Anti-corruption: Who Cares?

  • Steven SampsonEmail author


Why do certain organizational actors decide that fighting corruption should now become a policy priority? This chapter problematizes engagement in fighting corruption, in terms of why businesses, governments, international organizations and NGOs choose to make anti-corruption a priority and how they go about fighting corruption, including their degree of genuine engagement. In describing the emergence of what I call ‘anti-corruptionism’, this paper argues that we need to look more closely at the interests and agendas of those actors in the anti-corruption industry, including the kinds of corruption they are fighting. Two major anti-corruptionist discourses are described: the one emphasizes the progress in fighting corruption through laws, conventions, campaigns, and transparency; the other discourse is a more pessimistic scenario emphasizing the continued persistence of corruption, as revealed by the Panama and Paradise Papers and almost daily corruption scandals at the highest corporate and government levels; this second, cynical discourse highlights the failure of the anti-corruption industry to actually reduce corruption. The implications of these two parallel discourses are that we need to be more explicit about the definition of corruption, and the kind of corruption we are fighting. We need to assess the engagement of anti-corruption actors, and we need to reconsider the move toward ‘transparency’ and ‘reporting’ as the magic bullet. Problematizing who cares about anti-corruption and why they care can not only help put anti-corruption in its proper sociopolitical context. It can also lead the way toward more effective anti-corruption programs.


  1. Bedirhanoğlu, P. (2016). Corruption of anti-corruption: Deconstructing neoliberal good governance. In J. A. Scholte, L. Fioramonti, & A. Nhema (Eds.), New rules for global justice: Structural redistribution in the global political economy (pp. 57–70). London: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  2. Buchan, B., & Hill, L. (2014). An intellectual history of political corruption. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bukanovsky, M. (2006). The hollowness of anti-corruption discourse. Review of International Political Economy, 13, 181–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burritt, R., & Schaltegger, S. (2010). Sustainability accounting and reporting: Fad or trend? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23, 829–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Han, P.-C. (2015). The transparency society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Katzarova, E. (2017, December). From global problems to international norms: What does the social construction of a global corruption problem tell us about the emergence of an international anti-corruption norm. Crime Law and Social Change. Scholar
  7. Ochunu M. E. (2016). Bring back corruption: A critique of neoliberal anti-corruption rhetoric. Pambazuka News, September 8.
  8. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Sampson, S. (1996). The social life of projects: Importing civil society to Albania. In C. Hann & E. Dunn (Eds.), Civil society: Challenging western models (pp. 121–142). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Sampson, S. (2005). Integrity warriors: Global morality and the anti-corruption movement in the Balkans. In D. Haller & C. Shore (Eds.), Corruption: Anthropological perspectives (pp. 103–130). London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  11. Sampson, S. (2009). Corruption and anti-corruption in Southeast Europe: Landscapes and sites. In L. de Sousa, P. Lamour, & B. Hindness (Eds.), Governments, NGOs and anti-corruption: The new integrity warrior (pp. 168–185). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Sampson, S. (2010a). The anti-corruption industry: From movement to institution. Global Crime, 11, 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sampson, S. (2010b). Diagnostics: Indicators and transparency in the anti-corruption industry. In S. Jansen, E. Schröter, & N. Stehr (Eds.), Transparenz: Multidisziplinäre Durchsichten durch Phönomene und Theorien des Undurchsichtigen (pp. 97–111). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sampson, S. (2014). Culture and compliance: An anthropologist’s view. Compliance & Ethics Professional, June, 35–39 (Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics). and Republished in Ethikos: The Journal of Practical Business Ethics, 29(2), March/April 2015, 8–12.
  15. Sampson, S. (2015a). The audit juggernaut. Social Anthropology, 23, 80–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sampson, S. (2015b). The anti-corruption package. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization, 15(2), 115–123.Google Scholar
  17. Sampson, S. (2016). The ‘right way’: Moral capitalism and the emergence of the corporate ethics and compliance officer. Journal of Business Anthropology, 5(3), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stan, S. (2012). Neither commodities nor gifts: Post-socialist informal exchanges in the Romanian healthcare system. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Association, 18, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stan, S. (2018). Neoliberal citizenship and the politics of corruption: Redefining informal exchange in Romanian healthcare. In J. Carrier (Ed.), Economy, Crime and Wrong in a Neoliberal Era. Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  20. Strathern, M. (Ed.). (2000). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics, and the academy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social AnthropologyLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations