This article outlines and illustrates a theoretical blueprint for comparative sociology of corruption. The author argues that existing cross-national studies of corruption, influenced by the global political movement for transparency, undermine fundamental sociological principles. At the same time, truly sociological studies of corruption are unfavorable to comparisons due to their emphasis on the singularity of exchange economies in non-Western societies. The author argues that there are three analytical foci that can help researchers resolve the tension between 'insensitive' large-N and 'overly-sensitive' small-N studies of corruption: the principle of social embeddedness, multiplicity of rationality, and localized pov/et implications. A comparative study of university corruption in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Belarus is used to illustrate the strengths of the proposed analytical framework.Currently, comparative study of corruption does not exist outside the politicized paradigm of international relations. Corruptology is permeated with inaccurate and profoundly non-sociological assumptions, adopted from anti-corruptionism -the transnational movement coordinated by •' I would like to thank Elizabeth Onasch, Terrence Halliday, Michael Sauder, Amy Myrick, anonymous reviewers, and attendees of Theory Workshop at the University of Iowa Sociology Department for their insightful comments on the drafts of this paper.