Increasing transparency is not always the panacea: An overview of alternative paths to curb corruption in the public sector

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.

Citation

De Vries, M. and Sobis, I. (2016), "Increasing transparency is not always the panacea: An overview of alternative paths to curb corruption in the public sector", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 255-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-11-2015-0197