Increasing transparency is not always the panacea

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to argue that the analysis of corruption must distinguish between corruption in organizations where this kind of behaviour is widespread and corruption in organizations where it is rare, and must also distinguish between corruption as the outcome of an economic cost-benefit analysis and corruption induced by social-psychological factors. Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual paper. Findings – In order to be effective in combating corruption, a fit is needed with the main determinants of corrupt behaviour: first, at the individual level in which either personal morality, social or economic considerations are at stake; second, at the organizational level in which social-psychological factors might be determinative; and third, at the contextual level in which economic prosperity, the nature of the political system and cultural features are important. Practical implications – Especially in systems where corruption is widespread, policymakers could benefit from theories in social psychology to combat corruption. Social implications – To see corruption as the result of an individual cost-benefit analysis or as a lack of morality often misses the point in cases of widespread corruption. Originality/value – The paper points at the added value of social psychology approach to corruption as compared to the approaches at present dominant in public administration.