Ministers lose respect among the public. Respect is the main criteria in social life.
• Lack of Faith and Trust in Governments: People vote for a leader based on their faith in him/ her, but if leaders are found to be involved in corruption, people lose faith in them and may not vote next time.
• Aversion for Joining the Posts Linked to Corruption : Sincere, honest, and hardworking people develop an aversion for the particular posts deemed corrupt.
• A Decrease in Foreign Investment : Corruption in government bodies has led to many foreign investments going back from developing countries.
• This leads to delays in investments, the starting of industries, and also growth.
• Due to lack of proper roads, water, and electricity, the companies do not wish to start up there, which hinders the economic progress of that region.

Image: Changes in Levels of Corruption In India and Other Countries as per the Corruption Perceptions Index over the past decade.

What are the Legal and Regulatory Frameworks for Fighting Corruption in India?

• Amendment of 2018 criminalised both bribe-taking by public servants as well as bribe-giving by any person.
• Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 aims to prevent instances of money laundering and prohibits use of the 'proceeds of crime' in India.
• The Companies Act, 2013 provides for corporate governance and prevention of corruption and fraud in the corporate sector. The term 'fraud' has been given a broad definition and is a criminal offence under the Companies Act.
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 sets out provisions which can be interpreted to cover bribery and fraud matters, including offences relating to criminal breach of trust and cheating.
• The  Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 the Act precludes the person who acquired the property in the name of another person from claiming it as his own.
• They perform the function of an "ombudsman” and inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries and for related matters.
• Central Vigilance Commission: Its mandate is to oversee the vigilance administration and to advise and assist the executive in matters relating to corruption.
• Amendments in 1964: The definition of ‘Public Servant’ under the IPC was expanded. The definition of ‘criminal misconduct’ was expanded and possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of a public servant was made an offence.

What is the Importance of Ethics in Preventing Corruption?

• Establishing Moral Boundaries: Ethical principles provide a framework for defining what is right and wrong. In the context of corruption, ethics set clear boundaries that distinguish acceptable behaviour from unethical or corrupt conduct.
• Promoting Accountability: Ethics demand that individuals take responsibility for their actions and decisions. When people are guided by ethical principles, they are more likely to be transparent and accountable for their actions, reducing the likelihood of engaging in corrupt behaviour that could harm others.
• Fostering Transparency: Transparency is a core ethical principle. Ethical organisations and individuals are more likely to operate openly and honestly, making it difficult for corruption to thrive in an environment where actions and decisions are subject to scrutiny.
• Building Trust: Trust is a cornerstone of ethical behaviour. When individuals and institutions are perceived as trustworthy, they are less likely to engage in or tolerate corruption. A high level of trust in society reduces the temptation for corruption.
• Encouraging Civic Virtue: Ethical values promote civic virtue, which encourages individuals to act in the best interest of society rather than pursuing personal gain at the expense of others. Civic virtue is a powerful deterrent to corruption.
• Supporting Rule of Law: Ethical behaviour upholds the rule of law and respect for legal and regulatory frameworks. Corrupt practices often involve circumventing or violating the law, and adherence to ethics reinforces respect for legal norms.
• Whistleblower Protection : Ethical organisations and governments prioritise protecting whistleblowers who report corruption. Ethical values encourage reporting unethical behaviour, which is vital for uncovering and addressing corruption.
• Global Reputation: On an international scale, ethical behaviour is essential for a nation's reputation. Countries known for ethical governance and low corruption levels are more attractive to foreign investment and collaboration.
• Long-Term Sustainability : Corrupt practices often provide short-term gains but can lead to long-term harm. Ethical behaviour is essential for the sustainable development and prosperity of societies.

What are Nolan Committee Recommendations on Standards in Public Life and Prevention of Corruption?

Nolan Committee in 1995 in United Kingdom outlined Seven Ethical and Moral values to be incorporated by the Public functionaries, Officials, Civil Servants, Bureaucrats, Civil Society and Citizens in order to weed out corruption:

• Selflessness: Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of public interest.
• Integrity: Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organizations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
• Objectivity: In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
• Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
• Openness: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
• Honesty: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
• Leadership: Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

What are the Recommendations of the Second ARC to Tackle Corruption?

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC), an advisory body in India, made several comprehensive recommendations to address the issue of corruption and improve the integrity and efficiency of the public administration. These recommendations aim to prevent corruption and enhance transparency and accountability in government operations. Here are some of the key recommendations made by the 2nd ARC:

• Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014: The 2nd ARC recommended amendments to the Whistleblowers Protection Act to enhance protection and incentives for whistleblowers. This includes safeguarding them from harassment and providing financial rewards.
• Central Vigilance Commission (CVC): The 2 nd ARC recommended strengthening the CVC's role in preventing and combating corruption by giving it more independence, resources, and authority.
• Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI): The commission suggested measures to ensure the CBI's autonomy and effectiveness in handling corruption cases.
• Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs): The 2 nd ARC recommended the development of clear SOPs for government processes and services to minimise the discretionary powers of officials. This reduces the scope for corruption and arbitrary decision-making.
• Use of Technology: Leveraging technology and e-governance can reduce human interface and discretion in government transactions. The commission encouraged the adoption of electronic methods to reduce corruption opportunities.
• Police Accountability: The commission highlighted the need for comprehensive police reforms to enhance the integrity and effectiveness of law enforcement agencies. This includes measures to increase transparency, accountability, and professionalism in the police force.
• Community Policing: Promoting community policing can build trust between the police and the public, reducing opportunities for corruption and abuse of power.
• Code of Ethics: The commission recommended the development of a code of ethics for public officials and employees to promote ethical behaviour.
• Citizen Charters: Encouraging government departments to adopt citizen charters can enhance accountability and improve public service delivery.
• Media and Education: The commission suggested using media and educational institutions to create awareness about the detrimental effects of corruption and the importance of ethical conduct.
• Parliamentary Committees: Strengthening the role of parliamentary committees in scrutinising government operations and expenditure can help detect and prevent corruption.
• Digital Transformation: The 2 nd ARC recommended a comprehensive digital transformation of government processes to reduce human intervention and opportunities for corruption.

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Questions (PYQs)

Q1. With reference to the ‘Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act)’, consider the following statements: (2017)

• A property transaction is not treated as a benami transaction if the owner of the property is not aware of the transaction.
• Properties held benami are liable for confiscation by the Government.
• The Act provides for three authorities for investigations but does not provide for any appellate mechanism.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 2 and 3 only

Q.2 Discuss how emerging technologies and globalisation contribute to money laundering. Elaborate measures to tackle the problem of money laundering both at national and international levels. (2021)

Local Political Corruption and CEO Incentive Compensation: Evidence From the US States

Posted: 6 Sep 2024

Theodora Bermpei

University of Essex

Antonios Nikolaos Kalyvas

University of Kent; Department of Banking and Finance, Southampton Business School, University of Southampton

Date Written: August 01, 2024

We investigate how the local public corruption on chief executive officers (CEOs)' risk-taking incentive compensation. Using a conviction-based measure, we find that local (state-level) public corruption exerts a negative effect on the risk-taking incentive (Vega) of the CEOs of US firms. Consistent with this result, we also find that option intensity of compensation significantly decreases for CEOs of firms headquartered in states with high local political corruption. This effect is more evident for firms operating in more politically sensitive industries and with higher financial constraints. These results are robust to instrumental variable estimations and models that use alternative measures of local political corruption. Our findings suggest that boards attempt to restrain corporate risk-taking in locations with high political corruption and executive compensation is one mechanism used.

Keywords: JEL classification: G34, G32, D73 CEOs, compensation incentives, public corruption

JEL Classification: G34, G32, D73

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

University of Essex ( email )

Wivenhoe Park Colchester, CO4 3SQ United Kingdom

Antonios Nikolaos Kalyvas (Contact Author)

University of kent ( email ).

Canterbury, CT2 7NP United Kingdom

Department of Banking and Finance, Southampton Business School, University of Southampton ( email )

Southampton, SO17 1BJ United Kingdom

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, corporate governance & finance ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Public Choice: Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal

Corruption and Society: Critical Analysis Essay

• 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

Apparently, culture plays a significant role in the shaping of national beliefs, attitudes, and worldview in general. It underlies all political, economic, and social structures of society. Considering this, many people tend to believe that high corruption rates are natural to societies that have a long history of relationships based on reciprocity. That may be true; however, corruption should not be justified by the cultural characteristics of society. Although corruption may be the manifestation of a true other-regarding behavior, it may also be a means of obtaining some desired benefits, for example, politicians may corrupt the public with particular services in order to gain its support.

The idea that corruption has common features with gift-giving traditions seems to be logical. It is true that traditional societies whose culture has always been based on reciprocity have a different perception of corruption. Because of the latter, the political and social traditions of these societies are built on the beneficial effects of corruption (International Debate Education, 2011). However, it is a mistake to believe that the social structure of traditional societies will not survive without corruption. In the past, Western societies were highly corrupted; however, they only benefited from the shift of their perspective in which they started to consider corruption as an obstacle to their development.

Rose-Ackerman and Palifka (2016) studied the culture/corruption interface defining corruption, its types, and ways of how cultural aspects that are independent of corruption relate to corruption incidence. There is a difference between developed and developing market economies to the concept of bribes. While the former considers it inappropriate and have specific instruments and institutions to regulate the relationship between official functions and impersonal market trades, drawing numerous formal lines between them, the latter do not have distinct separation lines between the public and private sectors. The authors admit that in traditional societies, corruption may simply be determined by cultural mores and can be considered as other-regarding behavior; however, corruption may also be the result of strategic calculations of individuals that aim to obtain some benefit (Rose-Ackerman & Palifka, 2016). Therefore, society should not justify corruption by the cultural features of a country in which it occurs.

There are many examples of unscrupulous officials that strategically justify their bribes by gift-giving traditions. As a rule, these officials belong to the political sphere and offer money and services in order to provide themselves with public support during the elections. For example, a politician constructs an amusement park for children from low-income families making the public believe that they spend their own money on the construction. In fact, all the expenses are usually covered by public taxes. Thus, officials may make their bribes seem to be gifts, while all these “gifts” are funded from the public budget. In this case, unscrupulous officials use public funds in an embezzlement crime. Therefore, their gift-giving is a thoroughly calculated strategy aiming to obtain public support.

The positive perception of corruption may lead to mutual misunderstanding between individuals, organizations, and even countries, contributing to the instability of international and domestic political and social institutes. The positive perception of corruption is worse than corruption itself since it may generate a distrust towards officials as well as political and social systems. Developing countries and traditional societies should gradually change their attitude to corruption because it presents a significant obstacle to their development.

International Debate Education Association. (2004). The debatabase book: A must-have guide for successful debate . Web.

Rose-Ackerman, S., & Palifka, B. J. (2016). Corruption and government: Causes, consequences, and reform. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

• The Concept of Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, and History
• Protestantism, Capitalism, and Predestination
• The PREE Model of Ethical Thinking Framework
• Maison Reciprocity in Sustainable Architecture
• Environmental Groups’ and Human Rights Organization Strategies
• Multidimensionality of Politics
• The Destructive Nature of Capitalism
• Canadian Policing Issues: Black Lives Matter
• Chilean Society's Religion and Politics
• The European Union: John Weiler and Andrew Moravcsik Theories
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, October 19). Corruption and Society: Critical Analysis. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corruption-and-society-critical-analysis/

"Corruption and Society: Critical Analysis." IvyPanda , 19 Oct. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/corruption-and-society-critical-analysis/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Corruption and Society: Critical Analysis'. 19 October.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Corruption and Society: Critical Analysis." October 19, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corruption-and-society-critical-analysis/.

1. IvyPanda . "Corruption and Society: Critical Analysis." October 19, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corruption-and-society-critical-analysis/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Corruption and Society: Critical Analysis." October 19, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corruption-and-society-critical-analysis/.