The concept of corruption
(Opening for a draft paper)
Corruption is a matter of “dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people,” including, for instance, government officials or the police; and primary examples of corrupt behavior are bribery and any other inducement by improper or unlawful means.1 The varying forms and expressions of corruption may, in fact, form an unending list, since new, more sophisticated, subtle or covert forms are pretty sure to arise. The more corruption is exposed at any given time and place, the more subtle and covert it tends to become. Partly in consequence, attempts at definition and demarcation of corruption vary and are often problematic or incomplete; “the class of corrupt actions comprise an extremely diverse array of types of moral and legal offences undertaken in a wide variety of institutional contexts including, but by no means restricted to, political and economic institutions.”2
As Lincoln Steffens put a similar point, directly concerned with Gilded Age corruption in St. Louis, Missouri, one had to fear that, “… the exposures by Mr. Folk will result only in the perfection of the corrupt system.”
For the corrupt can learn a lesson when the good citizens cannot. The Tweed regime in New York taught Tammany to organize its boodle business; the police exposure taught it to improve its method of collecting blackmail. And both now are almost perfect and safe. The rascals of St. Louis will learn in like manner; they will concentrate the control of their bribery system, excluding from the profit-sharing the great mass of weak rascals, and carrying on the business as a business in the interest of a trustworthy few.3
In the wake of exposures of corruption in the press, indictments and convictions due to the work of St. Louis public prosecutor Joseph W. Folk, if the good citizens of the city would not or could not take things in hand, then corruption could simply mutate into some as yet unexposed or covert forms. As a general matter, though, in spite of the tendency toward subtler and more sophisticated forms, the old familiar patterns are always being rediscovered and deployed somewhere or other; they never completely die away.
The etymological source of the English word “corruption” is theological Latin,4 which followed traditions of translating ancient Greek moral and political thought. This background is reflected both in the call on moral standards involved in the condemnation and prosecution of corruption and in the broader usages of the word. Corruption, in a secondary sense, is a matter of departure or deviation from an original, or from what is pure, ideal or correct, as in “corruption of a text,” and “corruption of computer files”—where no moral evaluation need be involved. In their original Greek setting, Aristotle’s three “degenerate,” “digressive” or “perverted” (παρεκβάσείς, parekbasis) forms of government, viz., tyranny, oligarchy and (extreme) democracy, are regarded as degenerate precisely because they deviate or “swerve” from proper concern with the common good. They might therefore equally be said to be corrupt forms. As political scientist Samuel Huntington makes a narrower point, “Corruption is behavior of public officials which deviates from accepted norms in order to serve private ends.”5 But not all corruption is political.
1. Cf. “Corruption” in Merriam-Webster.
2. Seumas Miller 2018, “Corruption” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. p. 6.
3. Lincoln Steffens 1904, The Shame of the Cities, H.G. Callaway ed. 2020, p. 39.
4. Theological Latin is mentioned in the great Oxford English Dictionary. In consequence of the Latin source, one finds cognate forms in many European languages: English, corruption, French, corruption, German, Korruption, Italian, corruzione, and Russian, korruptsiya. The English “corrupt” derives from Latin, corrumpere = co- + rumpere, “to break.”
5. Cf. Samuel P. Huntington 1968, “Modernization and Corruption” in Huntington 2006, Political Order in Changing Societies, p. 59.
PAGE 2
In spite of our understandable and frequent focus on monetary exchanges involving government officials and favors, corruption need not involve exchange of money and may be either public or private. Public officials accepting envelopes stuffed with cash to favor bribe-givers in the exercise of official powers is perhaps the central, paradigm case of political corruption. Yet, surely, corruption may still exist where no money changes hands. Favoritism toward particular persons, groups or interests might be exchanged for other sorts of “inducements,” for instance, reciprocating preferences in hiring, employment advantages or promotions; and favoritism may involve exchange of useful “insider” information.6 “In some corrupt exchanges, such as patronage and nepotism” argues political scientist Michael Johnston, “considerable time may elapse between receiving the quid and repaying the quo, and the exchange may be conditioned by many factors other than immediate gain.”7
When illicit favoritism is practiced within a particular insider group involving partiality in dispensing jobs, opportunities and other advantages to friends, supporters or trusted associates, this favoritism is called cronyism. Favoritism and partiality toward one’s own family and kinship, nepotism, is illegal in American Civil Service employment practices, and restricted by the requirement to report possible conflicts of interest to stockholders in publicly traded firms. The charge of nepotism fails of legal application in privately owned firms. It is worth remarking, however, that the distinction between “public” and “private” agents and resources is not always entirely clear and straightforward.
The point is reflected in the history of corporate charters. For example, the British East India Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company long effectively ruled large areas of India and Canada respectively. Were these private trading corporations or colonial sub-polities of the British crown and government? Being both, of course, they could legally govern their respective geographic domains with priority and preference given to their own economic and trading interests and profits. The East India Company even had its own army which was effectively deployed in the Seven Years’ war (1756-1763).8 Chartered trading companies acting as sub-polities was a compromising configuration, though it long persisted. Again, while colonial Americans saw their chartered colonial governments as their own, requiring their representation and subject to “the consent of the governed,” the view from London was that they could be modified or abolished by parliament like any corporate or municipal charter in the kingdom.
Lincoln Steffens distinguished several classifications of municipal corruption. This is partly a matter of where to look for corruption. His typology includes police corruption which was especially prominent in the scandals of Minneapolis, and also found elsewhere, for instance, as reported in the Lexow Committee’s exposures of police corruption in New York City. Police corruption involves “protection” of and extortion from illegal but tolerated gambling and vices. Steffens sometimes found municipal corruption, centered in the mayor’s office, the executive and administrative departments and sometimes centered in the municipal legislatures. With corruption centered in City Council, the political bosses could often afford to tolerate a “clean hands” mayor. Steffens also describes financial corruption, for example in St. Louis, which involved “not thieves, gamblers, and common women, but influential citizens, capitalists, and great corporations.”9 Political bosses of the Gilded Age often enjoyed quite cozy relations to large financial and industrial firms or even owned banks themselves. Generalized civic corruption, exemplified by Philadelphia, “corrupt and contented,” involved direct ...
6. Cf. Sung Hui Kim 2014, “Insider Trading as Private Corruption,” UCLA Law Review, Vol. 61, pp. 928-1008: “Private corruption” is defined as “the use of an entrusted position for self-regarding gain.”
7. Michael Johnston 2005, Syndromes of Corruption, p. 21.
8. Relevant in comparison is the literature of Edmund Burke’s later speeches and documentation in the long impeachment process against Warren Hastings (1732-1818), the East India Company’s Governor of Bengal. See, e.g., Isaac Kramnick ed. 1999, The Portable Edmund Burke, Section V. “India and Colonialism,” pp. 363-406; Frederick G. Whelan 2012, “Burke on India.”
9. Steffens 1904, Shame of the Cities, H.G. Callaway ed. 2020, p. 71.
PAGE 3
partisan manipulation of the electoral system and vote counts, integration of political patronage, federal, state and local, with favored business interests plus institutional and popular acquiescence in boss led, machine politics. Even people not directly involved in corruption, still prevalently “went along,” and adopted protective affiliation and coloring of the dominant party in order not to fall into
direct opposition to the party bosses and the machinations of the corrupt system. Even “heads of great educational and charity institutions ‘go along,’ as they say in Pennsylvania, in order to get appropriations for their institutions from the State and land from the city.”10
Though acceptance of bribes among political office holders is the paradigm, corruption also exists in other institutional contexts. For example, embezzlement by a business partner or favoritism in the allocation of funds by a corporate treasurer show the possibility of corruption in private spheres; and “insider trading” of stocks and bonds on the basis of privileged information is criminal in many or most important jurisdictions. Bribery may exist even in “non-profit” sports organizations, influencing the outcome of games or the award of sports events to particular localities. “Corruption involves the abuse of a trust,” writes Michael Johnston, “generally one involving public power, for private benefit.”11 But the involvement of public power and public financing may be more or less remote, unobvious or even absent. The fundamental objection to corruption is moral, whether or not particular forms of corruption are also legally prohibited—though not every moral failure counts as corruption. Corrupt actions are those that disrupt or strongly tend to disrupt moral habits of good character and/or the practices constitutive of the normative and governing purposes of institutions.
Structures favorable to “economic elite domination”12 may be public, semi-public or private. But in any case of corrupt, domination over public or private interests, there will likely and typically be some “ring,” “combine,” “boodle gang,” syndicate or circle (however tightly organized or tacit and diffuse) of self-serving insiders who ignore or discount the common, public interest or the overt, declared and approved purposes of semi-public or private organizations. More generally, “The pattern of corruption … exists whenever a power-holder who is charged with doing certain things, … is by monetary or other rewards, such as the expectation of a job in the future, induced to take actions which favor whoever provides the reward and thereby damages the group or organization to which the functionary belongs, … .”13
Although legal definitions enter into our concept of corruption, the concept is basically moral and normative. “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause,” wrote James Madison in Federalist Papers, No. 10, “because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”14 The law, a judge and jury are there to see to it that no one is the judge in his own legal case; and we need to be morally concerned with anyone being the judge in a moral conflict of interests to which the same person is also a party. This has a corrupting effect on personal integrity.15 Some degree of cognitive or emotional bias seems to come with the limits of human intelligence and moral sympathy, but persistent, conscious habits and policies based on acceptance or acquiescence in insider bias and favoritism contribute to corruption of every sort.
10. Steffens 1904, Shame of the Cities, H.G. Callaway ed. 2020, p. 141; 141n. The contemporary colloquial phrase in Philadelphia, often critical, is “to go along in order to get along”: a matter of acquiescence.
11. Michael Johnston 2005, Syndromes of Corruption, p. 11.
12. See Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page 2014, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” on usage of this term.
13. Cf. Carl J. Friedrich 1972, “Corruption Concepts in Historical Perspective,” in Friedrich 1972, The Pathologies of Politics, pp. 127ff:
14. James Madison 1787/1937, in The Federalist Papers, No. 10, p. 56.
15. Cf. Zephyr Teachout 2014, Corruption in America, p. 9, Giving a sufficient condition: “a person is corrupt when they use public power for their own ends, disregarding others.”
“You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.”
― Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
Philadelphia, PA
Dear readers,
In support of this question, centered on understanding the concept of corruption, I have added the opening 3 pages of a draft paper devoted to the topic. Please have a look. I believe this is a topic much studied and of interest to people and researchers around the world.
This draft builds on my research on Gilded Age corruption in the U.S. during the late 19th century. Of special interest is the distinction between legal and moral concepts. As becomes evident, not all corruption is illegal. I am also especially interested in the connection between corruption and larger-scale economic and political consolidation.
What can readers tell us about their own experience of corruption?
Comments, corrections and additions invited.
H.G. Callaway
I believe that societal culture plays an important role in the context of fighting corruption.
I mean: the moral aspect is very important in fighting corruption.
I would very much recommend a citation classic:
Reisman, W. (1979). Folded Lies : Bribery, Crusades and Reforms The Free Press
I believe that his insight applies to many areas of societal organisation. Essentially, he posits an explicit, verbal codification of behaviour that he calls the myth system. Corruption is regulated with an operational code, which is nowhere explicit, but which is systematically related to the myth system. The operational code describes exactly who may deviate from the myth system, how they should do so and when.
What is characteristic of the operational code is that it is shared by key members of the control apparatus, that its deviations from the myth system are selectively tolerated and depend on the contingency, the identity of agents and objects, the purposes of the act and the probable consequences on the larger organisation. There is no effort to revise the myth. On the contrary, efforts are made to maintain the integrity of the myth and to suppress all knowledge of the operational code. (pp 27-28)
I have encountered this dual structure in so many settings that I regard it as a universal.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Conroy & readers,
Many thanks for your very interesting suggestion for reading.
I found partial access to a review of the Reisman book on line. The review appeared in the American Political Science Review, Vol 74, No. 2.
See:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/folded-lies-bribery-crusades-and-reforms-by-w-michael-reisman-new-york-free-press-1979-pp-ix-277-1295/F2A408A4B27EAB994819E57F49AFAD93
The distinction made by Reisman, between the "myth system" and the "operational code" strikes me as plausible and even familiar from my own experience with the often corrupt political system here in the city. In my impression, this has much to do with the public rationalization vs. the practical operations of city, machine-style politics. No doubt there are honest people in the machine, but these tend to be the folks who do not understand the workings of the "operational code."
See in particular the second paragraph of the review, by David J. Olson at the linked address above. I expect there will be much more to be said about the Reisman book, Folded Lies.
H.G. Callaway
In general, corruption refers to the abuse of entrusted power for private and personal gains and it may be manifested in various forms and contexts.However, I like to take side with Aung San Suu Kyi who states, “It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”
The most obvious consequence of corruption is corrosion of the rule of law and democracy. Neither institution can function where corruption is unchallenged and even in the lesser corrupt states confidence in both is severely damaged by even low levels of corruption.
Corrupt regimes substitute autocracy for rule of law, the more corruption the less effective law. If blackletter law can be subverted by influence then the law becomes merely a tool for despotism.
What is most disturbing about corruption however is that it undermines the very notion of society. Many cultures value the accumulation of individual wealth over the means by which it is accumulated. Not only does this facilitate corruption but it encourages it.
It is a sad fact that corruption is rife in a academia and it has undermined the value of academic qualifications. All of these can now be had for a price and a thriving industry of plagiarism and cheating robs universities of respectability and ultimately academic rigour.
Conceptions of Political Corruption in Ancient Athens and Rome. Lisa Hill
https://www.auspsa.org.au/sites/default/files/conceptions_of_political_corruption_lisa_hill.pdf
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Biria & readers,
Thanks for your comment here.
You wrote:
In general, corruption refers to the abuse of entrusted power for private and personal gains and it may be manifested in various forms and contexts.However, I like to take side with Aung San Suu Kyi who states, “It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”
---End quotation
I am doubtful of the alternative to Acton's dictum which you propose. If it were always "fear of losing power that corrupts those who wield it," then we would only see abuse of power and corruption, when power is challenged. But unchallenged power is sometimes also abusive and corrupt. In consequence, it is not merely fear of loss of power which corrupts.
Recall Acton's dictum: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I understand this to mean that power tends to corrupt and the greater the concentration of power the greater the tendency toward corruption. If so, then great power, unchallenged, may still be corrupt, though there is little or no fear of the loss of power. One reason great power corrupts is because it breeds arrogance and over confidence. For the arrogant, those who have no power and do not matter in the calculations of power, can simply be brushed aside whatever their just claims.
H.G. Callaway
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Brassard & readers,
Thanks for the link to the paper by Lisa Hill, "Conceptions of Political Corruption in Ancient Athens and Rome." This looks to be a useful review of the subject specified in the title.
I quote here the abstract to the paper:
Abstract There were two broad discourses of corruption in antiquity. The first (‘corruption 1’) conceived corruption in moralistic terms as a loss of virtue in the polity; a generalised condition afflicting political elites and citizens indiscriminately. The second discourse (‘corruption 2’) is the narrow, legalistic view of corruption as the abuse of public office for private gain and, as with contemporary understandings of corruption, it involved activities like patronage, bribery, extortion and embezzlement. It is sometimes suggested that the first discourse was either the only, or else the dominant discourse in antiquity. But, as will be shown in the following discussion, corruption 2 was very well developed in the classical period, particularly in Athens and Rome. In this paper I seek to show how well-developed was the conception of corruption 2 in antiquity by examining its treatment in discourse, law and practice. But I also attempt to map and comprehend the fractures and contradictions in the classical attitude to corruption that prevented it from being either monolithic or fully operational.
---End quotation
See:
https://www.auspsa.org.au/sites/default/files/conceptions_of_political_corruption_lisa_hill.pdf
Notice that the paper focuses on "political corruption," and this is, of course, a prevalent and important type of corruption. But it is not the only type of corruption. Corruption can be private as well as political or public. I think a good example of this is "insider trading." See my reference to the article by Kim. The example is suggestive of the less overt or blatant forms of corruption.
However, it is important to emphasize that corruption is basically a moral concept with wide application; and not all forms of corruption are even illegal, let alone being political. What Hill focuses on is two conceptions of political corruption. It looks like a very interesting paper.
H.G. Callaway
“You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.”
― Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
Corruption is a negative phenomenon that prevails in many societies, and its goal is to achieve improper purposes in illegal ways. The danger of this disease lies when it spreads among community leaders because it will certainly spread quickly among many members of society, making these societies vulnerable to disintegration and decomposition.
Accumulation of political and financial power, are continuously increasing the gap between administrating and administered. Economical prosperity is favored at the place of moral prosperity by optimum individuals. Mahatma Gandhi advocated simpler life to powerful people, but we see Indian top administrators do not leave greed of marvelous life.
The man had concerns (greed) for itself and had its own property in past. Now property is of state (or community), but there is no concerns for the state. There is no enhancement in morals of individuals as per progress in S&T.
Morality and ethics are essential for the society, as essential is S&T.
Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage, influence peddling, graft, and embezzlement. Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is also considered political corruption.
I certainly agree with the notion that corruption is abuse of power for personal gain, as others have stated, and I would add that "personal gain" includes taking illegal steps to gain, or to avert the loss of, anything one values. Not just power or wealth.
To introduce a wrinkle here, in the search for "what is the worse evil." Is it offering a bribe or accepting a bribe? I would say without hesitation, accepting the bribe is the worst. The usual scenario is that the person accepting the bribe is in a position of public trust, while the person offering the bribe is just another opportunist among potentially thousands or millions, who promised, or owe, nothing to the rest of us. We have entrusted public officials to protect the interests of everyone, not just themselves or a select few. On the other hand, we do not put that level of trust on just anyone in the public.
This also goes to the college admissions scandals. The press focuses all their reporting on the bribe givers. Focus totally misplaced. If I want to get my child into some college, I couldn't care less about movie or TV stars. My trust goes to the admissions offices, perhaps even the coaching staff.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Brassard & readers,
Looking through the paper you linked, by Lisa Hill, on ancient conceptions of corruption, I found an interesting passage on "the language of corruption" (p. 3):
Bratsis follows Mark Philp5 in noting that there are several words in ancient Greek that conflate or fail to distinguish between gifts and bribes (i.e. doron, lemma, chresmasi peithein,). And although Philp (following David Harvey and others: see below) argues that there is another ancient Greek word for bribery that does distinguish gifts from bribes (diaphtheirein),6 Bratsis counters that diaphtheirein does not mean bribery or corruption in the modern sense. Rather, it denotes a corruption of the mind by which the ability of individuals to make sound judgements is diminished. In the process of taking a bribe, the citizen has surrendered free will and has therefore lost the ability to exercise judgement as an autonomous member of the polity.7 Bratsis seems to be only partly correct here. It is true that diaphtheirein is a process that destroys the independent judgement of a person8 leading to his/her corruption. But the important point here is that the corruption of judgement leads a person to abuse her public role for private gain. Accordingly, as Plato indicates, a person whose independence cannot be destroyed cannot be bribed and is therefore adiaphthorõs. Similarly, Demosthenes tells us that an agent who is adiaphthorõs is ‘uncorrupted’ by promises or prospects of gain.9 For such a person, there is no ‘inducement’ that could ‘suborn’ or ‘betray the just claims and the true interests’ of his country. Instead, he administers his public duties ‘in all purity and righteousness’.10 For Kenneth Dover, diaphtheirein causes agents ‘to behave, feel or think in ways which impair their performance of their roles in the community’. 11 At this point we see the political and legal significance of diaptheirein.
---End quotation
That a language should prevalently employ a term which does not distinguish between "bribe" and "gift," is strongly suggestive of a lack of concern with the difference between bribes and gifts. Several such words from ancient Greek are listed in the passage quoted. I have encountered the same phenomenon in my travels abroad. I wonder how common such words may be. Can readers make some suggestions?
On the other hand, the passage gives emphasis to the Greek word, diaphtheirein, and according to Plato, it is said, "a person whose independence cannot be destroyed cannot be bribed and is therefore adiaphthorõs." The concept has both moral and political significance.
Compare this with the quoted statement above on corruption: “The pattern of corruption … exists whenever a power-holder who is charged with doing certain things, … is by monetary or other rewards, such as the expectation of a job in the future, induced to take actions which favor whoever provides the reward and thereby damages the group or organization to which the functionary belongs, … .” (Carl J. Friedrich 1972, “Corruption Concepts in Historical Perspective,” in Friedrich 1972, The Pathologies of Politics, pp. 127ff).
Here, I think we start to get beyond the frequent phenomenon of simple bribery and into the general concept of corruption. I am reminded that though Gilded Age Philadelphia was judged "corrupt and contented" and served as the worse case of municipal corruption in Steffens' The Shame of the Cities, bribery was only the tip of the iceberg. Acknowledging the pervasive corruption, many people were quite happy with the system--judged it "effective" and empowering.
Legal definitions of corruption won't do generally, if only because new forms of corruption are always being invented. (Its somewhat like the problem of defining "art." Whatever definition is proposed, the "artists" make up counter-examples.)
H.G. Callaway
Dear Albert,
I think offering a bride is worse. If you accept a bride you let yourself corrupted, by offering a bride you not only let yourself corrupted but also attempt to corrupt somebody else. You are at the stage 2 of corruption, its propagation.
What is worse in prostitution, to prostitute yourself or to pay protitutes. Without the clients, there would not be prostitution. I think paying a prostitute is worse.
In the admissions scandal, corruption had to fester a lot in order to have an organisation making it smooth and easy to purchase, the maximum blame is in organising systematically corruption, paying selected staff and receiving apyment from clients. Level 3: mafia level. In the drug corruption, the clients are for me at the bottom of the corruption hierarchy although they will be the one more directly injured by these drugs.
One very old corrupted political strategy has been to become the champion of an anti-corruption campaign and to instrumentalize it to get rid of your political opponents under false corruption charges. Due judicial process is very important in order for a anti-corruption campaign to be what it claim to be and not the drastic opposite.
Regards,
- Louis
Dear Callaway,
''But the important point here is that the corruption of judgement leads a person to abuse her public role for private gain. ''
I agree. Corruption is not primaly a cognitive failure but a moral failure that one is necessarily aware off and not proud off. It is starting to walk the path of dis-honoured in exchange for some external goods. A self accepted moral killing of oneself. Taking drugs is a good example of such self-killing , some short terms release of pain and pleasure in exchange for long term pain and lack of self-control.
I also think that one should stay away from the grey zone between a gisf and a bribe. Should people give/accept Christmass gifts to their business relations. It is a steep slope.
Regards,
- Louis
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Brassard, Manfredi & readers,
The question of whether the offering or taking a bribe is worse, strikes me as something of a distraction. Likewise the question of whether the prostitute or the customer is worse. The point there would seem to be "who is more to blame?" and that goes directly into the "blame game." It doesn't help much in answering the question:
What is corruption and what are its social and political sources?
My point is not that some forms of corruption are not worse. Systematic corruption is definitely far worse. But as it happens, its not always illegal. As I say, part of the problem is that new forms of corruption are invented, and that is part of the reason that not all corruption is illegal. When the obvious means of corruption are effectively blocked, then new, more sophisticated methods will often arise --often much harder to detect.
The admissions scandal did involve illegalities --bribery apparently, and the federal prosecutors got involved --in California, as I recall. But there is perhaps a more basic consideration. People very much want to get their children into very prestigious colleges and universities, and of course, we have seen that they are willing to pay for the privilege. (Likewise, prestigious colleges and universities set aside openings for the sons and daughters of alumni, and it is hard to believe that they do not give considerable attention to the children of people who make large donations.) Like the celebrities who were prosecuted in California, all of this seems to belong to what may be called the "star" system. The appeal of very prestigious colleges and universities has as much to do with the lucrative connections to be made as it does with the quality of the education. The entire business is morally questionable.
H.G. Callaway
H.G. Callaway I agree with you that the question of whether the offering or taking of a bribe is worse is a distraction. No generalization can capture all the relevant specifics of individual cases. At best we can say sometimes yes, sometimes no.
HG Callaway,
That a language should prevalently employ a term which does not distinguish between "bribe" and "gift," is strongly suggestive of a lack of concern with the difference between bribes and gifts.
Indeed. Especially this time of year, it does seem strange that a language would not distinguish between handing out gifts for some special occasion, to family members, and handing out a bribe for personal gain.
On the other hand, the passage gives emphasis to the Greek word, diaphtheirein, and according to Plato, it is said, "a person whose independence cannot be destroyed cannot be bribed and is therefore adiaphthorõs." The concept has both moral and political significance.
Then, the objection to corrupt officials was part of the Greek culture.
There are only two easy "explanations" I can come up with, for why "gift" and "bribe" were not separate words: (1) The same word had two distinct meanings, well understood by everyone, or (2) Santa Claus did not exist.
Louis,
To me, your analogies show that, in some specific cases, "it depends." Not that the public official, who has been privileged with public trust, is less culpable.
Another example: The cheating spouse. Who is more culpable, including legally culpable? The spouse who cheats, or the random opportunist who causes him/her to cheat? The law itself, at least in western countries, couldn't care less about the random opportunist. The one who has to pay for damages, monetary and otherwise, is always the cheating spouse. Just as in the case of public officials, one party is burdened with trust, while the other party is just another random opportunist, who owes nothing to anyone.
As to "distraction," one could argue, it's never a distraction if one drills down into the weeds, when addressing questions like this one. For example, is there no difference between corruption, in this context, and simple lack of consideration? I think there is a fundamental difference.
The most obvious problem with bribery in education is that not only do entrants gain places regardless of merit, thus depriving a more deserving individual but that the whole educational discipline is now compromised from top to bottom.
Academics are compromised in their grading. An individual at college because of bribes is virtually impossible to expel as the bribes go with them. That individual has no incentive to work or even behave correctly because the college will not expel them. That individual is the most likely to complain to 'daddy/mommy' should he not get his/her degree with distinction
Academics challenging this are themselves put under scrutiny and this pernicious process rots away the whole structure.
What is alarming is that while this educational corruption has been going on since academia began it is now certainly increasing in scale and in scope. Essay writing services blatantly advertise in student magazines and even on campus noticeboards, occasionally thinly described as 'additional coaching' but very often 'in your face' essay writing services.
Is it any wonder in a society that tolerates this that these 'graduates' go on to be corrupt company bosses and civil servants?
It is a maxim that an institution or a state cannot be a 'little bit corrupt'. Corruption is all pervading, it is a spreading decay and when it is not excised the entire edifice is corrupt in short time.
Tolerance arising out of so-called liberal values is in part responsible here. The nonsensical idea that everyone should have a university education in the name of egalitarianism generates a sense of entitlement without responsibility. If any individual can gain a college place because of anything other than aptitude and talent, if anyone obtains a college degree without merit then the whole of the system is without merit.
Educational policy combined with greed within universities has provided fertile soil for corruption to grow on.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear all,
I've come across one of the references from Lisa Hill's paper which is available on line.
See:
Article Defining Political Corruption
You can find the full text by searching on your favorite search engine for "Mark Philp, "Defining Political Corruption," Political Studies XLV (1997), pp. 436-462.
H.G. Callaway
Barry with you. But it does depend on the culture of University. At Manchester, Oxford etc academics rarely challenged, and expectations set high. In other Universities the ethos of a student customer, creates a system where every aspect of student performance is down to everyone else, negating any aspect of responsibility. Consequently a culture of corruption controls education
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Manfredi & readers,
You wrote:
There are only two easy "explanations" I can come up with, for why "gift" and "bribe" were not separate words: (1) The same word had two distinct meanings, well understood by everyone, or (2) Santa Claus did not exist.
---End quotation
No, it is just that there are people (often uneducated) who do not distinguish a "gift" from a "bribe." Its simply a social fact in various places.
Perhaps some of the readers of the thread can tell us about such words. I was very interested to learn that ancient Greek had such words.
H.G. Callaway
HG Callaway,
No, it is just that there are people (often uneducated) who do not distinguish a "gift" from a "bribe." Its simply a social fact in various places.
Sure enough, the Mark Philp piece you posted hints at this. Or at least, that some ambiguity exists in the meaning of bribe, or gift, from the days of ancient Greece. He makes the point that some Greek words for bribe were much more derogatory than others, and concludes that consequently, some bribery was considered acceptable. (Was pleased to see his repeated mention of corruption involving violating a public trust, as one aspect at least.)
Of course, the same ambiguity exists today. When we say "campaign contributions," and it's not just some working stiff mailing in a check to his favorite political campaign, then it's just another word for bribe. Whether that contribution is from a lobbyist, an industrialist, or really anyone expecting any reciprocity.
On "simply a social fact," true. Why we are told, "It's just the normal way of doing business." Even the practice of going up to some person in a position of authority, and beginning your transaction with an elaborate presentation of who you are, by implication expecting special treatment, is distasteful. Unless, of course, the existing rules specifically give you extra privileges. Such as, preference for a position given to veterans, or other such pre-established rule.
Dear readers,
One great source of political corruption in democracies is the dependence of the candidates on the political parties and the depedence of the political parties towards those financing them. Banishing political parties and private financing of candidate would go a long way towards making democracies more democratic.
I also think than eliminating the traditional voting systems too much depending on media would also be beneficiary. Pyramidal scheme of candidate selection would be almost corruption free as long as a one term service is enforced eliminating carreer politicians altogether.
Regards,
- Louis
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Manfredi & readers,
I think we have to agree about the generally sorry state of "campaign finance" in the U.S. Is it a matter of "gifts" or subtle "bribes"?
You wrote:
Of course, the same ambiguity exists today. When we say "campaign contributions," and it's not just some working stiff mailing in a check to his favorite political campaign, then it's just another word for bribe. Whether that contribution is from a lobbyist, an industrialist, or really anyone expecting any reciprocity.
---End quotation
Campaign finance has degenerated into something looking much to much like a subtle form of bribery. It is just on this point, of course, that the objection will arise that, of course, there is no "quid pro quo." That kind of explicit, "something for something," bribery is outlawed (though of course, it continues to exists in spite of that--often its the small fish corruptionists who get caught).
But notice the comment I quoted above from the political scientist, Michael Johnston: "considerable time may elapse between receiving the quid and repaying the quo, and the exchange may be conditioned by many factors other than immediate gain." (See Michael Johnston 2005, Syndromes of Corruption, p. 21.) Included in the factors, "other than immediate gain," in exchange for the larger campaign donation is the little matter of "access." The donation is rewarded by the opportunity to explain or "lobby" for a particular special interest. The usual term for this in local Philadelphia politics, used to be "payola," or "pay to play." The implication being that those not paying up will tend to be ignored. This belongs to what we might call "the arrogance of power."
By the way, here's a link to the Johnston book--which I've found very useful:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/syndromes-of-corruption/2A206839092C0BA8681A2D2EA5AF986D
Here's a short review of the book from Foreign Affairs:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2006-09-01/syndromes-corruption-wealth-power-and-democracy
The question of "reciprocity," more broadly understood actually brings up the nature of political representation. Eventually one has to ask what it is we expect from our representatives and what it means for them to properly represent us. (Is it just that they distribute government goodies in return for votes?) What it doesn't mean, as seems clear, is that they should preferentially cater to special interests who favor them with campaign donations. But if our elected representatives no longer represent us, and the common good, but instead concentrate their attention conveniently on the larger and more richly endowed special interests, then that is a corruption of the political system as a whole--on the road to oligarchy. The word that comes down to use from Aristotle, is that its a perversion of the polity. Specifically, Aristotle regarded oligarchy as a perverted or degenerate form of aristocracy, (oligarchy being rule by the rich few in their own self-interest and ignoring the common good = "elite economic domination"?)
H.G. Callaway
Source of global corruption, new world order...that promotes corruption around the globe (results of that corruption are cruelty, injustice, inequalities) among the nations, by funding their political (politics is a costly game and to run the game, money is being provided and politicians are bought to promote corruption and destabilize the nations) judiciary, financial systems (also bought) to hire and retain those people who are their companions.
Social sources of corruption come through media (all sources), made the society highly consumption one, through promoting brands, creating hypes for (clothes, cars, androids and list is endless); and then no institution is corruption free.
Lobbies, who are getting richer day by day, smoking companies, now e-cigarettes phenomenon, that is eating current generation, slogan is old, words are new, soft drinks companies that are the major contributing factors for kidney and liver damage, can not be stopped. Corruption is rooted so deeply and made so prevalent that escape seems almost impossible....
Corruption is the failure of a person to perform his duties in a correct way and the behavior of twisting paths to reach personal goals within a public function that should be for the service of the country and society. Among the most important social and political sources of corruption are the weakness of the state, its monitoring apparatus, the weak economy, and the absence of a good moral structure in society.
Good opening and draft paper, with a lot of empirical and historical details!
Very well written and composed.
I do consider the CPI as important measure:
https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018
Weak democratic foundations are the source of corrupt behavior.
Economic freedom is paramount as the CPI confirms.
May I argue that corruption is by nature a legal one: " ... the abuse of a trusted position in one of the branches of power or in political or other organizations with the intention of obtaining material benefit which is not legally justified for itself or for others." Štefan Šumah (2018.). " Corruption, Causes and Consequences" © 2019 IntechOpen Available at:
Chapter Corruption, Causes and Consequences
It can be claimed that the concept is related to competition law and specifically to the operations of cartels: Robert D. Anderson et al. (2019). "Preventing Corruption, Supplier Collusion and the Corrosion of Civic Trust: A Procompetitive Program to Improve the Effectiveness and Legitimacy of Public Procurement (November 22, 2018). George Mason Law Review, Forthcoming; TLI Think! Paper 5/2019; King's College London Law School Research Paper No. 19-14. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3289170 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3289170
I claim hereby that the sources of corrupt behavior are bias in a company economic thinking about the power - relations and customers interests on the markets: the aim is to build a monopoly position. Yours sincerely, Bulcsu Szekely
Dear Beverly Dawn Metcalfe ,
Education, say higher education, requires a different set of rules. Current rules are defined and assessed by "experts", so there is no room for new comers, unless ...
'Kleptocracy in America'
A conversation with journalist and historian Sarah Chayes
byRussell Mokhiber
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/30/kleptocracy-america
“But believe me. Go to Nigeria and talk to people who supported Boko Haram. They woke up with smashed heads too. They are saying – Boko Haram was telling the truth about the problem, but their solution wasn’t the right solution. So they are regretting supporting Boko Haram.”
“I feel the same thing is happening here. People made an extreme vote. I don’t know that they will regret it. But in my view, the person who gained the presidency is producing almost a distillation of precisely the corruption system that people were voting against.”
“While in the United States we don’t have doctors saying – pay up or I won’t examine your wounds. But there are overlapping private networks. We have the Secretary of the Treasury under this administration and the last administration – they came directly from the financial services industry. You have that kind of overlap between the private sector and the public sector. And you get deregulation, which doesn’t serve the public interest, but rather helps the banking industry.”
“You have someone who believes in privatizing education running the education department. You have the former head of the largest fossil fuels corporations heading our State Department. You have someone deeply embedded in the transportation of our fossil fuels heading our Commerce Department.”
“In other words, you have a confusion of roles between people whose primary role is to enrich their corporation, their board members and their friends, are now playing roles in government where ostensibly they ought to be protecting ordinary American citizens from the excesses of those types of corporations.”
USA governance system is led by an individualist ethic, and all forms of collective endeavour perceived as stifling talent, rather than recognise that public administration has linkages with ideals of governance for public good. It seems everywhere corruption
See Transparency International corruption indices which has many African states, Russia, and America's with high levels of corruption. Amazingly USA is a country to watch...no doubt Trump impact who seems able to talk nonsense, and deflect criticism of himself and his highly suspect International relations. I mean, what is going on when he thinks he can legitimately buy Greenland, and plan G7 at his golf resort??? These actions are normalising practices, and slightly shifting contours of acceptable government action. Ukraine? I am wondering how one defines transparency, it's cultural construction across border spaces...and diverse terminologies for corrupt activity are now entering our psyche especially when using social media.
Cambridge Analytica and Buzos clearly felt use of biodata was not a big deal.
So while we think of political mandates and how they are ethically judged, what about vast amounts of personal data out there routinely organized, sifted, categorised, sold, and used to target everyone by all manner of ways
It's beyond 1984, surveillance Capitalism reigns supreme (see Zuboff, 2019).
It goes hard sometimes to determine when a gift should be considered as a bribe. However, I think gifts are results of delight in heart. But a bribe is a start to set morals down.
I request to my colleagues to also discuss the ways to minimize corruptions in different spheres. The blackness of corruptions is pushing the world into darkness since it is killing the humanity and puts questions on our (human's) existence.
The nations are constituted by people. And each individuals (people) expects that others should be first to stick with morals.
Prabhat,
The nations are constituted by people. And each individuals (people) expects that others should be first to stick with morals.
I have little doubt, just from observations, that the prevalence of corruption of politicians, in any country, correlates closely with what goes on in that society in general. It's just that when politicians are corrupt, the effect becomes magnified many times over.
What is considered "moral" can vary a lot. People have a very special knack for rationalizing why what they do should be considered "moral." Even religions find ways of rationalizing abominations, calling them "moral." (Examples abound!)
So, I would stick with the more fundamental points, in defining bribery, such as this breeching of the public trust, when dealing with cases of exchanging ad-hoc favors.
Beverly,
I mean, what is going on when he thinks he can legitimately buy Greenland, and plan G7 at his golf resort???
In my view, you, and the popular press, just don't get this Trump person. You cannot take what he says overly seriously and literally. Instead, that idea of "buying Greenland," it was one of those occasions when I had a really good laugh! It was hilariously funny! Same goes with many other outrageous things he says. Enjoy! Laugh!
In any event, I see nothing about that funny occasion to relate to "bribery." The US did buy Alaska and Louisiana, after all. So, there are precedents. And, strangely perhaps, Greenland is technically part of North America, and not Europe, geographically speaking. (Look it up, if you don't believe me.)
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Brassard & readers,
A further quotation from the interview you linked, regarding,
'Kleptocracy in America'
A conversation with journalist and historian Sarah Chayes
by Russell Mokhiber
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/30/kleptocracy-america
Chayes says,
"In my research on anti-corruption movements worldwide, what I discovered was that the best tactic kleptocratic networks use to stay in power and defeat legitimate uprisings against them is to deliberately activate identity divides.”
“They do this very cynically: usually they don’t care much about the Sunni-Shi’a divide, or about guns or gay rights themselves. But they lean hard on these issues because they know these issues rile people up, and keep them divided in angry opposing camps, incapacitated to rise up against the kleptocratic network that is abusing all of them.”
---End quotation
This seems a point worth remarking on. It is very similar to a view we've explored on the "identity politics" thread. It also touches on the political strategy of "activating the base." What I see from the local establishment here in the city is the continual setting of one group against another --discouraging the creation of mutual trust and cooperation across the "identity" boundaries. Of course, viewed more generally this sort of thing comes from both political parties and virtually all ideological directions of thought. Whether it is all quite "kleptocratic," I doubt, but it is, in fact, a matter of effectively retaining elite power.
The relevant criticism has chiefly been directed at social media and foreign campaigns of "disinformation."
See, for instance:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/technology/youtube-hong-kong-protests-china-disinformation.html
This kind of criticism of divisiveness is well worth pursuing. But I doubt that it has been thoroughly developed. One needs to ask exactly who benefits from social divisiveness and who is sponsoring it. As I say, it is plausibly to view the matter as (generally) developing by factual confluence of interests rather than conspiracy. Some people are definitely profiting from fomenting discord. Ideally, one would seek to remove the profits of discord.
H.G. Callaway
Dear Callaway and readers,
The Threat of Systematic Corruption to Peace and Security
Sarah Chayes, Jun 25, 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_tUgAX8JMo
In this videos and other on Youtube Sarah Chayes explain the structure of systematic state corruption with a stream of money moving upward and a stream of protection moving downward. Any mafia operate that way. In the 1980's , my Babladeshi friends was explaining the same thing to me on how the corrupted government in his country was operating. Both him and many other indian's friends were telling me that the corruption in government administrations grew a lot worse after the end of the british left.
Regards,
- Louis
Albert
We laugh, but these are abuses of power. It is funny, but as we do boundaries pushed further.
It's like my personal data.....I don't want anyone using my views it unless they pay me, or read it in an article.
Corruptive practices in collating and ranking data is an abuse of power too
Albert what I find strange is that it seems minimal resistance to silicon valley abuse of personal data, and yet when people discussing health socialism, or an NHS, there is assumption of their personal rights and choices.
The foci of corruption is a collective provision of health services...which is unusual..
Consequently, corruptive behaviours are fluid and socially constituted according to state
Dear readers,
Hunter Biden’s Perfectly Legal, Socially Acceptable Corruption
Donald Trump committed an impeachable offense, but prominent Americans also shouldn’t be leveraging their names for payoffs from shady clients abroad.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2019 . Sarah Chayes
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/hunter-bidens-legal-socially-acceptable-corruption/598804/
''Scratch into the bios of many former U.S. officials who were in charge of foreign or security policy in administrations of either party, and you will find “consulting” firms and hedge-fund gigs monetizing their names and connections.
Some of these gigs require more ethical compromises than others. When allegations of ethical lapses or wrongdoing surface against people on one side of the aisle, they can always claim that someone on the other side has done far worse. But taken together, all of these examples have contributed to a toxic norm. Joe Biden is the man who, as a senator, walked out of a dinner with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Biden was one of the most vocal champions of anticorruption efforts in the Obama administration. So when this same Biden takes his son with him to China aboard Air Force Two, and within days Hunter joins the board of an investment advisory firm with stakes in China, it does not matter what father and son discussed. Joe Biden has enabled this brand of practice, made it bipartisan orthodoxy. And the ethical standard in these cases—people’s basic understanding of right and wrong—becomes whatever federal law allows. Which is a lot.
Who among us has not admired or supported people who have engaged in or provided cover for this kind of corruption? How did we convince ourselves it was not corruption? Impeachment alone will not end our national calamity. If we want to help our country heal, we must start holding ourselves, our friends, and our allies—and not just our enemies—to its highest standards.''
Regards.
- Louis
Dear readers,
https://www.wrvo.org/post/sarah-chayes-campbell-conversations
23 min.
''What can the political dynamics leading to extremism in the Middle East reveal about the political situation in the U.S.? This week on the Campbell Conversations, host Grant Reeher talks with Sarah Chayes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the author of Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security. They discuss the common threads that run between the American founding, present-day radicalism in the world, and our own current political dissatisfaction.''
Regards,
- Louis
Lebanon is a a kleptocracy.
Of 7 mill population about 2000 have stolen the wealth and orchestras the current chaos. What is significant is that Sunni, Shia, druz, Maronite..their 17 sects say no more corruption. The government owes us. Poverty is poverty if a Sunni a Shia...they still have no gov and keep suggested wealthy guys in elite network. Accumulation of money is a driving virtue.....not sure I agree with all changes but the corruption I saw and experience in Leb became normalized it was accepted. Until, they tried to tax whatsApp.....now the people want everyone out and a technocracy...and they mean everyone. But sadly, banks were in corruption bigtime
Whatever happens Leb is now facing decades of hardship and lost industry, trade livelihoods
So, "corruption" is ill defined. he term is considered evil and is merely an personal attack on people others (the ones using the term) want to injure. Who's to say that any compensation or system of cooperation is not what is required fr the survival of the group. So, here we have the first source of "corruption": the need of organizing and administration of group activity. If the group survives and thrives, the payment is worth the cost. If not or if too much is taken for the administration, the group fails and then we call it "corruption". So, when I see a person being called corrupt, i think the caller is just doing a smear campaign and is probably more corrupt (that is, less effective) at a given task.
Extract here about the abusive power of silicon corps, who largely seem to think using our data is ok. We have a scenario at present which cannot easily be mapped, since networks/systems access is open, and impacting personal lives, elections, and allowing security to be compromised every where.
We now have Corrupt behaviour embedded in social/political/network organization, and so goes normalising of this step by step.....
Interestingly, as pointed out by Transparency International, the behaviours of Trump were most concerning.
I am still amazed (but remember it's all usual so we are gradually accepting craziness), that someone with seemingly little ethics in everything can be a political leader of USA. It's not just ethics, it's also evident he is not super bright but he thinks he is.
Remember spitting image and jokes about Reagan, well SNL are getting it right, as its way wirse
An explosive leak of tens of thousands of documents from the defunct data firm Cambridge Analytica is set to expose the inner workings of the company that collapsed after the Observer revealed it had misappropriated 87 million Facebook profiles.
More than 100,000 documents relating to work in 68 countries that will lay bare the global infrastructure of an operation used to manipulate voters on “an industrial scale” is set to be released over the next months.
It comes as Christopher Steele, the ex-head of MI6’s Russia desk and the intelligence expert behind the so-called “Steele dossier” into Trump’s relationship with Russia, said that while the company had closed down, the failure to properly punish bad actors meant that the prospects for manipulation of the US election this year were even worse.
Are ethics and corruption related?
How is corruption defined and resisted/tolerated in different states?
Enjoy snippet of personal data....as said previously this is way more deeper than 1984...
Corruption in essence suggests faultlines/glitches in systems
It is abuse of power, in politics and business, in personals relationships, for gratification, kicks, or just because there are warped or narcisstic folks who like to disrupt/deceive/destroy
Sadly many power abusers get away with it
Think of all those white collar criminals
We must look at the root. The main thing in defining corruption is who benefits from it, i.e. who is the beneficiary. The same action (identically) is not corruption if its beneficiary is the government (for example, the state), and Vice versa is corruption if the beneficiary is an individual or an organized criminal group of persons. It should be noted that usually the state has to pay more than the official who decides the same issue. If it were the other way around, i.e., the state would solve issues faster and cheaper than a corrupt official, then corruption would be impossible in principle. At the same time, it is obvious that the Law and the entire law enforcement system are in the service of the interests of the authorities. It turns out that corruption is a way for those in power to protect their interests from the encroachments of subordinate ordinary citizens.
Thus, the main cause of corruption is organized raging bureaucratic groups (OBBG), which can not be circumvented and have to pay them.
Надо смотреть в корень. Главное в определении коррупции - это кому это выгодно, т.е. кто бенефициар. Одно и тоже действие (тождественно) не является коррупцией, если его бенефициаром является власть (например государство), и наоборот является коррупцией, если бенефициаром является отдельное физическое лицо или организованная преступная группа лиц. При этом надо отметить, что обычно государству приходится платить больше, чем чиновнику, решающему тот же самый вопрос. Если бы было наоборот, т.е. государство решало бы вопросы быстрее и дешевле, чем коррупционер, то коррупция была бы невозможна в принципе. При этом очевидно, что Закон и вся правоохранительная система находится на службе интересов власти. Получается что коррупция - это способ власть имущих защитить свои интересы от посягательств подчиненных простых граждан.
Таким образом основной причиной коррупции являются организованные беснующиеся бюрократические группировки (ОББГ), обойти которые невозможно и приходится им платить.
Dear Eugene
The state of many country is a criminal organisation. There money goes up and protection goes down.
Regards
Louis
"abuse"? such as taking money/resources at the point of a gun from those who earn it. The sending that money /resources to those who don't return benefit to the workers. Like welfare and socialists programs. So, socialism is a corrupt system which explains why socialists systems frequently fail.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Shihab & readers,
Let me point out the following passage from my draft essay above:
Lincoln Steffens distinguished several classifications of municipal corruption. This is partly a matter of where to look for corruption. His typology includes police corruption which was especially prominent in the scandals of Minneapolis, and also found elsewhere, for instance, as reported in the Lexow Committee’s exposures of police corruption in New York City. Police corruption involves “protection” of and extortion from illegal but tolerated gambling and vices. Steffens sometimes found municipal corruption, centered in the mayor’s office, the executive and administrative departments and sometimes centered in the municipal legislatures. With corruption centered in City Council, the political bosses could often afford to tolerate a “clean hands” mayor. Steffens also describes financial corruption, for example in St. Louis, which involved “not thieves, gamblers, and common women, but influential citizens, capitalists, and great corporations.”9 Political bosses of the Gilded Age often enjoyed quite cozy relations to large financial and industrial firms or even owned banks themselves. Generalized civic corruption, exemplified by Philadelphia, “corrupt and contented,” involved direct ...
---End quotation
The point is that administrative corruption is not the only kind that might be found. See page 2, above. Corruption is very much a multifaceted phenomenon.
I've experienced small, "retail" attempts at corruption by people in government administration while living abroad. But I've also seen police corruption --also quite a small-scale and retail version. Eventually, though, we may sometimes need to ask about corruption on grander scales including "financial corruption," mentioned by Lincoln Steffens in his study of Gilded Age corruption in American cities. That sub-topic tends to bring up the relationship between smaller-scale corruption and the roles of social and political leadership in controlling it --or tolerating and benefiting from it.
In the Introduction to my new book, I explore historical elements of this larger-scale corruption, especially with reference to 19th-century Pennsylvania. People in other locations may recognize familiar patterns. The corrupt system was organized, state-wide, and run by a succession of Gilded Age U.S. Senators. That fact has much to do with the constitutional amendment which later provided for direct popular election of of U.S. Senators. Before the early 20th century, the U.S. Senators where elected by the state legislatures. Recognition of corruption calls forth reforms.
H.G. Callaway
Corruption is a cancer that become methastasis and end with the state and the trust of the people.
It is a early symptom of a imminent death.
Recuperation from corruption lasts centuries. ie Roman empire ended more than 20 centuries ago. A unified power in Italy lasted 19 centuries to be performed, in century XIX after the stinking profound corruption of the Roman empire.
Sources of corruption are various, often related with the, absurd but existing, deliberate denial of the virtue.
Supuestamente los humanos somo socializados con un bagaje de conceptos morales y éticos en donde se establece lo que es bueno y malo, así robar es malo, pero ayudar es bueno. La corrupción es la pérdida de estás normas de éticas que al no acatarlas debilitan el sistema social haciendo que los seres humanos tengan comportamientos no deseados que debilitan o destruyen a un grupo social
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Cinta & readers,
Thanks for your comment.
You emphasize "corruption" as a moral concept, and one might recall in this context Aristotle's contrast of "generation and corruption." Corruption can also be thought of as a matter of decay or dissolution. Humanity struggles over centuries to build up civilization, but we know too that civilizations are subject to decline and decay; and generally, it is usually easier even in politics to destroy than to create enduring structures.
Corruption is also a legal concept of narrower scope than the moral concept, but the moral concept always comes to the fore when corruption if condemned and rejected as a threat to civilized life and the common good of society. Political corruption in particular, since involving a betrayal of public trust, makes our public and common institutions less effective and exploits what others have built up.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote (rough translation)---
Supposedly humans are socialized with a baggage of moral and ethical concepts where it is established what is good and bad, so stealing is bad, but helping is good. Corruption is the loss of these norms of ethics that by not abiding by them weaken the social system causing human beings to have unwanted behaviors that weaken or destroy a social group
For me corruption is unlawful gain by a person . It can be in terms of money, favor or power. Any dishonest person will always please a powerful authority some how to get favors from him or his system. Corruption create more corruption because people come to know how to get favors. Dishonest persons are sources of corruption. Certainly it is a cancer in society and it should be dealt with at the earliest.
Dear H.G. Callaway ,
I am struck by the sychronicity of seeing this post and a story told to me about corruption only a few days ago. The story is located in a country long, but not now (debatable in the context of international development aid) colonised. It involved an otherwise respected elder 'apparently' or on-first-sight engaging in corrupt behaviour. But in effect, this alternate negotiation fulfilled both the 'powerful' or 'corrupted' agent and 'subjugated' agents cultural obligations to all parties, given their social and cultural positions.
The story's narrator ( the outsider in the situation) and an insider-youth were the main beneficiaries (avoiding larger financial and minor legislative penalties) of this otherwise corrupt transaction. The narrator's in-the-moment experiencing of the story involved distress at the process of corruption unfurling before their eyes. The retelling I heard described both this in-the-moment experiencing and the tellers's subsequent integration of their post-incident discussion and reflection on the cultural protocols that were premised, and the beneficially negotiated outcomes, allowing everyone to continue about their business of strengthening community.
It is a story I share with you for its resonance with your post, an example perhaps of co-opted corruption and the nuances of the contexts of corruption?
Vinaka vaka levu,
Bec
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Neil & readers,
It seems we might need more details of the story you mention in order to get to a proper reaction to it. What I am reminded of is the phrase, "the cohesive power of public plunder." This phrase has a long American history, since it dates to criticism of the "spoils system" of political patronage during the administration of President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837). This Jacksonian period substantially marked the end of the early American republic, and Jackson, the rude soldier and man of the American West, aimed to replace long-standing federal officials with his own men. The spoils system subsequently spread to the state and local governments.
More generally, I think it is well recognized that corrupt practices are often pretexted on benefits to political clients of a corrupt system. This may motivate the illegal behavior and draw in support for what is often called "machine politics." In any case, in the course of American history, "Civil Service" reform was instituted to diminish the power of the "spoils" system, taking appointments of minor office holders and officials out of the hands of the machine politicians. This development was especially important in the late 19th-century Gilded Age and in fighting the corrupt political systems which arose.
Corrupt practices can, no doubt, knit people together. But I think this doesn't suffice to recommend them. Right?
H.G. Callaway
Corruption gnaws at and erodes the very foundation of social justice and trust. Corruption destroys public trust and when that happens , the politicians have a very hard time implementing their decisions.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear all,
The corruptionists will often appeal to political expediency. They focus on the immediate and the short-range "benefits" and especially "benefits" to their client-supporters. But in the longer run, and in any society which surmounts the existential challenge, pervasive corruption proves self-destructive.
H.G. Callaway
So, is "corruption" those practices that lead to self-destruction? If so, we can look the Tainter's book "The collapse of complex societies" for a list of corrupt practices.
Corruption is the opposite of reform, the opposite is positive, corruption is destruction, chaos, lawlessness and ruin. There are many types of corruption such as;
1.Financial corruption such as bribery, embezzlement, fraud and monopoly.
2. Political corruption is like political money in elections and the fraud of democracy, as well as blackmail carried out by influential people and those responsible for the common people.
3. Moral corruption, such as wrong behavior and bad morals.
4.Environmental corruption is like corruption resulting from human activities that pollute and destroy the environment.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear all,
Readers of this thread may want to have a look at the following Bibliography from my new study edition of Lincoln Steffens' The Shame of the Cities and the Philosophy of Corruption and Reform.
See:
Data Bibliography for Lincoln Steffens' The Shame of the Cities a...
The sources were assembled (Steffens had listed no readings) to better understand the phenomenon of Late Gilded Age corruption and the subsequent reforms.
H.G. Callaway
Corruption generally causes the collapse of societies. Indeed, collapse of a society indicates that a society was corrupt. Thus, the characteristics of corruption can be determined.
But what is the mechanism?
What we see in Porto Rico is the inability to deal/recover a natural catastrophe. Natural catastrophe occurs to all societies. But the healthy society can recover without outside help. The corrupt society has had resources diverted to unproductive activities - hence, wasted. A similar scenario occurred in Detroit and is occurring in CA. We watch Baltimore's decline. Australia will be interesting to watch after the disasters are over. Can we learn from these current corruptions? Indeed, labeling them as corruption may be difficult for some. That is, some characteristics of the existence of corruption may be surprising.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Azer & readers,
I believe this quotation from Steinbeck has come up before. Of course, fear may corrupt, too. Any perceived threat may tempt people to unscrupulous means after all.
But power tends to corrupt as a regular or general matter, because it often serves to insulate the holders of power from accountability. This tends to produce arrogance among the holders of great political and economic power. It is not only that their positions become remote from the lives of ordinary citizens and the distant effects of their actions; in their comparative safety from criticism, they will often simply cease to care. Only the views of their immediate, elite colleagues come to matter. That's almost a definition of oligarchy.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
“Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts... perhaps the fear of a loss of power.” ― John Steinbeck
Corruption is unethical behavior (which could also encompass criminality including extortion) where quid pro quo is often involved .
includes bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage, influence peddling, graft, and embezzlement. processes of allocating public funds for contracts, grants, and hiring favorably..
Dear H.G. Callaway , I have realized just now that you have new question on corruption. I do have similar research question with more than 1500 answers, so please visit it.
Here is the link to the thread.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Corruption_remains_one_of_the_biggest_challenges_for_all_societies_Do_you_have_examples_of_corruption_in_your_society
Corruption is taking part or the whole of what belong to others to your own and claiming the sole ownership of it.
Ownership is ill defined. It is such a recent concept in terms of individuals that it is, perhaps, at the core of the question. Only a short time, the King or barons "owned" things. Only with the settlement of the US (English colonies) that "own" became what it seems today. But how can a person "own" a piece of land, say, in c country with an army governing the greater area supporting the stewardship of the "owner"?
The public prosecutor in Frankfurt, Germany announced that two members of Germany's governing parties will finally be investigated for allegedly taking bribes in exchange for helping whitewash the reputation of Azerbaijan’s authoritarian government...
https://www.occrp.org/en/azerbaijanilaundromat/
https://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/transparency_germany_welcomes_investigation_into_karin_strenz_and_eduard_li?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20week%20in%20corruption%2031%20January%202020&utm_content=The%20week%20in%20corruption%2031%20January%202020+CID_f96b726e43c5ee1a84dee6cd28482890&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=announced
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Jacic & readers,
Thanks for pointing out the related question and thread. It looks very useful.
The focus here is a little bit different. I'm not so much interested in surveying cases of corruption, though this may prove to be of help here. I am more interested in the nature, definition and social-political sources of corruption, from a theoretical perspective.
It seems to be important to understand that corruption, though often blatant, --as in bribery--can also hide itself in more subtle forms. Often these are forms of simple favoritism. I think we may need some heightened awareness of the possible forms and mutations. Wherever corruption is exposed and openly prosecuted, as in the Frankfurt case you have recently mentioned, it tends to changes its operating methods --to make exposure more difficult. The more reckless and and overt forms are surrendered along with the more reckless players or corruptionists.
Recently, I saw a case described in somewhat the following terms. An elected member of a city legislature with power over zoning and zoning variations, was approached by a local non-profit organization seeking help when its local property holdings were threatened by condemnation for failure of maintenance. The city legislator intervened to prevent the public sale of the sub-standard property. Later, the non-profit was able to sell the property for a large gain over what they had paid for it. But in the mean time, it is alleged by prosecutors, the non-profit organization had hired the city legislator's wife as a political consultant and paid her tens of thousands of dollars in fees, apparently for very little work. Both the city legislator and his wife were indicted by the federal prosecutors.
I have left out names and etc.; and the people involved should be regarded as innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. However, I think you can see just from the generalized description how subtle and covert even a case of bribery can be. What one might expect is a more direct payment for official intervention, but if the prosecutors are able to prove their case in court, then they will seem to have delved more deeply into the subtlety of "quid pro quo." This term "something for something" (usually official favors for money) plays a prominent role in American anti-corruption law.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
I have realized just now that you have new question on corruption. I do have similar research question with more than 1500 answers, so please visit it.
Here is the link to the thread. ...
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Quadri & readers,
Your statement of the matter is too broad. What you have, quoted below, is more like a definition of theft. But not all theft exemplifies corruption. Corruption may more plausibly be viewed as a special kind of theft --involving betrayal of trust on the part of entrusted power-holders which tends to undermine institutions and practices involving the people entrusted with particular powers.
Corruption may be public or private, and the charge of corruption involves moral evaluation; but not all wrong-doing amounts to corruption.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
Corruption is taking part or the whole of what belong to others to your own and claiming the sole ownership of it.
Dear H.G. Callaway , thanks for your comment and clarification. Let me bring some good info about political corruption in Serbia.
Sinisa Jankovic, a retired MIA inspector, has published his first book, "Face to Face with Political Corruption." In this book, the "system man" explains why a Working Group was formed to "work" on cases of controversial privatizations, how the new government had only a short-term fairy tale on corruption, and how much political corruption is present in Serbia... #privatization #Government #politics
My dear friend George Halkos has coauthored fine research paper :
The culture of corruption: A nonparametric analysis
The aim of this paper is to analyze and reveal the interrelation and the distinct characteristics between culture and corruption. Cultural values guide and shape the way the function of social institution ...
This research argues the existence of distinct cultural characteristics which explain countries’ corruption levels (among other factors), which can be revealed through nonparametric techniques ...
Some conclusions:
The nonparametric analysis reveals the fact that culture and corruption are interrelated. The highly corrupted countries have strong and distinct cultural characteristics. These are high power distance and lower individualistic values...
In addition cultural characteristics of countries would probably change at extremely slower rate compared to countries’ corruption perception index. Therefore since governments cannot easily change cultural characteristics (and their influence on how societies perceive corruption), the only way which corruption can be controlled is through good governance... (PDF) The culture of corruption: A nonparametric analysis. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227353204_The_culture_of_corruption_A_nonparametric_analysis [accessed Feb 02 2020]. Article The culture of corruption: A nonparametric analysis
Dear Professor, in these two researches, you will find the required answers, with sincere thanks and appreciation to you.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Jacic, Alqahwachi & readers,
Thanks for your suggested readings. I am sure that they may prove very useful to the present thread. I wonder if you can help in boiling down and summing up some of the conclusions of these papers as they relate to the present question. The studies are broadly based in empirical terms, but this very factor of comprehension also suggest some questions concerning the meaning and significance of the concepts and measurements.
I quote from an interesting paper, regarding general causes of corruption:
2.1.1 Bureaucracy and Inefficient Administrative and Political Structure.
There are a few main theories that suggest that higher levels of inefficiency increase the levels of corruption. First, as pointed out by Tanzi, “the existence of regulations and authorizations gives a kind of monopoly power to the officials who must authorize or inspect the activity” (Tanzi, 1998). Thus, the more regulations there are, the higher the frequency of interactions with members in the private sphere, and thus, the higher the probability that a member will engage in corrupt practices. Tanzi also points out that in an inefficient bureaucracy, regulations tend to be less transparent (reducing accountability), and that authorizations tend to be given by specific individuals (reducing competition)—both these factors suggest higher levels of corruption. Kaufman and Wei also find empirical evidence to support this in their 1999 paper, predominantly using data from 1997. Later empirical evidence has continued to support this, it was found using different data that “government intervention in the economy, namely in the regulatory area, does promote corruption” (Goel and Nelson, 2010).
---End quotation
See:
Article Causes and Effects of Corruption: What has Past Decade's Emp...
p. 336.
This passage clearly argues against "inefficient" economic regulation, and especially as this confers "a kind of monopoly power" on officials authorizing or inspecting related activities. More generally we get the conclusion that “government intervention in the economy, namely in the regulatory area, does promote corruption.”
Looking at this in more conceptual terms, however, one might also come to think that economic regulation (or inefficient regulation) merely shifts the institutional location of corruption (or economic crime) and tends to center it more in the sphere of public, regulatory activities--as contrasted with location in the private activities which the law and public agencies aim to regulate. This is surely a very complicated matter which may well turn on the specifics of the cases and jurisdictions. But some increase in the danger of public corruption might well be tolerated if it is a side effect or unintended consequence of decreasing crime, private corruption, abuse or public dangers elsewhere. Though measured incidence of public corruption is found to increases with the extent of regulation, and there is surely some limit, in terms of decreasing marginal public returns on additional regulation, still a measured increase of public corruption may be a side effect of decreasing problems elsewhere and outside the public agencies of regulation.
It has long been argued locally, regarding Philadelphia City government, for example, that the practice and custom of "Councilmatic prerogative" amounting to a district Council members' individual veto over real estate development and other business located in his or her particular district, leads to corrupt practices, say, in granting or denying zoning privileges and variances for developers and business. Grant or denial of such privileges and variances can have great economic value to private interests. One might, perhaps, imagine alternative means of regulating the matters in question. There seems to be a kind of "monopoly power" involved. But it remains unclear that the considerations and conclusions quoted above are sufficient to answer the questions concerning the wisdom of "Councilmatic prerogative." At the least, we would seem to require some account of proposed alternatives.
Can the expert opinion in related scholarly papers answer this kind of question? What, for instance, are the viable alternatives? More generally, does the measured incidence of public corruption perhaps mislead regarding the incidence of other avoidable problems?
H.G. Callaway
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Srinivasarao & readers,
True enough. But notice also that the desire for justice is a very important counter-motivation.
H.G. Callaway
Philadelphia, PA
Dear all,
Peter Schweizer, an American (conservative) academic and investigator of corruption has written a good number of popular books on related topics, some of which have been open to criticism on grounds of accuracy. He has also sold his books quite widely and some appeared on the NYTimes best seller listing.
A decade back or so, he wrote a book Throw Them all Out, concerned with "insider trading" on stocks by members of Congress. The related research was checked by CBS News, and the results broadcast on 60 Minuets, The CBS weekly news program.
Readers of the present list may find the "60 Minuets" story of interests. See the following video from 2011, which runs about 15 Min.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3DZh1109W8
This story was apparently responsible for passage of new legislation governing the use of privileged "insider" information. Of particular interest is the account of how so many politicians have managed to become rich.
Traditionally this is described as a matter of "honest" or "legal" graft--a concept known to boggle the mind. But keep in mind the tendency of corruption to "mutate" into more subtle forms.
H.G. Callaway
I wonder if the Roman Catholic interpretation of Plato is correct, those who govern should be without property and children.
Lack of transparency and accountability, lack of freedom of press, poor communication to citizens, impunity, etc. are among the major causes of corruption
Some data about political, judiciary corruption in Spain during monarchy period.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNQu_DE4vi2Wtcs60n23CtQ
Which describes a trama of corruption, stealing, capture of state and murders during the last monarchy period.
If there are some doubts about that, because the above Royuela files could not proven to be true or are deliberately badly used foy uncertain purposes. All the trama is also detailed in wikipedia.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Casos_judiciales_relacionados_con_corrupci%C3%B3n_pol%C3%ADtica_en_Espa%C3%B1a
Many of them involved at international level, freemasonry acts internationally.
Probably religious organizations are involved. Maybe some people from Legionarios de Cristo, Opus dei, Jesuits. Probably connections with freemasonry and cult to the devil. Does the Vatican know that?
Big capitals are probably involved in an obscure international trama, belonging probably to these freemason obscure organizations with the aim to end with human rights and retire democracy. Probably Rothschilds, probably Soros, probably Rockefellers, probably Monarchies.
They put their people in key positions. I don´t know for sure, but I think that Macron studied with jesuits and worked for Rothschilds.
Don´t get wrong, they are not socialist or right wing. They are everywhere, they use any -ism for their purpose of retiring democracy and bring people under their diabolic command.
All the involved in such international conspiration against people commented above, including probably monarchies, big capitals and some religious organizations, should face the corresponding trial, possibly international, and face the corresponding condemnation for crimes against humanity.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear all,
Regarding the earlier discussion of the Democratic primaries, it looks like Sanders has come in weaker (e.g., in Washington State) than might have been expected --not nearly as strong as he was in California.
The party seems to be consolidating around Vice President Biden. Let's hope that the party will also take the Sanders voters quite seriously.
H.G. Callaway
When people in power do not have feelings of patriotism and follow self-centered objectives, corruption is bound to happen. An anonymous thinker once said : Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency.
Causes and consequences of corruption
https://www.intechopen.com/books/trade-and-global-market/corruption-causes-and-consequences
At the root of the corruption problem is its moral and economic nature. The economic problem is a moral problem. Modern theories of corruption are usually empirical in nature. However, they are not without their ideological dimensions though in the modern scheme of things, a normative framework is usually not rationally entertained. Empiricism combined with materialism takes on the reins of economies; however, disregard of the spiritual will not bring any lasting solution. A vision of the absolute is needed...
Conference Paper Roots of Corruption: A Christian Philosophical Examination
Use corruption in a sentence. noun. The definition of corruption means evil, decay and dishonesty. An example of corruption is a government that pretends to be for the protection of people, but is selecting vendors based on how their contracts will benefit them personally.
Causes
- Greed of money, desires.
- Higher levels of market and political monopolization.
- Low levels of democracy, weak civil participation and low political transparency.
- Higher levels of bureaucracy and inefficient administrative structures.
- Low press freedom.
- Low economic freedom.
Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage, influence peddling, graft, and embezzlement. Corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and Human trafficking, though it is not restricted to these activities.
Corruption affects us all. It threatens sustainable economic development, ethical values and justice; it destabilises our society and endangers the rule of law. ... Delays in infrastructure development, poor building quality and layers of additional costs are all consequences of corruption.
Both of your answers are pure copy/paste plagiarism dear Ghassan Fadhil Smaisim . You must cite the original resources when you do copy/paste contribution. So, always bring the links of those resources. I am bringing it now:
https://www.yourdictionary.com/corruption
https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/learn-about-corruption/what-is-corruption/we-are-all-affected/
Economists seem to agree that an important source of corruption stems from the distributional attributes of the state. For better or for worse, the role of the state in the economy has expanded in a major way over the past century. In 1913 the 13 largest economies in the world, accounting for the bulk of global economic output, had an average expenditure ratio in relation to GDP of around 12%. This ratio had risen to 43% by 1990, with many countries’ ratios well in excess of 50%. This rise was associated with the proliferation of benefits under state control and also in the various ways in which the state imposes costs on society. While a larger state need not necessarily be associated with higher levels of corruption—the Nordic countries illustrate this—it is the case that the larger the number of interactions between officials and private citizens, the larger the number of opportunities in which the latter may wish to illegally pay for benefits to which they are not entitled, or avoid responsibilities or costs for which they bear an obligation.
Governing often translates into the issuing of licenses and permits. From the cradle to the grave, the average citizen has to enter into transactions with some government office or bureaucrat to obtain a birth certificate, to get a passport, to pay taxes, to open up a new business, to drive a car, to register property, to engage in foreign trade, to sell a good or service to the government, to hire an employee, to be allowed to build a house, among countless others. The World Bank’s Doing Business Report has become a useful annual compendium of the burdens of business regulation in 189 countries. The picture that emerges from the report for a large number of countries is a sobering one. Go to the report’s website and see why in so many parts of the world businesses endure numbing levels of bureaucracy and red tape. In fact, the data in the report eloquently highlights the extent to which many governments discourage the development of entrepreneurship in their own private sectors. Not surprisingly, the prevalence of corruption is highly correlated with the incidence of red tape and excessive regulation. The figure below shows the country rankings for Transparency International’s latest Corruption Perceptions Index and the rankings for DB 2014 for a total of 175 countries. The figure speaks for itself: the greater the extent of bureaucracy and red tape, the greater the incidence of corruption
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science