presenting work package one n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Presenting Work Package One PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Presenting Work Package One

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 23

Presenting Work Package One - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Presenting Work Package One. Bo Rothstein Second ANTICORRP General Meeting, EUI-Florence. What is Work Package One ?. Social, legal, anthropological and political approaches to theory of corruption Partners: QoG , Hertie , EUI, UNIBG One deliverable – month 24.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Presenting Work Package One' - mircea

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
presenting work package one
Presenting Work Package One

Bo Rothstein

Second ANTICORRP General Meeting, EUI-Florence

what is work package one
What is WorkPackageOne?

Social, legal, anthropological and political approaches to theory of corruption

Partners: QoG, Hertie, EUI, UNIBG

Onedeliverable – month 24.

A state-of-the- art report on theories and harmonizedconceptsofcorruption

the objectives of wp 1
The objectivesof WP 1
  • To analyse the landscape of different conceptualizations of corruption and related concepts such as clientelism, patronage, particularism, statecapture and patrimonialism.
  • To analyze the conceptualization of what is generally understood as the opposite to corruption such as good governance, universalism, impartiality, impersonal rule, rule of law and quality of government.
  • To relate existing definitions of corruption and the opposite to corruption to various approaches in modern political philosophy about social justice, human rights and political equality.
  • To describe the implications of various definitional/theoretical approaches considering their fruitfulness for empirical research and public policy.
  • To provide the project with a harmonized taxonomy of the various definitional strategies of the above mentioned concepts that will be related to their implications for research and policy.
why is this conceptual work important
Why is thisconceptualworkimportant?

In order tostudy it, wehavetoknowwhatwearespeakingabout

Terminology is this area can be veryconfusing and the debate is intense

If we do not have a clear definition, wecannotoperationalize and measure

If wecannotmeasure, wecannotexplainvariation

If wecannotexplain variation, wecannotprovideadvice on howtocombatcorruption

  • GoodGovernance
  • State Capacity
  • Governmenteffectiveness
  • Corruption
  • Clientelism
  • Patrimonialism
  • State capture
  • Ruleoflaw
  • Universalism
  • QualityofGovernment
the main issues in defining c and not c
The mainissues in defining C and not C
  • Broad/Encompassing or Restricted/Precise?
  • Universal or Relative?
  • Substance or Procedurial?
  • Normative or Empirical?
  • Governance or Government?
  • Multi- or unidimensiona?
b road definitions of good governance
Broad definitions of Good Governance
  • World Bank: “the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised”
  • “(1) the process by which government are selected, monitored and replaced, (2) the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies, and (3) the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them” (Kaufmann, Kraay, and Mastruzzi 2004, 3)
problems with broad definitions
Problems with broad definitions
  • ”If it is everything, thenmaybe it is nothing?”
  • If just ”gooddemocracy”, thenwhy do weneedanotherconcept?
  • And…..the correlationbetween D & C is J-shaped!
  • Wewould like toknowifdemocracyincreasescontrolofcorruption and ifdemocracy is included in the definition this is not possible
  • The linebetween ”bad public policies” and corruptionwill be blurred
  • The linebetweenordinarycriminality (e.g., theft) and corruptionbecomesunclear
relativistic definitions
  • Corruption = ”the abuse of public power for private gain”
  • Butwasshould be considered ”abuse”?
  • What is the normative standard that is transgressedwhenthere is ”abuse”?
  • This definition invites relativism
  • Without a standard the specifies ”abuse” it cannot be used for comparative research
normative arguments for a universal definition
Normative arguments for a universal definition
  • Shouldwe accept a relativistic understandingsofconcepts like democracy, human rights or gender equality?
  • If not, whyshouldwe accept a relativistic definition ofcorruption?
  • If we accept a relativistic definition, wecanforget the ambitions tomeausere and compare
the public goods approach
The Public Goods Approach
  • Everysoceityhavehadtoproducesome public goods
  • Somepeoplewill be guardiansofthese public goods
  • Public goodsaresupposedto serve the wholecommunity in accordingtosome universal standard
  • When the public goodsareusedtofavorsomeinsteadofbeing delivered accordingto a universal standard, peoplewillreactagainstthisas favoritism
  • The oppositetojustice is not equality, butfavoritism
  • Corruption is an expression ofsuch favoritism
  • The norm that is abused is universalism (akaimpersonalrule or impartiality)
should policies substance be included
Shouldpolicies (substance) be included?
  • World bank: ”Sound policies”
  • But do theyreallyknow?
  • If so, whichpoliciesare ”sound” policies?
  • Whoshoulddecide?
  • Whyshouldpeople accept?
  • The Problem from Platoand Lenin - Do wewantdemocracyto be replaced by epistocracy?
  • Democracy is usually not defined by contentbut by procedures so whyshould the oppositetocorruption be?
normative or empirical definition
Normative or empirical definition?
  • Empirical studies of political legitimacy – a surprise:
  • "General governance (a composite of the rule of law, control of corruption and government effectiveness) clearly has a large, even overarching, importance in global citizen evaluation of the legitimacy of states.“….“it is notable that democratic rights, while certainly qualifying as one of the most important causes of legitimacy, turn out to be roughly on par with welfare gains, and both of these are far less important than good governance. This clashes with standard liberal treatments of legitimacy that give overall priority to democratic rights“ (Bruce Gilley 2006)
political legitimacy cont
  • ”It is QualityofGovernment and the impartialtreatment on the output sideof the political system, and not electoraldemocracy, thatcreatesregimelegitimacy” (Gjefsen2012)
  • Thus, whenpeopleevaluate the legitimacyoftheirgovernments, the norms thatdominate process of policy implementation areveryimportant
  • Thisspeaks in favorof a normative definition ofcorruption and thatoppositetocorruption
problems with empirical definitions
Problems withempirical definitions
  • Fukuyama: ”BureaucraticAutonomy” and ”State Capacity”
  • Bothcan be used for very bad purposes
  • Acemoglu & Robinson: Whatis required is ”inclusive institutions”, defined as system that “allow and encourage participation by the greatmassofpeople in economicactivitiesthat make best useoftheir talents and skill and enablethemto make the choicestheywish” + ruleoflaw. propertyrights, etc.
  • Well, big news: The goodsocietyproduces the goodsociety”’
john rawls and the two great hopes
John Rawls and the twogreathopes
  • By arranging fair procedures for collective decision-making(= liberal democracy) the probabilityof just outcomeswillincrease (Rawls)
  • By arranging fair procedures for the implementation ofthesedecisions (= QoG), the probabilityof just outcomeswillincrease
  • In bothcases, therecan be no guarantee, wearetalkingaboutprobabilities.
government or governance
Government or governance?
  • The twoworldsofgovernance
  • Governance mode 1 as understood by public adminstation & public policy scholarsstudyingsteering problems in western liberal democracies
  • A non-normativeand functionalistcritiqueofhierarchial and rule-of-law administration (Weberianism).
  • Focus on private-public partnerships, pseudo-market solutions, new public management, civil society, global governance, etc.
  • Governance mode 1 is a meta-concept for all typesof social co-ordination, weather or not the state is involved
  • Mostlycase studies: Weak on conceptual precision and operationalizations and therefore no ”metric” measures.
governance mode two
Governance mode two.
  • The ”GoodGovernance” agenda
  • Governance as a problem for developing and transitioncountries
  • Normative (”good”) and empirical
  • State-centered: corruption, clientelism, ruleoflaw, propertyrights, meritocracy, competence, capacity,
  • Strong focus on operationalizationsand metric (large n) measurements
  • This ”same terminology for different things” has created a lotofconceptualconfusion
multi or unidimensional definition
Multi- or unidimensional definition?
  • If multi-dimensional – how do weweigh different items.
  • Is a democracywith no independent massmedia butperfectlyfree and fair elections” a 50 % democracy?
  • For democracy á la Robert Dahl – ”politicalequality” serves as the singlebasic norm
  • Couldthere be a similar norm for whatshouldcount as the oppositetocorruption?
  • Mungiu-Pippidi: Ethical Universalism
  • North, Wallis & Weingast: Impersonal/open access rule
  • Rothstein & Teorell: Impartiality in the excerise of public power
  • Differencesaremainlyterminological
the advantage with the basic norm approach
The Advantagewith the ”Basic Norm” Approach
  • Democraciescomes in many different institutionalconfigurations
  • Still, we call Switzerland, the United States and Denmarkdemocracies.
  • Weshoudlexpectcountrieswith ”goodgovernment” alsoto come in manydifferent institutional forms
  • The Danish/Norwegian and the Swedish/Finnish central public adminstration is institutionalized in very different forms
  • Conclusion: Successful Anti-Corruption (as succesfuldemocracy) canexistwithmany different institutional forms
  • The ”action” is not in the specificinstitutionalconfiguration, but in the basic norm uponwhich the institutions operate.
conclusion s
  • Definitions ofCorruption and the OppositetoCorruptionshould be:
  • Restricted
  • Precise
  • Universal
  • Procedural
  • Normative
  • Government oriented
  • Uni-dimensional
political philosophy and anticorrp a final word from john rawls
PoliticalPhilosophy and ANTICORRP: A final word from John Rawls:
  • “A just system must generate its own support. This means that it be arranged so as to bring about in its members the corresponding sense of justice, an effective desire to act in accordance with its rules for reasons of justice. Thus the requirement of stability and the criterion of discouraging desires that conflict with the principles of justice put further constraints on institutions. They must be not only just but framed so as to encourage the virtue of justice in those who take part in them” (A Theory of Justice, p 241)