Advertisement

A Case Study of an EU Procurement Process in an African Country

  • Peter Stiernstedt
  • Mark Button
Chapter
Part of the Political Corruption and Governance book series (PCG)

Abstract

This chapter will explore the role of morality in corruption, going down a route of examining corruption in the procurement process using a somewhat uncommonly applied axiological lens. It will establish the aspiring diction of the EU in terms of corruption as an expression of a moral high ground on how to intellectually deal with the phenomenon. Problems arise when rhetoric is translated to reality, illustrated by delineating the EU moral stance on corruption and looking how this relates to a case study of corruption in the procurement process. It is argued that universal moral laws do exist, however, they must be dealt with differently in the highly varied cultural context of the world—as long as one remembers, acknowledges and takes into consideration those laws.

Keywords

Procurement Process Universal Moral Law Moral High Ground Local Security Solutions Corrupt Behavior 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bahm, Archie J. 1993. Axiology: The Science of Values. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  2. Bazerman, Max, and Ann Tenbrunsel. (2011). Stumbling Into Bad Behavior. The New York Times, April 20. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/opinion/21bazerman.html. Accessed 17 April 2017.
  3. Cialdini, Robert. 1993. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: Quill.Google Scholar
  4. Council of Europe. 2002. Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (CoE ETS No.173).Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2003. Civil Law Convention on Corruption (CoE ETS No.174).Google Scholar
  6. Darley, John M. 2005. The Cognitive and Social Psychology of the Contagious Organizational Corruption. Brooklyn Law Review 70 (4): 1177–1194.Google Scholar
  7. Dawkins, Richard. 2008. The Genius of Charles Darwin – HD Full Length (All 3 Episodes). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0VnuhHq5m0. Accessed 30 April 2017.
  8. European Commission. 2007. Report from the Commission to the Council based on Article 9 of the Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on Combating Corruption in the Private Sector (COM(2007) 328).Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2011. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, based on Article 9 of Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector (COM(2011) 309).Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2014. EU Anti-Corruption Report (COM(2014) 38).Google Scholar
  11. Fazekas, Mihaly, Luciana Cingolani, and Bence Tóth. 2016. A Comprehensive Review of Objective Corruption Proxies in Public Procurement: Risky Actors, Transactions, and Vehicles of Rent Extraction. Working Paper series: GTI-WP/2016:03. Budapest: Government Transparency Institute.Google Scholar
  12. Feldman, Richard. 2003. Epistemology. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  13. Hammersley, Martyn. 1990. What’s Wrong with Ethnography? The Myth of Theoretical Description. Sociology 24 (4): 597–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harris, Sam. 2010. Science Can Answer Moral Questions. https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right. Accessed 1 April 2017.
  15. ———. 2011. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  16. Heidenheimer, Arnold J. 2002. Perspectives on the Perception of Corruption. In Political Corruption – Concepts and Contexts, ed. Arnold J. Heidenheimer and Michael Johnston, 141–154. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  18. Köbis, Nils C., Jan-Willem van Prooijen, Francesca Righetti, and Paul A.M. van Lange. 2015. Who Doesn’t?—The Impact of Descriptive Norms on Corruption. PLoS One 10 (6): e0131830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina. 2015. The Quest for Good Governance: How Societies Develop Control of Corruption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina, and Ramin Dadasov. 2017. When Do Laws Matter? The Evidence on National Integrity Enabling Contexts. Crime, Law and Social Change 1–16.Google Scholar
  21. Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina, et al. 2015. Public Integrity and Trust in the European Union. Berlin: ERCAS, Hertie School of Governance.Google Scholar
  22. Nohria, Nitin. 2015. You’re Not as Virtuous as You Think. The Washington Post, October 15. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/youre-not-as-virtuous-as-you-think/2015/10/15/fec227c4-66b4-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html?utm_term=.f6095dc2b4db. Accessed 17 April 2017.
  23. OECD. 2007. Integrity in Public Procurement. Good Practice from A to Z. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2009. OECD Principles for Integrity in Public Procurement. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2013. Government at a Glance 2013. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  26. Pallier, Gerry, Rebecca Wilkinson, Vanessa Danthiir, Sabina Kleitman, Goran Knezevic, Lazar Stankov, and Richard Roberts. 2002. The Role of Individual Differences in the Accuracy of Confidence Judgments. Journal of General Psychology 129 (3): 257–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Persson, Anna, Bo Rothstein, and Jan Teorell. 2013. Why Anticorruption Reforms Fail. Systemic Corruption as a Collective Action Problem. Governance 26 (3): 449–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robson, Colin. 2011. Real World Research. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Rusch, Jonathan. 2016. The Social Psychology of Corruption. Paper presented at the 2016 OECD Integrity Forum, Paris.Google Scholar
  30. Sampford, Charles, Arthur Shacklock, Carmel Connors, and Fredrik Galtung. 2006. Measuring Corruption. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  31. Shermer, Michael. 2015. The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  32. The Council of the European Union. 2003. Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on Combating Corruption in the Private Sector (COM(2003) 568).Google Scholar
  33. ———. 2008. Council Decision of 25 September 2008 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (COM(2008) 801).Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2009. The Stockholm Programme – An Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting Citizens (OJ C 115/1).Google Scholar
  35. United Nations General Assembly, Res.A/58/422. 2003. The United Nations Convention Against Corruption.Google Scholar
  36. van Duyne, Petrus C. 2001. Will Caligula Go Transparent? Corruption in Acts & Attitudes. Forum on Crime and Society 1 (2): 7398.Google Scholar
  37. Wensink, Wim, and Jan Maarten de Vet. 2013. Identifying and Reducing Corruption in Public Procurement in the EU. Brussels: PwC/ECORYS.Google Scholar
  38. Williamson, Kirsty. 2006. Research in Constructivist Frameworks Using Ethnographic Techniques. Library Trends 55 (1): 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Stiernstedt
    • 1
  • Mark Button
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Criminal Justice StudiesUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations