‘Do as I Say, Not as I Do’: Understanding Moral Rationalisations and Disengagements Behind ‘Parochial’ Corrupt Actions

Although people overwhelmingly reject corruption in principle, they often tolerate or even engage in it in their daily lives across many countries. Existing research suggests that people may do so because of strong social norms or out of necessity. Building on theories of moral disengagement and rationalisations of corruption, this paper examines how individuals make sense of engaging in corrupt practices they may disapprove of, focusing on the misalignment between injunctive norms (what people ought to do) and descriptive norms (what people do). The study investigates “parochial” corruption in Portugal, a widespread but normatively disapproved practice. Using survey data and focus group discussions, the findings reveal that while ‘parochial’ corruption is generally undesirable, individuals feel compelled to engage due to a perception that ‘everyone does it’, and that corruption is an effective path to overcome systemic shortcomings. Depending on the context, the corrupt action is not judged primarily as corruption and is justifiable through moral disengagement strategies, which unfold in a dynamic process. By providing empirical evidence of how corruption is rationalised in situations of normative conflict, this study contributes to corruption, social norms, and moral disengagement research, while offering insights regarding contexts where corruption is simultaneously condemned and condoned.