Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Anti-corruption drives and a new ‘corruption paradigm’ have figured prominently in the reconstitution of political order in Europe's postcommunist states, under strong pressure from the international financial institutions and the European Union. Now that data on corruption are systematically collected, measured and monitored, it is both possible and essential to step back and assess what these data reveal, conceal or omit. This paper articulates and provides a critique of the assumptions, preconceptions and methodology implicit in the prevailing ‘corruption paradigm’. The critique is organized around the cultural and historical neutrality of the definition of corruption (assumption 1); problems with the measurement of corruption (assumption 2); and the implications for policy-making (assumption 3). The paper argues that the ‘disaggregation’ of the corruption paradigm in the postcommunist states is essential, both for an adequate assessment of the postcommunist experience and for determining the validity of the paradigm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alena Ledeneva (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: