Both Sides of the Coin: Motives for Corruption Among Public Officials and Business Employees

Abstract

The aim of this study is to better understand why public officials and business employees engage in corruption. Insight into individual-level explanations for corruption was obtained with the aid of a self-report survey. The results suggest that the most indicative factors of whether or not individuals are corruption-prone are as follows: the moral conviction they have to refrain from corruption; perceptions of whether their colleagues approve of and engage in corruption; and difficulties experienced in complying with the rules on corruption. This result pattern was identical for public officials and business employees alike, and as a consequence, for both sides of corrupt acts. The latter indicates that the same motives may not only underlie corruption in both private and public sectors, but also the act of corruption in its active and passive forms. The results of the current study do not provide strong support for the assumption that economic considerations-expected costs and benefits-are crucial in predicting corruption. Based on the findings that norms and the perceived opportunity to comply are dominant factors in explaining corruption, this article focuses on the practical implications for the development of anti-corruption strategies within both public and private sectors.

Corruption in Organizations: Ethical Climate and Individual Motives

“…Importantly, the pattern of results was identical for public and private sector respondents when business employees were asked about their proneness to active bribery, and public officials about their proneness to passive bribery. This indicates that the same motives underlie both sides of bribery (Gorsira et al 2016). In the present study, we expect these individual motives to be related to public officials' and business employees' proneness to corruption.…”

“…8 Nonetheless, the same survey indicates that more than half of the Dutch respondents think corruption is a widespread phenomenon in their country. Another study revealed that approximately 20% 9 of Dutch public officials reported having engaged in bribery-related behaviour in the past and/or to have an intention to do so in the near future (Gorsira et al 2016). …”

“…Various disciplines have postulated explanations for why some individuals are more prone to corruption than others, specifically economics, criminology, and social psychology (Gorsira et al 2016). The most prominently explanations include incentives (Dong et al 2012;Prabowo 2014;Shover and Bryant 1993;Andvig et al 2001;Dimant 2013), opportunities (see, for instance, Aguilera and Vadera 2008;Pinto et al 2008;Graycar and Sidebottom 2012), and norms (see, for instance, Powpaka 2002; Köbis et al 2015;Rabl and Kühlmann 2008;Tavits 2010).…”

“…The most prominently explanations include incentives (Dong et al 2012;Prabowo 2014;Shover and Bryant 1993;Andvig et al 2001;Dimant 2013), opportunities (see, for instance, Aguilera and Vadera 2008;Pinto et al 2008;Graycar and Sidebottom 2012), and norms (see, for instance, Powpaka 2002; Köbis et al 2015;Rabl and Kühlmann 2008;Tavits 2010). A recent study demonstrated that all of these factors were, indeed, related to proneness to corruption (Gorsira et al 2016). The study showed that public officials and business employees who perceived higher benefits of corruption, e.g., financial gains, excitement, and pleasure, and perceived lower costs of corruption, i.e., a lower chance of detection, and a less severe punishment, were more prone to engage in corruption (Gorsira et al 2016).…”

“…A recent study demonstrated that all of these factors were, indeed, related to proneness to corruption (Gorsira et al 2016). The study showed that public officials and business employees who perceived higher benefits of corruption, e.g., financial gains, excitement, and pleasure, and perceived lower costs of corruption, i.e., a lower chance of detection, and a less severe punishment, were more prone to engage in corruption (Gorsira et al 2016). Similarly, employees who perceived more opportunities to engage in, and less opportunities to refrain from, corruption reported to be more prone to it.…”