Controlling Corruption Through Collective Action

Abstract

Control of corruption in a society is an equilibrium between resources and costs which either empowers or constraints elites predatory behaviour. While most research and practice focuses on legal constraints, this paper investigates normative constraints, deemed to be more important, especially civil society and the press. Fresh evidence—both historical and statistical—is found to support Tocqueville’s assertions regarding the importance of collective action and the joint action of media and associations in not only creating a democratic society, but controlling corruption as well. However, little is known on how to build normative constraints.

The Role of Accounting Reform in Deterring Corruption Practices in the Public Sector: A Case Study in Kurdistan Region

“…Another study that supports this argument indicates that about European countries [28]. The author states that, for many years corruption was seen as a problem only for poor countries, while economic crises in European countries strongly indicates that controlling corruption is difficult.…”

The Political Sources of Social Solidarity

“…Once again, mutually-reinforcing interactions between institutions and worldviews make it difficult for countries to escape this kind of social trap (Rothstein 2005;Mungiu-Pippidi 2013). The belief that institutions are corrupt renders citizens more likely to engage in corrupt behavior themselves and correspondingly less likely to trust one another.…”

Business unusual: collective action against bribery in international business

“…However, research suggests that transparency only leads to an increase in accountability in certain conditions, where the broader ecosystem of institutions supports rule following [42,43]. The role of civil society in scrutinising conduct is, moreover, conditional on the existence of political freedoms as well as on capacity, two areas in which civil society organisations are often constrained [44,45]. Moreover, empirical evidence on voluntary programs suggests that clubs with weak monitoring systems are not very effective in eliciting responsible behavior.…”