Towards Corruption and Corruption Practice: Double Standards or Cognitive
Dissonance?
Olga Guzhva
Assistant Professor Department of Sociology V.N. Karazin Kharkov National University
Ukraine
Corruption counteraction requires definite and consistent ideas about the
essence and forms of corrupt behaviour. In other words, in the course of development
and implementation of a national anticorruption policy, it is important to consider existing
standards or stereotypes in the understanding of corruption. People rely on such
standards in their assessments of various dimensions of corruption, which, sometimes,
differ from a legislative vision of the essence and forms of corruption entirely. In the
countries where the process of implementation of the international anticorruption
conventions containing fundamental or model descriptions of elements of corruption
crimes has not been completed, the picture is even more complicated. For instance,
prior to June 2009 (the first attempt to pass “the anticorruption package”), only an
insignificant number of administrative offences was classified as corruption under the
Ukrainian law. At the same time, various types of actions were regarded as corruption
both by the public and by politicians.
From a legal standpoint, there is presumed knowledge of the law. In other
words, for the purposes of law enforcement, it is presumed that every citizen is aware of
the types of actions that are considered corruption crimes or administrative corruption
offences in a given society. However, social reality considerably deviates from the
regulatory model of the anticorruption laws. Besides, the problem in this case is much
more complex than a mere knowledge of respective legal provisions.
In the public opinion, corruption may take various forms; and a model described
in an anticorruption law is not always acceptable for people. Moreover, there are types
of actions that look like corruption but are not corruption from a legal perspective;
conversely, circumstances that may not look corrupt at first sight are corruption under
the law. It is very important to determine how respondents understand corruption and
how they distinguish its various forms in specific everyday situations. From a socio
cultural perspective, perceived assessments of corruption depend on the public
conceptions of corruption.
PATTERNS OF UNDERSTANDING OF CORRUPTION AS A SOCIAL
PHENOMENON
The analysis, specifically, understanding of corruption as a certain type of social
phenomena and understanding of particular types of corrupt actions.
The first perspective sought to collect the data on the most common public
stereotypes forming the grounds for decision-making in specific and true-life situations
that reveal general outlines of the corruption understanding. In-depth interviews were
used at this stage. The method allows obtaining accurate information on the internal
mechanisms of shaping of opinions and perceptions that are associated with the
essence of corruption phenomenon. Given that the interviews were conducted with
representatives of different social and professional groups, an interpretation of the
findings allows indentifying a number of principal features in the understanding of
corruption in the Ukrainian society.
Shaping of corruption understanding primarily depends on a number of mass
mind frames that set stereotype interpretations of corruption and its prevalence that are
the most common in the Ukrainian society. The following stereotypes deserve a special
attention.
1.
Personification of corruption
This trend is evident in the association of corruption in a particular sphere with
specific notorious persons (for instance, Pavlo Lazarenko, Leonid Kuchma etc.), or with
a construct (for instance, members of parliament, politicians, judges, the government
etc.) The underlying basis for this frame is a concept that corruption is a result of corrupt
human nature. Respectively, all efforts to counter corruption become explicitly
personalized, i.e. “we should confront specific individuals instead of the system or its
institutes.”
“Corruption reigns only at the top, it is where the big money is, and those things
that are going on at the level of “ordinary people” are just an attempt to simplify life.” (О.,
female, 29 years of age, entrepreneur).
“The first thing that comes to mind is a civil servant receiving an envelope with
cash in his office.” (К., male, 25 years of age, graduate degree, human resources
manager)
However, most often this stereotype shows in the assessments of actions of
specific individuals, in particular, at the top government level that appear in the political
discourse.
2.
Corruption implies low quality public services and low efficiency of
operations of public institutions in general.
This approach is evident in the tendency to explain poor quality services, rude
attitude of public officials and negligent performance of office duties by corruption. This
stereotype is also politically sensitive. Taking into account that the in-depth interviews
were held over a relatively long period of time that coincided with the establishment of
the new power, this correlation was particularly evident. The respondents often used
explanations that were founded on the key statements of the new government about
“flaws in the system,” “legacy of the previous regime” etc.
“… First of all, these are public officials, bribes, when you come to a hospital and
have to give a chocolate bar on every occasion to do something; it’s collection of money
in schools and kindergartens for something they are in need of; putting 10-20 UAH
between pages when you need to get a certificate, … when under the law it takes two
weeks and it took me four months to get it…. It’s already a system.” (N., female, 30
years of age, works a secretary)
“…corruption in Ukraine is a system, it’s a general rule in contacts with public
officials.” (K., 47 years of age, private entrepreneur, graduate degree, married)
“Negligent performance of official duties is a common thing in this country. It used
to be different before they brought it in. They are used to do it this way.” (G., female, 43
years of age, married, a faculty member)
“Such actions are always corruption and there are no exceptions because they
(various big and petty public officials make a profit on us and do not care, if these 100
UAH could be all one has and one has to give them away like that only so they do their
job!!!” (V., 31 years of age, a schoolteacher)
3.
Double standards in the interpretation of corruption
The analysis of the transcripts of the in-depth interviews suggests the following
trend in the understanding of corruption. On the one hand, corruption is denounced and
seen as a negative practice; on the other hand, there are infinite excuses for it. This
trend is quite common. In most cases, corrupt practices are justified by conventions: “it’s
conventional in the society,” “everybody’s doing it” and “it does not harm anyone” are
commonly used phrases to explain own actions, although corrupt actions of others are
classified as crimes.
Apart from this purely subjective approach, there are objective reasons for
corruption being mentioned as well. They also rely on a perception that, on the one
hand, corruption is a socially dangerous and criminal practice but, at the same time, it is
an integral part of life, a habit of forced use of corruption means caused by social
economic factors. One of the respondents has aptly pointed out the following:
“…So, on the one hand, corruption is believed to be socially inacceptable, it is
denounced by the mass media, curbing of corruption is an ever-present element of
election campaigns of nearly every single political force. On the other hand, corruption
has become an integral element of life of average Ukrainians. Many of us attempt to
bribe even when nobody’s asking for it.”
“…public officials (physicians, MPs, traffic police and police officers etc.) should
live on their salary, and when they receive any other income (in addition to bonuses,
premiums etc.) or, the more so, receive it in order to render a service by abusing their
office, it’s always a crime. From a legal point of view. However, there is a moral aspect
as well. In addition, everyone understands that civil servants cannot survive on their
salary. Therefore, from a moral prospective, I close my eyes to such “aid” to a traffic
police officer to speed up issuing of papers, a physician to prescribe medications that
will help. I understand, they are all human beings and their children need food.
However, there’s a limit to everything, and a multimillion bribe for a land lot owned by
the state or for the discharge of a criminal is not justifiable by any morals.” (І., female of
retirement age, a working English teacher).
Justification of corruption in specific circumstances that has acquired
features of a firmly instilled social stereotype is the key characteristic of double
standards in the understanding of corruption. The following excuses for corruption
stated by respondents are worth mentioning:
А. Corruption is a part of the national tradition:
Corruption might be a national tradition, it’s a typical trait of our people.”(О., male,
an employee of a construction firm)
B. Actions viewed as corruption are in fact a gesture of gratitude or help:
“In this country, corruption in majority of cases is only a gesture of gratitude or
rendering assistance needed and not a wrongful behaviour” (О., female, , 67 years of
age, retired);
“…probably nepotism is not corruption really. Maybe assisting in settling some
problems, even a promotion or a title, if needed, these actions are not corruption. It’s
more of a mutual help.”(Female, 43 years of age, married, a faculty member)
“…there’s gratitude. When one person helps another one to deal with problems,
these are just human relations.””If it is not systematic, it’s not corruption.” (Р., female, 40
years of age, a housewife)
C. Corruption is a habit:
“We encourage corruption ourselves. I want my child to go to this kindergarten,
and not that one, this one, which is close to my house. I can afford it and I pay, and she
goes to the kindergarten I want. We are used to the fact that we have to “give” if we
want to get what we want. We profess that those who do not “give” don’t get.” (О., 29
years of age, entrepreneur);
“Corruption has already become a habit and it’s a common thing that we do not
view it as something illegal. Indeed, one may thank a physician, for instance, but why?
It’s his immediate duty to provide care to me and to my child … we bring money
everywhere, and it is subconscious, as a rule.” (О., female, 29 years of age, private
business)
D. Corruption is a result of low wages and poor remuneration of the civil servants
and public sector employees, therefore, corruption deals should not be condemned:
“… for instance, when one gives money to a physician to perform a surgery well,
to buy good medications, to assign a nurse to attend, it’s not corruption. Clearly, from a
moral perspective it does not seem right, however, the reality is that this the physician
who with millions of other employees in this country who do not even live but survive,
who is downgraded to a rank of a destitute, is not thinking about the surgery because he
is concerned with meeting his ends.”(С., male, a farm manager);
“In some instances, corruption could be viewed as a gratuity for the work
performed; it could take a monetary form (a small amount of money, 5-10 UAH) or a
form of a box of chocolates. Therefore, this should not be seen as bribery as opposed to
getting a land lot for 10 000 UAH. In my opinion, I can give a chocolate bar to a nurse
(not more) for getting me on a drip because I understand that she receives 800 UAH
and she cannot afford chocolates, because she has to spend on more important things
(in most cases it’s just enough to pay utility bills.) (An engineer, male, 45 years of age)
The studies on the gender-related justification of corruption suggest that there
are gender-based discrepancies in the preferred explanations of corruption. Men are
more direct in classifying such actions as corruption; they justify corrupt actions
both on the part of public officials and on the part of those who offer bribes less
frequently. Women, as a rule, tend to justify bribery of public officials by a sincere
desire to repay for a favour and corrupt actions of public officials by unfairly low
salaries and a need to “feed the family.”
This said, there is a rather large group of the respondents who do not accept
corruption at all and do not look for or find any justifications for corrupt actions.
“….they do their job, they get salary for it.”(N., female, 30 years of age, married, works
as a secretary in a private firm);
“... All this is corruption, even small tips, gifts etc. It starts small and turns into
something very big.” (G., 43 years of age, married, a faculty member);
“Abusing your office, blackmailing, collecting compromising evidence about
people they are going to extort money from, intimidation, threats etc.” (І., female of
retirement age, a working teacher of English)
“… Some corruption acts have merged into our lives as something usual and are
not perceived as crimes …. But still, it’s corruption!...” (K., 47 years of age, a private
entrepreneur, graduate degree, married);
“Generally speaking, corruption is relations between an individual who needs
something and another individual who can assist in this matter, but the problem is that
often this individual has a right to get the same results on legal grounds. So, corruption
is relations between one party that has a claim on something or possibly wants
something and another party, a civil servant as a rule, who extorts a bribe for simply
doing his job, or creates a situation when it’s simply impossible to settle even an trivial
matter.”(С., male, a farm manager in the Mykolayiv Region)
Accordingly, the survey suggests that there is a controversial mixture of
discontent with corruption and its denunciation and a tendency to justify its use
in certain everyday circumstances, i.e. it reveals double standards in the
understanding of corruption prevailing in the mass mind.
4.
Situational definition of corruption
In the public view, corruption is, most often, associated with certain corrupt
circumstances or corruption experienced by respondents or their relatives or friends.
The analysis of the findings of the in-depth interviews also suggests that there is a clear
public stereotype to classify some cases as corruption, on the one hand, and as a
voluntary payment for some privileges or a conventional legitimate gratitude, on
the other hand. In particular, in order to find a more specific definition to the public
understanding of corruption, the respondents were offered to answer the question “Are
these actions always corruption? Would they possibly stop being corruption under some
circumstances?”
The responses to these questions confirmed the presence of the above
stereotype. Moreover, we have uncovered that this stereotype is sometimes combined
with various mindsets (frames) used to explain a situation, including the following:
І. It is corruption only when public officials intentionally create particular
circumstances or otherwise extort a bribe or another form of illegal benefit. If a
public official acts legally or is neutral, then giving him/her certain benefits is not
corruption but rather a sincere gesture of gratitude.
“It is corruption only when an official seeks to receive a bribe, seeks to achieve
this goal by any means, and when an applicant is willing, from the bottom of the heart,
to thank someone who has helped him/her in dealing with an issue, in this case, such
actions are not corruption, they are sincere, they are a gesture of gratitude for the
actions that has been already taken…” (L., female of retirement age, a working teacher
of English);
“Some situations are not corruption …because they (public officials) act legally
and then people reward them as a gesture of gratitude. But only when this reward is not
a condition of the actions).” (A private entrepreneur, male, 30 years of age, degree in
economics);
“Instances when I, for instance, decide to pay back a physician for medical care
are not corruption as opposed to a situation when money are literally being pulled off
from me.” (Female, 55 years of age, a support staff member)
ІІ. Classification of actions as corruption depends on the amount of the
bribe and the nature of the issue settled in the result of a corruption deal:
“We should not, probably, always blame those who take bribes, because there
are different amounts involved and different forms. Not everybody in our country
receives sufficient salaries and we all want to live better, without thinking whether it is a
crime or not, because we all have families we have to provide for.” (Male, 40 years of
age, technical profession, publicly owned company)
However, there’s a limit to everything, and a multimillion bribe for a land lot
owned by the state or for the discharge of a criminal is not justifiable by any standards.”
(І., female of retirement age, a working teacher of English).
In other words, there is a division into “large-scale corruption” and
“everyday corruption” commonly accepted in the contemporary studies on
corruption. In the general public opinion, a similar division is an established
stereotype that is becoming one of the most common motives to justify corruption. The
findings of the in-depth interviews also point to another quite common idea that
“corruption is somewhere else, in the upper circles of power, and things happening with
average people are not corruption.” In these cases, the arguments put forward to justify
own attitude involve a variety of circumstances. In particular, linking corruption to the
size of an illegitimate benefit is a quite important aspect, considering possible
perspectives of legislative regulation of liability for corruption. Respondents point out
that the amount of money involved in corrupt transactions is important.
ІІІ. A case when an individual who has means to pay a public official to
obtain certain benefits or to simplify a procedure does so is not viewed as
corruption.
“In some circumstances, in contacts with the government, if I can afford to spend
a certain amount of money to bribe and it would simplify the process of decision-making
or would bring me advantages, it is not corruption.”
This case is the most striking example of the functional attitude to corruption of
some citizens.
To conclude, citizens, as a rule, classify as corruption only those actions of public
officials that involve extortion or intentional creation of conditions to incite a corrupt
payment. The generally accepted definition of corruption also depends on the amount of
corrupt payment and the nature of the issue to be settled, as well as the personality of
the inducer and the outcomes of the deal. Cases where corruption benefits the
individual who bribes a public official, the amount of bribery is not large and the nature
of the issue involved does not substantially affect the interests of the public or an
individual should not be viewed as corruption.
5. Forced nature of corruption
This stereotype perception of corruption is similar to the above-mentioned
rationalized approach to the corruption understanding. However, this approach justifies
not the mere fact of widespread corruption but rather the reasons why people engage in
corruption deals. In other words, people are placed in circumstances when it becomes
very difficult if not impossible to get a required service or result:
“corruption is any actions aiming at illegitimate enrichment (even when it implies
a small amount, such as 100 UAH) by, so to say, “fleecing poor citizens,” who, for
instance, need to have an urgent surgery done, and a surgeon refuses to do it alluding
to a lack of equipment or medications, and he delays the time of surgery while this could
be dangerous for our health, therefore we, basically, have to act … “you give money
and they find everything.“ (Female, 55 years of age, a technical support staff member);
“I got a job, I pay for this, but I receive an opportunity to ‘earn my crust.’ I wish
corruption were only in one company, but it has penetrated into all spheres of our life.
Therefore, there is nothing to choose from, pay if you want to get a job!...” (Female, 29
years of age, an entrepreneur)
Therefore, corruption is everywhere. Moreover, there are excuses not only for
own approaches, there are excuses for the attitude of those who extort. Most often, the
arguments involved include statements about low salaries and poor care on the part of
the state. In this interpretation, corruption is viewed as a mutual assistance to “a
person like me who needs to feed the family.”
In this case, the state (the government) is most often to blame because it pays
public officials so little. It suggests an inclination to shift responsibly for corruption
on an “abstract entity” instead of specific parties to a corruption deal. Here, we may
talk about stereotype shifting of responsibility for corrupt practices.
In short, corruption is perceived as an illegal act, although of a constrained
nature, because there is a system in place in the society that forces people to engage in
corrupt transactions. In this respect, there is an old saying in Ukraine “wheels don't run
without oil.” Besides, the state is to blame; it has not ensured proper operations of
public institutions and a reasonable salary level for civil servants and public sector
employees.
6. Stereotype labeling of certain spheres
In the analysis of the survey and in-depth interview findings, we have uncovered
a clear trend to stereotypically label certain sectors and settings that persistently
are associated with corruption in the opinion of the general public. The institutions
affected include educational and medical settings, courts, law enforcement and selfgovernment bodies of various levels. It is worth noting, that these stigmas create an
impression of pervasive and extensive corruption in the society in general and distort
the real picture.
In conclusion, we would like to summarize the key traits in the understanding of
corruption in the mass mind of Ukrainians:
- personification of corruption;
- attribution of the poor quality of services and low efficiency of public officials and
public bodies to corruption
- double standards in the understanding of corruption: denouncing corruption, on
the one hand, and condoning it, on the other hand
- situational definition of corruption: some actions are classified as corruption
subject to specific life circumstances. It suggests high tolerance and a functional attitude
to corruption on the part of the general public
- forced nature of corruption: corruption prevails because the state places both
officials and citizens in situation where corruption is “a means of survival” for both of
them
- stereotype labeling of certain sectors resulting in a distortion of the real
corruption picture in the country in general.
SOCIO CULTURAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE UNDERSTANDING AND
PERCEPTION OF CORRUPTION
The attitude to corruption is always controversial and has an emotional overtone.
Besides, as any other society, Ukraine has established traditional frames in perception
of certain actions or cases that are being actively promoted by the mass media and,
with time, gradually acquire characteristics of legitimate practices in the public opinion.
Common public stereotypes in perception of corruption and corrupt actions have socio
cultural peculiarities and are a result of the poor awareness and a lack of understanding
of corruption by the population.
In order to identify the socio cultural factors affecting the public understanding
and perception of corruption, we have examined sources of information on corruption
that are used by the public as well as familiarity of the public with the most significant
anticorruption events in the society (in particular, the adoption of the new anticorruption
legislation). We have also conducted a comparative analysis of the assessments of the
situation in the context of corruption and the attitude to corruption of people who have
and have not had corruption-related experience over the past 12 months.
According to the respondents, firsthand experience (69%) and accounts of
family members, friends and acquaintances etc. (60%) are the primary source of
information on the levels of corruption in the society for majority of people. The
mass media remain the most popular source of information for twenty eight
percent of the interviewed and are very popular among the businesspeople (41%).
Overall, a quite large share of the public is not interested in the topic of corruption at all
(26%) and eight percent ignore any information of that sort all together. Only seven
percent of the respondents look for such information on their own initiative. In short,
personal experience and accounts of family and friends are the major sources of
information on corruption for the public; for less than a third of the public and nearly a
half of the businesspeople the main source of information on corruption is the mass
media. For a third part of the public (34%), the topic of corruption is of no interest at all
and only seven percent are interested in this subject matter.
To assess the level of public awareness about anticorruption efforts, we have
included questions on the most recent important event in this field, i.e. the adoption of
the new anticorruption legislation and repeated postponing of its coming into force, into
the questionnaire.
Of those who are interested in the topic of corruption and independently
look for information on this matter, a quite large number of responses (30%) fall into
the category “I have never heard of the bill till now.”
The levels of awareness of different categories of population (in particular,
average citizens, businesspeople and civil servants) were studied separately. Only
seven percent of the businesspeople know about it. Among the civil servants, fifty-one
percent know about this fact in general, twenty-nine percent know about it in detail and
sixteen percent have never heard of it. For forty-seven percent, firsthand knowledge of
the law is the primary ground to develop a personal opinion. Twenty six percent of the
businesspeople rely on the assessments of colleagues and friends. On average, only
fourteen percent are interested in expert opinions. Majority of the interviewed, both
among citizens, businesspeople and civil servants, cannot evaluate the abovementioned bills due to a lack of information. Businesspeople approve of the new
legislation the most (23%) compared to sixteen percent of members of the public and
thirteen percent of the civil servants.
In respect of the postponement of the coming into force of the new legislation,
there is a somewhat different number of those who know about it in detail. Thirty one
percent of the civil servants compared to six percent of citizens and a slightly higher
number of businesspeople (14%) are well aware of the fact that, in June 2009, the
Parliament passed a package of laws to curb corruption and, in March 2010, it
postponed its coming in to effect until January 1, 2011. This said, majority of the
respondents among the public, businesspeople and civil servants have never heard of it
or know about it in general terms.
The level of public awareness about the adoption of the anticorruption law and
postponement of its coming into force suggests that citizens are not very familiar with
the anticorruption efforts. Even in the group affected by these laws the most (civil
servants), twenty percent did not know about their adoption. The legislation was
primarily assessed based on external factors and, as a rule, not expert opinions
because only fourteen percent are interested in expert opinions. Forty-seven percent of
the civil servants develop their opinions on a piece of legislation by studying it firsthand.
A lack of reliable information in this field is the biggest problem, because majority of the
interviewed were not able to assess these laws due to a lack of information about them.
In the absence of information, socio cultural stereotypes in the understanding of
corruption become the most important factors of perceived corruption and its growth.
They significantly affect opinions of the general public and professional groups on the
extent, scale and prevalence of corruption in the Ukrainian society.
To a great extent, public perceptions of the extent of corruption in a particular
sphere are shaped by the understanding of corruption. Moreover, there is a general
stereotype trend to label certain spheres and institutions as corrupt. In other words, for
this group of population, the words corruption and education are virtually synonyms.
However, as the survey suggests, opinions about the extent of corruption in
a specific sphere are shaped not only by the understanding of corruption but also
by corruption experience of the respondents. In this context, we refer to two
aspects in the perceptions of the corruption extent in a specific group by different social
groups. The first group refers to available corruption experience (experience in
corruption transactions in a specific field or institution); the second group refers to
subjective labeling of a specific field that relies on the general ideas, the media effect
and prevailing stereotypes that shape perceptions of corruption of a specific sector.
In order to compare the impact of subjective labeling and corruption experience
on the perceptions of corruption, we selected sectors that are widely believed to be the
most corrupt in terms of frequency of corruption transactions. In other words,
corruption experience of the public in contacts with respective institutions representing
certain spheres was the main criterion for the selection of sectors for a comparative
analysis of corruption prevalence. Perceived corruption in a specific sector depends on
the above-mentioned factors, more specifically, awareness, personal experience and
stereotypes prevailing in the society. This said, the evaluation of corruption levels in a
particular field based on personal experience differs from the assessments of
corruption levels based on subjective assessments in the absence of corruption
experience. In other words, assessments of corruption in particular sectors of life and
public institutions depend on the presence or absence of corruption experience.
To conduct the comparative analysis, we selected four public sectors and
authorities subject to their perceived corruption levels, specifically, sectors with high
corruption levels; sectors with corruption levels above average; sectors with moderate
corruption levels; and sectors with low levels of corruption.
( *The research conducted by Institute of Applied Humanitarian Research)