You Are In: USINFO > Products > Democracy Dialogues > Combating Corruption

Corruption: An Overview

By Michael Johnston, Department of Political Science, Colgate University

Corruption raises critical questions about justice, accountability, and uses of wealth and power. Since the 1980s, democratization and the global spread and integration of market economies, have put corruption high on the international agenda. After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, corrupt regimes formerly useful to major powers became less acceptable; more businesses refused to accept corruption as a cost of doing business, and citizens demanded that foreign aid produce better results.

Established liberal democracies are perceived as having less corruption than other countries. But Singapore, undemocratic in many ways, has effective controls while India, the world's largest democracy, has extensive corruption. Seemingly low corruption in affluent democracies may reflect laws and institutions favoring monied interests and reducing incentives to buy influence. Societies like the United Kingdom and the United States once experienced extensive corruption, but have had centuries to bring it under control. Emerging societies, by contrast, are building basic institutions in a competitive and rapidly changing world and are expected to aspire to high standards from day one.

For a time some saw corruption as a good thing - as a way to “grease the wheels” of bureaucracies, create informal market processes, and help leaders connect with society by providing benefits. But no one knows what would have happened without corruption. Such claims did not consider the effects of corrupt deals across whole societies. Recent research shows that corruption harms economic development, benefits “haves” at the expense of “have-nots”, and undermines institutions and accountability.

What is Corruption?

There is no single agreed upon definition of corruption. Many of the outlooks shaping discussions of corruption reflect the experiences of affluent western societies, and not all apply well to other parts of the world. Some argue that cultural values and public opinion should define corruption, while critics respond that such definitions are vague and inconsistent. Another definition sees corruption as public officials benefiting themselves at the expense of the public interest. But “the public interest” is even more vague, and what corruption is, is a different question from that of its effects.

Perhaps the best approach is to define corruption as the abuse of public roles or resources for private benefit, adding immediately that “public”, “private”, “benefit”, and above all “abuse”, can be matters of intense dispute. This definition does not draw neat boundaries, but does highlight the political, as well as moral and ethical, dimensions of the concept as it arises in practice. Corruption will always raise questions of whether and how powerful people are held accountable.

Varieties of Corruption

The most common corrupt practice is bribery— things of value offered by a private party to an official in exchange for a decision, action, or non-action. Closely related is extortion, in which officials demand payment or gifts. But there are many other varieties, including outright theft by officials. At times, it can be difficult to distinguish corrupt activities from legitimate ones.

Causes of Corruption

Four explanations are most common:

• Personalistic Corruption occurs because bad, poorly-trained, or poorly-paid people do bad things.
• Institutional One type of institutional explanation focuses on poor management: ineffective training, record keeping, and supervision, for example. Another emphasizes institutional design, e.g., a government in which bureaucrats are easily hired and fired by politicians has built-in incentives to corruption.
• Systemic (the political system as a whole) Governments face intense demands from the societies around them; official procedures are often time-consuming, uncertain, and expensive, so corruption offers a shortcut.
• Multiple causes In some instances — say, misconduct by a president —“personalistic” factors can be critical. But even when trusted people are placed in public roles, corruption occurs, highlighting institutional and systemic issues.

Contrasting Corruption Problems

Every society has corruption, but there are clear variations in types and amounts. These elements reflect several factors, including:

• The strength and credibility of institutions and laws
• Legitimacy popular attachment to, and support for, government. When people see government as “their own,” tolerance for corruption falls. This factor is linked to:
  • Cultural values and traditions regarding identity, authority, right and wrong, and individuals’ roles in society
  
  
  • Size of the public sector Where government is pervasive and there are few private ways of getting things done, corruption will likely be extensive
• Access and exclusion Groups excluded from legitimate political influence may buy their way in through the back door.
• Speed of government processes Where decision making is slow people resort to “speed money.” Officials drag their feet until people pay up. But when decisions are rushed through, corruption consists in “buying time.”
• The balance between political and economic opportunities Where it is easier to win power than become wealthy, people use power to obtain wealth. Where it is easier to get rich than win power, wealth pursues influence or public office (Huntington, 1968).

Syndromes of Corruption

In the long run, different sorts of societies experience contrasting “syndromes” of corruption. Four types, along with examples from the present or recent past, are:

• Influence Markets In established market democracies with strong institutions, some private interests pay for access to officials; often, politicians or lobbyists act as middlemen.
  (United States, Germany, Japan).
• Elite Cartels Where institutions are less strong and political competitors are becoming stronger, elite cartels rule. Here, corrupt benefits, shared among top figures inside and outside of government, solidify their power.
  (Italy, Botswana, and South Korea)
• Oligarchs and Clans Where official institutions are weak and both political and economic opportunities are growing rapidly, powerful figures use illicit gains to build personal power bases including officials and private figures. This sort of corruption can be linked to violence.
  (Russia, Mexico, and the Philippines)
• Official Moguls Here one person or an inner circle dominates, and institutions are very weak. Rulers distribute benefits to favorites, backers, and family members. Some regimes are relatively enlightened, but in others corruption helps keep society divided and poor.
  (Kenya under Daniel arap Moi, China, and Indonesia)

Effects of Corruption on Democracy

Corruption’s ill effects on democracy include economic damage—investment is discouraged as corrupt figures shift wealth out of the country—and political damage. Political damage includes:

• Political leaders lose credibility and must buy support.
• Legislation is shaped by the highest bidder, not by social needs.


• Public accountability, law enforcement and bureaucratic functions are compromised and ineffective.
• Political parties become patronage operations serving leaders' personal interests.
• Judicial decisions are sold or politically manipulated.
• The press and civil society remain too weak to check the powerful.

Hope for Reform?

With so many factors at work, there is no single recipe for reform. Corruption is an embedded problem, while it affects many aspects of society it is also affected by them. Reformers often find that very powerful people benefiting from corruption defend their positions politically or through violence. Major corrupt dealings are often international in scope. Measurement is a problem also; all who know about a corrupt act usually keep it secret, so, it is impossible to measure with precision. Thus, controlling corruption is just not a matter of passing laws or urging people to be good. Major strategies include:

• Liberalization Take the government out of the economy, this argument runs, and officials will have little influence worth buying; open up politics and voters can “throw the rascals out.” But the former solution may just shift abuses of wealth and power into the private sector, while increasing political competition too quickly can lead top figures to steal more, and steal it faster.
• Law enforcement A framework of credible, well-enforced laws and penalties is a necessity. But little may be accomplished where those who enforce the laws are corrupt, the press is not free, or citizens fear harm if they report abuses.
• Improved public administration Better management, record-keeping, and institutional design, and a public workforce that is well paid, protected by “civil service” laws, better trained, and of appropriate size, are essential.
  But such measures are expensive and encounter resistance from those who stand to lose their jobs. Controls can become so restrictive that government cannot act and able people avoid public service.
• “Deep democratization” Many societies have reduced corruption in the course of contention over power and accountability. People seeking to protect themselves against abuses can eventually reach settlements that lead to strong, legitimate institutions. While many reformers regard politics as corrupting, in this view it is essential to reform.