Publicação
Legal corruption: a way to explain citizens' perceptions about the relevance of corruption
| Resumo: | Corruption, a word with an illicit identity that represents a major public problem for citizens. In fact, this apparent unquestionable common sense statement does permeate recent political discourses or even cutting-edge academic research. But, indeed, what may be wrong with this well-accepted assertion? And why is it characterized as a possible mistaken assumption? Both questions can be summed up in one direct answer: corruption is much more than illegalities, it is also a ‘beyond the law’ concern with social implications. Little attention has been given to evaluate corruption as an exclusive combination of pure licit behaviors. This alternative approach has always assumed a marginal or even complementary status in the comprehension of the phenomenon. This thesis affirms that illegalities offer a relevant, but incomplete contribution. For this reason, they must be set aside in order to unveil how legalities affect citizens’ perceptions about corruption as a whole. Undoubtedly, it is easier to establish objective parameters to limit the measurement of corruption to a mere evaluation of prosecutions, condemnations, or even perceptions about the commitment of illegal actions. However, corrupt behaviors proved to be resilient essentially because of their capacity to resemble both socially and normatively accepted as necessary for the ordinary democratic political operation. A renewed methodological approach is here proposed to demonstrate why legality in corruption matters. Thus, legal corruption must be put in evidence in order to verify how corruption appears as a pervasive, adaptable, dangerous for politics, and widely accepted major problem, especially in the public sector. Such methodology does not aim to incorporate ‘beyond the law’ elements in a broader corruption measurement, as usually attempted. On the contrary, it will isolate what is considered purely lawful, although corrupt, to deeply explore its specific effects on citizens’ perceptions. In essence, this thesis aims to show that legalities are more important to define the relevance of corruption than illicitness. It also wants to identify what should count as sufficient to determine such legal corruption. In this context, socioeconomic factors proved to be fundamental, especially ‘Internet Usage’ and ‘Wastefulness of Government Spending’. Finally, it is possible to conclude that legality in corruption can be unveiled by simply asking citizens if they consider corruption a relevant problem in the public sector of advanced democracies or quasi-democracies, instead of asking directly about specific dimensions of corruption. It is also possible to perceive if corruption is a relevant public problem without directly asking citizens about corruption, but about general socially accepted misconducts with regards to legal corruption, such as the necessity of establishing personal contacts to get things done; the capacity of distorting rules, norms, and statutes in order to make private interests resemble licit and politically acceptable; and the governments’ ability to do what tradespeople want without hindering citizens’ wills. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Maciel, Gustavo Gouvêa |
| Assunto: | Ciência política Corrupção Política pública Cidadãos |
| Ano: | 2016 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | dissertação de mestrado |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | Universidade de Aveiro |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | RIA - Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Aveiro |
| Resumo: | Corruption, a word with an illicit identity that represents a major public problem for citizens. In fact, this apparent unquestionable common sense statement does permeate recent political discourses or even cutting-edge academic research. But, indeed, what may be wrong with this well-accepted assertion? And why is it characterized as a possible mistaken assumption? Both questions can be summed up in one direct answer: corruption is much more than illegalities, it is also a ‘beyond the law’ concern with social implications. Little attention has been given to evaluate corruption as an exclusive combination of pure licit behaviors. This alternative approach has always assumed a marginal or even complementary status in the comprehension of the phenomenon. This thesis affirms that illegalities offer a relevant, but incomplete contribution. For this reason, they must be set aside in order to unveil how legalities affect citizens’ perceptions about corruption as a whole. Undoubtedly, it is easier to establish objective parameters to limit the measurement of corruption to a mere evaluation of prosecutions, condemnations, or even perceptions about the commitment of illegal actions. However, corrupt behaviors proved to be resilient essentially because of their capacity to resemble both socially and normatively accepted as necessary for the ordinary democratic political operation. A renewed methodological approach is here proposed to demonstrate why legality in corruption matters. Thus, legal corruption must be put in evidence in order to verify how corruption appears as a pervasive, adaptable, dangerous for politics, and widely accepted major problem, especially in the public sector. Such methodology does not aim to incorporate ‘beyond the law’ elements in a broader corruption measurement, as usually attempted. On the contrary, it will isolate what is considered purely lawful, although corrupt, to deeply explore its specific effects on citizens’ perceptions. In essence, this thesis aims to show that legalities are more important to define the relevance of corruption than illicitness. It also wants to identify what should count as sufficient to determine such legal corruption. In this context, socioeconomic factors proved to be fundamental, especially ‘Internet Usage’ and ‘Wastefulness of Government Spending’. Finally, it is possible to conclude that legality in corruption can be unveiled by simply asking citizens if they consider corruption a relevant problem in the public sector of advanced democracies or quasi-democracies, instead of asking directly about specific dimensions of corruption. It is also possible to perceive if corruption is a relevant public problem without directly asking citizens about corruption, but about general socially accepted misconducts with regards to legal corruption, such as the necessity of establishing personal contacts to get things done; the capacity of distorting rules, norms, and statutes in order to make private interests resemble licit and politically acceptable; and the governments’ ability to do what tradespeople want without hindering citizens’ wills. |
|---|