Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Self-legitimation patterns in the inequality-corruption nexus

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article attempts to analyze the intersection of corruption and inequality not only in terms of the injustices and inequalities accentuated by corruption, but also in terms of the role of self-justification narratives of corruption based on perceptions of inequality. Despite the fact that the common definition as an ‘abuse’ of power removes the possibility of legitimation of corruption, legitimation narratives do exist and they also do appear in various surveys or case studies. By introducing Tilly’s perspective of inequality to corruption research, this article provides new input for understanding the dynamics of inequality and opportunity hoarding that fuel endemic corruption.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For an overview on the greasing the wheels argument, see Meon and Sekkat [14].

  2. Regarding the hypothesis that lack of social trust is related to ethnic divisions in society, You [25] concludes that although ethnic divisions might coincide with high inequality due to discriminatory institutions, social trust is more connected to perceptions about fairness, rather than to perceptions about ethnic or racial differences.

  3. While this exploration of corruption, land reform and inequality is focused on the Asian context, any possibility of replication in other areas, provided the conditions of comparability of the cases, should be explored by future research. Of particular interest would be to look at post-communist countries, since many of them have experienced land reforms with different levels of success and also have varying levels of corruption.

References

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Forst, R. (2013). Zum Begriff eines Rechtfertigungsnarrativs. In A. Fahrmeir (Ed.), Rechtfertigungsnarrative. Zur Begründung normativer Ordnung durch Erzählungen (pp. 11–28). Campus: Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gephart, M. (2009). Contextualizing conceptions of corruption. Giga Working Paper: Challenges for the international anti-corruption campaign.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sengupta, M. (2013). Anna Hazare's anti-corruption movement and the limits of mass mobilization in India. Social Movement Studies, 13(3), 406–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Corcoran, K., Pettinicchio, D., & Young, J. (2015). Perceptions of structural injustice and efficacy. Participation in low/moderate/high-cost forms of collective action. Sociological Inquiry, 85(3), 429–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tilly, C. (2005). Historical perspectives on inequality. In M. Romero & E. Margolis (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social inequalities (pp. 15–31). UK: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Forst, R., & Günther, K. (2011). Die Herausbildung Normativer Ordnungen. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven. New York: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Engelkamp, S., & Glaab, K. (2015). Writing norms. Alternatives. Global, Local, Political, 40(3/4), 201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Heyneman, S. (2009). Education corruption in international perspective. An introduction. In S. Heyneman (Ed.), Buying your way into heaven. Education and corruption in international perspectives (pp. 1–8). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dawson, W. (2009). “The tricks of the teacher”. Shadow education and corruption in Cambodia. In S. Heyneman (Ed.), Buying your way into heaven. Education and corruption in international perspectives (pp. 51–74). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Karklins, R. (2005). The system made me do it. Corruption in post-communist societies. New York: ME Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Holmes, L. (1993). The end of communist power. UK: Oxford University Press. https://www.transparency.org/files/content/corruptionqas/Impact_of_corruption_on_growth_and_inequality_2014.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2017.

  13. Gannett, A., & Rector, C. (2015). Rationalization of political corruption. Public Integrity, 17, 165–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Meon, P., & Sekkat, K. (2005). Does corruption grease or sand the wheels of growth? Public Choice, 122(1/2), 69–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Khondker, K. (2006). Sociology of corruption and ‘corruption of sociology’: Evaluating the contributions of Syed Hussein Alatas. Current Sociology, 54, 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bauhr, M., Nasiritousi, N. (2011). Why pay bribes? Collective action and anti-corruption efforts, QoG working paper series, 18.

  17. Transparency International (2014). Anti-corruption helpdesk report. The impact of corruption on growth and inequality. Available from: https://www.alreporter.com/media/2014/06/Impact_of_corruption_on_growth_and_inequality_2014.pdf. Accessed on 20 March 2017.

  18. Gupta, S. (2002). Does corruption affect income inequality? Economic Governance, 3(3), 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Europe Aid Concept Paper (2011). Supporting anti-corruption reform in partner countries. Concepts, tools and areas for action. Available from https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/methodology-tools-and-methods-series- anti-corruption-reform-short-version-201108_en_5.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2017.

  20. Lambsdorff, J. G. (2006). Causes and consequences of corruption. What do we know from a cross-section of countries? In S. Ackerman & H. Luce (Eds.), International handbook on the economics of corruption (pp. 3–52). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Uslaner, E. M. (2008). Corruption, inequality, and the rule of law. The bulging pocket makes the easy life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Rotberg, R. (2017). The corruption cure: How citizens and leaders can combat graft. Princeton: University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Graeff, P. (2005). Why should one trust in corruption? The linkage between corruption, norms and social capital. In J. G. Lambsdorff, M. Taube, & M. Schramm (Eds.), The new institutional economics of corruption (pp. 40–58). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fukuyama, F. (2005). Social Capital and Civil Society. Paper presented at the IMF Conference on Second Generation Reforms. Available from https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/fukuyama.htm. Accessed 20 March 2017.

  25. You, J. (2005). Corruption and Inequality as Correlates of Social Trust. Fairness Matters More Than Similarity. Working Paper (29). The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations and The John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University.

  26. Bjørnskov, C., & Paldam, M. (2005). Corruption trends. In J. G. Lambsdorff, M. Taube, & M. Schramm (Eds.), The new institutional economics of corruption (pp. 59–75). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tuñón, M. (2006). Internal labour migration in China. International Labour Organization (ILO) Paper Series, Beijing: Features and Responses.

    Google Scholar 

  28. You, J., & Khagram, S. (2005). A comparative study of inequality and corruption. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 136–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. You, J. (2014). Land reform, inequality, and corruption. A comparative historical study of Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Korean. Journal of International Studies, 12(1), 191–224.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). A theory of political transitions. The American Economic Review, 91(4), 938–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tilly, C. (2007). Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Termirkulov, A. (2006). Combating open society threats: Regionalism, nepotism and corruption recommendations for NGOs from the Kyrgyz Republic. Open Society Institute: International Policy Fellowship Program. Budapest.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Grzymala-Busse, A. (2003). Political competition and the politicization of the state. Comparative Political Studies, 36(10), 1123–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2006). The rise of the partisan state? Parties, patronage and the ministerial bureaucracy in Hungary. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 22(3), 274–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rury, J., & Saatcioglu, A. (2016). Opportunity hoarding. In J. Stone, R. M. Dennis, P. S. Rizova, A. D. Smith, & X. Hou (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and nationalism. Wiley Blackwell: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58, 41–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2014). Survey on Public Perceptions of Corruption in the Education Sector. Available from: http://www.ks.undp.org/content/kosovo/en/home/library/democratic_governance/survey-on-public-perceptions-of-corruption-in-the-education-sect.html. Accessed on 20 March 2017.

  38. ISSP Research Group (2017). International Social Survey Programme: Social Inequality IV - ISSP 2009. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5400 Data file Version 4.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12777.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jens Steffek, Maria Paola Ferretti, Emanuela Ceva, Jorge Mangonnet, Besart Avdiu and the participants at the Second Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Forum in Paris for their comments on previous versions of this article. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the editors of this special issue for their valuable suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Darmstadt University of Technology, Dolivostr. 15, 64293, Darmstadt, Germany

    Miranda Loli

  2. The Cluster of Excellence “The Formation of Normative Orders”, Frankfurt, Germany

    Miranda Loli

Authors
  1. Miranda Loli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miranda Loli.

Appendix

Appendix

Fig. 5
figure 5

Perception of necessity of bribes and perceived income inequality

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Perception of corruption as necessary for social mobility and perceived income inequality

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Loli, M. Self-legitimation patterns in the inequality-corruption nexus. Crime Law Soc Change 70, 241–256 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9729-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9729-8

Search

Navigation