Corruption Defined: Part 1

Sonya Shaykhoun, Esq., LL.M. has an LL.M. in Corporate and Commercial Law (SOAS, 2003) and an LL.M. in Corruption, Law and Governance (University of Sussex & ROLACC, 2018) and has worked in the Compliance Department of Qatar Airways. This is Part 1 of an ongoing series on "Corruption Defined".

The Anti-Corruption Movement

On October 1, 1996, James Wolfenson, the then-World Bank President inadvertently launched the Anti-Corruption Movement when he made his famous “cancer of corruption” speech at the World Bank Annual Meetings.

Defining Corruption

“Corruption” is notoriously difficult to define and why (e.g., because it defines a complex set of behaviors in many areas that one definition may not be able to capture.)

The Forward to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption ("UNCAC") describes the damage that corruption does on a wide scale aptly:

Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.[1]

As easy as it is to describe the damage that corruption causes, it is not as easy to find consensus on a universal definition that captures all manner of corruption.

It is universally understood that corruption is a bad thing and should be eradicated, but it has been notoriously difficult to get a universal consensus on a definition of corruption. TI’s definition of “corruption” (i.e., “The abuse of entrusted power for private gain”[2]) is widely accepted and should be included in any discussion of corruption. UNCAC outlaws “corruption” without defining it per se but by providing examples of corrupt behaviors that must be outlawed by UNCAC members. Specifically, UNCAC outlaws bribery and embezzlement, money laundering, concealment and obstruction of justice (see: UNCAC in a Nutshell).

There is also a panoply of behavior that falls under the general umbrella of “corruption”, setting out definitions and examples of common dichotomies that exist in the canon. These dichotomies include: i) grand/petty; ii) active/passive; iii) public/private; iv) political/bureaucratic; and, v) domestic/transnational (and which will be explored in this series).

Considerations that one must always bear in mind when evaluating corruption are “social practices”, “norms”, “values” and “context.” For example, as Carl J. Friedrich noted that Francis Bacon was corrupt, “But what is of interest is that he and his friends essentially defended his case on the ground that he was not doing anything that was not generally done.”[3] If such behavior, which is defined as a “deviation from the norm,” is, in fact, a norm, then how can it be corrupt? It is circular logic, but that is the conundrum. What about the Gulf States where tribalism and nepotism often fall foul of standard definitions of “corruption”? This also goes to the point that “corruption” manifests in a wide array of contexts and varying scales.

Another consideration is “legal corruption” (i.e., such as the case of Bishop Tebarz van-Elst in Germany, who was empowered to spend Church funds and spent €31 million, considerably more than his €5.5 million budget - see: Bishop of Bling) and “moral corruption” (i.e., according to which moral code?) are also worth noting.

Corruption can be redemptive on rare occasions, as Friedrich wrote: “Trotsky reported such corruption on a great scale as proof of his contention that the Soviet Union was utterly bureaucratized. These bits of evidence could readily be multiplied: If it had not been for such corruption, many more would have perished under the terror whom corrupt officials allowed to escape.”[4]

Antonyms of “Corruption”

Typical antidotes to and/or preventative measures against corruption include concepts such as “integrity”, “ethics”, and “codes of conduct.” Such terms manifest as “anti-corruption” and “anti-bribery” policies, which are often included in corporate and institutional policies to counter corruption. These “antonyms” of corruption normally comprise that discipline known as “governance” and inform the Rule of Law.

[1] United Nations Convention Against Corruption, opened for signature 31 October 2003, 2349 UNTS (entered into force 14 December 2015), p. 1

[2] ‘What is Corruption?’ https://www.transparency.org/en/what-is-corruption accessed 22 October 2020

[3] Friedrich, C.J., ‘Corruption Concepts in Historical Perspective’, in A.J. Heidenheimer and M. Johnston (eds): Political Corruption: Concepts and Context (London: Transactions, 2005), pp.15-24, p.18

[4] ibid, p.17.