The ethnographic study of corruption: ethical, methodological and analytical

issues.

Davide Torsello

Outline

1. Integrity and corruption defined 2. The “silence” of anthropology 3. Ethical and epistemic issues 4. Research fields 5. Methodological issues, ANTICORRP

methodology 6. Conclusions: interdisciplinary synergies

1. Integrity and Corruption: definitions

Integrity“The steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language )

≠

Corruption“The abuse of public office for private or exclusive

gain” (World Bank, with addition)

Underlying principles (manifest)

Moral (factual, purpose oriented, emic, mores, customs) Ethical (general, etic, ethos, character, credibility in

Aristotle’s Rhetoric) Code (systematic collection of regulations and laws) Public office Private gain Exclusiveness (not allowing something/somebody else)

Underlying principles (hidden)

Steadfast: stead (position/to be of advantage to) + fast (characterized by lack of moral conventions)

Moral: from factual, emic observation: Is that a universal claim?

Code: a system of symbols having certain arbitrary meanings. Is there any form of relativism?

Public/private: Are these categories clearly definable in any culture/social context?

Exclusive: ..mechanisms define boundaries that exclude and include

Problems with (claims of):

Universality Objectivity Firmness Determination of group boundaries Determination of roles And with: gain: rationality?

2. The “silence” of anthropology

Less than 2% of literature on corruption is based on ethnographic research.

After Scott (1972) the next volume on corruption is in 2004

So far 9 books in anthropology deal explicitly with corruption (4 monographs)

Journal publications are scattered, very few articles focus on corruption/integrity only

3. Ethical issues

Ethnographic data expose “informants” It is difficult to start a field research on corruption as

main topic (interpersonal trust) Are second-hand data reliable? Imposition of a moral judgment on local people by

the researcher How to observe corrupt deeds?

3. Epistemic issues

Eurocentrism of the notion Public-private division is often arbitrary Relativism of moral claims Legal codes are pluralistic and dynamic Ethnographic research unveils grey areas, are existing

models fit enough for them? If corruption is a cultural phenomenon, then how to

avoid essentializations?

4. Research fieldsThe state

Regulating weak or capturing agent? Governmentality legitimized by corruption Unease to deal with the dichotomy legality/illegality Corruption as discursive form of empowerment

Morality

Conflicting, overlapping, polysemic moralities The ethos argument is about excessive

essentialization Morality is a social construct, mediated, negotiated

and interpreted differently Trust, moral economy generated by face-to-face

interaction

Types of corruption

Petty instead of grand corruption Corruption as processual force (development, EU

enlargement, post-colonialism) Corruption as social exchange (blat, guanxi, kone) Integrity and the economic crisis

Culture

Refuse culturalistic approaches: tendency towards particularism

Yet: universal appeal of corruption History, comparison can substantiate culture Can corruption perception be usefully

measured through cultural indicators?

Discourses

Corruption and power as discourses Increase public awareness (media and third sector) Foster political and collective action Lower transaction costs Excessive corruption talk brings cynicism, it is

instrumentalized, but citizens exchange informations

5. Methodology (strenghts)

Ethnographic research explores ground-level practices and discourses

Winning trust may lead to disclosing of information and true opinions

Interviews allow direct interaction with key personalities

Participant observation allows to test possible gaps between ideas and practice

Complemented with other disciplinary analyses can offer a good balance of qualitative-quantitative data

Methodology (weaknesses)

Uneasy balance particularism/universalism Caution to denounce “informants” may hamper the

success of field research Excessive weight on discursive aspects is of little

interdisciplinary contribution Too little emphasis on measurement and impacts on

perception

ANTICORRP Methodology

Complexity of the task requires multiple research methods

Difficulty to observe, attention on phenomena that converge on integrity/corruption

9 case studies treated comparatively, to a certain extent

Methods include: participant observation, interviews, focus groups, questionnaire survey

Common set of research issues among countries One original research field per country:

ITALY: business and local politicsHUNGARY: public sectorBOSNIA: educationJAPAN: party financingRUSSIA: state-businessTURKEY: public procurement, non-profitKOSOVO: donor agenciesMEXICO: health sectorTANZANIA:health sector

Survey questionnaire Common, regular citizens Sections:

1. Personal data2. Local institutions (important for wellbeing, public officers, trust, quality of services)3. Local issues (informal practices, bad practices, who might help)4. Social norms (gift, reciprocity, hospitality, simulation stories, leadership)5. Values (Cultural Theory)

Integrity/corruption as complex notions which are neither static nor universally equal in place

Regulations and policies: do they express the particular needs of a societal context?

Volatility of markets, economic recession, state capture and uncontrolled development facilitate opaque practices

Less concern with culture and more with socio-political conditions

Discursive dimension may tell of the gap between practices and ideas

Study of values and social norms may help to understand the persistence and spreading of corruption

6. Conclusion: Contributions from anthropology