CORRUPTION Syndromes of Corruption

From analysis to reform 193
cannot yet track trends or assess reliability. While methodology is improving
and underlying data bases are expanding, such indicators remain
suggestive at best. The problems are particularly difficult with respect
to changes in our cases: Mexico, I argue, has moved from Elite Cartel to
Oligarch and Clan corruption, for example, while Italy, Japan, Korea, the
Philippines, and Indonesia have undergone political changes of varying
types and magnitudes, and in some cases it is not clear whether a given
syndrome should be discussed in present or past tense. Other cases, such
as Russia, might be said to be in continuing crisis, and generalizations
about its politics, economy, and corruption show their age very quickly.
Yet the data at hand cover only limited time spans and are gathered at
intervals ranging from one to five years. I cannot yet say how the clusters
have evolved, or what time lags might occur between crises and qualitative
changes in corruption in specific cases. Better answers must await the
publication of longer data series, the observation of more systemic
changes, and continued refinement of this analysis.
In this book I have tried to deal with data problems in two ways. One is to
emphasize construct validity – that is, the extent to which various measures
are related to each other in theoretically expected ways, and in particular to
data in which we have high levels of confidence (Adcock and Collier, 2001;
Babbie, 2001: 143–144). In chapter 3 the four groups are defined using a
cluster analysis of six indicators and then compared in terms of a range of
other statistical data (Tables A– C in the Appendix). Then, in chapters 4
through 7 they are compared again using qualitative accounts of corruption
issues. The results are generally consistent with the basic typology and
hypotheses. Second, the statistics are used to frame questions rather than
answers: the cluster analysis is primarily a way to define groups for study
while reducing the likelihood of pre-selecting for expected results. Those
cases do suggest that an understanding of trends and contrasts in participation
and institutions helps identify contrasting syndromes of corruption.
The challenge now is to improve the statistical evidence, to develop models
giving a clearer indication of the relationships and priority among variables,
and to continue to develop richer case studies, particularly in less frequently
analyzed countries. Such research might yield more or fewer
categories, and will certainly change our understanding of the corruption
found within each, but it would fuel the comparative debate this book is
intended to encourage.
Relationships among the groups
A final question is both methodological and substantive. We have arrived
at categories that, broadly speaking, illustrate important contrasts both