Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Corruption

Abstract

Corruption has become one of the most popular topics in the social scientific disciplines. However, there is a lack of interdisciplinary communication about corruption. Models developed by different academic disciplines are often isolated from each other. The purpose of this paper is to review several major approaches to corruption and draw them closer to each other. Most studies of corruption fall into three major categories: (i) rational‐actor models where corruption is viewed as resulting from cost/benefit analysis of individual actors; (ii) structural models that focus on external forces that determine corruption; and (iii) relational models that emphasize social interactions and networks among corrupt actors. Focusing on actors' behavior and the social context, this article explains corruption concepts taken from sociology, economics, organization studies, political science, social anthropology, and social psychology.

The role of corruption in reintegration: experiences of Iraqi Kurds upon return from Europe

“…Corruption is weighted with normative loadings and routinely subjected to definitional and disciplinary discussions (Jancsics 2014;Lindberg and Orjuela 2014). Here I adopt De Sardan's (1999, 29) definition of a 'corruption complex', viewing corruption as culturally embedded in moral economy and including not only bribery, but also 'nepotism, abuse of power, embezzlement and various forms of misappropriation, influence-peddling, prevarication, insider trading and abuse of the public purse'.…”

Goffman’s Return to Las Vegas: Studying Corruption as Social Interaction

“…Ashforth et al (2008, p. 679), however, go on to argue that extant corruption research simultaneously neglects other forms of explanation. For example, social-situational factors that are neither individual nor organizational-systemic in character can provide stability to corrupt practices nevertheless (see also Jancsics 2014). The overemphasis in corruption research on either an individual or systemic level is also visible in more specific research on forms of corruption, such as in research on employee fraud (see Dorminey et al 2012).…”

“…Morales et al (2014) conclude that the fraud triangle model ''promotes a vision of fraud anchored in both the individual and organization, while downplaying the social, political and cultural explanations for fraud '' (p. 190). We use the assessment by Morales et al (2014) as the starting point for developing our line of reasoning that corruption research can strongly benefit from focusing on the patterned and scripted character of corrupt transactions as social interactions (see also Warburton 2001;Jancsics 2013Jancsics , 2014. However, we argue that the lack of explanatory focus on social interactions is closely linked to methodological shortcomings in corruption research, as we will elaborate in the next section.…”

Afno Manchhe: Unequal Access to Public Resources and Institutions in Nepal

“…Structural factors and corruption may also mutually reinforce each other (Jancsics 2014). In contrast to the findings that economic competition reduces corruption at the country level, the literature in organization studies emphasizes that an intensely competitive environment can drive organizational members to engage in misconduct, rule-breaking, and corrupt activities (Jancsics 2014).…”