Corruption as Exploitation: Feminist Exchange Theories and the Link Between Gender and Corruption

  • Helen Lindberg
  • Helena Stensöta
Chapter
Part of the Political Corruption and Governance book series (PCG)

Abstract

How can feminist theories be used to understand and explain the phenomena of corruption? The chapter explores what it means to expand the definition of corruption into sexual corruption to make sense of its dynamics. We highlight the different ways sexual corruption plays out and further inquire into how feminist theories that problematize asymmetrical opportunities along gender and the public/private divide may contribute to theories on gender and corruption. We conclude that men are the beneficiaries of sexual corruption, and therefore, corruption is an additional risk for women connected to male power. Furthermore, the feminist ambition to dismantle the distinction between private and public spheres means that every misuse of power can be seen as corruption, with far-reaching empirical consequences for the study of corruption.

References

  1. Ackerman, R.-S. (2016). Corruption and government: Causes, consequences and reform (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ferguson, A. (1991). Sexual democracy: Women oppression, and revolution. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  3. Fifield, A. (2017, January 25). Japanese aren’t so sure about Donald Trump, but they love Ivanka. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/25/japanese-arent-so-sure-about-donald-trump-but-they-love-ivanka/?utm_term=.51b966628b09. Accessed 26 Sept 2017.
  4. Firestone, S. (1970). The dialectic of sex: The case for feminist revolution. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  5. Goetz, A. M. (2007). Political cleaners: Women as the new anti-corruption force? Development and Change, 38(1), 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Granberg, M. (2014). Manufacturing dissent: Labor conflict, care work and the politicization of caring. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 4(1), 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gunnarsson, L. (2014). Loving him for who he is: The microsociology of power. In A. G. Jónasdóttir & A. Ferguson (Eds.), Love: A question for feminism in the twenty-first century. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Hartsock, N. (1985). Money, sex and power: Toward a feminist historical materialism, Northeastern series in feminist theory. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Jónasdóttir, A. G. (1994). Why women are oppressed. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ledeneva, A. (2013). How Russia really works: The informal practices that shaped post-Soviet politics and business. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lindberg, H. (2009). Only women bleed: A critical reassessment of feminist social theory. Örebro: Örebro University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Marx, K. (1971/1887). Capital (Vol. 1). Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Nussbaum, M. (1999). Sex and social justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Okin, S. M. (1989). Introduction to John Stuart Mill, the subjection of women. London: Hackett.Google Scholar
  15. Pateman, C. (1988). The sexual contract. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Roemer, J. (1993). Should Marxists be interested in exploitation? In J. Roemer (Ed.), Analytical Marxism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ronson, J. (2016, April 22). Monica Lewinsky: The shame sticks to you like tar. Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/16/monica-lewinsky-shame-sticks-like-tar-jon-ronson. Accessed 26 Sept 2017.
  18. Tilly, C. (1999). Durable inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Towns, A. (2015). Prestige, immunity and diplomats: Understanding sexual corruption. In C. Dahlström & L. Wängnerud (Eds.), Elites, institutions and the quality of government (pp. 49–66). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Transparency International. (2014). https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results
  21. Tronto, J. (1993). Moral boundaries: Political argument for an ethic of care. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Vaccari, C. (2017, January 8). Röda-korset kvinna misstänkt för sex med minderårig asylsökande. Göteborgsposten. http://www.gp.se/nyheter/världen/röda-korset-kvinna-misstänkt-för-sex-med-minderårig-asylsökande-1.4103907. Accessed 26 Sept 2017.
  23. Walby, S. (1990). Theorizing patriarchy. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Wångmar, E. (2013). Tillit och corruption: Korruption – Maktmissbruk och bristande tillit I svensk lokalpolitik 1963–2011. Stockholm: Santérus Förlag.Google Scholar
  25. Wängnerud, L. (2012). Why women are less corrupt than men. In S. Holmberg & B. Rothstein (Eds.), Good government: The relevance of political science (pp. 230–250). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  26. Wertheimer, A. (1996). Exploitation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen Lindberg
    • 1
  • Helena Stensöta
    • 2
  1. 1.City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations