Advertisement

Norms for Networks: A Contractarian Approach to Corruption

  • Willeke SlingerlandEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ethical Economy book series (SEEP, volume 51)

Abstract

This paper explores whether it is possible to consider a microsocial contract as the basis for the norms of a social network. It links the corruption debate with social contract theories as developed within political philosophy and business ethics. Hereby, the hypernorms of the macrosocial contract expressed in (inter)national laws are compared to the norms of social networks. Social networks are considered to be distinct moral agents. In this paper, recent corruption scandals in the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands illustrate common patterns of norm development in social networks. These cases provide an insight into communal norm development and the possibility that this will conflict with societal norms. The paper offers practical solutions to ensure that norms can be applied to social networks and that social networks themselves take greater responsibility in monitoring norm development to prevent network corruption.

Keywords

Social Network Social Capital Network Member Public Prosecutor Project Developer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adler, Paul S., and Seok-Woo Kwon. 2009. Social Capital: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Marshall Research Paper Series Working Paper MKT 03-09. USC Marshall School of Business. Reprint of Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S.W. 2000. Social Capital: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. In Knowledge and social capital, ed. E.L. Lesser, 89–115. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  2. Council of Europe’s Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO). 2014. Third evaluation round addendum to the second compliance report on Spain “Incriminations (ETS 173 and 191, GPC 2)” and “Transparency of Party Funding”. Strasbourg: GRECO.Google Scholar
  3. Dempsey, Judy. 2012. Germany cleans up its politics. New York Times, March 19.Google Scholar
  4. Donaldson, Thomas, and Thomas Dunfee. 1994. Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. The Academy of Management Review 19(2): 252–284.Google Scholar
  5. Donaldson, Thomas, and Thomas Dunfee. 1999a. When ethics travel: The promise and peril of global business ethics. California Management Review 41(4): 45–63.Google Scholar
  6. Donaldson, Thomas, and Thomas Dunfee. 1999b. Ties that bind. A social contracts approach to business ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  7. European Commission. 2014. Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_374_en.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2015.
  8. Fort, Timothy L. 2000. A review of Donaldson and Dunfee’s ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 28: 383–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gillan, Taylor. 2014. Former Germany president cleared of corruption charges. Jurist 27 February 2014. http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/02/former-german-president-cleared-of-corruption-charges.php. Accessed 25 Oct 2015.
  10. Goossen, Hans, and Theo Sniekers. 2014. El Rey. Van jager tot prooi. Sittard: Media Groep Limburg.Google Scholar
  11. Hanning, James, and Matthew Bell. 2011. Rebekah, Dave, and the Chipping Norton set: Where power in Britain lies. The Independent, July 10.Google Scholar
  12. Johnston, Michael. 2006. Syndromes of corruption: Wealth, power, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Leveson Inquiry. 2012. An inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. Executive Summary.Google Scholar
  14. Lyall, Sarah, and Jo Becker. 2011. A tenacious rise to the top in the Brutal men’s world of Tabloids. New York Times, July 7.Google Scholar
  15. Macauley, Roderick. n.d. Fighting corruption. Incriminations. Thematic review of GRECO’s third evaluation round. Strasbourg: GRECO.Google Scholar
  16. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2008. Corruption. A glossary of international standards in criminal law. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  17. Putman, Robert D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  18. Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice. The Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Sandel, Michael J. 2009. Justice; what’s the right thing to do? New York: Farar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  20. Smale, Alison. 2015. In Germany, a Cozy relationship between carmakers and government. New York Times, October 1.Google Scholar
  21. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012. John Rawls. 24 September 2012. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#InsFouStaSeq. Accessed 10 May 2016.
  22. United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. 2015. Concluding observations on the nineteenth to twenty-first periodic reports of the Netherlands. http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/NLD/CERD_C_NLD_CO_19-21_21519_E.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2015.
  23. Wempe, Johan. 2010. Chain responsibility. Collective responsibility of loosely structured organizations. In The collaborative enterprise, ed. Laszlo Zsolnai. Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  24. Wempe, Johan. 2009. Industry and chain responsibilities and integrative social contracts theory. Journal of Business Ethics 88:751–764.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Governance, Law & Urban DevelopmentSaxion University of Applied SciencesEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations