Beyond perceptions of corruption?

5th February 2015

Recently I found myself refereeing an intense debate about whether smiling at a public official could be considered bribery. 

As odd as that sounds, the argument started off in a really logical place. I was lucky enough to be at the University of Cape Town, teaching at the Afrobarometer Summer School. It’s unique, combining methodological training with thematic courses, so that students learn not only how to test hypotheses but also discover what hypotheses are available to test. It aims to broaden the pool of African scholars who will make use of the Afrobarometer’s rich survey data. About 25 different countries, 20 of them African, were represented in my class of just over 50 students.

I was teaching a course that I called 'Corruption from the grassroots'. It focused on how corruption is defined, understood and measured in international development circles. It looked at what survey data is available from Afrobarometer and other sources to test hypotheses about the causes and consequences of corruption. This material happened to be at my fingertips since I’ve spent the last two-and-a-bit years looking at cross-national survey data on corruption with Richard Rose at the Centre for the Study of Public Policy.

'Why are we still relying on perception-based measures of corruption?'

I posed a question to illustrate how subjective conceptualisations of corruption can be: if you give a gift to a public servant when you meet them in a context other than their professional role – at a social or family event, for instance – can it be considered ‘corruption’? 

A few of the group said a firm no. The rest of the class gave a conditional yes; if the gift was given with the intention of getting favourable service that they would otherwise not be entitled to, then it should be considered a bribe. So far, so good. 

But the class erupted when someone asked whether his smiles to service providers should be banned as well. After all, he said, he certainly smiles in the hope that his smile will smooth the way; perhaps it will persuade the official in front of him to bend the rules slightly in his favour. It was a very lively discussion – and an excellent point. 

I was left to reflect that corruption is both the easiest and the most challenging of subjects to lead a discussion on. Just about everyone has an opinion or personal insight worth sharing, and even an apparently dull, dry and technical topic such as how to define corruption will easily give way to vigorous debate. When you get lucky, as I did, with a brilliant group of engaged students, the joint jumps. 

In another sense, however, it is tremendously difficult to convey what is actually known about the causes of corruption and what corruption causes. This is because most of what I and my fellow corruption researchers think we know about it rests on somewhat shaky methodological foundations.

'My suspicion is that eagerness to condemn corruption may have clouded willingness to scrutinize the evidence.'

Corruption research is dominated by studies that have relied on country-level perception-based measures, like the Corruption Perception Index, compiled largely from the perceptions of business consultants, experts and rating agencies. Attempts to measure corruption in this way have drawn a lot of criticism. Two challenges are particularly damning. 

First is that such datasets probably overstate the degree of corruption the perceivers have actually experienced. Razafindrakoto and Roubaud (2006) showed that experts, asked to give an estimate of bribery rates in their own countries, grossly exaggerated the percentage of people who actually paid a bribe. 

Second is that perceptions of corruption are probably influenced by a country’s stage of development. This means that experts might see a poorly performing economy and assume that corruption is rampant. Whether that is fair becomes untestable; in conflating the two, we cannot know what impact corruption has on the economy.

There are many other potential problems, but these two are surely enough. Why are we still relying on these measures? 

Their dominance is often explained by the fact that they are readily available. A more likely reason for their popularity, to my mind, is that studies that use these measures generally confirm commonly held biases about the consequences of corruption. My suspicion is that eagerness to condemn corruption may have clouded willingness to scrutinize the evidence. So when we ask whether corruption harms democracy, stunts foreign investment or exacerbates inequality, many studies using perception-based measures simply confirm the apparently obvious answer – corruption is harmful, wastes aid money and hinders poverty reduction.

Bob Dylan once wrote, ‘don’t criticize what you can’t understand’. It’s a good maxim for those of us researching corruption, a field in which the parameters certainly are a-changin’. The old rush to denounce corruption is – hopefully – being replaced by a new consensus that we need to develop a more thorough understanding of it.

No methodological approach is without its limitations, but it is surely time to shelve perception-based measures of corruption. It is time to shine a brighter spotlight on what we’ve learned on the ground from qualitative research or from survey data, experimental analyses and the few objective measures of corruption that we have. Hopefully some of my students in Cape Town will be among those leading the way.

Can a smile be a bribe? No, said the majority, arriving without difficulty at an objective definition of a bribe as something exchanged (and often re-exchangeable) that has a measurable monetary value. 

For me, and for the Afrobarometer students who are keen to research corruption, the scene is more than set. There is a lot to contribute, because so little is known.


Image: 'Distorted perceptions' (Photo: Bradley Wells)


Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.



Caryn Peiffer

Caryn Peiffer

Dr Caryn Peiffer is co-investigator on the 'Islands of Integrity' project funded by the British Academy/Global Challenges Research Fund Sustainable Development Grant programme. She is Lecturer in International Public Policy at the University of Bristol and a former DLP Research Fellow. 

Read more

Related items

How to find surprising development successes

How mixed methods can unearth cases of positive deviance.

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer16th April 2018

Does talking about corruption make it seem worse?

Examining the reluctance of those working in development to engage with the public on the complexity of corruption in poor countries. Guest post for The Guardian's Global Development Professionals Network.

Higher education in the post-2015 agenda: proof that it matters

Taking stock of recent research evidence that shows how higher education can feed into political stability and civil engagement.

Opinion by Susy Ndaruhutse11th September 2014

Do anticorruption messages work? Findings so far and what they could mean for Papua New Guinea

How do anticorruption messages influence people’s views about corruption and about anticorruption efforts?

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer23rd March 2017

Corruption: do we target the servant or the paymaster?

Corruption can only be fought effectively with a coherent strategy collectively supported by all actors. (Guest post for The Guardian on UK aid watchdog report)

Opinion by Heather Marquette5th November 2014

When the stars align to tackle inequality

Reflections on the 2015 DLP annual conference.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal18th February 2015

Development cooperation and fighting corruption: thinking differently

Corruption is an emotive word and covers a huge range of behaviours - yet anti-corruption efforts still follow a one-size-fits-all pattern.  

Opinion by Heather Marquette24th June 2015

Research methods and marshalling messy data: Dear Diary

The useful role a research diary can play in the assimilation and ordering of qualitative data. 

Opinion by Suda Perera2nd September 2015

Developmental leaders, 'dirty hands', and the dark side of collaboration

Should donors support developmental leaders who gain or keep power through questionable means? 

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi11th December 2013

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

Anti-corruption messages aim to recruit citizens to the fight - but what do they actually hear?

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015

Coalitions for inclusion in Indonesia: communities and government tackling discrimination together

Following up to Luke Arnold on coalitions for disability inclusion in Indonesia, Angie Bexley introduces broader work on the inclusion of six marginalised groups.

Opinion by Angie Bexley22nd August 2016

Neither 'good guys' nor 'bad guys': Positive engagement with armed groups

The final post in our short series on 'Power, Politics and Positive Deviance', the theme of our 2016 Annual Conference at La Trobe University, Melbourne, on Monday (8 February).

Opinion by Suda Perera5th February 2016

Political analysis as the practical art of the possible

Bringing politics back into PEA - a new paper with Adrian Leftwich

Opinion by David Hudson24th July 2014

Corruption? The developing world has bigger problems

More nuanced anti-corruption work should focus on results - and even put up with some corruption if things are working well. (Guest post for Prospect)

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal26th April 2016

Why are Africa's poor more likely than the rich to pay a bribe for public services?

The poor aren't simply 'easy targets' - they necessarily come into contact with corrupt state officials more often.

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer19th January 2017

Corruption: unpacking the black box of political will

New thinking on the reasons why individuals engage in corruption - including the pragmatic calculation that, right or wrong, corruption may be the only solution to pressing difficulties. 

Opinion by Heather Marquette12th January 2015

Is education a magic bullet for addressing corruption? Insights from Papua New Guinea

This post for Devpolicy unpacks the findings of a new Development Policy Centre/DLP paper.

Opinion by Grant Walton17th June 2015

Decentralisation and the potential for corruption in PNG

Guest post for Devpolicy on findings from a DLP-supported study on decentralisation and service provision.

Opinion by Grant Walton30th June 2017

Service delivery and state legitimacy: For better or for worse?

DLP research fellow Claire Mcloughlin challenges the widely held assumption that there is a self-reinforcing 'virtuous circle' between service delivery and state legitimacy. 

Opinion by Claire Mcloughlin24th November 2015

Development - getting our story straight

Replacing the traditional aid narrative with a more grown-up - and more inspiring - development story. 

Opinion by Alex Frankel20th April 2016

‘Crows who come in search of dollars’: NGO legitimacy in conflict zones

Do political dynamics affect NGO legitimacy more than performance?

Opinion by Oliver Walton19th August 2014

Identifying rebels with a cause (and effect)

The Developmental Leadership Program will host its 2016 Annual Conference at La Trobe University in Melbourne on 8 February. Its theme is Power, politics and positive deviance.

Opinion by Chris Roche1st December 2015

Bringing Political Economy Analysis in from the cold

Once seen as a 'transformative' tool to change donor thinking, does much PEA now do little to help staff think and work politically?

Opinion by Jonathan Fisher6th May 2014

Perceptions of women in politics in Fiji: how to accelerate change?

Women are widely seen as entirely capable of taking on political leadership in Fiji. Yet when asked to think about 'leaders', many automatically see men in the role.

Opinion by Rachel Fairhurst20th January 2015

Fixing aid: we can't turn off the tap at the first sign of corruption

Much 'petty' corruption is about the poor using what little power they have to stave off destitution. (Guest post for The Conversation)

Opinion by Heather Marquette10th November 2014

Beyond perceptions of corruption?

Corruption is hard to define without straying into the subjective. It's also difficult to build robust methodologies to investigate it.

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer5th February 2015

Time for a grown-up conversation about corruption

To combat corruption, we need to understand the deeper political realities, power dynamics and social structures that perpetuate it.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal9th December 2014

Innovation: transactional or transformative?

It's time to discuss how the word 'innovation' might mean different things to different audiences. 

Opinion by Chris Roche23rd March 2015

Connections, contradictions and the political economy of attention

Thoughts on two sources of new and useful ideas about the deeper structures that might shape creativity.

Opinion by Chris Roche7th May 2015

Anti-corruption in Bolivia: fighting greed – or attitudes?

Social attitudes towards corruption may be shaped by beliefs and values, rather than facts.

Opinion by Nieves Zúñiga29th June 2015

Masculinity and sexual violence in India

The brutal rape and murder in December 2012 of a 23-year-old student in a Delhi bus has been the catalyst for rapidly evolving activism against sexual violence in India.

Opinion by Martin Rew16th September 2015

Communicating anti-corruption messages in development

If donors are allowed to be open about the possibility of corruption, monitoring mechanisms and proportional responses can be planned - and may improve results. Guest post for the OECD.

Opinion by Heather Marquette9th March 2015

How does politically informed programming shape development outcomes?

A new 'thinking and working politically' community of practice aims to develop practical guidance for development practitioners based on evidence of what works in politically smart programming.

Opinion by Mark Robinson29th January 2016

Corruption research: Hunting for glimmers of light in the gloom

Why it can be hard to start a conversation with the people who might know what really works in the fight against corruption.

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer25th July 2017

Education, development, and the problem with consensus

Why rethink the international consensus on 'quality basic education for development'?

Opinion by Michele Schweisfurth7th April 2014

Being 'there': Bermuda Triangulation

Fieldwork in fragile places - Part 2: Data difficulties. Adapting methodology to 'messy' contexts.

Opinion by Suda Perera6th November 2014

Different development: walk the talk

The argument for asset-based approaches to development programming and practice that value communities' capacity, skills and knowledge.

Opinion by Gillian Fletcher14th April 2015

Reforming FIFA: what can we learn from experience with (other) corrupt autocrats?

FIFA may not be a developing nation, but international football has its own complex political economy. Guest post for From Poverty to Power.

Opinion by Paul Jackson and Heather Marquette11th June 2015

Being 'there': Reflections on fieldwork in the DRC

Fieldwork in fragile places - Part 1: The security dilemma. Staying safe while collecting the data that matters. 

Opinion by Suda Perera5th November 2014

Is fighting corruption like fighting zombies?

Corruption - a scary word. And our childish, simplistic view of it is hampering efforts to fight it. Guest post in The Guardian

Opinion by Heather Marquette13th October 2015