Corruption: unpacking the black box of political will

12th January 2015

Despite the significant investment, perhaps as much as a hundred million dollars a year, being poured into fighting corruption by the international community, most systemically corrupt countries are considered to be just as corrupt now as they ever were.

Recent events in Ukraine illustrate the urgent need to find out why. As long ago as 2006, Alina Mungiu-Pippidi wrote these prescient words: ‘One year after the widely acclaimed Orange Revolution in Ukraine, one could already buy…a seat in the Ukrainian parliament. The lack of success in curbing corruption, combined with ever more widespread discussion of the issue, renders voters extremely cynical and threatens to subvert public trust in emerging democracies.’

It’s not as if the research community hasn’t been trying, and trying hard, to model explanations that will help policy makers design really effective anti-corruption measures. So far, however, that particular magic theoretical bullet seems to have eluded us. Let’s quickly summarise where we are so far in the story. 

Principal-agent theorists see corruption as a problem of funds and resources being channelled away from those who should rightfully either receive them or decide how they are distributed – the principals – by dishonest ‘agents’, usually bureaucrats or officials, and often politicians. Those who interpret corruption in this way point to the technical challenge of monitoring and sanctioning corrupt behaviour. This has been by far the most predominant way of looking at corruption for the last two decades, and it is the interpretation that has influenced the design of most anti-corruption programmes.

"It [is] more useful to think about how each theoretical lens can complement the other."

However, a growing number of authors argue that anticorruption efforts have failed precisely because they are inspired by principal-agent theory, when collective action theory would offer a better theoretical lens (161 KB). To boil it down to its bones, this theory tells us that when corruption is widely seen as the norm, individuals will have little to gain from resisting temptation if they can’t trust others in their group, community or society to do the same. 

In the latest paper from the DLP research team, we unpack this critique and advance several new arguments. 

The first is that we don’t believe the two approaches are as mutually exclusive as many authors have so far concluded. When the scope of potential contributions from collective action theory is widened, we find that this theoretical approach proves to be complementary, not contradictory, to a principal-agent theoretical approach.

For instance, both describe the same individual calculations when deciding whether or not to engage in corruption. Both assume individual rationality and that people engage in corrupt acts only when it is in their individual self-interest. Both recognise that the lower the perceived likelihood of discovery, the more likely it is that people will consider acting corruptly. 

So it strikes us as much more useful to think about how each theoretical lens can complement the other. Take a politicised bureaucracy where staff are hired through clientelistic networking. Collective action theory will tell us that since ‘everyone is doing it’, it will be hard to persuade anyone to take the lead on shifting to recruitment on the basis of merit. Principal-agent theory will also tell us that even if we find someone willing to take the lead, they may find it difficult to monitor whether their ‘agents’ really are hiring on merit or are, in fact, still doing it the old familiar way. 

But we also remind the field that there is a third perspective that is currently being lost: that these theoretical approaches to corruption – as so far applied – both fail to recognise that corruption often persists because it solves problems. 

"Corruption often persists because it solves problems"

Political will, the lack of which is so often blamed for the failure of so many anti-corruption interventions, is talked about as if it is a mysterious ‘black box’, a self-contained ingredient of policy design. Yet it is clear to us that the box has its own ingredients. These must be unpacked, and the impact of each in the final mix recognised and taken into account, if we are to have any hope of designing effective anti-corruption measures.

So blaming lack of political will is a principal-agent explanation; when we also consider the contribution collective action makes to political will, we can now explain that any principal may lack the political will to act if they cannot trust others to follow suit. It is, therefore, no surprise that effective anti-corruption action has often hinged on the presence of an anti-corruption reform coalition

If we return to the box and unpack it further, we recognise that corruption may not be simply venal and extractive; sometimes it does the job of ‘solving’ political problems of stability, providing access to state services and serving as a mechanism for political redistribution. 

Patron-client relationships may have crucial meaning and purpose for those involved – such as gift-giving in Papua New Guinea, or providing safety and security in Honduras, or – coming back to the example of meritocratic hiring – providing much-needed jobs for friends and family when jobs are very scarce. 

This is not a call to romanticize those relationships. It is simply to point out that – as researchers, practitioners and policy-makers – we often wilfully misunderstand them in the drive to condemn corruption. 

And we conclude that what makes anti-corruption effectiveness so very difficult to achieve is that, in many cases, initiatives need to take into account insights from all three perspectives. Without recognising this and trying to figure out the real-life political dynamics that underpin corruption, anti-corruption efforts in many countries will continue to fail. 


Image: An anti-corruption billboard in Zambia (Photo: Lars Ploughmann)



Ivan Inderbitzin

24th October 2015 at 11:38

Good, succinct overview. Thank you! What about the role of multinational companies increasingly telling their employees that they want to enforce a zero-tolerance approach to bribery and corruption, and still do business? Could they become important agents for change, or is this simply a naive and unrealistic expectation? I wonder what people think about that...


Narayan Manandhar

23rd March 2015 at 01:29

Here are some of my personal anecdotes on corruption:

1. As you mentioned, corruption could very much be a "solution" than a problem - in such a case it will be extremely difficult to wipe out.

2. Anticorruption activists may be charged with being vocal simply because they do not have an opportunity for corruption.

3. Corruption is often organized but efforts to fight corruption can be very disorganized.


Oliver Brown

12th January 2015 at 13:22

When I did an undergraduate module on the Anthropology of Development, some of the authors made the following points.
1. Is it even accurate to use the term 'corruption' when the practice is so widespread it is the norm? The word corruption implies a deviation from the norm.
2. Following from this, we class this kind of behaviour as corrupt because in our own society it would be seen as corrupt. We fall into the endless trap of holding other societies to our own standards and also making the assumption that 'our' way of doing things is the 'right' way of doing things.
3. Many of the patterns of corruption we see in the 'developing' world are in effect the replication of pre-European cultural practices within the context of post-European, imported institutions. Tribal affiliations still trump and also overlap with political ones in many places and the kinds of expectations these affiliations incur relate to reciprocity, which leads to the kinds of behaviour we class as corrupt.
4. In holding up the 'corrupt' practices of developing countries, do we forget the more invisible but no less insidious networks of nepotism: family, friends, colleagues of parents, brothers and sisters etc. that allow those in our own societies who have been fortunate enough to be born into the right families, maintain and advance their social position in relation to education and employment opportunities?

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.


Heather Marquette

Heather Marquette

DLP's Director, Dr Heather Marquette, is Reader in Development Politics in the International Development Department, University of Birmingham. She is also Academic Director of the GSDRC. A political scientist by training, she has extensive international experience in research, policy advice, consultancy and training on the politics of development, governance, corruption, political analysis, and aid policy.

Read more


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

Opinion by Luke Arnold25th May 2016

Does talking about corruption make it seem worse?

Guest post for The Guardian's Global Development Professionals Network

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal24th November 2014

Politics shape services; and services shape politics

How governance and sector specialists can help each other understand the politics of service delivery

Opinion by Richard Batley19th June 2014

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

What is transformative leadership?

Guest post in University World News

Opinion by Chris Roche15th April 2016
Opinion by Heather Marquette10th November 2014

‘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
Opinion by Heather Marquette13th October 2015

It's all about inclusion, but how?

Guest post for the World Bank

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal6th April 2016

#Feminism: Digital technologies and feminist activism in Fiji

Guest post on Devpolicy on DLP work with research partners at University of the South Pacific

Opinion by Tait Brimacombe14th 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

Politicians and administrators: conflict, collusion or collaboration?

How do relations between political and administrative leaders affect reform?

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi23rd October 2014

Authoritarianism, democracy and development

What does the evidence say?

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th November 2014

Innovation: transactional or transformative?

Given the fascination with 'innovation' in the field of development, it's time to discuss what the word might mean.

Opinion by Chris Roche23rd March 2015

Parliamentary strengthening: the IDC report

Having presented evidence to the UK's International Development Committee, what of the final report?

Opinion by Tam O'Neil9th February 2015

What do we do on Monday? Political settlements in theory and practice

The value of the political settlements framework

Opinion by Edward Laws15th July 2015

Is developmental patrimonialism a dead end?

The first of two posts introducing a new DLP paper on growth and democratic transition

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th September 2016

Research methods and marshalling messy data: Dear Diary

The benefits of an old-fashioned research diary

Opinion by Suda Perera2nd September 2015

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

The unintended consequences of raising awareness of corruption

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015

Inclusive political settlements: who and what gets included, and how?

First of six posts on political settlements by researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal13th July 2015

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

Opinion by Suda Perera6th November 2014

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

The ambiguities of supporting 'developmental leadership'

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi11th December 2013

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

Identifying rebels with a cause (and effect)

'Power, politics and positive deviance' is the theme of DLP's 2016 annual conference.

Opinion by Chris Roche1st December 2015

The road to transparency in resource-rich Myanmar

Myanmar's EITI process and its contribution to broader reform

Opinion by Taylor Brown1st April 2016

Two remarkable transitions: lessons from Oman and Somaliland

Political settlements and international power structures

Opinion by Sarah Phillips20th July 2015

International donors - aiding or abetting?

The 'donor's dilemma' is discussed in a new DLP paper.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi10th September 2015

Indonesia and the political settlements trap

The challenges of 'resettling the settlement'

Opinion by Graham Teskey17th July 2015

Masculinity and sexual violence in India

Will the shocking Nirbaya case shift attitudes?

Opinion by Martin Rew16th September 2015
Opinion by Dan Hymowitz3rd February 2017

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
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal26th April 2016

The challenge of realising Pacific democracies' development potential

How can Pacific democracies deliver for their citizens?

Opinion by Julien Barbara8th July 2016
Opinion by Heather Marquette9th March 2015
Opinion by Susy Ndaruhutse11th September 2014

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

Final post in a series on 'Power, politics and positive deviance', theme of DLP's 2016 Annual Conference.

Opinion by Suda Perera5th February 2016

Overcoming premature evaluation

Guest post in From Poverty to Power

Opinion by Chris Roche15th November 2016
Opinion by Caryn Peiffer5th February 2015