Exploring Shades of Corruption Tolerance: Tentative Lessons from Iceland and Sweden

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj189994.2019-5.141-164

Keywords:

corruption, tolerance of corruption, norms, social trust, quality of government, public administration, bureaucratic ethics

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore the effects of corruption tolerance on corruption levels. Strong claims are made in the literature to the effect that tolerance of corruption is universally low. We show, however, that there are non-trivial variations in tolerance of corruption, and that these are significantly related to commonly used indices of corruption. This suggests that understanding which factors shape corruption tolerance is important. Here, our concern is with the effects of elite structures on corruption. We first ask if closeness to power affects corruption tolerance and if the general population is less tolerant than elite groups. We then ask if different elite groups — e. g., politicians and civil servants respectively — are likely to form different standards regarding corruption. To hold certain external variables constant, the paper focuses on two relatively homogeneous, low-corruption countries: Sweden and Iceland. Our findings suggest that whereas little supports the closeness to power hypothesis — the general population is not less tolerant of corruption than elites — there may be important differences in how different elite groups within these countries view corrupt activities. This has implications for how corruption can be contained.

Author Biographies

Gissur Ólafur Erlingsson, Centre for Local Government Studies Linköping University

An associate professor in political science, Linköping University, Sweden. His main research interest is corruption and other forms of illicit or unethical practices in the public sector. Erlingsson has published himself on these issues in journals such as Governance, International Journal of Public Administration, Government and Opposition, Public Integrity and Local Government Studies; as well as the monograph A Clean House: Studies of Corruption in Sweden (Nordic Academic Press).an associate professor in political science, Linköping University, Sweden. His main research interest is corruption and other forms of illicit or unethical practices in the public sector. Erlingsson has published himself on these issues in journals such as Governance, International Journal of Public Administration, Government and Opposition, Public Integrity and Local Government Studies; as well as the monograph A Clean House: Studies of Corruption in Sweden (Nordic Academic Press).

Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson, Department of Political Science University of Iceland

Professor in political science, University of Iceland, Iceland. Kristinsson is an expert on political trust, legitimacy and issues pertaining to irregularities in public decision making, such as clientelism, patronage and other practices related to corruption. He is published on these topics in journals such as Acta Politica, West European Politics and Icelandic Review of Politics and Administration, as well as edited volumes such as Party Patronage and Party Government in European Democracies (Oxford University Press)  and Clientelism, Interests, and Democratic Representation (Cambridge University Press).

References

  1. Aberbach, Joel, Robert Putnam, and Bert Rockman. Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981.
  2. Andersson, Staffan and Gissur Ó. Erlingsson. “New Public Management and Danger Zones for Corruption,” In The Social Construction of Corruption in Europe, edited by Dirk Tänzler, et al, 33–58. Farnham, Burlington: Ashgate Press, 2012.
  3. Bardhan, Pranab. “Corruption and Development: A Review of the Issues.” Journal of Economic Literature 35, no. 3 (1997): 1320–46.
  4. Becker, Gary S. “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach.” The Journal of Political Economy 76, no. 2 (1968): 169–217.
  5. Becker, Katharina, Christian Hause, and Franz Kronthaler. “Fostering Management Education To Deter Corruption: What Do Students Know About Corruption and Its Legal Consequences?” Crime, Law and Social Change 60, no. 2 (2013): 227–40.
  6. Bierstaker, James Loyd. “Differences In Attitudes About Fraud And Corruption Across Culture: Theory, Examples And Recommendations.” Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 16, no. 3 (2009): 224–50.
  7. Box, Richard et al. “New Public Management and Substantive Democracy.” Public Administration Review 61 (2001): 608–19.
  8. Chang, Eric and Nicholas Kerr. “An Insider-Outsider Theory of Popular Tolerance for Corrupt Politicians.” Governance 30, no. 1 (2017): 67–84.
  9. Collier, Michael. “Explaining Corruption: An Institutional Choice Approach.” Crime, Law and Social Change 38, no. 1 (2002): 1–32.
  10. Dahlström, Carl, and Victor Lapuente. Organizing Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
  11. D´Arcy, Michelle, Marina Nistotskaya, and Robert Ellis. “State-Building, Democracy and Taxation: Why Ireland Will Never Be Sweden.” University of Tokyo Journal of Law and Politics 12 (2015): 110–123.
  12. DeCelles, K. A., D. S. DeRue, J. D. Margolis, and T. L. Ceranic. “Does Power Corrupt or Enable? When and Why Power Facilitates Self-Interested Behaviour.” Journal of Applied Psychology 97, no. 3, (2012): 681–89.
  13. Erlingsson, Gissur Ó. and Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson. “Measuring Corruption: Whose Perceptions Should We Rely On?” Icelandic Review of Politics & Administration 12, no. 2, (2016): 215–35.
  14. Erlingsson, Gissur Ó., Jonas Linde, and Richard Öhrvall. “Distrust in Utopia? Public Perceptions of Corruption and Political Support in Iceland Before and after the Financial Crisis in 2008.” Government and Opposition 51, no. 4, (2016): 553–79.
  15. European Commission. “Special Eurobarometer 470.” Brussels: European Commission, 2017.
  16. Fisman, Raymond and Edward Miguel. “Corruption, Norms and Legal Enforcement. Evidence from Diplomatic Parking Tickets.” Journal of Political Economy 115, no. 6 (2007): 1020–48.
  17. Fredricksson, H. George. “Ethics and the New Managerialism.” Public Administration & Management 4, no. 2, (1999): 299–324.
  18. Gilman, Stuart C. Ethics Codes and Codes of Conduct as Tools for Promoting an Ethical and Professional Public Service: Comparative Successes and Lessons. Washington D. C.: World Bank, 2005.
  19. Goss, Robert P. “A Distinct Public Administration Ethics.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6, no. 4, (1996): 573–97.
  20. Granovetter, Mark. “Threshold Models of Collective Behaviour.” The American Journal of Sociology 83, no. 6, (1978): 1420–43.
  21. Holmberg, Sören, Bo Rothstein and Naghmeh Nasiritousi.”Quality of Government: What You Get.” Annual Review of Political Science 12 (2009): 135–61.
  22. Hondeghem, Annie. Ethics and Accountability in a Context of Governance and New Public Management. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 1998.
  23. Huntington, Samuel. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.
  24. Kristinsson, Gunnar H. Embættismenn og Stjórnmálamenn. Reykjavík: Heimskringla, 1993.
  25. Kristinsson, Gunnar H. “Party Patronage in Iceland: Rewards and Control Appointments” In Party Patronage and Party Government in European Democracies, edited by Peter Kopecky. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
  26. Kuran, Timur. Private Truths, Public Lies. The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1997.
  27. Levi, Lennart and Bo Rothstein. “Educating Ethical Leaders and Critical Thinkers.” University World News, January 12, 2018. http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20180109150748260.
  28. Magnus, Jan, Victore Polterovich, Dimitri Danilov and Alexei Sovvotev. “Tolerance of Cheating: An Analysis across Countries.” The Journal of Economic Education 33, no. 2 (2002): 125–35.
  29. Manzetti, Luigi, and Carole Wilson. “Why do Corrupt Governments Maintain Public Support.” Comparative Political Studies. 40, no. 8 (2007): 949–70.
  30. Meyer-Sahling, Jan-Hinrik, Kim Sass Mikkelsen, and Christian Schuster. “The Causal Effect of Public Service Motivation on Ethical Behavior in the Public Sector: Evidence from a Large-Scale Survey Experiment.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 29, no. 3 (2019): 445–59.
  31. Miller, Gary. “Above Politics: Credible Commitment and Efficiency in the Design of Public Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10, no. 2 (2000): 289–327.
  32. Mudde, Cas. “The Populist Zeitgeist.” Government and Opposition 39, no. 3 (2004): 541–63.
  33. Ocantos, Ezeuiel, Chad de Jontge, and David Nickerson. “The Conditionality of VoteBuying Norms: Experimental Evidence from Latin America.” American Journal of Political Science 58, no. 1, (2014): 187–211.
  34. Persson, Anna, Bo Rothstein and Jan Teorell. “Why Anticorruption Reforms Fail: Systemic Corruption as a Collective Action Problem.” Governance 26, no. 3 (2013): 449–71.
  35. Rothstein, Bo. Social Traps and the Problem of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
  36. Rothstein, Bo. “Creating Political Legitimacy: Electoral Democracy versus Quality of Government.” American Behavioral Scientist 53, no. 3 (2009): 311–30.
  37. Rothstein, Bo. “Anti-Corruption: the Indirect ‘Big Bang’ Approach.” Review of International Political Economy 18, no. 2, (2011): 228–50.
  38. Rothstein, Bo and Ayisha Varraich. Making Sense of Corruption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
  39. Schelling, Thomas. “Dynamic Models of Segregation.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1 (1971): 143–86.
  40. Shefter, Martin. Political Parties and the State. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).
  41. Silberman, Bernard. Cages of Reason. The Rise of the Rational State in France, Japan, the United States, and Great Britain. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993.
  42. Wright, Bradley, Shahidul Hassan, and Jongsoo Park. “Does a Public Service Ethic Encourage Ethical Behaviour? Public Service Motivation, Ethical Leadership and the Willingness to Report Ethical Problems.” Public Administration 94, no. 3 (2016): 647–63.
  43. Ziller, Conrad and Thomas Schübel. “‘The Pure People’ versus ‘the Corrupt Elite’? Political Corruption, Political Trust and the Success of Radical Right Parties in Europe.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 25, no. 3 (2015): 368–86.

Downloads

How to Cite

Erlingsson, G. Ólafur, & Kristinsson, G. H. (2019). Exploring Shades of Corruption Tolerance: Tentative Lessons from Iceland and Sweden. Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal, (5), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj189994.2019-5.141-164

Issue

No. 5 (2019): Kyiv-Mohyla Law & Politics Journal: Legal and Political Challenges of Anticorruption Activities

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2019 Gissur Ólafur Erlingsson, Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal provides free access to original research without restriction barriers (i.e. subscription fees, licensing fees etc.).

Unless otherwise indicated, content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which means you are free to:

distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially

...provided that any use is made with attribution to author(s) and Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal.

The copyright in the article or any other submission to Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal shall remain with the author(s).

The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.