The abuse of entrusted power for private gain: meaning, nature and theoretical evolution

Abstract

Although the study of corruption has received increasing attention over the past decades, the theoretical progress of its earlier years has been increasingly relegated to a passive comment, resulting in an underdeveloped field as a whole. To address this issue, this paper explicitly adopts a prevalent definition of corruption—i.e. the abuse of entrusted power for private gain—and explores its meaning, nature, and theoretical evolution from the earliest human bands to the present era. The result is an examination of corruption’s constitutive elements and the way they open the door for a historical account based on the social evolution of political agency and the development of increasingly specialized ethical duties. The arguments presented here aim to provide a road map for future comparative historical research on the subject, and the potential identification of social patterns which sustain corruption tolerance today.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    It should be mentioned, however, that in recent years the study of institutional (contrary to ‘individual’) corruption has emerged as a distinct approach within the field, defined as taking place “when an institution or its agent receives a benefit that is directly useful to performing an institutional function, and systematically provides a service to the benefactor under conditions that tend to undermine legitimate procedures of the institution” ([88], 9); or as “a systemic and strategic influence which is legal... that undermines the institution’s effectiveness by diverting it from its purpose...” ([44], 553). At its core, this approach returns to the traditional conceptualization of corruption in terms of general decay—in this case, institutional or organizational—and emphasizes the need to discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate benefits in terms of the organization’s raison d’łtre [89]. While the arguments offered by institutional corruption theorists certainly offer useful perspectives on ethical challenges prevalent in the grey area of anti-corruption debates (such as the interpretation of private gains in cases of lobbying and campaign financing) the approach still struggles to empirically discriminate between individual and institutional corruption in a meaningful way; to distance itself from the broader discussion of ethics in government and formulate its objectives in line with global anti-corruption efforts; and to find applicability outside of democratic theory. For these reasons, it shall largely be considered (whenever applicable) complementary (rather than an alternative) to the arguments presented in this paper.

  2. 2.

    Pope’s ([62], 2) original definition was the slightly different “misuse of entrusted power for private benefit”.

  3. 3.

    Rose [70] raises the question of the minimum threshold amount using as example the use of work hours to indulge in leisure activities. In his opinion, a definition of corruption that includes such events would make it “massively too broad” and therefore “analytically unhelpful” ([70], 5). I disagree—there is value in analytically differentiating the decision-making structures of ethical infractions even at seemingly extreme ends of the scale. This is evident in the common distinction between petty and grand corruption, categories that separate a 2 USD bribe to a police officer in India and USD 800 million paid by Brazil’s Odebrecht in bribes across a dozen countries. Once we recognize the dangers of the ‘slippery slope’ [103] the threshold becomes a matter of policy design.

  4. 4.

    Ancient Athens is an early example. Taylor ([87], 27) proposes a direct link between their system of participatory democracy and its principle of equality among citizens, on the one hand, and the “large numbers of laws which deal with different aspects of corruption, and the quantity of allegations which appear in law court speeches,” on the other.

References

  1. 1.

    Adams, I. and Keeling, R. (2017). Vicarious liability risks facing the financial industry under the FCPA. George Mason Journal of International Commerical Law, 9(1), 1—41.

  2. 2.

    Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control, pages 11–39. Springer.

  3. 3.

    Althof, W., & Berkowitz, M. W. (2006). Moral education and character education: Their relationship and roles in citizenship education. Journal of Moral Education, 35(4), 495–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Andersson, S., & Heywood, P. M. (2009). The politics of perception: Use and abuse of transparency international’s approach to measuring corruption. Political studies, 57(4), 746–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A. I., Lim, V. K. G., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a socialcognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Arjoon, S. (2006). Striking a balance between rules and principles-based approaches for effective governance: A risks-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1), 53–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bauhr, M., & Nasiritousi, N. (2011). Why pay bribes? Collective action and anticorruption efforts. QoG working paper series, 18.

  8. 8.

    Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: A study in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Berkowitz, M. W. (2000). Civics and moral education. In M. Ben-Peretz, S. Brown & B. Moon (Eds.), Routledge international companion to education,  pages 897–909. New York: Routledge.

  10. 10.

    Brooks, R. C. (1909). The nature of political corruption. Political science quarterly, 24(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Brown, A. J. (2006). What are we trying to measure? Reviewing the basics of corruption definition. In C. Sampford, A. Shacklock, C. Connors & F. Galtung (Eds.), Measuring corruption, pages 57–79. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

  12. 12.

    Bussmann, K. D., & Niemeczek, A. (2017). Compliance through company culture and values: An international study based on the example of corruption prevention. Journal of Business Ethics, pages 1–15.

  13. 13.

    Caiden, G. E. (1988). Toward a general theory of official corruption. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 10(1), 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Canache, D., & Allison, M. E. (2005). Perceptions of political corruption in latin american democracies. Latin American Politics and Society, 47(3), 91–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Chudek, M., & Henrich, J. (2011). Culture–gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(5), 218–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Coleman, J. W. (2006). The criminal elite: Understanding white-collar crime (6th ed.). New York: Worth publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Cooper, J. A. (2012). Noble cause corruption as a consequence of role conflict in the police organisation. Policing and Society, 22(2), 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Crone, P. (1993). The tribe and the state. In J. A. Hall (Ed.), The state: Critical concepts (pp. 446–473). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    De Graaf, G. (2007). Causes of corruption: Towards a contextual theory of corruption. Public Administration Quarterly, 31(1–2), 39–86.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    De Maria, B. (2008). Neo-colonialism through measurement: A critique of the corruption perception index. Critical perspectives on international business.

  21. 21.

    Dungan, J., Waytz, A., & Young, L. (2014). Corruption in the context of moral trade-offs. Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, 26(1–2), 97–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology. Glencoe, IL: Free Press (Original work published 1897).

  23. 23.

    Dye, K. M., & Stapenhurst, R. (1998). Pillars of integrity: the importance of supreme audit institutions in curbing corruption. Washington, D.C. : The economic development Institute of the World Bank.

  24. 24.

    Eigen, P. (2002). Measuring and combating corruption. The Journal of Policy Reform, 5(4), 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Fried, M. H. (1967). The evolution of political society: An essay in political anthropology, volume 7. New York: Random House.

  26. 26.

    Friedrich, C. J. (2002). Corruption concepts in historical perspective. In A. J. Heidenheimer & M. Johnston (Eds.), Political corruption: Concepts contexts (pp. 15–23). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Fukuyama, F. (2011). The origins of political order: From prehuman times to the French revolution. London: Profile Books Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Galtung, F. (2006). Measuring the immeasurable: Boundaries and functions of (macro) corruption indices. In C. Sampford, A. Shacklock, C. Connors & F. Galtung (Eds.), Measuring corruption, pages 101—130. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

  29. 29.

    Gardiner, J. (2002). Defining corruption. In A. J. Heidenheimer & M. Johnston (Eds.), Political corruption: Concepts and contexts (pp. 25–40). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the structuration theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Heidenheimer, A. J. (2002). Perspectives on the perception of corruption. In A. J. Heidenheimer & M. Johnston (Eds.), Political corruption: Concepts and contexts (pp. 141–154). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Jancsics, D. (2019). Corruption as resource transfer: An interdisciplinary synthesis. Public Administration Review, 79, 523–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Javor, I., & Jancsics, D. (2016). The role of power in organizational corruption: An empirical´ study. Administration and Society, 48(5), 527–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Jeppesen, K. K. (2018). The role of auditing in the fight against corruption. The British Accounting Review, 51(5).

  36. 36.

    Johnston, M. (1996). The search for definitions: The vitality of politics and the issue of corruption. International Social Science Journal, 48(149), 321–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Johnston, M. (2014). Corruption, contention and reform: The power of deep democratization. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Johnston, M. (2018). Reforming reform: Revising the anticorruption playbook. Daedalus, 147(3), 50–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Karklins, R. (2005). The system made me do it: Corruption in post-communist societies. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Kaufmann, D. (1997). Corruption: The facts. FOREIGN POLICY-WASHINGTON-, pages, 114–131.

  41. 41.

    Klitgaard, R. (1988). Controlling corruption. Univ of California Press.

  42. 42.

    Kurer, O. (2014). Definitions of corruption. In Routledge handbook of political corruption, pages 44–55. Routledge.

  43. 43.

    Leff, N. H. (1964). Economic development through bureaucratic corruption. American Behavioral Scientist, 8(3), 8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Lessig, L. (2013). Institutional corruption defined. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(3), 553–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Lewis, C. W., & Gilman, S. C. (2005). The ethics challenge in public service: A problem-solving guide. San Francisco: Jossey-bass, 2nd edition.

  46. 46.

    Li, H., Gong, T., & Xiao, H. (2016). The perception of anti-corruption efficacy in China: An empirical analysis. Social Indicators Research, 125(3), 885–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Luo, Y., Huang, Y., & Wang, S. L. (2012). Guanxi and organizational performance: A metaanalysis. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 139–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Maesschalck, J. (2004). Approaches to ethics management in the public sector: A proposed extension of the compliance-integrity continuum. Public Integrity, 7(1), 20–41.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R. L. (2010). Examining the link between ethical leadership and employee misconduct: The mediating role of ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    McMullan, M. (1961). A theory of corruption. The Sociological Review, 9(2), 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Moodie, G. C. (1980). On political scandals and corruption. Government and Opposition, 15(2), 208–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Moore, C. (2008). Moral disengagement in processes of organizational corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1), 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Nisbet, R. (1974). Citizenship: Two traditions. Social Research, 41(4), 612–637.

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Noonan, J. T. (1984). Bribes: The intellectual history of a moral idea. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Ntayi, J. M., Ngoboka, P., & Kakooza, C. S. (2013). Moral schemas and corruption in ugandan public procurement. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Nye, J. S. (1967). Corruption and political development: A cost-benefit analysis. American Political Science Review, 61(2), 417–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2013). Why anticorruption reforms failsystemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance, 26(3), 449–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Peters, J. G., & Welch, S. (1978). Political corruption in america: A search for definitions and a theory, or if political corruption is in the mainstream of american politics why is it not in the mainstream of american politics research? American Political Science Review, 72(3), 974–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Philp, M. (2014). The definition of political corruption. In Routledge handbook of political corruption, pages 31–43. Routledge.

  61. 61.

    Philp, M. (2017). Conceptualizing political corruption. In A. J. Heidenheimer & M. Johnston (Eds.), Political corruption: Concepts contexts (pp. 25–40). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Pope, J. (2000). TI source book 2000: Confronting corruption: The elements of a national integrity system.

  63. 63.

    Pozsgai-Alvarez, J. (2014). Operationalizing high-level corruption tolerance in Peru: attitude-behavior congruency and the 2006 presidential elections. Area Studies Tsukuba, (35):183–206.

  64. 64.

    Pozsgai-Alvarez, J. (2015). Low-level corruption tolerance: An action-based approach for Peru and latin america. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 7(2), 99–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Rabl, T. (2008). Private corruption and its actors. Pabst Science Publishers.

  66. 66.

    Rayner, J., Williams, H. M., Lawton, A., & Allinson, C. W. (2010). Public service ethos: Developing a generic measure. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(1), 27–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Rehan, S. M., & Toth, A. L. (2015). Climbing the social ladder: The molecular evolution of sociality. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(7), 426–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 233–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Robinson, P. H. (1984). Imputed criminal liability. The Yale Law Journal, 93(4), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Rose, J. (2018). The meaning of corruption: Testing the coherence and adequacy of corruption definitions. Public Integrity, 20(3), 220–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Rose-Ackerman, S. (1978). Corruption: A study in political economy. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Rose-Ackerman, S. (2010). Corruption: Greed, culture and the state. The Yale Law Journal, 120, 125—140.

  73. 73.

    Rose-Ackerman, S. (2018). Corruption & purity. Daedalus, 147(3), 98–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Rotaru, C., Bodislav, D.-A., & Georgescu, R. (2016). A review of corruption based on the social and economic evolution of ancient Greece and ancient Rome. Theoretical & Applied Economics, 23(2), 239–248.

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Rothstein, B. (2005). Social traps and the problem of trust. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Rothstein, B. (2011). The quality of government: Corruption, social trust, and inequality in international perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Rothstein, B. (2018). Fighting systemic corruption: The indirect strategy. Daedalus, 147(3), 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Rubinstein, W. D., & Maravic, P. v. (2010). Max weber, bureaucracy, and corruption. In G. de Graaf, P. von Maravic, & P. Wagenaar (Eds.), The Good Cause: Theoretical Perspectives on Corruption, pages 21–35. Verlag Barbara Budrich.

  79. 79.

    Scott, J. C. (1972). Comparative political corruption. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Sherrod, L. R., & Lauckhardt, J. (2009). The development of citizenship. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology, Contextual influences on adolescent development (Vol. 2, pp. 372–407). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Sherrod, L. R., Flanagan, C., & Youniss, J. (2002). Dimensions of citizenship and opportunities for youth development: The what, why, when, where, and who of citizenship development. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 264–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Shupak, N. (1992). A new source for the study of the judiciary and law of ancient Egypt:” the tale of the eloquent peasant”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 51(1), 1–18.

  83. 83.

    Sparling, R. A. (2018). Impartiality and the definition of corruption. Political Studies, 66(2), 376–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Spence, E. H. (2017). Corruption in the media. In M. S. Aßländer & S. Hudson (Eds.), The Handbook of Business and Corruption: Cross-Sectoral Experiences, pages 453–480. Emerald Publishing Limited.

  85. 85.

    Stapenhurst, R., & Kpundeh, S. J. (1999). Curbing corruption: Toward a model for building national integrity The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Swart, K. W. (2012). Sale of offices in the seventeenth century. Springer.

  87. 87.

    Taylor, C. (2018). Corruption and anticorruption in democratic Athens. In R. Kroeze, A. Vitoria, & G. Geltner (Eds.), Anticorruption in history: From antiquity to the modern era, pages 21–33. Oxford University Press Oxford.

  88. 88.

    Thompson, D. F. (2013). Two concepts of corruption. Edmond J. Safra Working Papers, 16.

  89. 89.

    Thompson, D. F. (2018). Theories of institutional corruption. Annual Review of Political Science, 21, 495–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Torsello, D. (2015). Corruption as social exchange: The view from anthropology. In P. Hardi, P. M. Heywood, & D. Torsello (Eds.), Debates of Corruption and Integrity, pages 159–183. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  91. 91.

    Torsello, D., & Venard, B. (2016). The anthropology of corruption. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(1), 34–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Truex, R. (2011). Corruption, attitudes, and education: Survey evidence from Nepal. World Development, 39(7), 1133–1142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Tunley, M., Button, M., Shepherd, D., & Blackbourn, D. (2018). Preventing occupational corruption: Utilising situational crime prevention techniques and theory to enhance organisational resilience. Security Journal, 31(1), 21–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Turner, B. S. (1990). Outline of a theory of citizenship. Sociology, 24(2), 189–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Underkuffler, L. S. (2013). Captured by evil: The idea of corruption in law. Yale University Press.

  96. 96.

    Verhezen, P. (2010). Giving voice in a culture of silence. From a culture of compliance to a culture of integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(2), 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Vitoria, A. (2018). Late medieval polities and the problem of corruption: France, England and´ Portugal, 1250–1500. In R. Kroeze, A. Vitoria, & G. Geltner (Eds.), Anticorruption in history: From antiquity to the modern era (pp. 77–89). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  98. 98.

    Wang, F., & Sun, X. (2016). Absolute power leads to absolute corruption? Impact of power on corruption depending on the concepts of power one holds. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Warren, M. E. (2004). What does corruption mean in a democracy? American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 328–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Warren, M. E. (2014). The meaning of corruption in democracies. In Routledge handbook of political corruption, pages 56–69. Routledge.

  101. 101.

    Waytz, A., Dungan, J., & Young, L. (2013). The whistleblower’s dilemma and the fairness– Loyalty tradeoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1027–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Weber, M. (2019). Economy and society: A new translation. Harvard University Press.

  103. 103.

    Welsh, D. T., Ordo’nez, L. D., Snyder, D. G., & Christian, M. S. (2015). The slippery slope: How˜ small ethical transgressions pave the way for larger future transgressions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 114–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Werlin, H. H. (1994). Revisiting corruption: With a new definition. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 60(4), 547–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Werner, A., Rabl, T., & Best, H. (2018). Managers corruption prevention efforts in small and medium-sized enterprises: An exploration of determinants. European Management Review, 16(3), 741—759.

  106. 106.

    Williams, R. (1999). New concepts for old? Third World Quarterly, 20(3), 503–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Yoffee, N. (2005). Myths of the archaic state: Evolution of the earliest cities, states, and civilizations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph Pozsgai-Alvarez.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pozsgai-Alvarez, J. The abuse of entrusted power for private gain: meaning, nature and theoretical evolution. Crime Law Soc Change (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-020-09903-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Corruption
  • Integrity
  • Human agency
  • Power
  • Compliance