Advertisement

Exploring a Public Interest Definition of Corruption: Public Private Partnerships in Socialist Asia

  • John GillespieEmail author
  • Thang Van Nguyen
  • Hung Vu Nguyen
  • Canh Quang Le
Original Paper

Abstract

As conventionally understood, corruption relies on a set of universally agreed rules that determine what constitutes the appropriate allocation of organizational resources. This article explores whether rule-based approaches to corruption are applicable where business organizations, such as public private partnerships (PPPs), and the public fundamentally disagree about what constitutes an appropriate allocation of resources. Drawing on empirical research about PPPs in Vietnam, this article compares how government, business organizations, and the public conceptualize the transfer of public assets into private ownership. It argues that a public interest approach to corruption is needed where PPPs privatize public assets within the law, but against the express wishes of the public.

Keywords

Anti-corruption regulation Public private partnerships Public trust corruption Socialist transitional societies Vietnam 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by a research grant in 2016 from the United Nations Development Program, Vietnam.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the researchers’ institution, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Ang, Y. Y. (2016). Beyond weber: Conceptualizing an alternative ideal type of bureaucracy in developing contexts. Regulation and Governance, 11(3), 282–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashforth, E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum, J. R. (2011). Responsive democracy: Increasing state accountability in East Asia. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Braithwaite, J. (2006). Responsive regulation and developing economies. World Development, 34, 884–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breit, E. (2010). On the (re)construction of corruption in the media: A critical discursive approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 619–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bui, T. H. (2016). The influence of social media in Vietnam’s elite politics. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 35(2), 89–112.Google Scholar
  9. CECODES, VFF-CRT, RTA and UNDP. (2018). The 2017 Viet Nam governance and public administration performance index: Measuring citizens’ experiences. Hanoi: United Nations Development Programme.Google Scholar
  10. Chen, C., & Hubbard, M. (2012). Power relations and risk allocation in the governance of public private partnerships: A case study from China. Policy and Society, 31(1), 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Đặng, H. V. (2013). Hồi đáp của GS Đặng Hùng Võ về khúc mắc quanh dự án Văn Giang. [Response by Professor Dang Hung Vo on changes to the Van Giang project]. Retrieved 1 January, 2012, from http://www.tinmoi.vn/hoi-dap-cua-gs-dang-hung-vo-ve-khuc-mac-quanh-du-an-van-giang-011164280.html.
  12. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Đoan, T. & Thanh, N. (2012). Vụ thu hồi đất ở Văn Giang (Hưng Yên) - Bài 3: Tìm một cơ chế hài hòa quyền lợi. [Land acquisition in Van Giang (Hung Yen)—Lesson 3: Finding a harmonious mechanism of interests]. Phap Luat. Retrieved 9 May, 2012, from http://toquoc.vn/gio-thu-25/vu-thu-hoi-dat-o-van-giang-hung-yen-bai-3-tim-mot-co-che-hai-hoa-quyen-loi-107397.html.
  14. Dumas, L., Wedel, J., & Callman, G. (2010). Confronting corruption, building accountability: Lessons from the world of international development advising. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gillespie, J. (2011). Exploring the limits of judicial review in urban land disputes in Vietnam. Law & Society Review, 45(2), 241–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillespie, J. (2017). Transforming land-taking disputes in socialist Asia: Engaging an authoritarian state. Law & Policy, 39(3), 280–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gillespie, J., & Nguyen, H. Q. (2018). Between authoritarian governance and urban citizenship: Tree-felling protests in Hanoi. Urban Studies, 55, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018784865.Google Scholar
  18. Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Granovetter, M. (2007). The social construction of corruption. In R. Swedberg & V. Nee (Eds.), On capitalism (pp. 152–172). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Harms, E. (2011). Saigon’s edge: On the margins of Ho Chi Minh City. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayllar, M., & Wettenhall, R. (2010). Public-private partnerships: Promises, politics and pitfalls. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(1S), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. He, B. (2006). Participatory and deliberative institutions in China. In E. J. Leib & B. He (Eds.), The search for deliberative democracy in China (pp. 175–196). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoàng Thư, (2012). Vụ thu hồi đất ở Văn Giang (Hưng Yên). [Land reclamation in Van Giang (Hung Yen)]. Phap Luat. Retrieved 5 May, 2012, from http://toquoc.vn/gio-thu-25/vu-thu-hoi-dat-o-van-giang-hung-yen-bai-3-tim-mot-co-che-hai-hoa-quyen-loi-107397.html.
  24. Johnston, J. (2016). Public relations and the public interest. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klitgaard, R. (1988). Controlling corruption. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kornberger, M., & Brown, A. D. (2007). ‘Ethics’ as a discursive resource for identity work. Human Relations, 60(3), 497–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lê Hiếu (2010). Về Vấn Đề Chuyển Đổi Mục Đích Sử Dụng Đất Nông Nghiệp trong Quá Trình Công Nghiệp Hoá, Đô Thị Hoá. [In the matter of the conversion of agricultural land use for industrialization and urbanization]. Tạp Chi Quản Lý Nhà Nước, 174(7), 34–38.Google Scholar
  28. Lebbe, D., & Musil, C. (2013). Peri-urban land redevelopment in Vietnam under market socialism. Urban Studies, 51(6), 1146–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lofland, J. (1995). Analytic ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 24, 30–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Malarney, S. K. (1997). Culture, virtue, and political transformation in contemporary Northern Viet Nam. Journal of Asian Studies, 56(4), 899–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Minzner, C. (2011). China’s turn against law. American Journal of Comparative Law, 59, 935–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nguyễn, L. (2012). Thấy gì qua vụ cưỡng chế tại Văn Giang, Hưng Yên. [What can we see from the state-led forceful eviction in Van Giang, Hung Yen]. Tạp Chí Mặt Trận 105 (July) http://mattran.org.vn/home/TapChi/so%20105/ncdp.htm.
  33. Nguyễn, H. (2012). Lãnh đạo Hưng Yên báo cáo về vụ cưỡng chế ở Văn Giang. [Hung Yen leader reported the case in Van Giang]. Tin Moi. Retrieved 2 May, 2012, from http://www.tinmoi.vn/lanh-dao-hung-yen-bao-cao-ve-vu-cuong-che-o-van-giang-01876399.html.
  34. Nuijten, M., & Anders, G. G. (Eds.). (2007). Corruption and the secret of law: a legal anthropological perspective. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  35. Nye, J. (2002). Corruption and political development: A cost-benefit analysis. In A. Heidenheimer & M. Johnson (Eds.), Political corruption: Concepts and contexts (3rd edn., pp. 281–300). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. OECD (2012). Recommendations of the Council for principles of good governance for public-private partnerships. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/governance/oecd-recommendation-public-privatepartnerships.htm.
  37. Owens, T., Robinson, D. T., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2010). Three faces of identity. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 477–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oxfam (2013). Luật đất đai: Một góc nhìn khác từ Tổ chức Oxfam. [Land law: Another view from Oxfam]. Retrieved 2 July, 2013, from https://batdongsan.com.vn/phan-tich-nhan-dinh/luat-dat-dai-mot-goc-nhin-khac-tu-to-chuc-oxfam-ar49117.
  39. Painter, M. L., Dao, T., Hoang, M. C., & Nguyen, Q. N. (2012). International comparative analysis of anti-corruption legislation: Lessons on sanctioning and enforcement mechanisms for Viet Nam. Public Administration Reform and Anti-corruption, Policy Discussion Papers. United Nations Development Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam.Google Scholar
  40. PAPI (2016). Public administration perception index. UNDP, Hanoi. Retrieved from http://papi.org.vn/eng/.
  41. PCI (2016). Provincial competitive index. Vietnam, Hanoi. Retrieved from http://eng.pcivietnam.org.
  42. Polanyi, K. (2001) [1944], The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our times. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rand, J., & Tarp, F. (2012). Firm-level corruption in Vietnam. Economic Development & Cultural Change, 60(3), 571–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rawls, J. (1999). The law of peoples: With “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Rose-Ackerman, S. (1999). Corruption and government: Causes, consequences and reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sikor, T., Dorondel, S., Stahl, J., & To, P. X. (2017). When things become property: Land reform, authority and value in Postsocialist Europe and Asia. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  47. Suchmann, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tang, B. (2015). Deliberating governance in Chinese urban communities. The China Journal, 73, 84–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. The Analects: Confucius. (2014). S. Ley trans. and M. Nyland Ed., Norton Critical Edition. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  50. Tyler, T. (2006). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. van Dijk, T. (2014). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Verdery, K. (2003). The vanishing hectare: Property and value in Postsocialist Transylvania. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  53. VLA and UNDP (2016). 2015 justice index: Towards a justice system for the people. Hanoi: UNDP.Google Scholar
  54. Wedel, J. (2012). Rethinking corruption in an age of ambiguity. Annual Review of Social Science, 8, 453–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wells-Dang, A. (2012). Civil society networks in China and Vietnam: Informal Pathbreakers in health and the environment. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. World Bank, Embassy of Denmark in Vietnam, Embassy of Sweden in Vietnam (2011). Recognizing and reducing corruption risks in land management in Vietnam. Hanoi: National Political Publishing House.Google Scholar
  57. World Bank. (2011). Vietnam urbanization review. Hanoi: World Bank.Google Scholar
  58. World Bank. (2013). Improving land sector governance in Vietnam. Research report. Hanoi: World Bank.Google Scholar
  59. Zaloznaya, M. (2013). Beyond anti-corruptionism: Sociological imagination and comparative study of corruption. Comparative Sociology, 12, 705–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zaloznaya, M. (2014). The social psychology of corruption: Why it does not exist and why it should. Sociology Compass, 8(2), 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhou, W. (2012). In search of deliberative democracy in China. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(1), 4–16.Google Scholar
  62. Zhu, J., & Zhang, D. (2017). Weapons of the powerful: authoritarian elite competition and politicized anticorruption in China. Comparative Political Studies, 50(9), 1186–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Gillespie
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thang Van Nguyen
    • 2
  • Hung Vu Nguyen
    • 3
  • Canh Quang Le
    • 2
  1. 1.Monash Business SchoolMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  2. 2.Asia Pacific Institute of ManagementNational Economics UniversityHanoiVietnam
  3. 3.Institute for Population and Social StudiesNational Economics UniversityHanoiVietnam

Personalised recommendations