Corruption and its Implications in Education ... - EuroJournals

European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences 

ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 25 (2010) 

© EuroJournals, Inc. 2010 

http://www.eurojournals.com 

Corruption and its Implications in Education: Historical 

Perspectives and its Effects at the Local District 

Raquel Lopez 

MBA, Doctoral Candidate, Fischler School of Education and Human Services 

Nova Southeastern University, North Miami Beach, Florida – USA 

E-mail: rl675@nova.edu 

Abstract 

During recent years, issues related to corruption in public organizations have been rather 

popularized by the media; however, the issue is rather old and tied with practices that 

originated during the establishment of bureaucratic systems. This article highlights (a) 

perspectives on corruption; (b) side effects of corruption control; (c) the efforts in 

measuring corruption; (d) historical perspectives; (e) international perspectives; (f) ethical 

perspectives among government officials; and (g) corruption within the educational system. 

In comparing levels of corruption from the time when bureaucracies where starting to 

develop and contrasting diverse types of corruption occurring in different countries, it is 

possible to make an educated judgment on the ethical and moral aspects of the human 

character. 

Keywords: Corruption, public organizations, ethics, education, corruption in education, 

bureaucracy, government officials 

Perspectives on Corruption 

The main purpose of this paper is to identify and discuss issues related to corruption within the public 

system, specifically within educational governance. A rather simplistic definition of corruption is “the 

abuse of public authority for private profit” (Doig & Theobald, 2000, p. 3) and such activities are 

described as (a) accepting money for granting contracts; (b) transgressing certain conducts for personal 

interests; (c) using bribery to obtain legislative support; (d) utilization of public property for private 

use; (e) neglecting illegal activities and using filibuster to delay the justice process; (f) tax evaluation 

fraud, among other types of corrupted acts (Doig & Theobald, 2000). Corrupted acts are also 

distinguished by the position of the perpetrator and the amount of money or assets being manipulated; 

therefore, grand corruption is the misuse of public money by heads of state, senior officials, and 

ministers. Petty corruption is denominated after much smaller sums of money, but not less significant, 

“precisely because it bears most heavily on the poorest and weakest sectors of society” (Doig & 

Theobald, 2000, p. 5). Truthfully, regardless of denomination, the section of society to be mostly 

affected by corruption is usually the economically disadvantaged section. Conversely, there are 

theorists that suggest that an excess of zeal towards corruption control could be harmful, as well 

(Silverman, 1998). 

Side Effects of Corruption Control 

Some scholars imply that society might be paying a very high price on the pursuit to control corruption 

(Anechiarico & Jacobs, 1996; Silverman, 1998); therefore, certain behaviors that were previously

17 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences - Issue 25 (2010) 

assessed with managerial action are now intolerable and become matters of investigation, such as using 

the company’s computer for personal business, or using too many sick days. Anechiarico & Jacobs 

(1996) stated that anticorruption reform legislation is built upon anticorruption reform from other 

periods; thus encrusting one reform upon another. In an effort to close all loopholes, the legislation has, 

in many cases, amplified the concept of bribery to small gifts without the intention to corrupt, inflicting 

a sentiment of fear obstructing creativity and decision making efforts. According to the authors (a) 

accomplishments in corruption control should be measured based on its costs and benefits; (b) a great 

deal of information is needed to assess that there is, in fact, a certain corruption related issue and if 

remediation is indeed necessary; (c) bureaucrats should be chosen by merit and principle; (d) whistleblowing 

and financial disclosure regulations must be scrutinized; and (e) the government should focus 

on community governance, decentralization, and some privatization (Anechiarico & Jacobs, 1996). 

Measuring Corruption 

Corruption as described in this paper is an illegal activity and obviously will remain concealed by its 

participants. It appears to be logical that a number of corruption cases will surface and society will deal 

with such cases; and therefore, other cases will never be known. Nevertheless, worldwide communities 

have never been so concerned with measuring and detecting corruption (Jain, 2001). The main reason 

why international communities are so concerned with corruption relates immediately with globalized 

commercial practices; countries are more likely to maintain trading partners with less corrupted 

countries. Avoiding terrorism would be another interest chased by the international community, on the 

account that terrorists are often involved in corrupted practices usually embraces a great deal of 

smuggling and bribery. 

Measuring an activity that is often clandestine brings a great deal of inaccuracy. Nonetheless, 

there are several corruption methodologies being developed by private institutions, advocacy groups, 

publications, and survey organizations; in order to measure investment risk, especially in the 

international market, namely The Economist, the Gallup, and The Wall Street Journal (Jain, 2001). 

Perceptions of corruption and corruption, per se, are two dichotomous realities; for this purpose, 

researchers came up with the concept of Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 

(CPI), which is the most widely used index to measure levels of corruption in different countries (Jain, 

2001). According to studies, reliability is the strongest point of the CPI because it employs inputs from 

diverse individuals, within many countries, who were faced with different corruption issues. Although 

the precise measurement of corruption is rather unrealistic, approximate figures have helped scholars in 

understanding the culture and commercial habits in several countries; nonetheless, much further 

research is needed to develop better ways to measure corruption and understand the phenomenon. 

Developments in Public Corruption 

Historic Worldwide Perspectives 

In order to better understand the development of corrupted practices in public governance, it is 

necessary to analyze the first appearances of bureaucratic establishments that surfaced primarily in 

Prussia (today’s Germany), France, the United States of America, and Britain (Neild, 2002). 

Subsequently, most countries in the world followed similar bureaucratic pattern in search to keep 

society in an organized fashion; nonetheless, keeping an organized society has its price. The larger the 

society, the larger its bureaucratic system became, making it easier for people to pursue corrupted paths 

in search of personal gains; therefore, corrupted activities encompass health care systems, 

transportation, construction, and the main focus of this paper, education. 

The beginning of bureaucracy in Prussia. Although the beginning of a bureaucratic 

Monarchy in Prussia was accomplished with cynicism by the military, its organization was rather 

efficient and effective. By the middle of the eighteenth century corruption was not an aggravating issue 

and the ruler was could manage the country as he pleased. Prussians have early established the primacy


of duty to the ruler and to public law; the reasons behind such priorities lie on the fact that (a) 

Reformation meant that the state was ruled by Protestants, therefore, religions did not affect matters of 

state; (b) because there was a decreased focus in religious matters, the greater focus was diverted into 

the ruling of the country and a strong sense of duty; and, (c) the monarchy enjoyed large amounts of 

money taken from lands it confiscated from the church (Neild,2002). Frederick the Great (1740-1786), 

was an enlightened despot who decided to invest in extending the role of the bureaucracy and as “he 

delegated the task of executing his policies to this new apparatus” (Neild, 2002, p. 23) his plans were 

strangled by bureaucrats that did not do, or succeeded, in what they were told to do. The bureaucracy 

became, nonetheless, a social class during the eighteenth and nineteenth century Prussia; where 

youngsters were prepared early in life to go to law school to improve their chances to obtain a 

bureaucratic job. Other requirements to be part of the bureaucracy were honesty, sober living, hard 

work, careful accounting, and thrift; the aforementioned requirements were never followed to such an 

extent in France. 

The beginning of bureaucracy in France. During the seventeenth and part of the eighteenth 

centuries, France was deep into a political and financial disorder. In order to finance its numerous wars, 

the French king Louis XIV (1645-1715) ordered his bureaucrats to collect an exorbitant amount of 

taxes from the parishioners; the situation, obviously, made the parishioners angry and poorer. When 

tax collection from the parishioners was already exhausted, the king started to sell venal offices, which 

were basically offices created to collect immediate money and offer a bureaucratic position to the rich 

and such position was hereditary. However, the king sold so many venal offices that the price for a 

venal office started to fall; therefore, making the pre-existing office holders upset with the drop in the 

price of their assets and consequent degradation of their purchased societal position (Neild, 2002). 

After the French Revolution (1789-1799), the church land was confiscated, the nobles lost their 

privileges, and most taxes were abolished, including the infamous salt tax. During the end of the 

eighteenth and beginning of nineteen centuries, Napoleon (1769-1821) established his legacy through 

(a) centralizing power; (b) formalized rule through laws and decrees; (c) used bureaucrats called 

prefects to implement orders that originated in Paris and acted as guardians of the law and order; (d) 

the central government had teachers, university staff and research institutes, and postmen in its payroll; 

and, (e) bureaucrats were supposed to be highly educated and trained (Neild, 2002). In brief, Napoleon 

had a very organized governmental system, with the exception of the tax system. France was in 

between two very different systems of government during the nineteenth century, the monarchy and 

the republic; for that reason, the parcel of the population that sympathized with the monarchy was 

reluctant to pay taxes. Conversely, the use of patronage to buy political support was far from settled; 

during late nineteenth century “there was a great deal of lobbying by elected representatives for public 

jobs for their constituents and for themselves” (Neild, 2002, p. 43). 

The beginning of bureaucracy in the United States. The United States’ government and 

subsequent bureaucratic system had a totally different foundation than Prussia (Germany) and France. 

Geographically speaking, the United States was not susceptible to attacks, mainly because during the 

eighteenth hundreds the country didn’t have many neighbors in the north or south; although there were 

conflicts with the natives. The lack of threatening belligerency allowed the new colony to focus its 

efforts in building a nation that antagonized lack of religious freedom and economic dependency. It 

appears to be inherent to men to distort a seemingly ideal situation, because even the United States 

soon succumbed to corruption. In the beginning of the colonial times there were two sections: One 

formed by Federalists, focused on mercantile interests, opposed to the French Revolution and led by 

Alexander Hamilton; and the other formed by Democrats, pro French Revolution and mainly focused 

on agrarian interests, led by Thomas Jefferson (Neild, 2002). According to Neild (2002), Thomas 

Jefferson had respectable government bureaucrats that were entirely replaced by corrupted men 

appointed by President Andrew Jackson. During the nineteenth century, several other activities related 

to public corruption were developing, such as (a) universal suffrage (male voting rights in this case) 

were adopted and there were more people voting, making it difficult to obtain votes by foul means; (b) 

the high number of immigrants looking to vote on politicians that might help them; and, (c) a great


number of business men bribed Congressmen to obtain about 190 million acres of land for the 

supposed development of the west. At the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth 

century, journalists and writers started to protest by unveiling corrupted practices trough books and 

newspapers; therefore, people stopped voting for corrupted politicians and punishment for such 

activities became more severe (Neild, 2002). 

The beginning of bureaucracy in Britain. The events occurred in Britain were in between the 

European events (Prussia and France) and the United States. Britain was not as immediately threatened 

by invasion like Prussia and France were; nor was it threatened by Civil War, on the account that the 

monarchy had the country under control. Nonetheless, the French Revolution had an impact and the 

British people pressured for reform, culminating with the establishment of the British House of 

Commons in the early twentieth century. 

During the beginning of the nineteenth century Britain was rather afflicted by overwhelming 

corruption with (a) public offices were sold as private property; (b) smuggling was openly accepted; 

(c) bribing voters was accepted; and, (d) ministers misappropriating public funds (Neild, 2002). 

According to Neild (2002), by the end of the nineteenth century the judiciary, the military and the civil 

service were reformed and the new civil service was “unusually high-minded” (p. 73). 

The Twentieth Century 

Several factors influenced a change in perspective in governance in most countries, but more so the 

aforementioned countries; among such influences are (a) globalization; (b) the Cold War; (c) the shift 

in military competition; (d) the increase in the extent of government; and, (e) a modification in social 

values (Neild, 2002). Globalization allows information to be spread rather rapidly; therefore, news 

about corruption in a country will reach worldwide attention in a matter of hours. According to Neild 

(2002), the end of the Cold War signified the victory of a less corrupt country over a more corrupt 

country; because the Soviet Union was not able to compete against the North American militia and 

advanced arsenal, it became more corrupt and its empire fell apart. The shift in military relates to a 

high emphasis in the development of technologies and scientific research; the advancements in 

technology were tremendous during warfare. As previously mentioned, during the seventeenth, 

eighteenth and half of the nineteenth century the main focus of government (particularly in Europe) 

was to collect taxes from the population to protect the countries; conversely, in the twentieth century, 

the extent of the government increased to multiple areas other than security, such as healthcare, 

education, and welfare. The modification in social values embraces mainly the change in ideology, 

because capitalism has progressed in Germany, Russia, and slowly but certainly in China; the change 

in idea is the one that the pursuit of private interest should be encouraged and bureaucracy should be 

minimized. 

Corruption and Government Expenditure 

According to research (Abed & Gupta, 2002), politicians are more likely to spend public money on 

items that are easy to collect large bribes in an inconspicuous way. Evidence suggests that corruption 

affects the composition of government expenditure; and therefore, education was found to be 

unfavorably affected by corruption. Study implies that “the illegal nature of corruption and the ensuing 

need for secrecy imply that corrupt officials will choose goods whose exact value is difficult to 

monitor” (Abed & Gupta, 2002, p. 226); and thus, items such as textbooks, school computers, and 

teacher salaries will not fit the profile of the government expenditure ideal for misappropriation. 

Corruption and Education in the Developing World 

As previously covered, there are mainly two kinds of corruption (a) grand corruption, and (b) petty 

corruption; politicians are not exactly enticed by bribery that comes from education for its difficult 

nature, therefore, education in the developing world is mainly entwined by petty corruption. Spector 

(2005) suggests that although corruption is known to be all over the developing world, it is endemic in


the former Soviet Union and Africa; and widely spread in some countries of South and Southeast Asia. 

The main observed acts of corruption within developing countries are as follows (Spector, 2005): 

1. Government officials from all levels manipulate contracts, distribution systems, and 

implementation efforts; rather in an open and natural way. 

2. Some developing countries, such as Cambodia, allow teachers to request private tutoring 

money from the students; primarily because the salaries are low and at times teachers won’t get 

paid for months, this practice is openly accepted. It appears that there is a certain level of 

sympathy for the situation of the teachers. 

3. Other type of corruption appears in a form of procrastination in the accomplishment of projects 

with the expectation to receive a bonus or an incentive. 

4. In countries like Brazil, Russia and China, it is common to offer gifts in exchange for favors; 

such gifts could be small such as flowers, or chocolates, but it could also be as substantial as a 

television or a car. 

5. Incompetence could also be disguised as corruption in some circumstances. In Laos several 

million dollars worth of books were reportedly delivered to district education offices, 

nonetheless the international groups were not able to account for all of the books at the school 

sites. It was never clear if the funds were diverted or if the books were misplaced (Spector, 

2005). 

Ethics and Government Officials 

“At the birth of societies, the rulers of republics 

establish institutions; and afterwards the institutions 

mould the rulers.” 

Montesquieu 

Serving the Public Interest 

A bureaucrat is a citizen hired by a public organization and promoted through a merit system (Rohr, 

1989). In order to understand a bureaucrat, or a public servant, it is necessary to understand the 

servant’s behavior and environment; it is also important to understand the moral issues the public 

servant faces in public administration. Although it is well known that the environment of public 

administration is highly scrutinized for the usage of public funds, it is important not to mutilate the 

personality of the public servant; ambition is, nonetheless, a personal trait that may be utilize in public 

service in benefit to the common good. Therefore, in analyzing the depth of moral surveillance a public 

servant might be under, the conclusion is that a “lack of power can be quite as corrupting to public 

officials, and quite as deleterious to the public interest, as a surfeit of discretion” (Fleishman, Liebman, 

& Moore, 1981); for instance, there is a debate whereas officials should lie about national security 

issues. Is it more important that the entire nation (and consequently the entire world) knows every step 

of what is been done in terms of national security; even if it is detrimental to national security itself? 

The same kind of questioning applies to different sections of public service; however, the main idea is 

to understand different perspectives of ethical decision. 

Conflict of Interests 

A conflict of interest will always depend on which side of the table a person is positioned; 

consequently, if one works for an oil company, this person will represent the interest of his own 

industry. Conversely, the representative of an environmental industry will have different perspective 

than the aforementioned. Notwithstanding, the more advanced the country is, the more complex it 

becomes to analyze the encumbrances between the two differing sides. In America’s complex society, 

conflicts could be objective and therefore measurable, or visible to the naked eye; or subjective, less 

fathomable, less visible (Stark, 2000). Such convoluted perception can become an encumbrance


depending of the perception of each section of society; thus, the media will make an effort to 

exacerbate a situation that might be rather simplistic in the eyes of a head of state. 

Public Organizations and Ethical Culture 

Despite of the fact that each individual has his or her own perceptions of moral and ethical behavior, 

public organizations follow their own culture. In order “to change the values of an organization, 

whether it is through the education of its participants in moral principles, or the imposition of 

leadership committed to higher ethical principles, the contents of the existing organizational must be 

dealt with” (Cooper, 1994, p. 183) in order to foster positive change. The private sector has invested in 

analyzing group behavior in order to foment values based on creativity, productivity, and company 

loyalty; in fact, American businesses have been studying Japanese corporations for several years with 

the intuit to infuse values directly based on quality. Conversely, the American public organizations 

lack interest in elaborating its organizational culture. 

Corruption in American Education 

Public Education as a Business 

Although many people would find wrongdoing to be less likely to occur in the school environment, 

possibly because of its link with children, opportunism motivated many to seek jobs in schools. During 

the early 1800s rich families living in America donated money to open schools to immigrant and poor 

children; by the end of the 1800s “public schools had become a trove of power, political patronage, and 

profit for a number of people with less-exalted motives” (Segal, 2004, p. 3). In 1864 an entire New 

York school board district was suspended after allegations of extortions by teachers and contractors. 

Urban schools became an even greater business after the 1930s when cities were receiving such large 

number of people coming from the countryside. The city of New York has some staggering numbers, 

considering it is the largest school district in the country; New York has over one million students, a 

budget of about 13 billion dollars, and its’ operating budget is higher than the entire amount most states 

spend with education (Segal, 2004). The American public school system employs millions of people all 

over the country, from janitors, to teachers, and school administrators; becoming, in this manner, a 

tremendous economic aid in modern society. 

Accountability 

One of the main reasons why bureaucracy was established was to create a system of compliance, where 

one bureaucratic level submits to the next and so forth, creating a cycle of observance; where one level 

observes the quality of work of the next. Nonetheless, Accountability does not refer only to quality 

control and accomplishment of determined task, but also to many other circumstances in which 

corruption may become opportune, as presented on Table 1 below.


Table 1: Typology of opportunities of corruption in education 

Areas Corrupt practices Impact on education 

School building, rehabilitation • Fraud in public tendering Access 

• Embezzlement Quality 

• School mapping Example: bad location of schools; too 

high or too low use; demand for places 

unattended 

Equipment, textbooks, food • Fraud in public tendering Equity 

• Embezzlement Quality 

• Bypass of criteria Example: school meals free for the rich 

and not available for the poor; lack of 

consistency between textbooks and 

curricula 

Teacher 

• Favoritism Quality 

appointment/management 

• Nepotism Example: less qualified teachers 

• Bribes 

appointed 

Teacher behavior • “Ghost teachers” Equity 

• Bribes (for school entrance, Ethics 

exams, assessment, private Example: disparity in staffing by 

tutoring, etc. 

schools; discrimination against the poor 

Examinations and diplomas • Selling of information Equity 

• Favoritism Ethics 

• Nepotism Example: unjustified credentials 

• Bribes 

available to students who can afford to 

• Academic fraud 

pay bribes 

Information systems • Manipulating data Equity 

• Selecting/suppressing information Ethics 

Policy priorities 

Example: omitting data on 

repetition/dropout; less priority on 

quality improvement 

Specific allowances 

• Favoritism Access 

(fellowships, subsidies, etc.) • Nepotism Equity 

• Bribes Example: inflating enrolment figures to 

• Bypass of criteria 

increase financial transfers 

Finance • Transgressing rules/procedures Access 

• Inflation of costs and activities Quality 

• Opacity of flow Equity 

• Leakage of funds Policy priorities 

Example: less resources for quality 

improvement: textbooks, materials, etc 

Source: Journal of Education for International Development; Hallak & Poisson, 2005. 

School Reform: The Case of New York Schools 

Although there were good intentions in decentralizing the New York School system in 1969, the 

consequences where less than optimal; the city’s 32 school boards were pestered by corruption and the 

educational authority became a feudal system. According to Segal (1997), almost all 32 New York 

school boards, between 1969 and the late of the 1990s were doling out jobs “to loyal campaign 

workers, lovers, and family or sold for cash” (p. 141). At the late 1990s all parties (government, 

parents, and unions) realized something should be done; in 2001 mayor Michael Bloomberg granted a 

reasonable pay increase to teachers (16 to 22 percent); took some of the power from the unions, and 

hired a former Justice Department antitrust lawyer for chancellor. The chancellor dismissed the 32 

community boards and created 10 regional districts under his direct command. Bloomberg articulated 

on the existence of great correlations between economic and social issues; and the connection between 

both issues is education (Meyer, 2008).


School Boards 

Governance 

School boards and superintendents work together but nonetheless have different jobs; while boards 

govern, superintendents manage. Management is the exercise of power, whereas governance oversees 

management (McAdams, 2006). To govern is to decide what is to be done and to manage is to do it; 

thus governance should be largely shared, whereas management should be exercised by certain 

individuals. School boards are not the solely responsible for governance though; the board of 

education, state legislatures, the courts, and the federal government also contribute with governance, 

although at different levels. 

Responsibilities 

The primary function of the school board is to establish policy leadership; and therefore, policy content 

is the main product of the labor of the board. Nonetheless, school boards have many other 

responsibilities such as (a) creating a vision; (b) establishing goals; (c) setting core beliefs; (d) stirring 

change; (e) approve and veto policy; (f) allot resources; (g) supervise the implementation of policy; (h) 

oversee the productivity of management systems; and, (i) mediate issues between public and the 

district. 

Ethical Conflict: The School Board of Broward County 

According to McAdams (2006), school board members are corrupted when such individuals decide to 

micromanage; hence, hiring employees, assigning principals, establishing contracts, student 

enrollment, and decisions related to discipline are the solely responsibility of the school district. In 

2009, a School Board of Broward County member was arrested for allegedly accepting bribes from a 

Federal Bureau of Investigation agent posing as a contractor (Alanez, Nolin, & Wyman, 2009); “in the 

account of the recent events involving a Broward County School member in accusations of corruption, 

the community suggested the creation of a commission entitled Broward Schools Integrity, to 

investigate the school district’s practices and enforce adherence to moral and ethical principles” 

(Lopez, 2010). At the end, it comes down to one institution overlooking the ethical behavior of the 

next, and so forth. How far is this trend going? 

Conclusion 

The most satisfactory achievement obtained with the conclusion of this work, is to be able to fathom 

the different perspectives related to corruption; hence, the numerous ways in which an individual could 

corrupt, or be corrupted. The vulgar idea of corruption is to receive something in exchange for 

something else; however, such perspective changes completely when a Cambodian teacher charges her 

pupils for tutoring after not receiving a salary for months. A bureaucrat can very easily have his 

personality mutilated, for the bureaucracy transforms individuals into masses; the bureaucrat has his 

personality corrupted by system because he represents the public, not himself. The historical aspects of 

corruption show only that it is an inherent part of the human character to take advantage of the 

environment; notwithstanding, in comparing the levels and openness of corruption in the early times as 

opposed to today, it could be implied that humans have rather progressed.


References 

1] Abed, G. T., & Gupta, S. (2002). Governance, corruption & economic performance. 

Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. 

2] Alanez, T., Nolin, R., & Wyman, S. (2009, September 24). The day after corruption arrests: 

Eggelletion’s office open. South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www. sunsentinel.com 

3] Cooper, T. L. (1994). Handbook of administrative ethics. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker. 

4] Doig, A., & Theobald, R. (2000). Corruption and democratization. Portland, OR: Frank Cass. 

5] Fleishman, J. L., Lance, L., & Moore, M. H. (1981). Public duties: The moral obligations of 

government officials. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

6] Hallak, J., & Poisson, M. (2005). Ethics and corruption in education: An overview. Journal of 

Education for International Development, 1(1), 1-16. Retrieved from http://equip123. 

net/JEID/articles/1/1-3.pdf 

7] Jain, A. K. (2001). The political economy of corruption. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis 

Group. 

8] Lopez, R. (2010). Perspectives on abortion: Pro-choice, pro-life, and what lies in between. 

Nova Southeastern University: paper not published. 

9] McAdams, D. R. (2006). What school boards can do: Reform governance for urban schools. 

New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 

10] Meyer, P. (2008). New York City’s education battles. Education Next, 8(2), 10-20. 

11] Neild, R. (2002). Public corruption: The dark side of social evolution. London, England: Bell & 

Bain. 

12] Rohr, J. A. (1989). Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law and values. New York, NY: Marcel 

Dekker. 

13] Segal, L. (1997). The pitfalls of political decentralization and proposals for reform: The case of 

New York City Public Schools. Public Administration Review, 57(2), 141-149. 

14] Segal, L. (2004). Battling corruption in America’s public schools. Boston, MA: Northeastern 

University Press. 

15] Silverman, E. B. (1998). The price of controlling corruption. Public Administration Review, 

58(2), 182-184. 

16] Spector, B. I. (2005). Fighting corruption in developing countries: Strategies and analysis. 

Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. 

17] Stark, A. (2000). Conflict of interest in American public life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press.

Corruption and its Implications in Education ... - EuroJournals

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?