Advertisement

Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 68, Issue 4, pp 459–476 | Cite as

Civil society and online connectivity: controlling corruption on the net?

  • Niklas KossowEmail author
  • Roberto Martínez Barranco Kukutschka
Article

Abstract

Over the past years, an increasing number of studies have looked at the use of internet and communications technology (ICT) in the fight against corruption. While there is broad agreement that ICT tools can be effective in controlling corruption, the mechanisms by which they are doing this are much less clear. This paper attempts to shine some light on this relationship. It focusses on the role of ICT in empowering citizens and supporting civil society. It argues that enlightened citizens can use internet access and social media to inform themselves on corruption, mobilise support for anti-corruption movements and gather information in order to shine a lisght on particularistic practices. Defining corruption as a collective action problem, the paper provides quantitative evidence to support its claim that ICT can support collective action of an informed citizenry and thus contribute to the control of corruption.

Keywords

Control of corruption Civil society Enlightened citizens Online connectivity Internet and communications technology Social accountability 

References

  1. 1.
    Freedom House (2015). Turkey: 2015, Freedom on the Net Report. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2015/turkey. Accessed 30 Jan 2017.
  2. 2.
    Onuch, O. (2015a). EuroMaidan protests in Ukraine: Social media versus social networks. Problems of Post-Communism, 62(4), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Onuch, O. (2015b). Facebook helped me do it: Understanding the EuroMaidan protester tool-kit. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, 15(1), 170–184.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elbahnasawy, N. G. (2014). E-government, internet adoption, and corruption: An empirical investigation. World Development, 57, 114–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gurin, J. (2014). Open governments, open data: A new lever for transparency, citizen engagement, and economic growth. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 34(1), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Starke, C., Naab, T. K., & Scherer, H. (2016). Free to expose corruption: The impact of media freedom, internet access and governmental online service delivery on corruption, International Journal of Communication, 10(21), 4702–4722.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sturges, P. (2004). Corruption, transparency and a role for ICT? International Journal of Information Ethics, 2(11), 1–9 http://www.i-r-i-e.net/inhalt/002/ijie_002_full.pdf], accessed 06 November 2016.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2006). Corruption: Diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Democracy, 17(3), 86–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2015). The quest for good governance: How societies develop control of corruption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heywood, P. M., & Rose, J. (2015). Curbing corruption or promoting integrity? Probing the hidden conceptual challenge. In Paul Heywood and Davide Torsello, Debates of Corruption and Integrity: Perspectives from Europe and the US, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 102 119.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2013). Controlling corruption through collective action. Journal of Democracy, 24(1), 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2013). Why anticorruption reforms fail—Systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance, 26(3), 449–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Groenendijk, N. (1997). ‘a principal-agent model of corruption’, Crime. Law and Social Change, 27(3–4), 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klitgaard, R. (1988). Controlling corruption. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bauhr, M., & Grimes, M. (2014). Indignation or resignation: The implications of transparency for societal accountability. Governance, 27(2), 291–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindstedt, C., & Naurin, D. (2010). Transparency is not enough: Making transparency effective in reducing corruption. International Political Science Review, 31(3), 301–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mungiu-Pippidi, A., Lončarič, M., Vaz Mondo, B., Sponza Braga, A. C., Weinhardt, M., Pulido Solares, A., Martini, M., Agbele, F., Frisk Jensen, M., von Soest, C., & Gabedava, M. (2011). Contextual choices in fighting corruption: Lessons learned. Norwegian Agency for Development Corporation http://www.againstcorruption.eu/publications/contextual-choices-in-fighting-corruption-lessons-learned/], accessed 31 January 2017.
  19. 19.
    Adserà, A., Boix, C., & Payne, M. (2003). Are you being served? Political Accountability and Quality of Government’, The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 19(2), 445–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brunetti, A., & Weder, B. (2003). A free press is bad news for corruption. Journal of Public Economics, 87(7), 1801–1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chowdhury, S. K. (2004). The effect of democracy and press freedom on corruption: An empirical test. Economics Letters, 85(1), 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Themudo, N. S. (2013). Reassessing the impact of civil society: Nonprofit sector, press freedom, and corruption. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, 26(1), 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ackerman, J. M. (2005). Social accountability in the public sector: A conceptual discussion. Social Development Papers: Participation and Civic Engagement, 82. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grimes, M. (2008a). Contestation or complicity: Civil society as antidote or accessory to political corruption, QoG Working Paper Series 8. Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grimes, M. (2008b). ‘the conditions of successful civil society involvement in combating corruption: A survey of case study evidence’, QoG Working Paper Series 22. Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jenkins, R. (2007). Civil society versus corruption. Journal of Democracy, 18(2), 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tocqueville, A. de (2002). Democracy in America. Hazelton: Pennsylvania State University, Electronic Classics Series.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Anheier, H. K. (2004). Civil society: Measurement, Evaluation, Policy. Earthscan: London and Sterling, VA.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Arato, A. (2006). Accountability and Civil Society. In E. Peruzzotti and C. Smulovitz (Eds.), Enforcing the rule of law: social accountability in the new Latin American Democracies (pp. 307–322). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gellner, E. (1994). Conditions of liberty: Civil society and its rivals. London: Hamish Hamilton.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lipset, S. M. (1981). Political man: The social bases of politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    North, D. C., Wallis, J. J., & Weingast, B. R. (2009). Violence and social orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(01), 69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lipset, S. M. (1994). The social requisites of democracy revisited: 1993 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 59(01), 1–22.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dahl, R. A. (1994). A democratic dilemma: System effectiveness versus citizen participation. Political Science Quarterly, 109(1), 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Milosevic, M., Chishlom, J., Kilman, L. & Henriksson, T. (2014) ´World press Trends 2014′ WAN-IFRA, Paris.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Theocharis, Y., Lowe, L., van Deth, J.W. & García-Albacete, G. (2015). Using Twitter to mobilize protest action: online mobilization patterns and action repertoires in the Occupy Wall Street, Indignados, and Aganaktismenoi movements. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 202–220.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Goel, R. K., Nelson, M. A., & Naretta, M. A. (2012). The internet as an indicator of corruption awareness. European Journal of Political Economy, 28(1), 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lambsdorff, J. G. (2006). Measuring corruption: The Validty and precision of subjective indicators (CPI). In C. Sampford, A. Shacklock, C. Connors, & F. Galtung, Measuring corruption (pp. 81–100). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jha, C. K., & Sarangi, S. (2014). Social Media, Internet and Corruption, [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2391904], accessed 04 November 2016.
  42. 42.
    Ramanna, K., & Tahilyani, R. (2012). I paid a bribe (dot) com. Harvard Business School Case 112–078.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zinnbauer, D. (2015). Crowdsourced corruption reporting: What petrified forests, street music, bath towels, and the taxman can tell us about the prospects for its future. Policy & Internet, 7(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ang, Y. Y. (2014). Authoritarian restraints on online activism revisited: Why “I-paid-A-bribe” worked in India but failed in China. Comparative Politics, 47(1), 21–40.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Andersen, T. B. (2009). E-government as an anti-corruption strategy. Information Economics and Policy, 21(3), 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shim, D. C., & Eom, T. H. (2008). E-government and anti-corruption: Empirical analysis of international data. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(3), 298–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Diamond, L. (2010). Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy, 21(3), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stockmann, D., & Luo, T. (2015). Authoritarianism 2.0: Social media and political discussion in China, [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2650341], accessed 05 November 2016.
  49. 49.
    Bernhard, M., Tzelgov, E., Jung, D., Coppedge, M. and Lindberg, S. I. (2015). The Varieties of democracy Core civil society index, V-Dem Working Paper, 2015 (13) [http://ssrn.Com/abstract=2667493] accessed 08 June 2016.
  50. 50.
    McGillivray, M., & White, H. (1993). Measuring development?: The UNDP's human development index. Journal of International Development, 5(2), 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2010). The experience of civil society as an anticorruption actor in East Central Europe. Romanian Journal of Political Science, 10(2), 5–33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niklas Kossow
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roberto Martínez Barranco Kukutschka
    • 1
  1. 1.Hertie School of GovernanceBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations