A growing body of research argues that anticorruption efforts fail because of a flawed theoretical foundation, where collective action theory is said to be a better lens for understanding corruption than the dominant principal–agent theory. We unpack this critique and advance several new arguments. First, the application of collective action theory to the issue of corruption has been, thus far, incomplete. Second, a collective action theory‐based approach to corruption is in fact complementary to a principal–agent approach, rather than contradictory as is claimed. Third, applications of both theories have failed to recognize that corruption persists because it functions to provide solutions to problems. We conclude by arguing that anticorruption effectiveness is difficult to achieve because it requires insights from all three perspectives—principal–agent theory, collective action theory, and corruption as serving functions—which allows us to better understand how to harness the political will needed to fight corruption.

SUMMARY There are growing calls for religion to be used in the fight against corruption on the basis of the assumption that religious people are more concerned with ethics than with the non‐religious, despite the fact that many of the most corrupt countries in the world also rank highly in terms of religiosity. This article looks at the evidence in the current literature for a causal relationship between religion and corruption and questions the relevance of the methodologies being used to build up this evidence base. This article shows that the new ‘myth’ about the relationship between religion and corruption is based on assumptions not borne out of the evidence. The article presents findings from field research in India and Nigeria that explores how individual attitudes towards corruption may (or may not) be shaped by religion. The research shows that religion may have some impact on attitudes towards corruption, but it has very little likely impact on actual corrupt behaviour. This is because—despite universal condemnation of corruption—it is seen by respondents as being so systemic that being uncorrupt often makes little sense. Respondents, by using a process that Bandura (2002) calls ‘selective moral disengagement’, were able to justify their own attitudes and behaviour vis‐a‐vis corruption, pointing towards corruption being a classic collective action problem, rather than a problem of personal values or ethics. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This paper argues that religion influences the ways that people think and speak about corruption, typically leading to condemnation. However, it is also argued that, in a systemically corrupt country, such condemnation is unlikely to influence actual corrupt behaviour. Based on fieldwork in India, the paper finds that existing anti-corruption policies based on a principal-agent understanding of corruption, even if they incorporate religious organisations and leaders, are unlikely to work, partly because people consider "religion" to be a discredited entity. Instead, the paper argues that if corruption were to be seen as a collective action problem, anti-corruption practice would need significant rethinking. Despite its current lack of influence, revised policies and practices may see a role for religion.Cet article soutient que la religion influe sur les manières dont les personnes appréhendent et parlent de la corruption, ce qui aboutit généralement à la condamnation. Cependant, il soutient également que, dans les pays où la corruption est systémique, une telle condamnation a peu de chances d'influencer les comportements véritablement corrompus. Sur la base de travaux menés sur le terrain en Inde, cet article conclut que les politiques anti-corruption existantes fondées sur une compréhension de la corruption basée sur un agent principal, même si elles incorporent des organisations et des leaders religieux, ont peu de chances de fonctionner, en partie parce que les gens considèrent que la « religion » est une entité discréditée. Au lieu de cela, cet article soutient que si la corruption était considérée comme un problème d'action collective, il faudrait repenser radicalement les pratiques anti-corruption. Malgré son manque actuel d'influence, il pourrait y avoir un rôle pour la religion dans des politiques et pratiques modifiées.El presente artículo sostiene que la religión influye en las formas en que las personas conciben y hablan de la corrupción, a partir de lo cual, de manera típica, la misma es reprobada. Sin embargo, también se argumenta que en un país en el que se evidencia corrupción sistémica, es poco probable que la reprobación de los actos corruptos ejerza influencia en la práctica. Basándose en un trabajo de campo realizado en India, el presente artículo revela la reducida probabilidad de funcionamiento de las actuales políticas anticorrupción fundamentadas en la comprensión de "agente principal", aun si las mismas incorporan el apoyo de las organizaciones religiosas y de los líderes de fe. En parte, ello es consecuencia de que las personas consideran que "la religión" es un fenómeno desacreditado. En su lugar, el artículo sostiene que si la corrupción fuera concebida como un problema de acción colectiva, las prácticas anticorrupción deberían ser analizadas nuevamente de manera muy distinta. A pesar de que actualmente se constata la falta de influencia de la religión, en las políticas y prácticas reformuladas podría contemplarse un papel para esta.

SUMMARYDonors are increasingly funding projects and programmes that fit under the general rubric of 'civic education'. These tend to address both targeted problems within a country and wider institutional reforms, including, for example, projects aimed at voter education for first time elections within a country, or human rights education in countries coming out of a non-democratic system. More recently, donors are funding civic education for both adults and children to help fight corruption. This article looks at lessons from two well-known models for civic education, one of which targets corruption specifically and one which targets wider civic values: the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption's (ICAC) community relations programme, and the US civic education, including programmes funded by USAID in other countries. It argues that both the Hong Kong and US experiences of civic education demonstrate how unlikely it is that donors will produce similar results with a fraction of the budget and in environments characterised by weak institutions, widespread illiteracy, crumbling or non-existent schools and inadequate training for teachers. It also explores how, in fact in both cases, corruption forms only a very small part of much wider civic education curricula based on citizenship, not corruption, and discusses the implications of this for donors.

This paper looks at the increasing politicisation of the World Bank through its work on corruption. Historically, the Bank's Articles of Agreement, which forbid it from involving itself in the politics of its recipient countries, have excluded work on corruption. In the 1990s, internal and external demands grew for the Bank to address the problem of corruption, despite earlier reticence. Much research done over the past decade, often commissioned by the Bank or done in‐house, has worked to turn corruption into an economic and social issue, rather than a political one, in order to conduct anti‐corruption work while evading accusations that it is violating this non‐political mandate. Now this pretence is gradually slipping away and the Bank is becoming overtly political, despite its Articles and a lack of international consensus that this is the direction in which it should be heading.