Linking cultural dimensions with the nature of corruption: An institutional theory perspective

Abstract

This article analyses the interaction between cultural dimensions and the nature of corruption as understanding governance issues from a cross-national perspective is becoming increasingly important. Drawing on institutional theory and recent conceptions of the nature of corruption, the study advances formal propositions for a framework that links dimensions of national culture with the pervasiveness and arbitrariness of corruption in the institutions of a nation. We argue that national culture (a macro-level variable) can mediate discretion and accountability (both micro-level variables) — thereby engendering either arbitrariness or pervasiveness in corruption. In advancing these propositions, it is acknowledged that national culture is an important macro-variable that influences corruption. This is important to scholarship in cross-cultural management because cross-national differences are best understood by considering both national differences and social institutions.

Relationship between collectivism and corruption in American and Chinese books: A historical perspective

“…Our indicators and results may inspire future studies on not only the historical process and general trend of corruption in America and China, but also the general relationship between corruption and other variables. Our work contributes to research in this area by confirming the covariation of collectivism and bribery, which has been observed in several studies in this field (Davis & Ruhe, ; González‐Trejo, ; Huang et al, ; Mazar & Aggarwal, ; Pillay & Dorasamy, ; Triandis et al, ) and also operates as a historical process.…”

“…They proposed that collectivism promotes bribery through lower perceived responsibility for one's actions. Pillay and Dorasamy () also found the pervasiveness of corruption was enhanced in collectivist cultures. They used institutional theory to link culture with corruption, arguing that collectivism means loyalty to family and personal relationships subordinates the equitable administration of justice.…”

“…Moral engagement theory claims that collectivism promotes bribery through lower perceived responsibility for one's actions (Mazar & Aggarwal, ). Institutional theory asserts that people in collectivist culture consider the rule of family and close interpersonal relationships more important than the rule of fairness (Pillay & Dorasamy, ). And social exchange theory indicates that Asians are more likely than North Americans to invoke a reciprocity norm in exchanging gifts with casual acquaintances (Shen, Wan, & Wyer, ).…”

The Relation of Corruption Perceptions, Conformity and Traditionalism: Macroeconomic Study of 52 Countries

“…Naturally, family tradition and connections in business or government tend to increase corruption (Seleim, Bontis, 2009). The whole dimension of collectivism implying tight and emotionally important family relationships is proven to be substantially correlated with corruption (Zheng, et al, 2013;Mazar and Aggarwal, 2011;Pillay, and Dorasamy, 2010). In all these aspects our results correspond to the results cited above.…”

Analysis of predictors of organizational losses due to occupational corruption

“…Chang and Lai (2002), by using a principal-agent model, showed that if bribery rate within the firm is high, social norms existing outside the company can no longer serve as a sufficient sanction against a corrupt supervisor, and an effective policy for deterring workers' slack is to pay a higher wage to supervisors rather than to workers. In addition to this, institutional explanation of the corruption phenomenon is explicitly concerned with the relationships among individuals, organizations, communities, and societies they operate in (Pillay & Dorasamy, 2010). Finally, among other microeconomic determinants, Zahra, Priem, and Rasheed (2005) based on prior researches, argue that industry characteristics such as industry cultures, norms and histories; investment horizons, payback periods, and financial returns; industry concentration; environmental hostility; environmental dynamism and environmental heterogeneity affect the likelihood of corruption significantly.…”