Your Bribery Is My Networking: Understanding the Meaning of the Exchange of Favors

  • Carol Bohmer
  • Amy Shuman
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

This chapter focuses on cultural assessments to illustrate the difficulty of evaluating evidence cross culturally. The authors examine the use of bribery and corruption; bribery falls into the category of things that are “illegal” and therefore make the officials suspicious. They assume this is something only people from asylum-sending countries do, though in fact we all do it but we consider it perfectly acceptable and call it “networking” or “making use of contacts.” The authors show that certain kinds of fraudulence are considered offensive and reprehensible (and not credible) even though they are business as usual in the society from which the applicant is fleeing and especially so for someone fleeing persecution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Affidavit of Chan Aye (2005). May 3.Google Scholar
  2. Affidavit of Dieudionne (2004). July 10.Google Scholar
  3. Alpes, Maybritt Jill. (2015). “Airport Casualties: Non-Admission and Return Risks at Times of Internalized/Externalized Border Controls.” Social Science 4(3): 742–757.Google Scholar
  4. Asylum Aid. (1999). “Still No Reason at All: Home Office Decisions on Asylum Claims.” Asylum Aid, May. http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Still_No_Reason_At_All.pdf
  5. Bohmer, Carol and Amy Shuman. (2007). Rejecting Refugees: Political Asylum in the 21st Century. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Douglas, Walton. (2005). “Deceptive Arguments Containing Persuasive Language and Persuasive Definitions.” Argumentation 19: 159–186.Google Scholar
  7. Henderson, Mark and Alison Pickup. (2012). Analysing the Refusal Letter: Best Practice Guide to Asylum and Human Rights Appeals. Electronic Immigration Network.Google Scholar
  8. Hutchings, Kate and David Weir. (2006). “Understanding Networking in China and the Arab World: Lessons for International Managers.” Journal of European Industrial Training 30(4): 272–290.Google Scholar
  9. Johns, Leigh and Mirko Bagaric. (2002). “Bribery and Networking: Is There a Difference.” Deakin Law Review 7(1): 159–171.Google Scholar
  10. Kayihura, Edouard and Kerry Zukus. (2014). Inside the Hotel Rwanda: The Surprising True Story … and Why It Matters Today (BenBella).Google Scholar
  11. Mauss, Marcel. (1954). The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archiac Societies. Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Pardo, Italo. (2004). Between Morality and the Law: Corruption, Anthropology and Comparative Society. Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Peel, M.R. (1996). “Effects on Asylum Seekers of Ill-Treatment in Zaire.” British Medical Journal 312(3 February): 293–294.Google Scholar
  14. Polese, Abel. (2008). “‘If I Receive It, It Is a Gift; If I Demand It, then It Is a Bribe’: On the Local Meaning of Economic Transactions in Post-Soviet Ukraine.” Anthropology in Action 15(3): 47–60.Google Scholar
  15. Rothstein, Bo and Davide Torsello. (2013). “Is Corruption Understood Differently in Different Cultures?” Quality of Government Institute Working Paper Series 2013.55: 1–27.Google Scholar
  16. Steidlmeier, Paul. (1999). “Gift Giving, Bribery and Corruption: Ethical Management of Business Relationships in China.” Journal of Business Ethics 20(2): 121–132.Google Scholar
  17. Taormina, Robert J. and Jennifer H. Gao. (2010). “A Research Model for Guanxi Behavior: Antecedents, Measures, and Outcomes of Chinese Social Networking.” Social Science Research 39(6): 1195–1212.Google Scholar
  18. Terretta, Meredith. (2015). “The Evolving Refuge Definition.” In Iris Berger, Tricia Redeker Hepner, Benjamin N. Lawrance, Joanna T. Tague, and Meredith Terretta (eds.), African Asylum at a Crossroads: Activism, Expert Testimony, and Refugee Rights. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, pp. 58–74.Google Scholar
  19. Transparency International Annual Report. (2012). https://www.transparency.org/annualreport/2012
  20. Trueman, Trevor. (2008). “Reasons for Refusal: An Audit of 200 Refusals of Ethiopian Asylum-Seekers in England.” Medical Justice Foundation. https://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/reasons%20for%20refusal%20jianl%20draft8.pdf
  21. Wood, Elisabeth Jean. (2008). “The Social Processes of Civil War: The Wartime Transformation of Social Networks.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 539–561.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carol Bohmer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Amy Shuman
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of GovernmentDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA
  2. 2.Department of War StudiesKing’s CollegeLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of EnglishThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations