Abstract
The article is devoted to the scientific analysis of efficiency of legal and organizational measures taken by the state to counteract corruption in the Russian Federation. The authors critically evaluate their effectiveness, pay attention to methodological gaps in choosing means and methods of fighting this scourge. They also substantiate the necessity of rigorous differentiation of legal liability for corruption offences depending on official capacity of the offender and the area of state activity or social life that is encroached by the offender.
 
 Examining the genesis of the state’s reactions to the scope and danger of the present problem, it can be said that formal acknowledgment of corruption hazard in society and public service in particular has come after a considerable delay only when this phenomenon took a form that endangered foundations of the society and the state itself and when the global institutions paid attention to a high level of corruption in the Russian Federation. 
 
 The article studies the impact of law as the most powerful instrument against corruption, the most typical and major drawbacks of legal acts and the degree of their preventive action. The authors emphasize introduction of supplementary restrictions and prohibitions in the civil service system and economy sector. The article draws attention to intensification of criminal repressions for the most dangerous crimes such as bribery, corruption intermediation and others. 
 
 The conducted analysis of measures taken by the state and assessment of their efficiency by the public consciousness allow us to formulate a scientific hypothesis on the reasons and conditions that have determined poor performance of counteracting corruption. The authors point out some attempts to mobilize the civil society to fight corruption; however the government failed to significantly reduce its level.
 
 It is postulated that at present there is a necessity to refine the anti-corruption strategy, to optimize the balance between enforcement measures and stimulation as well as motivation of law-abiding behavior of public servants and others involved in public legal relationships, especially of those related to at-risk group. It is of great significance to intensify state and public control over certain activities such as government and public procurement, budget expenditures, the use of material resources, and others.
Highlights
According to the annual ratings published by the international non-governmental organization Transparency International, Russia is currently ranked from 146th to 138th in the world on its corruption perceptions index
These countries’ anti-corruption enforcement experience is of great value from the view of scientific and cognitive interest, but it allows to avoid mistakes in overcoming the given phenomenon in Russia taking into account best foreign expertise
In the Russian Federation awareness of menace of corruption, as well as necessity of a resolute struggle with this phenomenon that demoralizes foundations of the society and causes great damage to the country’s economy and the rule of law, has come after a considerable delay only when corruption penetrated into all spheres of public and social life, and have already ceased to be the subject of disapproval among a large part of the Russian society
Summary
According to the annual ratings published by the international non-governmental organization Transparency International, Russia is currently ranked from 146th to 138th in the world on its corruption perceptions index. Associate professor of New York University in Abu Dhabi Georgi Derluguian points out that it is extremely difficult to measure the level of corruption and ratings shouldn’t be fully trusted He says that according to all Transparency International’s ratings Iceland had been taking leading positions until it was found out about the engagement of several ruling families with banks and the two main political parties. The situation in our country hasn’t improved compared with the Soviet Union and even more with Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Singapore and some other counties that are the leaders on anti-corruption index These countries’ anti-corruption enforcement experience is of great value from the view of scientific and cognitive interest, but it allows to avoid mistakes in overcoming the given phenomenon in Russia taking into account best foreign expertise
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
