Mechanisms Fostering the Misuse of Information Systems for Corrupt Practices in the Nigerian Public Sector

Abstract

The paper explores the misuse of information systems for corrupt practices in the Nigerian public sector as a phenomenon under study. Routine Activity theory, Model of Emergent IT Use, and Normalization theory were used as lenses. Danermark et al.'s six stage framework with a single case-study was adopted as the critical realist methodology. The anti-corruption and regulatory agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission of Nigeria, is the case in focus. Semi-structured interviews, archival documents and press media were used as data sources. By analyzing the data, we identified motivated offender, suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian as the entities/factors that characterized the phenomenon. Political clientelism patronage, socialization, embeddedness of corrupt routine into IT artifacts and rationalization were identified as causal mechanisms with culture as the enabling conditions. Dysfunctional structures of the Nigerian public sector were also identified as structures that breed the mechanisms. The study findings contribute to theory, practice, and the methodology of critical realism.

Dimensions that characterize and mechanisms that cause the misuse of information systems for corrupt practices in the Nigerian public sector

“…The persistency of corruption across the globe calls for urgent attention to ways that it can be mitigated. Thus, researchers, practitioners, and donor agencies have suggested the adoption of traditional and technological anticorruption strategies to curb the public sector corruption (Inuwa, Kah, & Ononiwu, 2019). Within the traditional anticorruption strategies, researchers argue about the relevance of political, governmental, economic, and socio‐cultural factors that can curb public sector corruption (Kim, 2013; Shim & Eom, 2008).…”

“…However, IS scholars (eg, Martinez, 2014; Saxena, 2017) reveal that IS adoption (ie, implementation and use) has provided new opportunities for corrupt bureaucrats to misuse for personal gains (Kim, 2013). Consequently, the introduction of IS as anticorruption strategy has given rise to a form of corruption known as misuse of IS for corrupt practices (Inuwa, Ononiwu, et al, 2019).…”

“…Following other IS scholars, IS misuse can take the shape of occupational fraud (eg, Cappelli et al, 2012; Dhillon, 1999; ReSpa, 2013; Willison, Lowry, & Paternoster, 2018), deliberate misuse of IS resources and criminal policy violations such as unauthorized access to information and modification (D'Arcy & Hovav, 2009; Hu, Xu, Dinev, & Ling, 2011; Straub, 1990), as well as software piracy (eg, D'Arcy & Hovav, 2007; Lowry, Zhang, & Wu, 2017; Peace, Galletta, & Thong, 2003). Besides, it can take the shape of insertion of malicious codes in extreme cases (Hutchings & Jorna, 2015; Lee, Lee, & Yoo, 2004), or purposeful leaking of confidential data for personal gains (Hovav, 2017; Hu et al, 2011; Smith & Jorna, 2011; Willison et al, 2018), theft and embezzlement (Hutchings & Jorna, 2015; Inuwa, Ononiwu, et al, 2019; Shaw & Stock, 2011) and cover‐up for mistakes in computer systems (Dhillon & Moores, 2001). Espionage (Shaw & Stock, 2011; Shropshire, 2009), sabotage (eg, creating backdoor accounts to syphon money; eg, Shropshire, 2009), and committing intentional errors (eg, Lowry, Posey, Bennett, & Roberts, 2015; Posey, Bennett, & Roberts, 2011) among others can occur to increase the list of such behaviors.…”

“…The studies reviewed so far show the occurrence of IS misuse in organizations with a noticeable paucity of research, especially when skewed toward intentional, malicious, and criminal misuse of IS for corrupt practices in the public sector (ReSpa, 2013). Out of the studies reviewed, Hutchings and Jorna (2015), as well as Inuwa, Ononiwu, et al (2019), were the only empirical papers that focused on intentional and malicious misuse of IS in the public sector. Thus, going by what we have seen in literature, the trend suggests a growing number of empirical researches in the misuse of IS, but were all dominated by positivistic assumptions.…”

“…For over a decade, researchers and practitioners have presented valuable anticorruption studies that informed our understanding of the various ways of combating corrupt practices (Inuwa, Ononiwu, Kah, & Quaye, 2019; Ionescu, 2013; Larmour & Wolanin, 2013). Shrivastava and Bhattacherjee (2015) define corrupt practices as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.…”