FILSAFAT KORUPSI - Direktori File UPI

There is strikingly little literature, both theoretical and empirical, on the relationship
between corruption and inequality, even though there is a huge accumulation of
literature on corruption and on inequality separately. I intend to explore the nature of
corruption as a breach of ‗formal justice‘ and its relationship with inequality as a
problem of ‗distributive justice.‘ Most people see corruption primarily as a problem of
social justice rather than a problem of development, but neither theories of justice nor
literature on corruption have discussed corruption as a form of injustice. Although
Rawls (1971) utilized the concept of ―formal justice,‖ which is defined as ―impartial and
consistent administration of laws and institutions irrespective of substantive principles,‖
his discussion of formal justice was limited to the issue of ―civil disobedience.‖ Civil
disobedience is an important form of the violation of formal justice, particularly in
authoritarian countries, but corruption is increasingly becoming an important issue in
virtually every country, and particularly in many new democracies.
Normatively, freedom from corruption as ‗formal justice‘ and relatively equal
distribution of income and wealth as ‗distributive justice‘ should be complementary and
mutually reinforcing. Based on this insight, I attempt to find grounds for positive
theorizing for mutually reinforcing relationship between inequality and corruption. I
focus on the causal effect of inequality on corruption. Previous empirical studies have
found that corruption increases inequality (Gupta, Davoodi, and Alonso-Terme 2002;
Li, Xu, and Zou 2000), but the effect of inequality on corruption was found to be
insignificant (Husted 1999; Paldam 2002). I suspect that the insignificance is due to
attenuation bias from large measurement error in inequality. I will provide a theoretical
account of why income inequality increases corruption.
By corruption, I mean ―the abuse of power for private gain.‖ There are many kinds
and types of corruption; petty corruption can be distinguished from grand corruption,
while political corruption, bureaucratic (or administrative) corruption, and judicial
corruption can be distinguished from one another. Likewise, corruption in the private
sector can be included or excluded from the definition of corruption, depending on the
purpose and the context of the term‘s use. This thesis does not restrict its study on
corruption to a specific kind or type of corruption. Sometimes, I discuss political
corruption, but at other times I examine bureaucratic corruption or petty corruption.
The relationship between inequality and corruption has important policy implications.
Since the recent empirical literature on the consequences of corruption have found that
corruption inhibits economic and social development, the possible mutually reinforcing
relationship between inequality and corruption represents not just a problem of social
justice but also a problem of human development.
Although literature on social trust is burgeoning and both corruption and inequality
have been often mentioned as possible determinants of social trust, no single study has
systematically explored the adverse impact of corruption and inequality on social trust,
to my knowledge. 1 By social trust, I mean ‗generalized interpersonal trust.‘ Social trust
should be distinguished from ―political trust‖ (confidence in political and public
institutions) and from ―particularized thick trust‖ (trust embedded in personal relations).
141