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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is a common issue when measuring corruption, as the most commonly used measures usually refer to corruption perception, rather than control of corruption (see [40]).

  2. 2.

    For a description of the composition of the WGI-CoC, please refer to the World Bank’s page on the Worlwide Governance Indicators: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#doc

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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Elbahnasawy, N. G. (2014). E-government, internet adoption, and corruption: An empirical investigation. World Development, 57, 114–126.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2015). The quest for good governance: How societies develop control of corruption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google 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.

  12. 12.

    Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2013). Controlling corruption through collective action. Journal of Democracy, 24(1), 101–115.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Groenendijk, N. (1997). ‘a principal-agent model of corruption’, Crime. Law and Social Change, 27(3–4), 207–229.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Brunetti, A., & Weder, B. (2003). A free press is bad news for corruption. Journal of Public Economics, 87(7), 1801–1824.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Tocqueville, A. de (2002). Democracy in America. Hazelton: Pennsylvania State University, Electronic Classics Series.

  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.

  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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Lipset, S. M. (1994). The social requisites of democracy revisited: 1993 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 59(01), 1–22.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Milosevic, M., Chishlom, J., Kilman, L. & Henriksson, T. (2014) ´World press Trends 2014′ WAN-IFRA, Paris.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  45. 45.

    Andersen, T. B. (2009). E-government as an anti-corruption strategy. Information Economics and Policy, 21(3), 201–210.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Diamond, L. (2010). Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy, 21(3), 69–83.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niklas Kossow.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Appendix 2: Graphical representation of the bivariate relationships

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kossow, N., Kukutschka, R.M.B. Civil society and online connectivity: controlling corruption on the net?. Crime Law Soc Change 68, 459–476 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9696-0

Download citation

Keywords

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