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)

0 Comments

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.

Documents

Author

Caryn Peiffer

Caryn Peiffer

DLP Research Fellow Dr Caryn Peiffer has written DLP papers on the politics of state-business relations, reform coalitions for growth, and on corruption. Caryn examined the determinants of bribe payments as part of the Global Experience of Corruption project (University of Strathclyde). She has carried out research for Transparency International, DFID, AFD, and SIDA, and has worked in India, Zambia and Botswana.

Read more

Related items

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

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

Corruption: do we target the servant or the paymaster?

Guest post for The Guardian on UK aid watchdog report

Opinion by Heather Marquette5th November 2014

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

Anticorruption posters and billboards are common sights around the world. Most anticorruption programs now include an awareness-raising element. The hope is that anticorruption messages – whether shared via posters, radio or TV, for example – will inspire citizens to refuse to pay bribes and to report any corruption they encounter.

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer23rd March 2017

Being 'there': reflections on fieldwork in the DRC

Fieldwork in fragile places part 1: the security dilemma

Opinion by Suda Perera5th November 2014

Education, development, and the problem with consensus

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

Opinion by Michele Schweisfurth7th April 2014

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

new analysis of poverty in India from the World Bank challenges claims that India's reforms and striking economic growth have failed to help the poor and disadvantaged. But the deprivation and inequalities in India (highlighted by Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen in An Uncertain Glory) are stark.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi11th December 2013

When the stars align to tackle inequality: reflections on the DLP annual conference

From the Occupy Movement to Thomas Piketty to current proposals for a new set of Sustainable Development Goals, inequality has emerged as one of the most intractable challenges of our time, and everyone, from activists to academics to policymakers, is talking about it. 

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal18th February 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

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

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

Research in Africa has consistently found that the poor are more likely than the better off to pay bribes to state officials for public services. This matters for all sorts of reasons, but from a state-building and developmental perspective, the crisis of trust that corruption can trigger can be devastating. When services are pushed just that bit further away by public-servants-turned-corrupt-gatekeepers, it is likely to colour the already jaundiced perceptions that hard-pressed communities may have of state institutions and of their legitimacy; and also, as Seligson puts it, of ‘the broader national governance frameworks in which they are located’.

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer19th January 2017

‘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

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

People’s reactions to the question ‘does better service delivery improve a state’s legitimacy?’ are typically fast, instinctive and often surprisingly emotive. To use Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow model, ‘System 1’ thinking kicks in. Of course services support state legitimacy, encouraging citizens to accept the state’s right to rule over them. Can we imagine a legitimate state that doesn’t meet its citizens’ basic human needs?

Opinion by Claire Mcloughlin24th November 2015

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

A couple of years ago, Cote d’Ivoire’s government erected striking black and orange billboards around Abidjan that carried messages like “It destroyed my region” and “It killed my son”

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015
Opinion by Heather Marquette13th October 2015

Development cooperation and fighting corruption: thinking differently

Everyone associates Brazil with football and the World Cup. Brazilians pouring out onto the street last summer to protest the competition being hosted in their country was last thing many of us expected to see.

Opinion by Heather Marquette24th June 2015
Opinion by Heather Marquette10th November 2014

How does politically informed programming shape development outcomes?

Many well-intentioned development programmes founder in the face of resistance from entrenched elites who feel threatened by a potential loss of power and resources. Resources intended for the poor and disadvantaged benefit the rich and powerful. In response, development practitioners and academics have become keenly interested in the political factors that shape development outcomes over the past ten years.

Opinion by Mark Robinson29th January 2016

Does talking about corruption make it seem worse?

Guest post for The Guardian's Global Development Professionals Network

Connections, contradictions and the political economy of attention

How can we encourage creativity, even in risk-averse organisations? How can we protect our attention resources?

I listened to two interesting LSE podcasts recently which got me thinking more about creativity following on from a recent blog I posted about the current interest in innovation. Some even suggest the ‘innovation imperative’ is a mega trend.

Opinion by Chris Roche7th May 2015

Development - getting our story straight

As a narrative specialist, I listen to the stories people tell about their work and their organisations. I help them find out whether their audiences are hearing what they want them to hear, or whether they need to tell the story differently or even find a new story to tell. And I think the development narrative is facing a big challenge just now – what we say we do often doesn’t reflect what we actually do.

Opinion by Alex Frankel20th April 2016

Research methods and marshalling messy data: Dear Diary

Just a few months ago, when the sheer scale of my current project was beginning to overwhelm me, I began to keep a research diary. 

I had set out to examine why, after two decades of international intervention and aid, armed groups were not only as prevalent in the DRC as they had ever been, but were proliferating. The question I was trying to answer was admittedly a broad one – what is it that we’ve missed about armed groups? Researching this topic revealed more questions than answers. 

Opinion by Suda Perera2nd September 2015
Opinion by Heather Marquette9th March 2015

Different development: walk the talk

Spent the day at a ‘Doing Development Differently’ event recently and, while it offered a great opportunity to meet and hear from fascinating, dedicated, thoughtful people, I came away somewhat disheartened. Why? Because:

Opinion by Gillian Fletcher14th April 2015

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

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

In a follow-up to Luke Arnold’s recent post on coalitions for disability inclusion in Indonesia, Angie Bexley introduces a broader initiative in which reform coalitions are working for the inclusion of six marginalised groups.

Opinion by Angie Bexley22nd August 2016

Innovation: transactional or transformative?

Innovation has become a popular word in international development. In Australia today, Bjorn Lomborg helped to formally open DFAT’s development innovation hub innovationXchange, which is designed to ‘identify, trial and scale up successful approaches’. Other donors, including the US and the UK, are also promoting innovation through initiatives like the Development Innovation Ventures programme.

Opinion by Chris Roche23rd March 2015
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal26th April 2016

Beyond perceptions of corruption?

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

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer5th February 2015

Being 'there': Bermuda Triangulation

Fieldwork in fragile places part 2: data difficulties

Opinion by Suda Perera6th November 2014
Opinion by Susy Ndaruhutse11th September 2014

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

Unsurprisingly, when people are asked about corruption, they say they are against it. But that doesn’t tell us what they really think about it, or what they do when confronted with it.   

Opinion by Nieves Zúñiga29th June 2015