CORRUPTION Syndromes of Corruption

From analysis to reform 191
relatively strong. In the latter accountability is weak; the personal agendas
and interrelationships of political and economic elites matter, and can
vary, immensely.
Comparative corruption research
A basic concern throughout this book has been the need for broadly
comparative research on corruption. Cross-sectional analysis and
detailed case studies both make major contributions to our knowledge,
but as suggested earlier the former approach imposes common models
upon diverse cases while reducing contrasts to matters of degree, while
the latter brings out important contrasts and details but too often does not
systematically compare cases. The middle level of comparison sought
here will not be wholly satisfying by the standards of either tradition: it
does not assign relative explanatory weights to the factors defining our
four groups, for example, nor can it account for the full complexity of any
country’s corruption issues. International influences are incorporated
into the analysis via the emphasis on consensus worldviews and policies,
and in our four groupings through the measures of economic (and to a
lesser extent, political) liberalization, but because of the focus on corruption
patterns within countries they are more a part of the background in
the case studies than we might wish.
Many may argue that cultural factors have been overlooked, particularly
with respect to a problem so closely linked to social values,
and indeed I have not explicitly used culture to define the four syndromes.
That is for several reasons. The most important is a strategic choice to
focus on participation and institutions as key aspects of global change,
and of the policies shaping it, in order to see whether they help differentiate
among corruption syndromes. In addition there are a number
of problems regarding the role of cultural factors in the study of corruption.
Arguments from culture are often asymmetrical, emphasizing
actions that might be tolerated or praised within a given culture but
not those that are proscribed. Culture is frequently raised to justify
exceptions – as a reason why comparisons cannot be made and parallels
across societies cannot be drawn – while explicit claims as to what it does
explain, with respect to corruption at least, are few. Three further problems
have to do with explanation itself. First, culture-based explanations
are often too ‘‘far-sighted’’: longstanding and sometimes diffuse
traditions are used to explain specific contemporary activities, at times
to the exclusion of more proximate and specific influences. Alternatively
they are selective and circular: we say people do specific things because
it is in their culture to do so, but we infer the elements of the culture