Back to Index

Institutional working definition of corruption
Obert Chinhamo and Gabriel Shumba, ACT-Southern Africa
July 31, 2008

Download this document
- Acrobat PDF version (66.8KB)
If you do not have the free Acrobat reader on your computer, download it from the Adobe website by clicking here.

Introduction
This paper proposes a distinctive institutional working definition of corruption for use by the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa. The authors propose that corruption be defined as the abuse or complicity in the abuse of private or public power, office or resources for personal gain It is essential to note from the outset that there is no single, comprehensive and universally accepted definition of corruption. It would be a long and cumbersome process to come up with a universally shared definition. To come up with such a definition, one would in any event require a functional democracy that involves consultation and consensus by relevant stakeholders. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in the Global Programme against Corruption- UN Anti-Corruption Toolkit succinctly states that the difficulties encountered in formulating a common definition are due to legal, criminological and political problems.

Senior (2006:24) attributes the problems of coming up with a convincing definition to the shades of corruption found in Heidenheimer (1989). Authors such as Heidenheimer (1989) attribute the definitional problems adverted to above the many shades that corruption takes and the complex processes of decision making. Heidenheimer is cited by Kalchheim (2004) as having classified corruption into three categories which are black corruption, grey corruption and white corruption.

In view of the difficulties surrounding definition, it is often even more difficult to agree on the necessary punishment of the act itself. There are acts that authorities and everyone else condemn and agree to punish, but there are also other acts that those in position of authority may want punish but that public opinion would not agree to censure. Lastly there are corrupt acts that both the authorities and the public opinion regard as tolerable. This scenario makes decision-making long, conflicting and cumbersome.

Though there are technical hitches in agreeing on a common universal definition, it is extremely important to define it so that the actions of individuals and institutions can be judged as corrupt or uncorrupt. To this end, this paper explores the definitions given by different authors and then a draft working definition for use by the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa is proposed.

Defining corruption
The most effective approach in coming up with an acceptable definition is to look at what various authorities have written or said about it. As adverted to already, the definitions of corruption are many and have been widely contested. There is a proliferation of literature on corruption. A number of authors devote their time and energy to this subject (Heidenheimer, Johnston and Levine, 1989; Gardiner, 1993; Dolan, McKeown & Carlson, 1988 are a few examples). However, there is little accord about what constitutes a reasonably comprehensive and widely shared definition of corruption.

Johnston (1996) provides an important typology for the definition of corruption. He identifies two different groups in the literature on the subject. The first group (Nye, 1967; Friedrich, 1966; Van Klaveren, 1989; Heidenheimer, 1989) focuses on the behavioral aspects of corruption. These behavior-orientated researchers hold the opinion that
corruption is the abuse of public office, power or authority for private gain. The second group defines corruption by roping in the relationship between and among the principal agent- client relationships (Rose-Akerman, 1978; Klitgaard, 1988). These researchers pay more attention to the interactions between and among the parties involved: a principal, an agent and a client.

Senior (2006) also cites authors (Waterbury, 1973; Nye, 1967; Alam, 1989) who supports Johnson (1996)'s typology. Waterbury (1973) defines corruption as 'the abuse of public power and influence for private ends'. Nye (1967) defines it as 'behaviour which deviates from the formal duties of a public role because of private-regarding (personal, close family, private clique) pecuniary or status gains; or violates rules against the exercise of certain types of private-regarding influence'. The two authors are categorized under Johnson (1996)'s behavior orientated typology. On the other hand Senior (2006) also cites Alam (1989)'s definition which represents Johnston (1996)'s second strand of definitions showing the relationships between principals and their agents. According to Alam (1989) corruption is defined as ' . . . . (1) the sacrifice of the principal's interest for the agent's, or (2) the violation of norms defining the agent's behavior'. Alam (1989) pays attention to the interactions between and among the parties involved.

Download full document

Visit the ACT-Southern Africa fact sheet

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP