The Concept of Corruption

Regarding a taxonomy of corruption, Tanzi (1998) suggested classification as bureaucratic (or “petty”) or political (or “grand”); cost reducing (to the briber) or benefit enhancing; briber initiated or bribe initiated; coercive or collusive; centralized or decentralized; predictable or arbitrary; and finally, involving cash payments or not. As Tanzi himself acknowledged, however, other classifications could be added to this list. Regarding the question of who is more likely to bribe, Hunt (2007) used Peruvian data and found that crime victims are much more likely than nonvictims to bribe officials. In other words, people are significantly more likely to bribe the police and the judiciary when struck by misfortune.

In an effort to delineate the concept of corruption, the following typologies of corruption may well aid in the process: (a) institutionalized corruption, which relates to the exploitation of position held to influence activity and people (e.g., to influence the judiciary or law enforcement [see Bassiouni and Vetere 1998]); (b) noble cause, in which epitomes of public servants may break the law to get a conviction or to provide employment to a party affiliate who needs work (Punch 2009); (c) state capture, which refers to the ability of an individual or organization to influence the content of the law (Brooks et al. 2013); (d) bureaucratic corruption, which transfers power through corrupt activity (Deflem 1995); (e) political corruption, which involves high-ranking elected and unelected authorities using their power to make a law or receive bribes in return for a favor at the expense of the public at large (Heidenheimer 1994); (f) where political opportunities are scarce, people use wealth to buy power or use power to get wealth (Huntington 1968); and (g) state clientelism (nepotism, favoritism [Medard 1998]).