|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
From the global corruption paradigm to the study of informal practices: outsiders vs. insiders
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2014-2-118-132
Abstract
The article compares two approaches to the analysis of corruption: the global corruption paradigm — a downstream view on corruption promoted by international organisations and policy makers, the socalled outsiders, and the analysis of informal practices — an upstream, or bottom-up, perspective of insiders, which contextualises motives and meaning of corrupt practices. The global corruption paradigm rests on the premises that corruption can be defined, measured and controlled. Since the 1990s, data on corruption have been systematically collected and monitored, yet there has been little progress in combatting the phenomenon across the globe. Success cases are rare, and policy makers are increasingly dis-satisfied with existing indicators and approaches to anti-corruption policies. On the one hand, the paper articulates the critique of assumptions, preconceptions and methodology implicit in the prevailing corruption paradigm. We question the cultural and historical neutrality of the definition of corruption, problems with its measurement, and implications for policy-making. On the other hand, the paper argues for the ‘disaggregation’ of the corruption paradigm and the necessity to integrate local knowledge and insiders’ perspectives into corruption studies. The combination of the two approaches will provide for more effective ways of tackling the challenges of corruption, especially in endemically corrupt systems.
Keywords
corruption paradigm,
public/private division,
corruption measurement,
perception of corruption,
anti-corruption policy-making,
informal practices,
particularism
JEL: Р37, O17, D73, Z13
About the Authors
S. Barsukova
National Research University Higher School of Economics (Moscow, Russia)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. Ledeneva
London University (UCL) (London, UK)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Barsukova S. (1999). Private and Public: The Dialectic Disposition // Politicheskie Issledovaniya. No 1. P. 137—147.
2. Barsukova S. (2008). Informal Practices of Formal Proceedings // Svobodnaya Mysl. No 11. P. 33—48.
3. Barsukova S. (2010). “Three Pillars” of Justice in Russia // Svobodnaya Mysl. No 4. P. 57—68.
4. Besançon A. (2002 [1985]). La Falsification Du Bien: Soloviev et Orwell. Moscow: MIK.
5. Bruk B. (2013). Russian Corruption on Transparency International’s Barometer / Institute of Modern Russia. July 31.
6. Gorbuz A., Krasnov M., Mishina E., Satarov G. (2010). Transformation of the Russian Judiciary. Experience of Complex Analysis. St. Petersburg: Norma.
7. Kordonsky S. (2008). The Class Structure of Post-Soviet Russia. Moscow: Fond “Obshchestvennoe Mnenie”.
8. Levada Y. A. (2000). Homo Post-Soveticus // Obshestvennye Nauki i Sovremennost. No 6. P. 5—24.
9. Levin M., Satarov G. (2012). Corruption in Russia: Classification and Dynamics // Voprosy Ekonomiki. No 10. P. 4—29.
10. Ledeneva A., Shushanyan N. (2008). Telephone Law in Russia // Vestnik Obshchestvennogo Mneniya. No 3 (95). P. 42—50.
11. Polterovich V. (2007). Elements of the Theory of Reforms. Moscow: Ekonomika.
12. Satarov G. A. (ed.) (2013). Russian Corruption: Level, Structure, Dynamics. Moscow: Fund “Liberal Mission”.
13. Barsukova S. (2009). Corruption. Academic Debates and Russian Reality // Russian Politics and Law. Vol. 47, No 4. P. 8—27.
14. Barsukova S., Radaev V. (2012). Informal Economy in Russia: A Brief Overview // Economic Sociology: The European Electronic Newsletter. Vol. 13, No 2. P. 4—12.
15. Carothers T. (2002). The End of the Transition Paradigm // Journal of Democracy. Vol. 13, No 1.
16. Coleman J. (1985). The Criminal Elite: The Sociology of White Collar Crime. N. Y.: St. Martin’s Press.
17. Galtung F. (2005). Measuring the Immeasurable: Boundaries and Functions of (Macro) Corruption Indices // Measuring Corruption / F. Galtung, C. Sampford (eds.). Burlington: Ashgate. Р. 101—132.
18. Karklins R. (2005). The System Made Me Do It: Corruption in Post-communist Societies. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
19. Knack S. (2006). Measuring Corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: A Critique of Cross-country Indicators // World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. No 3968.
20. Krastev I. (2004). Shifting Obsessions: Three Essays on the Politics of Anticorruption. Budapest: Central European University Press.
21. Ledeneva A. (1998). Russia’s Economy of Favours: Blat, Networking and Informal Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Ledeneva A. (2009). Corruption in Post-communist Societies in Europe: A Re-exami- nation // Perspectives on European Politics and Society. Vol. 10, No 1. Р. 69—86.
23. Ledeneva A. (2013). A Critique of the Global Corruption Paradigm // Post-communism from Within: Social Justice, Mobilization and Hegemony / J. Kubik, A. Linch (eds.). New York University Press. Р. 297—332.
24. Miller W., Grodeland A., Koshechkina T. (2001). A Culture of Corruption. Budapest: Central European University.
25. Mungiu-Pippidi А. (2006). Corruption: Diagnosis and Treatment // Journal of Democracy. Vol. 17, No 3. Р. 86—99.
26. Mungiu-Pippidi А. (2013). Becoming Denmark: Historical Paths to Control of Corruption // Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=2301329.
27. Olimpieva I. (2009). Background Corruption in Small and Medium-Size Business: «A Weapon of the Weak”? // Russian Politics and Law. Vol. 47, No 4. Р. 28—42.
28. Persson A., Rothstein B., Teorell J. (2012). Why Anticorruption Reforms Fail — Systemic Corruption as a Collective Action Problem // Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions. Vol. 26, No 3. P. 449—471.
29. Rose-Ackerman S. (1999). Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Sampson S. (2010). The Anti-corruption Industry: From Movement to Institution // Global Crime. Vol. 11, No 2. P. 261—278.
31. Scott J. (1969). The Analysis of Corruption in Developing Nations // Comparative Studies in Societies and History. Vol. 11, No 3. P. 315—341.
32. Stiglitz J. (2002). Globalisation and Its Discontents. N. Y.: W. W. Norton.
33. Tanzi V. (1998). Corruption around the World // IMF Staff Papers. Vol. 45, No 4. P. 559—594.
34. Trompenaars F., Hampden-Turner Ch. (1998). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. 2nd ed. N. Y.: McGraw-Hill.
35. Varese F. (2000). Pervasive Corruption in Economic Crime in Russia // Economic Crime in Russia / A. Ledeneva, M. Kurkchiyan (eds.). L.: Kluwer Law International.
36. Weber M. (1968). Economy and Society. Vol. 1. N. Y.: Bedminster. Williamson J. (1990). What Washington Means by Policy Reform // Latin American Adjustment: How Much Has Happened? Ch. 2. / J. Willamson (ed.). Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 1990. Abdated November 2002.
Review
For citations:
Barsukova S., Ledeneva A. From the global corruption paradigm to the study of informal practices: outsiders vs. insiders. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2014;(2):118-132. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2014-2-118-132
Views:
740
Email this article 
