CORRUPTION Syndromes of Corruption

Wealth, power, and corruption 11
Definitions are a matter of long-running debate (see Nye, 1967;
Heidenheimer, 1970; Scott, 1972; Thompson,1993; Thompson,1995;
Johnston, 1996; Philp, 1997; Philp, 2002), and I can scarcely settle the
issue here. While I begin this discussion with a basic definition of corruption
itself my main focus will be upon systemic corruption problems, asomewhat
different idea aimed at exploring contrasts rather than resolving them in
advance.
What makes an activity corrupt?
Corruption involves the abuse of a trust, generally one involving public
power, for private benefit which often, but by no means always, comes in
theformofmoney.Implicitinthatnotionistheideathatwhilewealthand
power have accepted sources and uses, limits also apply. But in rapidly
changing societies it is not always clear what those limits are, and the term
‘‘corruption’’ may be applied broadly (Hao and Johnston, 2002). Even in
more settled societies its meaning is open to dispute, manipulation, and
change. Distinctions between ‘‘public’’ and ‘‘private’’ can be difficult to draw
(Jowitt, 1983; Wedel, 2001), particularly in the midst of economic liberalization
and privatization. Policy changes may redefine public roles as private,
or delegate power and resources to organizations that straddle state/society
boundaries, in the process changing rules and accountability. Benefits and
costs may be intangible, long-term, broadly dispersed, or difficult to distinguish
from the routine operation of the political system (Thompson, 1993).
Particularly where the problem is severe, corrupt demands and expectations
can be so ingrained into a system that they go unspoken.
And by what standards do we identify ‘‘abuse’’? One school of thought
advocates definitions based on laws and other formal rules because of
their relative precision, stability, and broad application (Nye, 1967;Scott,
1972). Critics reply that laws may have little legitimacy (or may even be
written by officials to protect themselves), that definitions of corruption
must address the question of its social significance – not just its nominal
meaning – and that cultural standards or public opinion thus offer more
realistic definitions (Peters and Welch, 1978; Gibbons, 1989). Relying
upon cultural standards alone, however, may so relativize the concept, or
impose so many distinctions and subcategories upon it, that its core
meaning and useful comparisons are obscured. Still others contend that
any definition based upon the classification of specific actions ignores
broader issues of morality and justice, and neglects important political
values such as leadership, citizenship, representation, deliberation, and
accountability (Dobel, 1978; Euben, 1978; Moodie, 1980; Philp, 1987;
Thompson, 1993).