Theories of Institutional Corruption

Abstract

Normative theorists of corruption have developed an institutional conception that is distinct from both the individualist approaches focused on quid pro quo exchanges and other institutional approaches found in the literature on developing societies. These theorists emphasize the close connection between patterns of corruption and the legitimate functions of institutions. The corruption benefits the institution while undermining it. Reforms therefore should be directed toward finding alternatives for the functions the corruption serves. Also, institutional corruption does not require that its perpetrators have corrupt motives, and it is not limited to political institutions. This review examines four leading theories and discusses criticisms of their approach. A tripartite framework for analyzing the elements of institutional corruption is proposed. Although the theories are useful for distinguishing institutional corruption from the more familiar forms of individual corruption, they could be enriched by giving greater attention to the work on individual corruption in its structural forms in developing societies.

Why We Must Talk About Institutional Corruption to Understand Wrongdoing in the Health Sector Comment on "We Need to Talk About Corruption in Health Systems"

“…Thus, although developed democracies may have reduced the incidence of conventional corruption, they are prone to their own kind of corruption, which may be more insidious. 13 These insidious forms of corruption are usually socially sanctioned and perfectly legal. The theory of institutional corruption (IC) 14 stresses the impact of policy incentives and regulation on organizational culture, and how they may cause organizations to diverge from their original purpose.…”

“…There remains the question of how collective wrongdoing spreads across individuals, such that they come to work together to do wrong in the name of the organization. 22 The theory of IC provides an answer to this, 13,14,23 focusing on forms of corruption that are not strictly illegal yet pervert an institution's function under conditions that may promote personal benefit. It was originally developed to theorize the nature of corruption in the US Congress, explaining why organizational members are often trapped in finance-related institutional dependencies, for example relying on money from major donors or special interest groups for election and/ or retaining office.…”

Massive Faculty Donations and Institutional Conflicts of Interest

“…The idea of institutional corruption was first introduced by Thompson in the context of politics. 239,240,241 Lessig generalized the theory of institutional corruption and applied it to the academy and elsewhere. 238 In our view, the collective actions of the UW administration described herein are not only examples of ICOIs, they match Lessig's definition of institutional corruption, "a systemic and strategic influence which is legal, or even currently ethical, that undermines the institution's effectiveness by diverting it from its purpose or weakening its ability to achieve its purpose, including, to the extent relevant to its purpose, weakening either the public's trust in that institution or the institution's trustworthiness."…”

Institutional corruption in psychiatry: Case analyses and solutions for reform

“…These are not bad souls bending the public weal to private ends … We can presume that individuals within the institution are innocent; the economy of influence that they have allowed to evolve is not. (Lessig, 2014, p. 1) In order to understand the conceptual framework of institutional corruption, it is critical to distinguish it from individual corruption (see, e.g., Lessig, 2013;Thompson, 2018). This distinction is important, for when one invokes the term "corruption" to understand the problems of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, activities such as research fraud or industry giving "kickbacks" to doctors probably come to mind.…”